Most family businesses do not survive beyond two or three generations. One of the main reasons for the short life span of family businesses is due to the lack of governance mechanisms in the family. With better family governance, business development becomes a more enjoyable journey and ensures continuity of the business across generations. This case is about an Indian family business, GMR Group, which was established a quarter century ago, and by 2010 became one of the major diversified infrastructure organizations in the country with large-scale interests in infrastructure (energy, roads and airports) and manufacturing (agri-business, mainly sugar). Since its founding, the Group has come a long way, from an independent proprietary enterprise to a family-owned holding corporation with several companies under its control, along with external stakeholders. The growth of the group has been led by the entrepreneurial zeal and organizational capabilities of its founder G.M Rao. Having seen many family businesses breaking up for want of adequate governance mechanisms, Rao led the way for the writing of his family's constitution with the help of several experts. The entire family spent many hours, and after several rounds of iteration created and signed a constitution in 2007. The writing process of the constitution, and the policies and processes developed were optimal for maximizing GMR's performance and the family's well-being in current and future generations. The case captures the essential processes and output of writing a family constitution.

There are not many families in the world that can claim continuity of existence for over 76 generations in either business or otherwise. Families that manage such a feat tend to have strong roots of values and culture that are in line with the basic principles of trusteeship - to preserve and grow wealth (both material and spiritual) for the benefit of future generations. This case is based on the history of and current challenges faced by such a family, the Mewar dynasty from India.

Most family businesses do not last for long. Only one third are able to survive the transition from first to second generation. A critical issue in the perpetuation of family businesses is the management of succession. Most successions primarily fail because the first generation founders find it difficult to let go or disengage from the business as they approach the age of retirement. As a result, they fail to prepare the next generation of successors for the leadership role. The founders often fail to plan for succession due to a number of different reasons such as a lack of other interests outside of work, psychological identity with the firm, and fears of aging or death. Due to these reasons, the founder's retirement from the business is frequently portrayed as a negative event. Succession, in turn, is often seen as a phase of crisis and upheaval, which a business must overcome. However, this need not necessarily be the case. Retirement could provide a new, even more exciting, phase of life, while succession could be viewed as a strategic opportunity to revive the business. This case involves an accomplished business leader, B.K. Jhawar (BK), founder of Usha Martin Group (UMG), who successfully managed the twin challenges of retirement and succession. By the time he reached the age of retirement, BK had built up a social venture (KGVK) as his second and endless career option. Before completely disengaging from the business and transitioning to his new role full time, BK prepared the second generation for business leadership and effectively passed on the baton.

The case is woven around the decision dilemma faced by the second generation managing director of Ujwal Bharati Pharmaceuticals, a mid-size business. He had to decide whether to retain his non-family CEO or not. There are other issues related to corporate and family governance covered in the case as well. This case was written in the context of the major efforts made by Indian family businesses in recent years to professionalize their operations. This is particularly so among mid-size businesses. In this case, while the director appreciates the need to professionalize and successfully recruit non-family professionals, he is not able to retain them. The director's major dilemma is not only to delegate but to simultaneously find a way of making use of his time. Indirect opposition to changes from the old guard causes problems and the board, consisting of professionals, is ineffective. The director's elder brother, without any male heir, is non-interfering and the director's only son is not well-groomed for the position. The case is best suited for a session on professionalization of management of a growing company but is also appropriate for courses such as family businesses, organizational behavior, strategy implementation and entrepreneurship.

This case presents the management challenge of a high-growth manufacturing company based in India that is contemplating a major international acquisition. It is a decision that will invoke both geographic and product diversification. Students have to grapple with the trade-offs of an exciting growth opportunity that can stretch the company to new heights against significant risks and challenges that such an acquisition would entail. The case also provides an excellent context for studying the evolution of international strategy in a firm, as it presents Havells from an entrepreneurial startup trading company to a successful manufacturing firm and going on to become a global company. The case will fit well in a strategic manufacturing class, either on the topic of diversification strategy or international strategy. The decision is reasonably complex and allows the instructor to take the class through an in-depth analysis. Given the short length of the case, it can be used effectively in executive education class. The case can serve very well as a final examination case in a strategic management course.