Cyrus Mistry’s replacement left deep personal scars on Ratan Tata, says Thomas Mathew
Mathew, who conducted extensive research and interviews with key figures from that period, uncovered a rarely seen side of Tata’s leadership—one marked by loyalty, patience, and an unwavering sense of responsibility, ultimately tested by a decision that left emotional scars on Tata himself.
According to Mathew, the decision to replace Mistry was one of the most challenging choices of Tata’s career, a move driven by corporate necessity but fraught with personal sacrifice.
Although Tata had initially placed great faith in Mistry’s potential, committing to mentor and guide him, the outcome of this mentorship turned into what Mathew described as a painful chapter for both men.
For Tata, it was a difficult decision he later described as an “inevitable, regrettable moment.”
During Mistry’s tenure, he was entrusted with steering the Tata Group—a conglomerate spanning diverse sectors like steel, technology, and salt. However, Mathew points out that Mistry faced formidable challenges in managing the complexity of the organisation.
Recognising this, Tata brought in external advisors to aid Mistry, including Harvard Dean and management expert Nitin Nohria. Mathew shared that Tata’s sole intention in involving Nohria was to provide Mistry with insights into the vastness of the Tata empire, ultimately preparing him for the demands of such a significant role.
Despite Tata’s efforts to support him, Mistry’s approach diverged from the Tata ethos, leading to a strategic misalignment with the Group’s vision. While Tata hoped Mistry would adapt his approach, Mathew notes that resistance from Mistry and possibly the General Executive Council (GEC) exacerbated the disconnect. Nevertheless, Tata continued to place his trust in Mistry, investing time and resources to bridge the divide.
In the end, the weight of unmet expectations forced Tata to make an exceptionally hard decision—a choice that Matthew describes as a “sword” wielded by Tata. Yet, Mathew clarifies, this metaphor illustrates not aggression but the emotional toll it took on Tata, who was ultimately more pained by the decision than Mistry himself.
“Some people outside do not know that it hurt the man who wielded the sword more than the person who was removed with the sword,” Matthew shared, pointing to the cultural dissonance between Tata’s values of loyalty and the necessity of his decision.
Reflecting on the saga, Mathew underscores that Tata’s choice was not impulsive but the end result of a journey marked by mentorship, support, and multiple efforts to align with Mistry.
For Tata, it was a painful conclusion to what he had hoped would be a successful transition, one that he later lamented as not fully reflecting the values he held dear—the Tata way.
