See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263176979

Business strategy of automotive and farm equipment sector of the Mahindra &
Mahindra Group of India

Article  in  Journal of Strategy and Management · February 2014

DOI: 10.1108/JSMA-01-2013-0011

CITATIONS READS

7 13,132

2 authors:

R. P. Mohanty Prince Augustin

Siksha O Anusandhan University Bhubaneswar Odisha India Mahindra
145 PUBLICATIONS   2,653 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessing performance efficiency View project

Text book on Emotional Intelligence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by R. P. Mohanty on 01 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-425X.htm

JSMA
7,1
Business strategy of automotive
and farm equipment sector of
the Mahindra & Mahindra
64 Group of India
Received 28 January 2013
Revised 29 May 2013
Rajendra Prasad Mohanty
12 July 2013 Siksha O Anusandhan University, Odisha, India, and
16 July 2013
17 July 2013
Prince Augustin
Accepted 17 July 2013 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai, India

Abstract
Purpose – This paper traces the historical evolution and growth trajectory of the automotive and
farm equipment sector, which is a very significant entity of the Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) group.
The purpose of this paper is to understand and provide a pragmatic framework through which the
authors can see what were the internal and external factors and the spirit of the contemporary times
that led to the changes in the nature of the group.
Design/methodology/approach – The “Greiner curve” model has been applied to interpret the
evolutionary growth of the group and strategic trajectory explaining characteristics in its different
phases.
Findings – M&M initially went through its share of learning and grew through pragmatic and,
orchestrated entrepreneurial risk. The group made a very successful transition from a proprietorship
model to a professionally managed group. It is found that rapid growth has been possible through
innovation led collaboration. The group is increasingly organizing its innovation activities around the
development of responses to specific challenges.
Research limitations/implications – This study suffers from methodological limitations
associated with a stage model that the estimated length of the time the organizations will stay in a
phase is not known. It is unclear whether passage through all stages is necessary; or whether, in some
circumstances, one or more stages may be omitted, and if variations in sequencing can occur. The data
for the initial years was not available in primary form and the paper had to depend entirely on the
secondary sources.
Practical implications – Various strategies adopted by the group from time to time have practical
implications for Indian economy. The group has faced many challenges, but challenge-led collaboration-
driven approach represents a new type of innovation process that contrasts with other methods of
business strategies and provides a sharper focus for managerial and technical issues and brings together
stakeholders with diverse interests, expertise and perspectives.
Originality/value – This study is a unique attempt in India to trace the evolution of the strategic
interventions in the context of a major business group, which is considered to be a symbolic
representation of Indian economic history. The paper has got both academic as well as managerial utility.
Keywords Collaboration, Innovation, Creativity, Mergers and acquisitions, Automotive,
Greiner curve
Paper type Case study

Journal of Strategy and Management

Vol. 7 No. 1, 2014
pp. 64-86 The authors acknowledge the worthy comments of the anonymous reviewers as well as that of
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1755-425X the Editor. Such comments helped to make the paper value-adding and contributing to the
DOI 10.1108/JSMA-01-2013-0011 domain of case study research.
1. Introduction Business
Explaining how and why organizations change has been a central and enduring quest strategy of
of scholars in business history/management and many other disciplines (Van de Ven
and Poole, 1988, 1995; Van de Ven et al., 1989; Van de Ven, 1989; Van de Ven and Garud, AFES
1993). Studying the business history of an organization is a very fascinating and
challenging task in case study research (Yin, 2003). To understand business history,
management scholars have borrowed many concepts, metaphors, and theories from 65
other disciplines, ranging from child development to evolutionary biology (Van de Ven
and Poole, 1995). These concepts include punctuated equilibrium, stages of growth,
processes of decay and death, population ecology, functional models of change and
development, and chaos theory (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). This variation has
created a theoretical pluralism that has uncovered novel ways to explain some
organizational change and developmental processes (Van de Ven and Poole, 1988).
However, the diversity of theories and concepts borrowed from different disciplines
often encourages compartmentalization of perspectives that do not enrich each other
and produce isolated lines of research (Gioia and Pitre, 1990).
The pattern of business growth takes into consideration all factors relating to the
social and economic developments of the times. Gibson et al. (1994) remarked that
organizational processes and systems are impacted fundamentally by the external
environmental circumstances as well as internal factors. Over time, these organizational
factors change considerably to suggest a new phase of growth for the organization.
Gibson et al. (1994, p. 167) have also remarked, “We are all aware of the rise and fall
of organizations and entire industries marketing experts acknowledge the existence of
product-market life cycles. It seems reasonable to conclude that organizations also have
life cycles”. Ichak (1979) discussed this evolution in a sequence of 11 detailed phases.
There is a considerable body of literature in the study of organizational life cycle (Quinn
and Cameron, 1983). Darwinian theorists emphasize a continuous and gradual process of
evolution. In the origin of species, Darwin (1936, p. 5) wrote, “as natural selection acts
solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or
sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps”. This evolutionary
approach has been the basis of research by Greiner (1972). Like other researchers
(Chandler, 1980; Bruch, 2000; Zott and Amit, 2008; Lepak et al., 2007) in the domain of
organization life cycle models, the Greiner model discusses the change and growth
process of an organization.
The models that typically propose changes in organizations follow predictable
pattern. Quinn and Cameron (1983) designate this change pattern a developmental
stage. These stages follow an organic sequence, accompanied by appropriate changes
in organizational processes, activities and structures, and form the basis of organizational
resurgence. This important facet of understanding the nature of interaction between the
organization and environment is essential. External environmental events and processes
always have the potential to influence how the entity expresses itself, but the immanent
logic, rules or programs that govern the entity’s development (Van de Ven and Poole,
1988) inevitably mediate them.
This paper explores the history and evolution of the Mahindra & Mahindra (here in
after referred to as M&M) group since its inception. The evolutionary business growth
of M&M has mirrored the systematic growth of the Indian nation and has seen many
upheavals. This paper examines the various phases of growth of M&M through the
Greiner framework and discusses in the form of inferences, the dominant characteristic
of each phase through the Brunswik Wolf (2005) model. Baird and Meshoulam (1988)
JSMA commented on the need of an organization to change its very nature according to the
7,1 environment. They said that organizations move from one stage to another because the
fit between the organization and its environment is so skewed that the organizations’
efficiency and/or effectiveness or in some cases even the organization’s survival is
threatened. Another important factor that plays a role in this change is the nature of
organizational power dynamics. Blau and Scott (1962) categorized organizations from
66 external perspective – in terms of whom they are supposed to serve. Etzioni (1961)
did so from an internal perspective – in terms of how they achieve control over their
members. This can be understood not only in terms of gain sharing but also in terms of
relinquishing of managerial ownership.
The purpose of this paper is to understand and provide a framework through which
we can see what were the internal and external factors and zeitgeist of the times
that led to the changes in the nature of the group. What we mean by zeitgeist here, is
the spirit of the contemporary times. Zeitgeist is the general socio-economic-political
climate within India or even the general entrepreneurial direction, and psychological
mindsets associated with business houses. Often, the M&M is seen as a microcosm of
India and therefore we seek to understand the changes as they have happened in the
course of time. This paper provides the first in-depth study of the strategic trajectory of
one of India’s most successful multinational companies concluding that M&M’s
approach to strategy evolution was appropriate to its growth mission.

2. The Greiner model: a brief overview

Greiner (1972) theorized that businesses, when they grow from their infancy, are highly
exciting propositions but they go through phases of upheaval and chaos in their
evolutionary journey. In such a journey, there are phases when the organizational
inertia seeps in to impede the growth momentum. Greiner terms these phases of slack,
as “crisis” moments, because if unchecked and not planned for, they can potentially
derail the organization. Greiner proposed a growth model that charts the course of
business as depicted in Figure 1. This model is used to capture the historical journey
of M&M with special focus on the automotive and farm equipment sector (AFES).
The necessary ingredient for each phase would be a period of relatively stable growth,

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6

“Growth Through “Growth Through “Growth Through “Growth Through “Growth Through “Growth Through
Creativity” Direction” Delegation” Co-ordination” Collaboration” Alliances”
Organization Size

Growth Crisis

Red Tape Crisis

Control Crisis

Autonomy Crisis
Figure 1. Leadership Crisis
The different phases
of the Greiner curve
Time
followed by a “crisis” necessitating a change impetus. This is the pivot every organization Business
required for a continuous growth pattern. strategy of
2.1 Phase 1: growth through creativity AFES
This is the first phase of organizational growth and is usually the one where a new
organization is finding its feet. Greiner has termed this period as the “growth through
creativity”. In this phase, the founders are usually technically or entrepreneurially 67
oriented. Focus is on making and selling new products and opening up new markets.
Employees are few, so informal communication works well, and rewards for long hours
are probably through profit sharing or stock options. Creativity in terms of products,
processes, etc. is the main focus in this phase. In this phase the organization has just
come into existence and established its position in the market place, usually through
technological adaptations, innovation or entrepreneurship (Balkin and Montemayor,
2000). The prime concern at this stage is to secure its financial resources to ensure
survival (Flynn and Forman, 2001).
While the general meaning of creativity can have varied meanings, researchers have
generally tended to agree to the definition as proposed by Mumford (2003, p. 110)
who says that “over the course of the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a
general agreement that creativity involves the production of novel, useful products”.
This is the understanding of the use of creativity for the purpose of this research as
M&M embarked with very radical product ideas, and has always been the one to
innovate and bring new products to the consumers. According to Milliman et al. (1991),
an organization would emphasize research and development (R&D) to develop its
products in the inception stage. Thereafter, it experiences rapid growth and will place
a greater emphasis on the production and support service. This phase ends with a
leadership crisis, where professional management becomes an imperative; because as
the company grows, founders may not be comfortable with the owner-manager role.

2.2 Phase 2: growth through direction

The second phase of the Greiner curve deals with the idea of directed growth.
This happens to all companies that survive the start-up blues. The next task is about
marching on the road towards growth and establishing systems that can facilitate
the journey. In such a scenario, a crucial decision for the owner-manager is whether to
expand or keep the firm stable while maintaining and enhancing the current level
of profitability (Churchill and Lewis, 1983). This growth continues under a capable
business manager, with the introduction of a functional organizational structure.
Growth in this phase refers to the consolidation of organization systems and processes
under the able guidance of professional management. The environment becomes more
inclined towards formal communications, budgets, incentives and focus on job
specialization. The critical success factor for organizations to surge ahead at this stage
is to keep the system infused with high organizational energy. Organizational energy
reflects the extent to which a company has mobilized its potential in pursuit of its goals
(Bruch and Ghoshal, 2004a). This phase ends with an autonomy crisis. Clear hierarchy
leads to its own range of problems from low-level dissatisfaction, control issues and
low initiative. At this point, it becomes interesting to observe that as the organization
grows, control becomes more complex by the mere accretion of numbers. There are
ways of reducing the complexity by delegating responsibility and installing better
systems but there is no way of avoiding it altogether. Delegation is a solution mostly
adopted but followed with difficulty.
JSMA 2.3 Phase 3: growth through delegation
7,1 The third phase of the Greiner model emerges with the need to effectively manage
the size to which the organization has grown. Delegation takes place when the senior
management starts downward cascading of responsibility keeping in view the
organization’s managerial capability. It has been remarked quite well by Schumpeter
(1980, p. 137) who said “an entrepreneur loses his/her entrepreneurial character when,
68 after having exploited his/her business idea, he/she shifts to a business- as- usual
activity”. To understand this, it is useful to view the definition of Block and MacMillan
(1993, p. 194), who categorically stated that “for a business to grow into a large
organization, delegation is necessary, and effective delegation requires decision rules
that are consistent with the firm’s philosophy, goals and aspirations”. This phase thus
requires the management to bring in a focus to strategic delegation keeping in view the
business objectives. In this phase, greater responsibility is given to line managers,
etc. and bonuses and profit centres motivate employees. The key characteristic for the
success of this phase is the competence of employees. The employees are expected to be
innovative, long-term oriented, and risk-taking and the performance criteria ought to
incorporate these characteristics (Schuler, 1987). As the organization matures, the rules
and procedures created have led a rigid structure that inhibits the organization’s
adaptability to changes in the market environment (Gupta and Chin, 1994). Top
management involves itself with monitoring and managing by exception usually
focused more on mergers and acquisitions opportunities. Communication from the top
is brief and infrequent. A crisis of control emerges when top management finds it hard
to let go and tries to retain control while the autonomous mid-level managers act
without coordinating with others. This creates an unexplainable void leading to
stiffness in organizational functions and overall growth.

2.4 Phase 4: growth through coordination

In this phase, there is a strong need for the organization to refocus on working together
for attaining the organizational objectives through critical success parameters.
This means that the efforts of the entire organization need to be unified and integrated
for alignment. Growth continues with the previously decentralized business units
re-organized into specific groups or practices. Formal systems and procedures,
resource planning and centralization of technical functions take place as the next most
logical steps. At this juncture, a lack of confidence gradually builds between line and
staff as many systems and programmes begin to exceed their usefulness. In this crucial
phase, it is pertinent to note that some changes happen at opportune times. Certain
change processes cannot be executed in more bureaucratic cultures, while other types
of processes simply are not compatible with team-oriented or innovative/dynamic
organizations (Bruch and Ghoshal, 2004b). This phase is usually that catalyst in the
organizational journey and builds on the momentum of earlier years. In this phase,
procedures take precedence over routine problem solving and innovation slows down.
A red-tape crisis looms large.

2.5 Phase 5: growth through collaboration

Logsdon (1991) has discussed elaborately why organizations collaborate in the first
place and talks about the basic reasons of collaborations. These are efficiency,
environmental stability, organizational legitimacy, reciprocity and asymmetry. In this
phase, social control and self-discipline replace formal control. Cross-functional
work teams, interdisciplinary committees and matrix structures come into being.
Conferences, educational programs and experimentation are encouraged. Team awards Business
take precedence over individual awards. This phase ends with a crisis of internal strategy of
growth. The organization begins to realize there is no internal solution for stimulating
further growth. The organization in this phase normally stands on an inflexion point AFES
where its growth trajectory would be upward sloping. This is the phase where the
organization must foster collaboration.
69
2.6 Phase 6: growth through alliances
An alliance in this phase is understood as the collaborative efforts with an external
perspective. This could be in the form of mergers or joint venture partnerships.
The organization has a pragmatic approach and the questions of synergy are some of
the paramount factors that are taken into consideration before forming alliances.
Growth may continue through merger, outsourcing, networks and other solutions
involving other companies. Extra organizational solutions may be sought, e.g. creating
a holding company or a networked organization Greiner (1998). Growth rates will vary
between and even within phases. The longer a phase lasts, the harder it will be to
implement a transition.
It can be inferred from the above discussion that often an organizational growth and
transition – between stages as outlined by Greiner is unpredictable and challenging.
While the stages of the life cycle are internally coherent and very different from one
another they are by no means connected to each other in any deterministic sequence.
In reality, transition between stages is difficult for most large organization, because
often the board of directors demand urgency for change. Imperatives for change may
be forced by several generic forces (Mohanty, 1999). Although there are many models
of life cycle analysis (Miller et al., 2002) we use Greiner model for our study of a
large conglomerate operating globally and dealing with multiple products.
Some models seem little more than heuristic classification schemes, rather than true
conceptualizations of the growth process. The models are inclined to address the
symptoms of growth, rather than reveal the underlying processes of the phenomenon.
Some models tend to focus on the internal dynamics of growing organizations, and
typically pay insufficient attention to the impact of external factors in the social,
economic and business environments. For example, they generally fail to take account
of spatial dimensions tied to advancement or decline of local, regional, national or
international economies.
We use M&M as a research case study to contribute to our knowledge of
understanding of business strategy (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002). Greiner model is
used for the purpose of our analysis as we will be able to capture the holistic and the
meaningful characteristics of real life events such as organizational life cycles
characterised by managerial processes, environmental and technological changes,
socio-economic-geo political relations and the maturation of Indian industries. Greiner
model is a useful model, however, not all businesses may not follow these phases in this
order. For a variety of purposes, the model is used: determining what stage an
organization is operating at, managing transitions, developing healthy strategies and
anticipating future challenges. We analyze different phases through the Brunswik lens
model (Brunswik Wolf, 2005).

