Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Recent statements by the Head of an Indian multinational company operating in over 50 countries worldwide has reignited debates around work life balance and provided fodder for rib tickling memes. On the one hand it has touched a raw nerve and on the other it has tickled a funny bone. That the 90-hour work week is a preposterous concept requires no further deliberation. A lot of print has been expended on a similar topic ever since the Chairman Emeritus of a large Indian multinational technology company waxed eloquent on the requirement of a 70-hour work week. It would be pertinent to note that the US based wealthiest individual in the world had proposed an 80-hour work week and a Chinese billionaire business magnate had proposed a 996 model i.e working from 9 to 9, 6 days in a week. But this article is not about the pros and cons of these statements by N R Narayanamurthy, Elon Musk or Jack Ma. This is about the statements that followed and choice of words used to build a case for the 90-hour work week. Sadly, this isn’t receiving the gravitas that it deserves. Corporate honchos, movie stars and other celebrities have over the weekend voiced angst at the slave driving mentality and some of them have used the opportunity to profess their devotion to their spouses and posted selfies. All these are par for the course but the larger issue remains on the periphery.
In addition to the absurd proposition pertaining to unimaginable working hours, the supporting statements questioning what the employees would do with their free time and how much time they would spend with their spouse reeks of parochialism and misogyny and is most certainly sexist and an intrusion into personal space. These are the larger issues which need to be addressed – that line on working hours could be forgiven as a flight of fancy. Had these been uttered by someone lower in the hierarchy it would have probably attracted mild admonishments, when this flows from the top of the pyramid it should be unpardonable.
In 2017, during an all staff meeting at Uber about reforming the company’s work culture, venture capitalist David Bonderman interrupted fellow board member Arianna Huffington with a remark that was sexist. In response to Huffington’s statement that data shows that when a company had one woman on its board, it was more likely to have a second, he quipped “Actually, what it shows is that it’s much more likely to be more talking”. Subsequently Bonderman sent an email apologizing for his disrespectful comment. Later he put out a statement acknowledging that his comment was “careless, inappropriate and inexcusable” and went on to resign – stating that he had to hold himself to the same standards that he was asking the company to adopt. This came in the midst of efforts by Uber to reform their corporate culture.
In 2021, Yoshiro Mori – former Japanese Prime Minister and then head of Tokyo 2020 Olympics resigned after sexist comments he had made behind closed doors made its way into the public domain and sparked outrage. Mori’s remark that went viral was that “Board meetings with lots of women take longer. Women are competitive – if one member raises their hand to speak, others might think they need to talk too”. This occurred in the midst of Japan racing to host the Olympics that had been delayed on account of Covid 19.
In our country, such statements are uttered casually and evoke guffaws generally by folks much above the average age of the workforce. Politicians make statements which sound even worse. The extent of normalization of such comments is one of the reasons why the headline statement of long working hours attracted the bulk of our attention while our eyebrows did not collectively rise for the misogynist statements. However, that is no excuse for the head of one of our large, corporate, publicly listed entities to stay silent amidst the brouhaha. Statements by the Head of HR (Domestic Operations) of L&T that the words have been taken out of context leading to misunderstandings and unnecessary criticism, appear to be efforts towards whitewashing the issue. The rest of the clarification focusses on highlighting the visionary qualities of their MD& Chairman and casts him as a leader who genuinely cares for his team’s well-being.
In balance, it would be in order for us to grant him the benefit of doubt. Equally, it would be a significant step forward towards enhancing corporate culture if he could express one word – Sorry – and get on with life. The nation has utmost respect for this nation-builder institution, acknowledging the chink will only make it taller in our eyes.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint