Kaun banega crorepati, CA or MBA?

KM Birla’s admission on ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati,’ which is anchored by iconic celebrity, Amitabh Bachchan, stirred appreciation across the globe. The Birla scion, who manages the Aditya Birla Group, revealed how his father and grandfather insisted that he had to become a chartered accountant (CA) to join the family business. This was when KM wanted to pursue MBA. He did both, first CA, and then MBA. Although this anecdote was interpreted as family’s values related to education, the real implication lies between the lines. The incident shows how the Indian business families, especially the Marwaris, give precedent to a mastery in numbers, figures, and financials, rather than strategy, management, and tactics.

Generally, a CA-oriented approach means that the balance sheet, topline, and bottom line are given credence. The MBA-based one focuses more on future vision, mission, and techniques to grow the company. In the first, profits, cash flows, and costs are crucial. In the second, global best practices, expansion, diversification, and integration are critical. The former looks at the present, the latter at the future. Although KM has grown his empire several times since his father’s demise, and he is the only Birla faction, whose business chart is on the ascendant, other business families have vanished, especially since the economic reforms in the 1990s. One of the reasons is this dichotomy, narrow focus, or the inability to change.

One of the most-common tenets of family business is the three-generation rule. The first generation works hard to build a business. The second maintains it, or even grows it. The third squanders the wealth, and destroys or dilutes the empire. In some, this three-step play happens within two generations. In others, it may take a few generations. However, KM has achieved the opposite. In the fourth-generation avatar, if one takes the legendary GD Birla as the real patriarch, KM has grown the group to dizzying heights, and the empire has achieved the status of an Indian MNC, with footprint across the globe. The second distinction between family businesses, and professionally-owned ones is the former’s focus on 4Cs, continuity, community, connections, and command.

If one examines the nuances of the 4Cs, loyalty and trust is imperative. This is what broke down in the case of Tata Group, when the directors of Tata Trusts, which own two-thirds of Tata Sons, the holding company, distrusted each other, and showed it publicly. Although the events are well-known, what was buried under the debris thrown by the two tussling factions against each other was the boardroom blunder. In October 2024, after Ratan Tata’s demise, the Tata Trusts took the decision to give lifetime directorships. During the battle between Noel Tata’s faction (Noel is Ratan’s successor), and the one led by Mehli Mistry (who was finally ousted), the trusts forgot about an important change in the laws.

In late 2025, Maharashtra’s laws for trusts were changed, and perpetual directorships were allowed only for a quarter of the directors. This implied one lifetime directorship for every four directors. So, when one of the Tata Trusts appointed a second director for perpetual tenure, it was illegal since it had only seven directors, and Noel Tata already had this distinction. Realising the blunder, the trust immediately changed the tenure to three years. But the law gave another trust the leverage to reject the perpetual claim of Mehli Mistry, and throw him out. Some experts point to the coincidence of the timing of the law, which came smack in the middle of the boardroom tussle within the Tata Group.

According to a Supreme Court lawyer, who was quoted in a media article, “This (Maharashtra Ordinance) impedes Tata Trusts’ recent resolutions aiming for all trustees to have lifetime tenures, forcing a fundamental reexamination of board compositions, and tenure policy in compliance with the new law. The Government likely intended to curtail concentrated governance, promote periodic renewal, and preempt internal disputes over succession and control in high-profile public trusts.” Hence, in the future, this may derail Noel Tata’s vision to appoint himself, his children, and loyalists as permanent trustees, and continue to exercise control over Tata Sons, and Tata Group forever. Thus, the law, which allowed Noel to possibly exclude Mehli, will probably curtail his ambitions, and succession planning.

Laws generally have unintended consequences. Another episode which reflects this paradox relates to the so-called gig workers. The Government announced four new labour codes, and one of them gave social security, safety, and enhanced status to the gig workers, which includes the delivery boys who work for Swiggy, Zomato, Blinkit, and other platforms and apps. Yet, the workforce was unimpressed, and went on strike on December 25, and December 31. It demanded official intervention to secure their incomes, and safety. The 10-minute or 30-minute delivery deadlines, which promoted consumers to do online and app-based shopping, hampers the delivery persons. Their safety is compromised as they rush to be on time. Their incomes are jeopardised as the blame for the delays falls on them even if someone else is responsible for the mess.

As the world becomes faster, and speed becomes the yardstick for efficiency and productivity, rather than quality and safety, new challenges crop up. This is evident in other areas such as real-time supplies of inputs, and finished products. Any delays due to extreme factors like pandemic, or short-term ones like transport issues create bottlenecks that disrupt production and, hence, efficiency, and productivity. Tight logistics is great to save costs. But even a minor crisis costs the company much more as it loses reputation, and credibility, apart from revenues and profits. This was evident when the China-linked supply chains were decimated during the pandemic for several months, and created chaos throughout the world.

Firms, including MNCs opted for China+1 strategy so that there was always a second supplier to make up for the possible disruptions. This creates another challenge. Should the second supplier be as large as the main one? If yes, the buyer had to set up two parallel factories, only one of which would be the main supplier. If not, then there was no point in the second supplier, who could never make up for the loss of supplies from the main one. In addition, there was the cost factor, i.e., investing in two plants, and buying from one at a time. This was a crucial decision for the firms in the US and Europe, where the costs of setting up alternative factories is massive.