How actively did the aviation experts in the Tata group — which already had two airlines — participate in the selection process of the Air India chief?
Nivedita Mookerji reports.
The Tata group has begun its second innings with Air India from a war zone.
Being first up in Operation Ganga to evacuate Indian nationals from Ukraine, the salt-to-software conglomerate has faced a real war.
But the fire-fighting that the group experienced in appointing a chief executive officer (CEO) for the airline that it acquired from the government in a Rs 18,000-crore deal recently may have felt no less.
While Ilker Ayci “declining’’ the Air India CEO offer is unlikely to make a dent in the business or operations of the airline in any significant way, the run-up to his departure has left many questions unanswered.
First, did the former Turkish Airlines chairman really leave the ship because of adverse commentary in “a cross section of the media’’?
It’s very rare for a top business executive to be so influenced by the media’s “undesirable prism’’ that Mr Ayci has referred to.
If there were other reasons for the man, who’s believed to have turned around Turkish Airlines, to say no to the offer within a fortnight of saying yes, we don’t know about them yet.
Also, while the security clearance of an expat CEO is a routine procedure, was there an additional layer of investigation in the case of Mr Ayci, due to his earlier stint with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan?
If yes, was this communicated to the Tatas when its representatives may have sought answers from the Union government?
If no, shouldn’t there be greater transparency between the government and industry when it comes to a top-level appointment for an airline that was the national carrier not too long ago?
And was there a discussion during the hand-holding period between the government and the Tatas on the dos and don’ts of corner room appointments at Air India?
If yes, were the fine prints and the case-by-case subtleties in appointments, beyond the published rules, raised in such deliberations?
If no, was it left to the imagination of the Tatas?
Not only that, did the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh backed Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) opinion, that it was opposed to Mr Ayki’s appointment, have any bearing on the government’s thinking?
And just for curiosity, did Mr Ayki’s conversation with Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran about his decision to turn down the offer for Air India chief precede the SJM statement on national security issues?
Finally, let’s come to the selection process.
While a global head-hunting firm was engaged to shortlist potential CEOs for Air India, which requires an urgent revamp, how deeply was the Tata group involved in finding the best match?
Was there a panel of top executives from the best Tata firms brainstorming on who should be the Air India CEO after the head-hunting firm had given its shortlist?
How good was the counsel from the Tata Sons’ board of directors in making the best choice for Air India CEO while keeping in mind geo-political sensitivities — which are mostly unstated but understood? How actively did the aviation experts in the Tata group — which already had two airlines — participate in the selection process of the Air India chief?
In that context of corporate consultations, a global CEOs’ survey by Egon Zehnder, which also happens to be the executive search firm for Air India chief, has interesting findings on the lack of communication among important stakeholders.
The survey, available on the Zurich-headquartered company’s website, showed that only 51 per cent of respondents (CEOs) relied on their senior leadership team for feedback.
It also revealed that the board of directors’ roles were primarily restricted to CEO succession and governance.
Often missed was the boards’ responsibility towards advising CEOs, the survey said.
“When asked where they turned for honest feedback, only 38 per cent of the CEOs named the chairmen of their own boards of directors, only 28 per cent cited any member of their board, and almost one-quarter said — You have to rely on your own judgment.”
Another CEO thought series by Korn Ferry, a Los Angeles-based management consulting firm, looked at the relationship between the boards and CEOs recently.
“The partnership between CEOs and boards and the wider partnership with internal and external stakeholders has emerged as a key differentiator for companies,’’ wrote Anthony Goodman, head of Korn Ferry’s board effectiveness practice.
That may be something to ponder on as the Tatas launch their second round of search for Air India CEO and also work on an interim leadership plan for the airline.
