Not much has been happening as we continue to scroll through numerous social media articles, tweets and videos about the ‘toxicity’ of ‘our’ work culture. It appears to satisfy our innate social media compulsion to express our shock, worry, concern or anger about the established levels of toxicity at our work-places. But it behoves us to be brutally honest with ourselves in our respective participant-capacities.
Although I don’t intend to invalidate anyone’s feelings, I find it difficult to accept the element of shock, for we are all participants in either establishing or reinforcing the toxicity that we now want to address and replace with healthy working cultures. While we may express our anger and even support voices for radical changes – make no mistake, we do need radical changes – we continue to participate in the toxicity. Our participation may vary in degree and capacity – we are perpetrators, victims, mute spectators, supporters, promoters, contributors, cut-throat competitors, tolerant and so on.
Why should a 26-year-old Anna Sebastian Perayil have to lose her life for us to even get talking about the need to address toxicity at work? If there was ever any honesty amongst any set of the participants anywhere on the issue, perhaps Anna, Sadaf Fatima, Sushant Chakravarthy or Satish Nandgaonkar would be alive today. And if her tragic passing away has sparked – just to be clear, I am sceptical about the genuineness of these ‘sparks’ from the Indian corporate sector – a discussion about toxic work culture, the least we can do is remain honestly committed to bringing about a change for the better. And it will not be an overnight change.
In my experience, most of my interactions with my ex-colleagues, peers, and friends across different departments spoke of preferring a change of job to an MNC citing better work-culture. There is a strong perception about MNCs as places of work that provide better work culture and are also serious about it too. I use the term ‘perception’ as I have never worked for an MNC till date, but my experience of 19 years in the Indian corporate sector as an in-house lawyer has reaffirmed the said perception.
Any impartial and thorough examination of the toxicity of work culture in India needs to include an in-depth comparative analysis of what MNCs offer as part of the work culture in letter and spirit versus what Indian corporates do, if at all.
Work from home
My first example is about the introduction of work from home (‘WFH’) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was supposed to change the way we look at the world and work. I take the liberty of assuming that many readers have experienced WFH as offered by their human resources department and that some continue to follow a roaster-based WFH even today. Like most organisations across the globe, my ex-employer introduced WFH during the lockdown period. A large part of the workforce across different sectors that can be categorised as back-end support functions transitioned well to a WFH set-up, so much so that many formulated WFH policies which they continue to stick to.
However, for my former employer, there seemed to be a huge gap in the letter and spirit and it all came down to the discretion of the reporting managers. Let us say that the documented policy allowed employees to avail themselves of WFH twice a week, an employee’s ability to act on this would depend on the good mood of a manager. Often, employees felt that this was treated as a grant of favour. My reporting manager & the human resources team did not receive well the fact that I had questions on how they planned to adapt to the new normal.
A comparative analysis of MNCs vis-à-vis Indian corporates would reveal that MNCs continue to offer WFH to its employees, without the flavour of favour, far more than Indian corporates. Indian startups or independent media houses could be exceptions in this regard, with better work culture, open communication and transparency.
In most Indian cities, a weekly, monthly or seasonal roaster based work from home system is not only employee friendly but also environment friendly.
It is widely known that during the monsoon season, the daily commute in Mumbai can turn dangerous. The WFH system is a tried and tested measure, which can be customised to meet our cities’ increasing challenges in terms of long-distance commuting, never-ending traffic jams, overcrowded local transport, vehicular pollution, etc. Needless to mention, a day or two’s relief from stressful daily commuting can help employees to rest, recuperate, and be more productive.
And how does India Inc respond to these challenges? In my experience, its response can be broadly categorised as (i) refusal to acknowledge the problem, (ii) document measures on paper alone, and (iii) engage in fancy CSR measures which have little or no impact on the ground.
Privacy
My second example is about a certain mobile app that was mandated by my ex-employer. It was about work-email access on personal mobile phones. I must clarify to the readers that my work did not involve any life saving emergencies, like doctors (who also don’t respond to emergencies on emails but on telephone calls). I was hesitant about downloading such an app on my mobile phone as I was reachable on WhatsApp and phone calls even beyond working hours and on all days of the week. Let us not pretend that India Inc. has any understanding about the need of maintaining and respecting a work-life balance. There was constant pressure from my reporting manager to download this app and I was presented as the only one who had problems with such requirements. Eventually, I decided to download the app.
The app required almost complete control and access to my phone data and media. Most of my colleagues bought a separate mobile phone just to download that app. I sought help from the IT Team to understand if there was a way to download it without granting blanket access and control, but it vain. I did not feel comfortable about the app and approached my reporting manager with my reservations. He was nonchalantly dismissive of my concerns stating that I may have given similar access while downloading other apps without realising it, that “everyone does it” and that these demands are the same everywhere. And in a joking manner (such mannerisms are usually adopted to cover up chauvinism) he even said that he did not care about giving such access – implying I should not either. As a lawyer, I find his remarks and approach towards our fundamental right to privacy extremely embarrassing. The subject of toxic work culture necessitated a fleeting mention about this episode, to explain that while India Inc may advertise friendly workplaces and safer environments, in reality, it often enables, empowers and shields workplace bullying.