3. Research methodology
We use qualitative research for describing and exploring the historical evolution of
strategy of M&M. Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding a host
JSMA of organizational problems, based on building a vivid and systemic picture, formed
7,1 with words, reporting detailed views of informants. It is characterised by its aims,
which relate to understanding some aspect of organizational history, and its strategies,
which in general generate words, rather than numbers, as data for analysis. Although
qualitative method has some limitations as far as specificity of data are concerned, in
situations where little is known, it is often better to start with qualitative methods.
70 We resort to this, as we would like to interpret history by focus group discussions and
interviews of past and current employees. We intend to understand the trajectory
of events and phenomena and to answer questions about the “what”, “how” or “why”
of a phenomenon rather than “how many” or “how much”, which are answered by
quantitative methods. Our basic idea is to understand how a group of knowledgeable
individuals within M&M perceive a particular issue, and to capture the perspectives of
founders/stakeholders; or explore the meaning they give to phenomena; or observe a
process in depth. By utilizing a variety of sources, including documents, archival
records, interviews, observations and physical artifacts, these studies are intended to
produce a thorough analysis of the case. This present study focused on multiple
interviews bounded by time and place. Life histories of M&M group companies are one
type of in-depth interviews and examination of documents. They are illustrative case
studies, which are very good at looking an entity’s state of affairs in general and in its
wider context.

4. A brief description about M&M group companies

The M&M group comprises of many companies. These are the driving sectors of the
group and as discussed in brief are as follows:
. Mahindra aftermarket: empowers used-car, spares and service buyers by
offering total transparency and world-class service levels at affordable pricing.
. Mahindra automotive and farm equipment: challenges conventions to deliver
award-winning vehicles and service.
. Mahindra financial services: builds equipment and provides services that help
farmers thrive, and in the process promotes farm tech prosperity.
. Mahindra defence: equips security forces with a range of armoured vehicles and
defence systems that enable them to better protect the public.
. Mahindra holidays: rethinks the vacation paradigm by making premium holiday
experiences accessible to more people.
. Mahindra two wheelers: provides customers with stylish and powerful scooters
and motorcycles.
. Mahindra Systech: provides full service “Art to Part” solutions to original
equipment manufacturers in the automotive and non-automotive space by
integrating design, manufacturing and sourcing capabilities.
. Mahindra life spaces: develops healthier, greener, more productive work and
living spaces for people on the Rise.
. Mahindra IT: enables global businesses to become more effective through
sustainable information, communication and technology services.
. Mahindra partners: incubates new ventures and provides growth capital to
bring our stakeholders diversified products and services.
Figure 2 depicts the various sectors of the group, which were explained above in the Business
different phases of the Greiner sequence owing to their difference in their stages of strategy of
evolution. It is interesting to note that the largest sector by financial contribution the
Mahindra AFS sector, which is the subject of analysis in this paper, is largely in a stage AFES
of “growth through collaboration” and only some parts of it like the Ssangyong and
REVA business have entered the next stage of Greiner’s evolution.
71
5. AFES: an overview
To understand and absorb how AFES has come today to the stage of “growth through
collaboration”, it is important to know what the sector is all about and how it is
emerged as a flagship entity of M&M. AFES is in the business of manufacturing and
marketing utility vehicles and heavy and light commercial vehicles (LCV), including
three-wheelers. It has been the market leader in utility vehicles in India since inception,
and currently accounts for about half of India’s market for utility vehicles with
a product portfolio that ranges from rugged, mass-transport utility vehicles to personal
segment sports utility vehicles. The AFES can trace its roots back to 1954. M&M
Limited, the flagship company was set up as a franchise for assembling general
purpose (GP) utility vehicles from Willys, USA. As the market leader in India for the
past 27 years, the farm equipment business has helped bring agri-tech prosperity to
the Indian farmers with technologically superior and economically affordable
solutions. M&M has achieved the distinction of being the largest tractor company in
the world with tractor sales in more than 35 countries. In its quality journey, AFES has
won the Deming Application Prize in 2003, followed by Japan Quality Medal in 2007.
It is the 20th company in the world and only the second company in India to achieve
this distinction. The financial information in terms of the segment revenue (turnover)
and segment profit is presented in Figure 3.
Companies often make substantial efforts to maximize value (Amit and Zott, 2012).
As is evident from Figure 3, over the past few years, there has been a significant
increase in the revenue and profits. In the strategy literature (Grant, 2005), it is
sometimes argued that “business is about creating value”.

Growth Through Creativity

Mahindra Defense Mahindra Two wheelers

Growth through Direction

Mahindra Partners

Growth Through Delegation

Mahindra Systech Mahindra Finance

Growth Through Co ordination

Mahindra Aftermarket Mahindra Holidays

Growth through Collaboration

Mahindra AFS Mahindra IT(MSAT + Tech M)
Figure 2.
The driving sectors
Growth through Alliance of M&M
SSyangyong, REVA, MYYTCL
JSMA Segment Revenue (Rs. Crs) Segment Result (Rs. Crs)
1,823
7,1 20% CAGR
13,834
26% CAGR
10,617 1,335

Automotive
7,384 30% 37%
6,096 7,197 680 763
4,568 5,240 466 581 448

72 F05 F06 F07 F08 F09 F10 F11 F05 F06 F07 F08 F09 F10 F11

Segment Revenue (Rs. Cr.) Segment Result (Rs. Cr.)

9,797
1,708
30% CAGR 7,935 44% CAGR 1,501
5,667 14%
Farm

24%
3,740 3,997 624
Figure 3. 2,854 509 542
2,030 316
The financials for 188
automotive and farm
equipment sector F05 F06 F07 F08 F09 F10 F11 F05 F06 F07 F08 F09 F10 F11

6. Examination of the strategy evolution through Greiner framework

We have now understood broadly the nature of the group and we will trace the
historical evolution in the context of the growth phases of the Greiner model and
explore the nature of challenges faced and how they were overcome.

