Old Times And New
“The times they are a-changin”, as Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan reminds us. Nothing surprising here, for evolution has been a reality from the beginning of time. So, whether it is the soulful and rich voice of Dylan from the 1960s, or the far older observation of Alfred Lord Tennyson that “the old order changeth, yielding place to new”, change has been observed and commented on for long. Yet, even as its pace accelerates, its impact broadens. Amongst the many manifestations are those visible in organisations and their work culture.
For hundreds of years, organisations followed a system of strict deference to superiors. Societies were by and large feudal and even local landlords were like kings, demanding subservience in behaviour and address from their subjects. In the durbars of Maharajas, the ruler’s entry required all to stand, and the form of address was always as an inferior. Companies continued this culture, with the owner and all superiors being addressed as “sir”.
At some unknown point of time in the recent past, this began to change. The durbar culture of the kings and the feudal mind-set of British companies (and, indeed, Indian ones too) were influenced by the growing wave of egalitarianism and the informality of US corporate culture. Companies in the new “tech industry” were the harbinger of this new trend towards greater organisational informality. “Sir” briefly became “Mr” and, increasingly, “Mrs/Miss/Ms”, but quickly evolved into addressing people by their first name, as you would a friend, without any honorific.
The change was not just in how one addressed the boss: it was also in the relationship – now more collegial and equal. It is a moot point about which is the cause and which the effect; irrespective, the fact is that subservience is dead or dying in many organisations. In startups and even in large tech companies, the “boss” can be (and often is) accosted by any employee, whether with an idea, suggestion or complaint. This trend has taken root and is spreading rapidly across India. However, this does not mean that the command-and-control style of management is gone. Many CEOs yet operate in this mode, often with a high degree of centralisation. Even so, the new informality has, without a doubt, empowered employees; it has also brought in flatter organisational structures, less hierarchy, greater agility and indirectly stimulated radical ideas and innovation.
At the same time as this informality has grown, so has the imperative of political correctness. Thus, while you might address your much-admired boss as “Ajay” (rather than “sir” or “Mr. Kapoor”), you cannot sing paeans to him by saying “What a piece of work is a man!” Shakespeare’s Hamletian monologue on the human condition, so wonderfully put to music in the 1967 Broadway play, Hair, will not pass muster today because it may be seen as misogynist. Nor can you bend over backwards and change the line to “What a piece of work is a woman!”, for correctness now demands inclusion of all other “genders” too.
If corporate managers find this a difficult proposition to handle, imagine the problems for the government. Forms, job reservations, Board membership stipulations and much else is based on a two-gender categorisation. Speech-writers and public speakers have to dispense with the long-used “Ladies and Gentlemen”, and substitute it with “All”, besides replacing “his” and “her” with a more all-encompassing “them” (“his/her” or the short-cut “s/he” will not do). Shops, public toilets and much else will have to change their signage or nomenclature. Even informalisation of speech, in some ways a stage preceding gender sensitivity, is yet to break through certain barriers. “Your Lordship” persists in courts, and “Honourable” is yet routinely used as a prefix before a Minister’s name. Within the bureaucracy, “sir” is yet the standard form of address.
Apart from language, behavioural acts continue to reflect a feudal heritage: for example, in a meeting, all are expected to rise when the boss enters. Many would argue that this is cultural practice, a way of showing respect for elders or seniors – something that youngsters must imbibe. There is another tradition, doubtless owing its origin to the ruler sitting on a throne: in many conference rooms there is a higher (or bigger/different) chair for the chairperson. Some find this hilarious, but it is quite common in many offices. Hopefully, the once-common scene of reasonably old people prostrating themselves at the feet of the leader is fading, though some would justify even this as a way of showing respect.
Meanwhile, the old-world culture of practices like holding the door open for a lady, are frowned on and seen as patronising and patriarchal. Is abandoning such politeness and grace at the altar of political correctness a sign of “progress”?
There are many self-declaredly enlightened companies, which claim to have greater equity between all levels of employees and all genders. Inclusion is their new catchword and includes all genders as well as the disabled. Caste and religion are not much spoken of, but that is supposedly covered in the rubric of being an equal opportunity employer.
It is, of course, fashionable to say all this in today’s corporate world, and to show that you are woke and sensitive by changing what you say and write. Yet, to what extent is this reflected in how one acts? May be – just as metrics drive behaviour in organisations – words will translate into action. However, will it change attitudes and thinking? Even if it does so within the office, can we ensure that individuals, including the young, carry this thinking back to their home, to their social and personal lives? Questions to ponder over, along with the limits – if any – and limitations of political correctness in these changing times.
Yet, even with all the (progressive) changes, we need to worry about what Jean- Baptiste Alphonse Karr noted in 1849: “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose” (The more things change, the more they stay the same).
