advertisement
Was Vishal Sikka sacrificed at the altar of the founder’s ego or did he take the fall for an incompetent board? Or did Sikka pay for inadequate disclosures regarding the Panaya acquisition, one that he led?
More questions than answers surround Sikka’s resignation as the chief executive officer and managing director of Infosys Ltd, one of India’s leading information technology companies.
Singhvi pointed to the failure of Sikka and the board to adequately answer co-founder NR Narayana Murthy’s questions regarding corporate governance standards surrounding the Panaya acquisition and the departure of Infosys’ chief financial officer and general counsel.
Singhvi referred to the board’s statement blaming Murthy for Sikka’s resignation to pose two questions –
1. If no wrongdoing had occured why did the board not protect Sikka better?
2. And why does the board refuse to make public the full investigation reports on Panaya and another acquisition?
He also wondered why Murthy wouldn’t share more evidence to support his allegations of poor governance at Infosys.
At the heart of the battle between Infosys founder NR Narayana Murthy, the company’s board, led by co-chairman R Seshasayee and Ravi Venkatesan, and Sikka are allegations made by a whistleblower regarding kickbacks and conflict of interest in two acquisitions made by the company.
Murthy asked the board to make the reports public...but the board declined to do so prompting a rebuke from the founder. That spark lit the fire that eventually singed Sikka.
A company’s board is not obliged to defend every decision, said Prabal Basu Roy, a commentator on corporate developments, in the BloombergQuint discussion.
In not sharing the investigation reports and in not being able to retain Sikka ,did the Infosys board fail to do right by the company’s shareholders?
A strong chairman would not have first praised Sikka for his performance and then let him leave, explained Singhvi.
Roy agreed the board had displayed weakness, but attributed that to other reasons entirely.
Sikka maybe be wounded but hasn’t fully exited the battleground. He continues as executive vice chairman till 31 March 2018.
How will you have the next man come in unless you protect him, asked Singhvi, reiterating that a weak board is at the heart of the current problem.
Roy argued that the board had done a fairly creditable job in keeping Sikka on for seven more months as it could take that long to find the next leader. He also stated that the board’s defence of Sikka would help rectify the company’s narrative to potential candidates.
Nilekani has refused to comment on Infosys for months now, and did not respond to calls on the day Sikka quit. If, board and Nilekani willing, he does return, it would seal the failure of a rare attempt by an Indian company to be professionally led and not promoter dependent.
(#TalkingStalking: Have you ever been stalked? Share your experience with The Quint and inspire others to shatter the silence surrounding stalking. Send your stories to editor@thequint.com or WhatsApp @ +919999008335.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)