6.1 Growth through creativity

During the time of Indian independence, there was an interesting vehicle that was
making news the world over. It was the “jeep”. The history of jeep dates back to the
First World War. The US Army was looking for fast, light weight, all terrain utility
vehicles and called all the vehicle manufacturers to produce a specified vehicle within
49 days. Two companies responded to the call – The Bantam Car Company and the
Willys – Overland. With outside help, The Bantam Car Company did manage to build
the first hand-built prototype within the timeframe. But it was Willys who finally got
the army contract. Since the US Army was in need of a huge consignment of jeeps at
that point of time, Willys-Overland granted the US Government license to allow other
manufacturers to produce vehicles with Willy’s specification. The US Army had
designated this particular vehicle as GP vehicle, which later transformed into the term
“jeep”. Since the jeep vehicle played such an extraordinary and fascinating role during
the world wars, even today it is one of the most recognized brands in the world. These
vehicles were not only used by armies of different countries but at the same time, they
were also used for many other activities like laying telephone wires, as a makeshift
ambulance and as a conveyance for prime ministers and army generals, etc. Soon,
afterwards, Willy realized the potential of the jeep vehicle as a civilian carrier and so
introduced the first ever civilian jeep in 1945. It was then used by the farmers and
construction workers. Initially, the Willys had obtained the jeep trademark from the
United States Trademark Registration.
While in USA as Chairman of the India Supply Mission, K.C. Mahindra, who was
one of the founding members of the group, met with Barney Roos, inventor of the jeep.
The Mahindra brothers (K.C. Mahindra and H.C.Mahindra) envisioned that such a
vehicle would soon prove its worth in India’s rugged terrain and on its rough rural
roads. Thus, when the company was incorporated and converted into public limited
one in 1955 in Mumbai; initially, the company manufactured jeep type vehicles, petrol
industrial engines, industrial process control instruments and flow meters along with Business
trading in steel and manufacture of professional grade electronic components. Jeeps strategy of
were manufactured under a license and an agreement with Willys Motors Inc for
whom the company also acted as exclusive distributors for the whole of India for their AFES
entire range of vehicles including utility vans, cargo/personnel carriers and pick-up
trucks. In 1958, the company entered into an agreement with Birfeld Ltd, to form
Mahindra Sintered Products Private Limited for the manufacture of a wide range of 73
self-lubricating bearings.
Table I points out the various outcomes (partnerships, plants and companies) that
were formed in this phase.
This was the era of calculated risk taking and changes. Decision making was
primarily on creating markets and products and establishing presence in market.
M&M was seen as a group that was producing vehicles that were useful for the local
people on the rough terrains. There was little availability of skilled labour and workers
in India and industrial infrastructure was non-existant. Soon after M&M becoming
a public limited company, there was a growing need to have a professional
management style, more efficient and up-to-date manufacturing setups, corporate
policies and governance. It moved from a proprietorship model to a professionally
managed group.
Applying the Brunswik Wolf lens model, we realize that given the criteria of a
newly found nation, initial industrialization, majority rural masses, weaker industrial
know how and volatile socio-economic conditions, M&M responded by focusing on
importing the jeeps with greater emphasis on functionality than style. Table II shows
the typical characteristics of this phase that represents the kinetic energy of the initial
phase of an enterprise and is characterised by a high creative wave that translates into
both product and market strategy. For M&M, the start of the group and the entry of the
group into a relatively nascent business economy were the dominant characteristics of
this phase.
With greater focus on make and sell, an informal structure, entrepreneurial style
and market results as controls; M&M showed most of the practices prevalent during
the “growth through creativity stage” as per the Greiner’s prescriptions.

Outcome Year Description

Plant at Mazagon Docks, Mumbai 1949 Assembly plant set up for jeeps
Partnership with Mitsubishi Corporation 1950 Manufacturing of Wagon plates
Manufacturing of Jeeps in collaboration with Kaiser 1954 Indigenous manufacturing of jeeps
Jeep Corporation and American Motors Corporation in India started Table I.
Mahindra Sintered Products Private Limited started 1958 To manufacture a wide range of self- Outcomes of the
with partnership with Birfield Ltd lubricating bearings creativity phase

Typical phase characteristics M&M features

Entrepreneurship Bold venture by the group founders Table II.

New product strategy Importing of products for Indian market Creativity phase
Business development Foray into multiple business verticals characteristics
JSMA 6.2 Growth through direction
7,1 In 1962, the indigenous contents of M&M jeeps increased to 70 per cent. It was a time
when the management needed to stabilize the expanding business and plan for the
next phase of growth. It was a difficult time when the operations needed to expand and
reach greater scale. The company purchased 137 acres of land in Kandivali (Mumbai)
for establishing a production facility and moved production of the jeep to the Kandivali
74 plant in 1965. This was the first big investment for the organization and would
eventually lay the foundation of the success of the organization. This phase was
characterised by some restructuring and the formation of new entities. These changes
and partnership that emerged are captured in Table III.
In these times, the indigenous content of jeep went up to 70 per cent. This showed
that the company was focusing strongly on developing in-house capabilities for
manufacturing. Over the next five years, the company forayed into the areas of petrol
engine trucks and also started the production of LCV. M&M tied up with International
Harvester Company of Chicago USA, for the manufacture of tractors in 1961. It later
formed the International Tractor Company of India (ITCI) – a JV with International
Harvester Company and Voltas Ltd, in 1963, with a license to manufacture 3,500
tractors and matching implements per annum. ITCI was merged with the company
effective from 1 November 1977. In 1962, the formation of Mahindra Ugine Steel
Company (MUSCO) took shape, a joint venture with Ugine Kuhlmann, France. The
company was incorporated on 19 December and the industrial license for manufacture
of alloy steel was transferred to Mahindra Ugine. Also in this year, indigenous content
of jeep went upto 70 per cent. This showed that the company was focusing strongly on
developing in house capabilities for manufacturing. Over the next five years, the
company forayed into the areas of petrol engine trucks and also started the production
of LCV. In 1967, the two wheel drive utility vehicles were introduced. This was
something that would eventually has been synonymous with the M&M brand.
Very soon the export of these products started to happen to countries like Yugoslavia
and Ceylon, Singapore and other regions in the Asia – Pacific (www.mahindra.com).
Several structural and functional changes were made effective in consonance to the
prevailing industrial trends of that time. Efficiency of operations came into focus.
The organizational structure became more centralized and the management style was
largely directive. The company declared a bonus issue in the ratio of 1:5 in 1967 for the
first time. Applying the lens model, we realize that given the criteria of a developing
industry, cost of importing technology, lot of scope in the rural market and
opportunities in developing markets worldwide, M&M responded by focusing on
creating an indigenous jeep, entering the farm equipment sector and exporting the
vehicles across the world (Brunswik Wolf, 2005).
This new direction helped in steering the organization into a structured form of
growth. New businesses and new ventures were started, and soon it became imperative
for delegation and decentralization of processes and production. Table IV shows the

Outcomes Year Description

JV with International Harvester Company and Voltas Ltd 1963 Manufacturing of tractors
Table III. Mahindra Ugine Steel Company (MUSCO) in collaboration 1962 Entry into the steel alloy
Outcomes of the with Ugine Kuhlmann, France business
direction phase Instrumentation and electronics division formed 1968 Engineering division
typical characteristics of this phase, which rests strongly on the solid foundation Business
created by the creativity phase. This means that the enterprise has to focus strongly strategy of
on value creation strategies to build sustainable competitive advantages (SCA).
A sustainable enterprise is one that contributes to development by delivering AFES
simultaneously economic, social and environmental benefits – the so-called triple bottom
line (Hart and Milstein, 2003).
They must increase collaboration and build synergies. For M&M, this phase 75
was full of activity where it showed strategies of intelligent diversification. This was
backed up by strong managerial foresight that was able to translate this risk fraught
expansion into such a resounding success that today the company is the largest tractor
company in the world by volumes. This era was thus, truly growth through direction.

