Family businesses are curious beasts. They begin with a patriarch’s sweat and vision, then morph into dynasties that either implode under the weight of entitlement or soar into the stratosphere of global capitalism.
Today, we explore two families who have left indelible marks on industry: the Quandt family of Germany, which is the majority owner of the luxury car brand BMW, and the Tatas of India.
BMW’s story begins in 1916, born from aircraft engine makers Rapp Motorenwerke and Gustav Otto’s Flugmaschinenfabrik. The company thrived in aviation during World War I, but the Treaty of Versailles clipped its wings, forcing BMW to pivot to motorcycles in the 1920s and cars in the 1930s.
The war years were darker: BMW produced aircraft engines for the Nazi regime, a legacy that still haunts its reputation. After 1945, Allied restrictions left BMW crippled, its factories bombed, and its future uncertain.
By the 1950s, BMW was struggling to find its footing. Its luxury sedans were too expensive, its microcars too quirky, and losses mounted. By 1959, Daimler-Benz was poised to swallow BMW whole.
And then came Herbert Quandt, who refused to let BMW vanish into the embrace of Mercedes. Already an existing shareholder, Herbert increased his stake, restructured finances, and set BMW on the road to becoming a global powerhouse.
Fast forward to today: Herbert’s children, Stefan Quandt and Susanne Klatten, own nearly half of BMW. Stefan holds about 23.6 percent and currently serves as Deputy Chairman of BMW’s supervisory board, a role he has held since 1999 after joining the board in 1997.
Susanne, with 19.1 percent, is Germany’s richest woman, diversifying into pharmaceuticals and advanced materials while anchoring her influence at BMW as a board director since 1997.
Now let’s pivot to India. Jamsetji Tata founded Tata Sons in 1868. His successors over the years have included his two sons, Dorabji and Ratanji Tata, followed by his nephew J.R.D. Tata, who led the business for an astonishing 53 years from 1938 to 1991.
Under J.R.D.’s stewardship, Tata expanded into airlines, steel, chemicals, and IT, embedding Tata into the fabric of modern India.
Jamsetji’s great grandson, Ratan Naval Tata, took over after J.R.D. and led the business for 21 years (1991–2012). Ratan modernised Tata, globalised its operations, and orchestrated acquisitions like Jaguar Land Rover and Tetley Tea.
It is notable that Ratan came from an adopted line of the Tata family: his father, Naval Tata, was adopted by the widow of founder Jamsetji’s son, Sir Ratan Tata.
This detail underscores that Tata leadership was guided more by values and stewardship than by strict hereditary bloodlines. That’s five family members in direct leadership across more than 150 years.
But the transition to non-family members was not without its fair share of Bollywood drama. Before his appointment as the first non-Tata family chairman in 2012, Cyrus Mistry had already been part of Tata Sons’ inner circle.
In 2006, he joined the Board of Tata Sons as a director, representing the interests of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, which is the single largest non-trust shareholder in Tata Sons (owning about 18 percent).
This board seat gave Mistry a front-row view of Tata’s governance and strategic decisions for six years before he ascended to the chairmanship. His presence was not incidental: it reflected the delicate balance between Tata Trusts’ majority control and the Pallonji family’s significant minority stake.
When Ratan Tata retired in 2012, Mistry’s board experience and shareholder backing made him the natural choice for succession, at least until the relationship soured.
But by 2016, the honeymoon was over. Mistry was abruptly ousted as chairman, sparking one of India’s most high-profile corporate governance battles.
Mistry revealed what he described as inordinate influence from the family trusts that collectively owned 66 percent of Tata Sons. He argued that the trusts exercised disproportionate influence, undermining board independence and accusing the board of opaque decision-making, particularly around legacy projects and debt-laden acquisitions.
His dismissal led to years of litigation, with India’s Supreme Court eventually upholding Tata Sons’ decision to remove him.
The saga unfortunately exposed fissures in Tata’s governance model, raising questions about how a trust-controlled conglomerate balances philanthropy with modern corporate accountability. It reminds us that even philanthropy-anchored governance can stumble when trust structures collide with boardroom realities.
So, what do we learn from this tale of two dynasties? The Quandts exemplify the classic European model: family ownership, professional management and wealth preserved for heirs. The Tatas flipped the script: family leadership for a few generations, then a deliberate handover to professionals, with ownership vested in trusts that serve society.
One family saved a car company. The other built a conglomerate that doubles as a philanthropic machine. Both models work, but they reveal different cultural priorities: wealth preservation versus a legacy of impact.
Carol Musyoka is a former banker and is currently a corporate governance specialist.
Unlock a world of exclusive content today!Unlock a world of exclusive content today!
