RIGHT REASONS, WRONG FIGHTS
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/right-reasons-wrong-fights/article17894264.ece
Right reasons, wrong fights
Raghavan Srinivasan
Excerpts:
“While
both Mr. Tata’s charges against Mr. Mistry (and the latter’s response to them)
as well as Mr. Murthy’s concerns — which have been shared by some of the other
co-founders of Infosys — have all been couched in lofty terms, these are
actually being seen as spiteful attacks in a very personal feud.
Take Mr. Murthy’s open letter released to the media last week,
slamming the sharp pay hike awarded to COO Pravin Rao. The letter, coming as it
does on the back of Mr. Murthy’s criticism of the Infosys board clearing Vishal
Sikka’s own compensation, has once again reignited the face-off between Mr.
Murthy and Mr. Sikka.
The differences, which appeared to have been papered over late
February when Mr. Murthy said complimentary things about Infosys Chairman R.
Seshasayee, which were echoed by Mr. Seshasayee and Mr. Sikka, are back in the
open. Mr. Murthy’s case for what he calls “compassionate capitalism” versus the
aggressive, U.S.-trained Sikka’s approach of exceptional reward for attaining
stretch goals would have made for an engrossing debate, if not for the very
clear personal differences between the two. As it is, it is investors in
Infosys stock who have paid the price, having thousands of crores wiped off
from the value of their holdings.
Ditto at the Tata Group, which has shed thousands of crores in
market capitalisation after the surprise sacking of Mr. Mistry. The many issues
raised by Ratan Tata, as well as the detailed concerns pointed out by Cyrus
Mistry, deserve greater attention on matters of principle therein, but were not
given their due because of the personal peeve which overlay all these actions.
Besides, whether it is Mr. Tata or Mr. Mistry or Mr. Murthy, the fact is that
all of them had the opportunity to address many of the concerns they raised
later.
The
Economist said,
in an article on the Tata-Mistry fight, that in India, “good corporate
governance” was simply a euphemism for “not crooked”. By that logic, both the
Tata Group and Infosys, and for that matter all the protagonists in the
high-profile spats in these groups, are exemplars of “good corporate
governance”. But that hasn’t stopped investors from voting with their feet on
how they viewed these tiffs. Clearly, when it comes to fighting for
“principles”, timing is as important as the issues one is fighting for.”
Comments