6.3 Growth through delegation

Jeep was a huge success in India, and the company grew rapidly. In 1969, the company
began to export utility vehicles to Yugoslavia. In the 1970s exports of SUV’s to Africa
began. The growth to international markets was huge boost for M&M. As explained
earlier, a well thought out merger of M&M group and ITCI (International Harvester
collaboration) the tractor division came into being. Efforts on the side Government
of India brought out an approval for a technical collaboration with Peugeot, France for
the manufacture of XDP 4.90 diesel engine in 1979.
This phase was characterised by some restructuring and the formation of new
entities. These changes and partnership that emerged are captured in Table V.
Interestingly in these times, the company also entered into a collaboration agreement
with Foramer S.A., an associate of Forasol S.A., for purchase of Ile d’ Amsterdam, an
offshore drilling rig. All this was in spite of the licensing regime of India that had made
local innovation extremely difficult. The company at this juncture had also realized the
need to have a robust customer connect mechanism. The Great Escape event was started
sometime in the mid-1980s. What was meant to be a small get-together of Mahindra
vehicle owners for a day out on road, this event became an integral part of the M&M
culture.
This era was marked by restructuring and corporate governance set ups within
the organization. With the slow emergence of foreign players, it was imperative for
domestic players to enter into newer markets, foreign collaborations, etc. Applying lens

Typical phase characteristics M&M Features

Leveraging synergy Entering into the Farm Equipment Sector Table IV.
Cross-functional working Backward and forward product integration Direction phase
Market expansion Export to Asia Pacific commenced characteristics

Outcomes Year Description

First agricultural tractor launched 1982 Company became domestic leaders

Manufacturing Plants in Nashik and 1980 and 1983 Bed rock for the manufacturing
Igatpuri established base Table V.
Collaboration with Peugeot Automobiles 1987 Licence to manufacture vehicles Outcomes of the
acquired delegation phase
JSMA model, we realize that with greater opportunity in various segments, lack of
7,1 technology, emerging markets and new product streams, M&M responded by focusing
on developing new tractors, LCV’s, and two wheelers, collaborating with organizations
in France, Greece, South Africa, etc., developing new plants and exporting the vehicles
across the world.
The organization became more and more decentralized and geographical in its
76 structure. Management was highly delegative with different companies and collaborations
having their own turfs. Profit centres were created and controls were through various
MIS reports shared with the management. The dominant characteristics of this phase and
the occurrences in the group are presented in Table VI. Typically, this is the major
consolidation phase that shows characteristics like the emergence of reporting structures
and organizational methods as a distinct occurrence. This phase was characterised by
group cementing its organizational systems and processes towards a vision that was
to survive and yet somehow succeed in an increasingly competitive era. This era was thus
truly growth through delegation.

6.4 Growth through coordination

The 1990s saw the M&M diversifying into a large number of new business ventures
and many new companies were established. M&M made a stunning debut in the world
financial market through a maiden GDR issue of US $75 m. All these steps gave the
group confidence on a global scale. The Mahindra Steel Service Centre Limited was
formed in association with Mitsubishi Corporation and Nisho Iwai Corporation of
Japan. Mahindra Acres Consulting Engineers Ltd, a joint venture with Acres
International, Canada was set up. Mahindra Financial Services Limited as a wholesale
fund provider was established during this time.
A presence in the USA was built with Mahindra USA Inc for distribution of tractors
in the USA. Mahindra Ford India Limited – a joint venture with Ford Motor Company
USA, to manufacture passenger cars was set up during this time. A very important
change that happened in this phase was the emergence of world-class dedicated
leadership, which catapulted the group into realms of success. One of the reasons
why change processes fail is because companies underestimate the importance of the
individuals involved in the change and their interaction (Kotter, 1996). This phase was
characterised by the presence of dynamic leadership who were empowered to make
a remarkable difference. These changes and partnership that emerged are captured
in Table VII.
An opportunity in the holiday domain was identified as Mahindra Holidays &
Resorts India Limited, which till today has market leadership in providing best
holiday packages to families. Mahindra consulting (now Bristlecone) and Mahindra
United World College of India came into existence. Newer products like a range of
“commander” vehicles, diesel engine kits and different HP tractors were launched.
The AFES undertook to introduce a wide range of products such as mini bus, MM
Deluxe, Armada deluxe, Cabking pick-up, CL-Classic and a single/double Cab pick-up,

Typical phase characteristics M&M features

Table VI. Organizational methods Creation of profit centres

Delegation phase Matrix structures Restructuring for decentralization
characteristics Learning organization Internationalization and export growth
etc. The year 1994 witnessed a major restructuring exercise where the Group’s Business
businesses were reorganized into six strategic business units: automotive, farm strategy of
equipment, infrastructure, trade and financial services, information technology (earlier
known as telecom and software) and Systech (earlier known as MSAT). In 1995, AFES
Mahindra Realty & Infrastructure Developers Ltd was formed. Another big international
collaboration came with that of Mitsubishi of Japan and SAMCOR of South Africa was
formed to manufacture their L300 type of mini-vans in India. The company became the 77
first automobile manufacturer to get all the engine types approved for the new emission
norms effective from 1 April 1996.
In 1996, the company planned to enter the SUV segment with a new product which
could compete globally. Since it did not have the technical know-how to make a new
age product, they devised a whole new concept among Indian auto companies. Roping
in new executives who had worked in the auto industry in a global environment, the
company broke the rule that says automakers must design, engineer and test their own
vehicles.
M&M formed a 50:50 joint venture with Ford Motor Company (Mahindra Ford India
Ltd), USA in 1996 to manufacture passenger cars in India, but in 1998 the company
decided not to contribute further to the equity funding and let Ford Motor assume
complete control.
To bring about backward integration M&M set up a joint venture with Mondragon
Corporation of Spain in the area of iron foundry. On the product side, M&M also
entered into a 50:50 joint venture with a US-based organization for manufacturing high
horse power tractors. For the employees the organization was a world of opportunity.
M&M signed a wage agreement with its union at its automotive plant at Kandivali,
evolving a Mahindra Production System, which was an amalgamation of latest work
measurement techniques. M&M also signed new productivity agreements with its
workers at the Kandivali (Mumbai), Nashik and Zaheerabad (Andhra Pradesh) plants.
All of these management initiatives came at the right time to help the brand leverage
the opportunity for a liberalized nation.
This was an era of fast paced growth through various strategic initiatives. Increased
competition on the home turf as well as the growing acceptance of their products in the
foreign markets encouraged the group to upgrade their technological capabilities,
either through in-house R&D efforts or coordinate through other means of technology
acquisition (Timothy and Sturgeon, 2010). The liberalization of automotive industry
in early 1990s in tandem with country’s favourable macro-economic trends had
contributed to such a development (Automotive Mission Plan, 2006; Deloitte, 2009).

