BW Communities

Analysis: Look Inward To Grow

BW Online Bureau Nov 08, 2014

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root available-locales="en_US," default-locale="en_US"><static-content language-id="en_US"><![CDATA[Do employees have the right to sue companies they work in? This routinely happens in public sector and government organisations, especially with regard to promotions and recruitments; but in case of private sector organisations this is an anomaly. The students in a business school and their human resource (HR) faculty are surprised as in private sector, (employing maximum B-school graduates), exit option is the preferred tactic of employees when things get uncomfortable in the company. It is also paradoxical that "to sue" is seen as an act of aggressiveness on part of employee (traditional-feudal mindset); and perceptions like CEO cannot apologise because of fear of being rated as incompetent exist among educated elite in India today. What is the prescription of Vedas in such a situation? In ancient India the praja could, and was expected to go up to king and demand justice (sue!) for reddressal of grievances. By this count, the company owes an explanation to Parmeet to keep him motivated. At a practical level the "O" downgraded "ME" category of individuals can be treated by HR as a special category of valuable human resource to be placed (promoted) to positions that do "matter" in the larger scheme of things. But these are not long-term solutions; for if the king (organisational leadership) is not worthy, then supplicant will suffer even more if he complains. In Parmeet's case too, he could make matters difficult for himself if he sues. If the decision goes against the organisation, he would definitely jeopardise his goodwill with seniors. The scriptural ideal of Vedas is inward looking "anatarmukhi" — a more sustainable approach to deal with predicaments of life. Parmeet should reflect on his attitude towards work, and must realise that it is the duty of a person to work and not the reward thereof (Karmanevadhikaraste ma phalesu kadachan, ma karmaphalhetubhurma te sadhogastavakarmani; BG 2:47). When concentration is single-pointed, not distracted by anxiety about rewards, there is enthusiasm and determination to work wholeheartedly, and this is yoga. When work becomes yoga, there are psycho-spiritual benefits that are therapeutic and evolutionary in nature to be gained by an individual. According to svabhava- guna theory of Gita: individuals endowed with satwic guna (qualities) as opposed to rajasic and tamasic guna tend to transform work to yoga. But Parmeet has dominant rajasic guna: being self centred, driven by fruits of action and satisfied only with those rewards that appeal to ego and senses. He would in life buffet like a football between happiness and sorrow depending what is meted by others to him. (Ragi-karmaphala prepsur lubhdo himsatmako sucih, harsa sokanvitah, karta rajasah parikritita; BG 18:27). Parmeet is also displaying tamasic guna by being attached to just one single effect of his work (appraisal-reappraisal) as if this was the whole purpose of work that he had done (Yat - tu krtsanavad- ekasmin- karaye saktamana- haitukam; BG 18:22). Does this mean that Parmeet should not have protested? According to Vedanta philosophy, one should protest only when motives driving it are satwic and aligned with existing work ethics (lokachara). The Pandavas bore 12 years of banishment to forest life after losing the dice game — even though they were sure Duryodhana and his coterie had cheated them. Initially, they didn't fight with Duryodhana and decided to do so only when Duryodhana refused to return the kingdom to the Pandavas after successful completion of penalty clause. Had Pandavas chosen to fight just on assumption of cheating, they would have gone against the prevailing ethics of the game? By not accepting the company's verdict, Parmeet is refusing to accept the appraisal system (rules of the game) to which he is bound after signing the employment contract. But what should the organisation do. The Vedas are clear that in ordering of hierarchies, entities which are higher must be more evolved than those below them. Thus people in the role of appraisers within the organisation must like Parmeet (appraisee) also go inwards, reflect bring about correction at several levels. First, it should frame properly the communication with employees about purpose of performance appraisal. It must raise morale of employees who were told their work did not matter in larger scheme of things even when they were good at what they were doing. Lastly, if judgement is in favour of Parmeet, the organisation should consider this as an important feedback and not become vindictive against Parmeet. The satwic guna in organisational policies, leadership and communication must increase and rajasic- tamasic guna reduced. Dr Mala Sinha is associate professor, Asian Perspectives in Power and Leadership; Business Ethics at the Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 19-12-2011)