Family businesses play a significant role in both the developed as well as the developing countries. Several in the top 100 companies in the US, Germany and Italy are family businesses though publicly listed. Family businesses traverse from the progenitor-run to family-run to “professional organization” and hopefully, to a situation where ownership is divorced from operational control over management. Among the Indian corporates, a forward thinking south-India based group is known to have conceived the last comprehensively. Many are in the transition of getting “professionalized” from being family run. Managers than the controlling “owners” often feel the pains of such transition, as they indeed have to constantly fight a gnawing suspicion that they may be less of “professionals” and more of “naukars”. (We will be gender insensitive in this article and ignore naukrani`s, if there is such a term at all!).

It might not have a pleasant decision for DS Brar of Ranbaxy to announce that he will not seek renewal of his contract, which has indeed been a ‘bolt from the blue’ according to the market and the media. But then, as is being speculated, what else was expected when an internationally qualified young heir apparent is waiting in the wings. Displacement of “professional management” by the family should be of no surprise as the family reasserts one way or the other periodically, to reflect control, if not efficiency. Soon after Ravi Sinha was eased out as MD, it was Ashish Bharat Ram son of the SRF promoters who needed his place. The reassertion of the family was also evident when Sunil Alagh instead of leaving a year later when his contract came to a close was sent packing straightaway and reportedly, there is much digging into the expenses as an after thought.

Even in the erstwhile monarchies, the system of regents meant a contract that they will take care of the ultimate wishes of the rulers to nurture and bring the youngsters to the centre stage, merely keeping the seat warm, if at all. In the political arena too, it is evident from the Asian region that several Heads of State provide a decent interval with a pliable successor before the chosen one (the son, son-in-law, daughter or brother, in that order) is brought to take over the country. We have also seen unabashed promotions of family, without even the fig leaf of an interlude, in our own polity. Blood indeed is thicker than abstractions like “shareholder value” or “welfare”.

The above episodes raise questions whether the heir’s value as a professional is unfairly discounted for merely sharing blood, on the one hand and on the other, about the so called “professional” among the managers. The first issue is easily countered by the careerist managers to say that there is hardly any competition for the family man and that he zooms like a “meteor” across hierarchies than move like a “creeper” (pun intended). The international qualifications, they would claim, only serve as better selling point to the market, especially if the company is publicly listed.

The other issue is whether the career manager or even the head honcho is merely a naukar, as LM Thapar has reportedly commented to Shubhrangshu Roy or a true professional. The statement assumes a greater meaning, if such a manager has to see the controlling owner physically everyday unlike in a truly widely held corporation where the owner is invisible. Wide dispersal shifts power in favour of the Board of directors and often to the top management – the “brown sahibs” thrived in this scenario as pharaohs subjecting the subordinates to slavery, which is deep-sea compared to the devil of being a naukar. In these companies the personality and performance of the Chief Executive count more than the owners. This was very evident in the manner in which Carly Fiorina managed to take on the heirs of the promoters in the famous merger of HP with Compaq.

The situation may be similar in the case of the State in which the employer is faceless and an abstraction. The movements of the civil servants are, in the worst scenario, to reduce the agency costs to deliver the “performance” required by the elected representatives. The demands or policy choices of the political representatives may be, at times, unreasonable and unethical but the civil servant has a chance of rationalizing the relationship as that in the service of an abstraction or for promoting “welfare” as understood and defined by the political representative.

The only way for a manager to escape from being a naukar or slave is to distinguish himself as a professional. He should be less worried about ownership and worry more about his skills, which ought to be the distinguishing feature to transform the relationship from that of a master-servant to that of a client-practitioner. Though many callings in the management discipline are professions-in-the-making than true professions, the individual can concentrate on gaining a reputation in the field that is more credible than his visiting card.

In the absence of a great reputation in the discipline, the individual incumbent may have to rely solely on his positional authority and the visible perks (which are like “toys” to children that bring inexplicable attachment and mindless joy) for deriving social status. He would be in a vulnerable situation of truly being a servant or slave, even if well showered with all the symbols of a successful professional. On the other hand, if an individual maintains his professional credibility and distinguishes himself from the positional authority, he may indeed be less at the mercy of the feudal kings and owners. An example is that of a credible doctor who would still be a great surgeon for the society even if he were not the CEO of a family-run hospital any more.

The argument here is not at all against the assertions of the owners or the family businesses to join management at their will and pleasure - especially, if the individuals are competent and the other shareholders support this move. In fact, the case of Dabur points to how the family was forced to take control of the management, after it divorced itself from the day to day functions leaving them to the professional managers, when the performance took a knock. The owners have both a duty and responsibility to grow the company and there is evidence to show that family businesses probably give better shareholder value.

The argument is against managers and CEOs who call themselves professionals without excelling in their discipline and distinguishing themselves from the positional authority. If they choose not to get respectable in the profession or get submerged with the trappings of the positional authority, they indeed would appear like the world’s oldest calling, where age than knowledge becomes more important and art than science makes the difference in appealing to those who have hired them. If managers do not want to be bundled with this class, they have to rethink their technical skills, reputations and professions so as to escape the prospect of being merely slaves or servants to render ill-defined and unpredictable service.