Outcomes Year Description

Mahindra Steel Service Centre Limited 1991 To gain share in the steel market
was formed in association with Mitsubishi
Corporation and Nisho Iwai Corporation
of Japan
Mahindra Financial Services Limited was 1992 Established as a wholesale fund provider
established to the consumer segment
Collaboration with Ford India Ltd 1995 To manufacture passenger cars Table VII.
Launch of new products by AFES 1995-2000 To establish a dominant position in the Outcomes of the
market co ordination phase
JSMA The entry of foreign firms into the industry had been further encouraged by the
7,1 advancements in India’s foreign investment and trade policies (Tiwari, 2009).
Applying Brunswik Wolf’s (2005) lens model, we realize that given the criteria
of a clear differentiation of segments, requirement of sophisticated expertise,
growing opportunities in LCV genre and international emphasis, M&M responded by
restricting the entire group, creating new businesses and divisions, getting industry
78 experts to lead key projects, ideating about the new SUV sector, and creating a
presence in USA.
The focus as can be seen was very much on the consolidation of the organization
with the group being redesigned under six SBU’s. Organizational structure was created
as per the different products and services. The top management was more about
monitoring that direct interference. Specific investment centres were created be it
in R&D or be it in product groups like two wheelers, etc. When an organization
experiences a change in the environment, it will adjust its strategy and structure to fit
with the new environmental conditions. Rightly, compensation systems should in turn
be adjusted to support the changes in strategy and structure of the firm (Balkin and
Montemayor, 2000). Management reward was more in line with profit sharing. Concept
of performance pay came into being during this phase. Table VIII depicts the dominant
characteristics of this phase. We see initial change management process revolving
around synergy generation and engagement. This phase in a sense laid the foundation
for the profound growth that the group was to see later on.

6.5 Growth through collaboration

From 2000 to 2010, M&M accelerated its growth path exponentially. It became a big
name not just in Asia but globally. Mahindra Auto Specialists Ltd, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company delivered the first Neticle (net-vehicle) – brand named
Quadro – in India. The company launched its new generation tractors Arjun 605 DI at
the Kandivali plant. All these provided the company a name in the market as an
organization that had successfully understood how to reinvent itself. The time had
now come to rebuild a large brand both in terms of volumes and financial strength.
The changes, partnerships and new ventures that emerged are captured in Table IX.

Typical phase characteristics M&M features

Table VIII. Synergy development Business restructuring for increased co operation

Coordination phase Employee engagement Employees seeing a world of possibilities
characteristics Effective reorganization The group separated into six strategic business units

Outcomes Year Description

Collaboration with Renault of France 2000 To establish a position in

passenger vehicles
Launch of Bolero and Scorpio 2000-2002 Two widely successful vehicles
Table IX. Entry into China in partnership with Jiangling 2005 To gain access for the farm
Outcomes of the Motors equipment sector to new markets
collaboration phase Partnerships in Navistar International 2006 To enter bus and truck space
The company and French car maker Renault signed an agreement to explore the Business
possibility of using Renault petrol engines for M&M’s planned Scorpio utility vehicle. strategy of
This was the phase of expansive growth but it retained a focus on aligning all the
different businesses under the larger umbrella of the brand. The sector launched AFES
Bolero – a utility vehicle – as a response to the needs of the urban customer. The value-
for-money Bhoomiputra range of tractors was launched and billed as “The smart
farmer’s choice”. This was a strategic move towards expanding the brands portfolio in 79
the market.
In 2001, a new era of change, innovation and transformation was brought in with
change of leadership at the helm. The group made rapid growths in various areas, it
diversified, restructured and emerged stronger than ever before. M&M expanded into
new industries and geographies and became known for its world-class practices, good
corporate governance, etc. This can easily be classified as the golden era of the group
(Heike Bruch, 2005). The organization tied up with French auto giant Renault for
sourcing petrol engines for its premium utility vehicle Scorpio, which was scheduled
to get launched in a short while from then. In 2002, the group decided to go for an
expansion, keeping pace with its plans for the introduction of new models, including
the Scorpio. The execution of this was the biggest challenge facing the organization.
The new Mahindra Scorpio SUV had all of its major systems designed directly by
suppliers with the only input from M&M being design, performance specifications
and programme cost. Design and engineering of systems was done by suppliers, as
was testing, validation and materials selection. Sourcing and engineering locations
were also chosen by suppliers. The parts were later assembled in a plant under the
Mahindra Badge. Using this method, the company was able to build from a scratch, a
new vehicle with virtually 100 per cent supplier involvement from concept to reality for
Rs 600 crores ($120 m), including improvements to the plant. The project took five
years to move from concept to final product. The Scorpio became a huge success story
and continues to be one of the most popular SUVs in India.
In 2004, latest variants of Bolero XL came in thus heralding its launch. New HR
initiatives like innovation matrix to enhance performance were started. M&M tied up
with an Iran-based company Barchinkar for localizing M&M tractors in the Iran
market. Mahindra Tractors in partnership with Castrol rolled out India’s first turbo
tractor. With this product the company was poised to enter into the global market.
M&M signed a MoU to enter into a JV agreement with Jiangling Motor Co Group
(JMCG) of China. M&M tractors’ top dealer in the USA has become the largest tractor
dealer in the USA, muscling past dealers of John Deer, New Holland and Kubota in
2005. M&M forayed into Australian tractor market on 14 February 2005. In the past,
multinational firms either exported parts to offshore affiliates or relied on local suppliers
in each location, but today global suppliers have emerged in a range of industries,
including motor vehicles (Timothy and Sturgeon, 2010).
To get access to newer frontiers, in 2005, the company acquired the tractor
manufacturing assets of Jiangling Tractors Company, a subsidiary of JMCG of China,
and together formed the Mahindra (China) Tractor Company with an 80 per cent stake
in the joint venture.
In 2007, M& M signed a deal to acquire 43.3 per cent stake in Punjab Tractors Ltd at
a price of Rs 360 per share. On 1 November 2007, a wholly owned affiliate of Navistar
International Corporation (other OTC: NAVZ), signed a joint venture agreement with
M&M to produce diesel engines for medium and heavy commercial trucks and buses in
India. The joint venture is to be named Mahindra International Engines Ltd.
JSMA Concurrently the organization was also making inroads carefully in other sunrise
7,1 sectors. One such was the defence sector. The latest product from Mahindra Defence
Systems, the Axe FAV was an extreme off roading multi terrain defence purpose
vehicle. In 2008, M&M also acquired renowned GRD, an Italian auto designing, body
engineering and feasibility and styling company based out of Turin, Italy.
It was the time for a new product launch, a much waited addition to the vehicle
80 portfolio. The Mahindra Xylo, a multi-utility vehicle designed and manufactured by
M&M was launched in 2009. The project, which initially had the codename of Ingenio,
was announced by the company in 2006 and targeted both the Toyota Innova and
Chevrolet Tavera.
Applying the lens model, we realize that given the criteria of a requirement of
specialized vehicles and greater range, international demand and greater costs, M&M
responded by focusing on developing new range of tractors like Bhoomiputra, new
vehicles like Bolero, Scorpio and Xylo, expanding in Iran, L. America, Australia, etc.
and entering into international JV’s like JMCG of China (Brunswik Wolf, 2005).
Table X above shows that this is the era wherein the group collaborated and
strengthened partnership with various groups, worldwide to build reach, network,
customer base and stakeholder base. The management styles facilitated a global
resurgence of the group. Innovation flourished, cross-functional teams came into vogue
and management style was participative with mutual goal setting procedures in place.
This was completely in sync with the growth through collaboration phase in the group
(Greiner, 1998).