‘Managing’ one’s manager
My third example is more than a decade old and it is about my in-person interaction with a senior woman who has extensive experience in heading public sector companies. She had asked me if I know “boss management.” I had no idea of what that meant. She did not elaborate on it but said to me that one has to learn it. I had not liked her suggestion even when I did not have a complete understanding of its meaning and how it plays out in the context of corporate working in India.
In my experience, “boss management” is a sophisticated term for what is essentially ensuring that one’s boss is in good spirits. This is one of the root causes of toxicity at work in the Indian context. How it plays out on the ground may differ but the underlying expectation remains the same and it does not concern itself with one’s competency, commitment or hard work.
Pleasing or managing a boss does not come from a place of empathy but from a certain type of entitlement and the propensity for a shortcut. It thus stands on toxicity and exploitation.
Whether an organisation has a top-heavy or a flat structure, the necessity to please one’s boss remains an unwritten feature and eventually translates into toxicity at work. Those reporting managers/bosses who expect, demand and reward such behaviour can be identified as the ones who do not appreciate independent minds and competent individuals as they are often insecure by-products of boss pleasing themselves. And they expect a little extra beyond work and exchange of pleasantries. Such bosses don’t like healthy discussions.
In complete contrast, managers or bosses who treat their teams as their colleagues and their equals and don’t consider themselves beyond questioning, will be the ones to foster a healthy working environment for their teams.
While boss-pleasing has been legitimised and almost institutionalised as an accepted norm of the corporate world, this is an expression of top-down toxicity.
A reset
Thus, any kind of reset and accountability will need to start from the very top, and go on a continuous process. Does India Inc, where sitting into the late hours at work, with or without any genuine requirement, is considered a proof of hard work by such bosses, have it in itself to recognise this?
Readers may examine this in their own office set-up – how employees hesitate to leave before their boss or seniors even if they have finished their day’s work and attended to any last-minute exigencies.
Recently, two video clips of Vedavyasachar Shrishananda, a sitting judge of the Karnataka High Court went viral on social media. He is seen indulging in downright bigotry and sickening sexism in open court. When the said judge made sexist and disparaging remarks to the woman lawyer, fellow lawyers present in that courtroom did not object to it. The other lawyers present were mute spectators. These are people who embolden the actual perpetrators of abuse and toxicity and corporate offices in India are classic examples of how this participant category is rewarded.
On condition of anonymity, one of my friends working in one of India’s top (powerful) law firms told me that the said firm sees a lot of resignations every year and most lawyers state mental breakdowns, lack of a work-life balance, health concerns, unhealthy working hours and pressure and nepotism as reasons. The said firm has reportedly managed to create an entire “law firm culture” associated with unhealthy, exploitative and toxic practices. My friend does not have any knowledge of whether the said law firm has ever bothered to review the core issues concerning its work culture. But I am given to understand that the said law firm remains too powerful to be questioned.
The late Anna Perayil was working in an MNC. Aren’t MNCs the preferred places for the Indian workforce? If her reporting manager or seniors were also fellow Indians, then there lies another bitter truth about our mentality, which is a reflection of our societal conditioning, which is unbothered about exploitation and inequality, which venerates power figures instead of demanding accountability from them and has no sense of dignity of labour.
Even though the National Human Rights Commission and the Union labour ministry have sprung into action to investigate and ensure justice in the young chartered accountant’s case, we ask ourselves, what would this justice look like? Will it mean that no other person in that workplace will ever face such degrees of work pressure? Will it mean a ripple effect, where other corporates take meaningful steps in understanding and addressing toxicity at work, something that is top down? Will it mean that the too-powerful-to-be-questioned-pioneer-of-unheathy-work-culture law firm will go through a systemic overhaul to focus on implementing a healthy work culture?
Toxicity of work-culture is a serious and complex problem. It is serious because it is a part of our daily life, taking a toll on our mental and physical health, attacking our sense of dignity and self confidence. It is claiming lives.
It is complex because it is deeply entrenched in our mentality of exploiting others, as people who don’t value dignity of labour and personal space or privacy.
There will have to be concrete steps, involving equal participation and representation of all participant categories in the culture chain. It is my view that this requires a judicial committee to give us a well-researched report with its recommendations, which needs to then be implemented by respective government ministries and further through respective regulators, governing bodies, institutes, including non-state actors, and so on.
That committee may seek participation from non-for-profit think-tanks, academia, reputed universities, members of civil society, independent journalists and examine empirical data, expand the study to understand it in context of the Indian sub-continent, conduct a thorough comparative analysis of other South Asian countries and understand MNCs based in Europe, the UK, and the USA as well. It must maintain strict confidentiality while engaging with various participant categories to protect employees from backlash from their organisations.
Any demand for eliminating toxicity from our workplaces might claim collateral damages too and the good people of the corporate world will have to be ready for it.
Is Indian Inc willing to do any meaningful work in the direction of eliminating toxic work cultures? Are the good people of the corporate world ready to demand accountability from the top?
In an unregulated sector such as cinema, where there are fewer structural hierarchies, something like the Women in Cinema Collective was born as a support group and is now a strong platform for voicing untold stories and demanding accountability. Are we willing to take inspiration from the WCC to form an Employees in Corporate Collective? Are we willing and ready to break our silence and refuse our participation in maintaining a toxic status quo?
Shruti Lokre is a banking and finance lawyer and works in social justice advocacy.