6.6 Growth through alliances

Growth through collaboration prepared the solid foundation for alliances, determined
the trends and identified leading partners and the alliance phase developed the break
through. This phase was in consonance with creating break through at 3 m (Van Hippel
et al., 1999). In a very bold move in April 2010, M&M had bought out Renault’s 49
per cent in the Mahindra Renault joint venture. The new agreement gave M&M more
flexibility in engineering the car to suit the needs of the Indian consumer. The Logan
was marketed with the Mahindra-Renault logo until the end of March 2011 and then
rebranded as Verito.
With increasing confidence in its acquisition capacities, M&M continued its victory
march by coming out as the ideal bidder for getting hold of a majority stake in
Ssangyong Motor Company. Ssangyong Motor Company is the fourth largest
South Korean automobile manufacturer. The name Ssangyong means double dragons.
Ssangyong was acquired by M&M in February 2011 after being named the preferred
bidder in 2010 to acquire the bankruptcy-protected company. The changes,
partnerships and new ventures that emerged during this phase presented in Table XI.
This was the time that M&M acquired REVA also. Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles
Private Limited, formerly known as the Reva Electric Car Company, is an Indian
company based in Bangalore, involved in designing and manufacturing of compact

Typical phase characteristics M&M features

Table X. Risk appetite Measured risk taking approach for new forays
Collaboration phase Leveraging synergy Launch of new products for increasing market share
characteristics External partnerships Development of an extensive vendor base
electric vehicles. The company’s flagship electric vehicle REVA is the world’s best Business
selling electric vehicle so far. It is currently the world’s largest operational example of a strategy of
plant specially dedicated to the assembly of battery electric vehicles.
This has been an era of fast paced structured exponential growth through AFES
innovation and lateral solutions. This group has increased its brand equity, revenues
and visibility both in India and globally such that it is now viewed as one of the best
brands to work with in India and the group has an aspiration to be amongst the top 50 81
global brands.
In order to further the cause of innovation led growth the group recently unfurled
new brand positioning – Rise. The latter represents a new chapter in the history of this
iconic 65-year-old brand and seeks to communicate the new face of this diversified
federation of companies with its increasingly global ambitions (Independent Media
Institute, 2005).
Applying the lens model, we realize that given the criteria of a need for
transformation, sustainability, greater flexibility in decision making and greater
collaboration and setting world-class standards, M&M responded by focusing on a
brand-related transformation like Rise, acquiring REVA buying out the stake in the
JV with Nissan and entering into deliberation with Ssangyong Motor Company and
launching SUV500 (Brunswik Wolf, 2005).
Table XII shows that this phase is characterized by looking outward rather than
inward. For M&M as a group forming alliance was nothing new, but now they fine
tuned their strategy going further. It was the time when the world was the playing field
for the organization. Be it the call to Rise, a group wide transformation to change with
changing times or be it the bold acquisition of Ssangyong or the launch of XUV500,
now the group as a whole went ahead with great fervour to create mightier
partnerships and take bolder risks. New markets were explored e.g. Ecuador and
new limits were set only to be broken, time and again. The group as a whole looked
outside for greater partnerships in a way creating a network organization composed of
alliances and cross ownership in line with the Greiner curve.

7. Concluding remarks
M&M initially went through its share of learning and grew through pragmatic and,
orchestrated entrepreneurial risk. The group made a very successful transition from a

Outcomes Year Description

Acquisition of Ssangyong Motor 2011 Step to gain an international footing

Company, South Korea Table XI.
Acquisition of REVA Electric 2011 To gain entry into the electric vehicle segment Outcomes of the
The launch of the Rise rebranding 2011 To establish a new brand proposition alliance phase

Typical phase characteristics M&M features

Business integration Forward and backward business chain extension Table XII.
Mergers and acquisitions focus A series of partnerships both national and international Alliance phase
Organization rebranding The roll out of the Rise philosophy characteristics
JSMA proprietorship model to a professionally managed group. With new entrepreneurs
7,1 at the helm, focus was on “make and sell” with informal relationships binding
the company together as is expected during the growth through creativity phase. In the
next phase, with a strong leadership and management in place, M&M consolidated its
position as a pioneering automobile manufacturer in India. Efficiency of operations,
formal channels of communication and separate functions and processes were focused
82 upon. New ventures were started creating the needs for delegation. This era was
thus truly growth through direction. Growth further continued with the previously
isolated business units re-organized into product groups or service practices. With
restructuring and corporate governance setups within the organization, expansion of
market was the management focus. Different companies and collaborations had their
own turfs. This era was thus truly growth through delegation. What followed was fast
paced growth via various strategic initiatives. The focus was on the consolidation
of the organization with the group being redesigned under six SBU’s and thus,
information passing and synchronizing became important. Thus, this was truly an
era of growth through coordination in the group. Then came an era wherein the
group collaborated with organizations worldwide to build a collaboration network.
This was completely in synchronous with the growth through collaboration phase,
and currently M&M as a group itself is looking outwards. Their bold acquisition of
Ssyangyong is a true sign of creating partnerships and cross ownership in line with
the Greiner curve.
One can conclude that content, structure and governance are three strategic design
elements that can characterise M&M business growth strategy. M&M’s strategic
business model innovation consisted of adding new activities, linking activities in
novel ways such as direction, delegation, collaboration and alliances. However, all the
ways were complementary to each other to take competitive advantage. Finally to
draw a perspective, we can say that the AFES of the group is one of the key constituents.
This group is currently in the growth through collaboration stage in the Greiner model.
Further growth can come by developing partnerships with complementary organizations
and this is already happening in the group. This paper has given evidence to earlier
findings that state that the leadership and management of a strategic change are
necessary for making the right change, at the right time (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich et al., 1999).
Farias and Johnson (2000) stated that only about 50 percent of all large-scale change
interventions are successful. It is an endeavour of this group throughout the history to
make all interventions successful. Finally, challenge-led collaboration-driven approach
represents a new type of innovation process that contrasts with other methods of
business development and provides a sharper focus for managerial or technical
issues and brings together stakeholders with diverse interests, expertise and
perspectives. Collaborations they support are making the boundaries of group even
more porous and vibrant to address specific challenges. Many ideas in business history
research have been linked to helping in the process of creating and maintaining SCA.
The group has attained SCA over time by adhering to technological innovation,
customer value creation, relationship marketing and business networks. There are a few
critical success factors when installing and running a challenge-led collaboration
innovation process within M&M they are: a focus on opportunities of high value,
active commitment of top management – through visible leadership and use of the
process by senior management, building techniques into business processes, developing
innovation as a core skill in all managers and rewarding people for sharing ideas
and knowledge.
 The study reveals some interesting points. They are as follows: Business
. M&M strategy is to be the low-cost provider of utility vehicles and farm strategy of
equipment. AFES
. M&M is pursuing a global strategy.
. M&M strategy is to integrate a set of global acquisitions.
. M&M strategy is to provide unrivaled customer service. 83
. M&M strategic intent is to always be the first mover in auto products.
. M&M strategy is to move from traditional business models to innovative
business models.
We could derive that M&M’s business strategy has four major interlinked value drives:
novelty, lock-in, complementarities and efficiency. This is in line with the creating value
through business model innovation (Amit and Zott, 2012). Our rationale for presenting
information on
M&M life cycle is not just to point out typical characteristics but also to help
organizations learn how to address these challenges and anticipate future problems.
There are some limitations in our study. Limitation of the stage model is that the
estimated length of the time the organizations will stay in a phase is not mentioned
(Cameron, 1983). Also, it is usually unclear whether passage through all stages is
necessary; or whether, in some circumstances, one or more stages may be omitted,
and if variations in sequencing can occur (McMahon, 1998). The life-cycle literature
suggests that organizations evolve in a consistent and predictable manner (Steven
and Hanks, 1993). Therefore, using a stage model by itself has certain limitations.
M&M as a group of companies underwent enormous changes and many units
and verticals were created, merged and singled out at various points in time. The data
for the initial years was not available in primary form and we had to depend entirely
on the secondary sources. To actually find out the history and growth of each sector
and each company was a key limitation. Every organization is unique, in terms of
where it came from and where it is headed to. A careful study and an insider’s view
can provide valuable insights into understanding the dynamics of how these
organizations cope with both the positive and negative aspects of organizational
change (Mack and Quick, 2002). However, a large number of automobile
manufacturing companies (both Indian and foreign) have evolved over in the recent
years at an impressive speed, showing rapid transitions in terms of both product
features and manufacturers’ competitive dynamics. The global automobile industry
is facing dramatic changes. Rapidly changing market dynamics, such as increasing
market penetration, intense cost competition, rapidly shrinking product life cycles
due to style changes and product customization, have continuously shaped the M&M
over time.
References
Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2012), “Creating value through business model innovation”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 41-49.
Automotive Mission Plan (2006), “Ministry of heavy industries & public enterprises, goverment
of India”, available at: wwwsiamindia.com/upload/AMP.pdf (accessed July 15, 2012).
Baird, L. and Meshoulam, I. (1988), “Managing two first of strategic H.R.M”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 116-128.
JSMA Balkin, D.B. and Montemayor, E.F. (2000), “Explaining team-based pay: a contingency perspective
based on the organizational life cycle, team design, and organizational learning literatures”,
7,1 Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. (1962), Formal Organisations: A Comparative Approach, Chandler,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 194-221.
Block, Z. and MacMillan, I.C. (1993), Corporate Venturing: Create a New Businesses Within the
84 Firm, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 194-221.
Bruch, H. (2000), “Lufthansa: maintaining the change mmomentum”, Case Study at the London
Business School, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 344-363.
Bruch, H. and Ghoshal, S. (2004a), A Bias for Action: How Effective Managers Harness Their
Willpower, Achieve Results and Stop Wasting Time, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA, p. 212.
Bruch, H. and Ghoshal, S. (2004b), “The bold, decisive manager: cultivating a company of action-
takers”, Ivey Business Journal, July-August, pp. 1-6.
Brunswik Wolf (2005), “Brunswik’s original lens model”, available at: www.brunswik.org/notes/
Brunswik Wolf OriginalLens2005.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).
Cameron, R.E. (1983), “Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: some
preliminary evidence”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Chandler, A.D. Jr (1980), “The growth of the transnational industrial firm in the United States and
the United Kingdom: a comparative analysis”, Economic History Review, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 396-410.
Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V. (1983), “The five stages of small business growth”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 61, May, pp. 30-50.
Darwin, C. (1936), The Origin of Species, Modern Library, New York, NY, pp. 1-15.
Deloitte (2009), “Automobile industry updates”, available at: www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom
India/Local%20Assets/Documents/Automobile%20Industry%20Updates%20-%20July%
202009.pdf (accessed July 15, 2012).
Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Farias, G. and Johnson, H. (2000), “Organizational development and change management: setting
the record straight”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 376-379.
Flynn, D. and Forman, A.M. (2001), “Life cycles of new venture organizations: different factors
affecting performance”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Ghauri, P.N. and Gronhaug, K. (2002), Research Methodology, Prentice Hall (Essex), London,
pp. 1-25.
Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M. and Donnelly, J.H. (1994), Jr. Organizations: Behavior, Structure,
Processes, Professional Publishing Richard D. Irwin, pp. 166-170.
Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990), “Multiparadigm perspectives in theory building”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 584-602.
Grant, M.R. (2005), “Eastman Kodak: meeting the digital challenge”, in Grant, M.R. (Ed.), Cases to
Accompany Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 93-116.
Greiner, L.E. (1972), “Evolution and revolutions as organizations grow”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 37-46.
Greiner, L.E. (1998), “Evolution and revolution as organizations grow”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Gupta, Y.P. and Chin, D.C.W. (1994), “Organizational life cycle: a review and proposed directions
for research”, The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 269-294.
Hart, S.L. and Milstein, M.B. (2003), “Creating sustainable value”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 56-68.
Heike Bruch, P.G. (2005), “Strategic change decisions:doing the right change right”, Journal of Business
Change Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 97-107.
strategy of
Ichak, A. (1979), “Organizational passages: diagonising and treating life cycle problems in
organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 3-25. AFES
Independent Media Institute (2005), “Communications capacity building throughout the
organizational life cycle”, available at: www.spinproject.org,info@spinproject.org
(accessed July 1, 2012). 85
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, p. 187.
Lepak, D.P., Smith, K.G. and Taylor, M.S. (2007), “Value creation and value capture:
a multilevelperspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 180-194.
Logsdon, J.M. (1991), “Interests and interdependence in the formation of problem -solving
collaborations”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 65-70.
McMahon, R.G.P. (1998), “Stage models of sme growth reconsidered”, Research Paper Series:
98-5, School of Commerce, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Mack, D.A. and Quick, J.C. (2002), “An inside view of a corporate life cycle transition”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 282-293.
Miller, D., Eisenstat, R. and Foote, N. (2002), “Strategy from the inside out: building capability-
creating organizations”, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 37-54.
Milliman, J., Von Glinow, M.A. and Nathan, N. (1991), “Organizational life cycles and strategic
international human resource management in multinational companies: implications for
congruence theory”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 318-339.
Mohanty, R.P. (1999), “Value innovation perspective in indian organizations, participation and
empowerment”, An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 1-13.
Mumford, M.D. (2003), “Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity
research”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Quinn, R. and Cameron, K. (1983), “Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness:
some preliminary evidence”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Schuler, R.S. (1987), “Personnel and human resource management choices and organizational
strategy”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1980), Theory of Economic Development, Transaction Publishers, London,
p. 137.
Steven, H. and Hanks, C.J. (1993), “Tightening the life-cycle construct: a taxonomic study of
growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations”, Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 5-29.
Timothy, J. and Sturgeon, J.V. (2010), “Effects of the crisis on the automotive industry in
developing countries”, policy research working paper, The World Bank, Geneva, pp. 1-29.
Tiwari, R. (2009), “India’s long march to a global auto major: a study of government influence on
industry development in the post-independence era”, available at: www.globalinnovation.
net/publications/PDF/Study_Indian_Auto_Industry_Long_march.pdf (accessed July 15, 2012).
Ulrich, D.O. (1997), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and
Delivering Results, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 1-20.
Ulrich, D.O., Zenger, J. and Smallwood, N. (1999), Result-Based Leadership. How Leaders Build the
Business and Improve the Bottom Line, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1989), “Explaining development and change in organiizations”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 510-540.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Garud, R. (1993), “Innovation and industry development: the case of
cochlear implants”, in Burgelman, R. and Rosenbloom, R. (Eds), Research on Technological
Innovation, Management and Policy, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-46.
JSMA Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1988), “Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational
change”, in Quinn, R. and Cameron, K. (Eds), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a
7,1 Theory of Change in Organization and Management, Harper Collins, New York, NY,
pp. 19-80.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995), “Explaining development and change in organizations”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 510-540.
86 Van de Ven, A.H., Angle, H.L. and Poole, M.S. (1989), Research on the Management of Innovation:
The Minnesota Studies, Ballinger/Harper & Row, New York, NY, pp. 135-170.
Van Hippel, E., Thinke, S. and Sonnack, M. (1999), “Creating breakthroughs at 3M”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 3-9.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research Design & Methods, Applied Social Research Methods, Vol. 5
International Educational and Professional Publisher, Thousand Oaks, London,
New Delhi, pp. 1-94.
Zott, C. and Amit, R. (2008), “The fit between product strategy and business model: implications
for firm performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-26.

Further reading
Othman, R. and Sheeman, N.T. (2011), “Value creation logics and resource management:
a review”, Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-24.

Corresponding author
Dr Rajendra Prasad Mohanty can be contacted at: rpmohanty@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats