Hi Seniors,
I am working in a manufacturing industry as HR. The management belongs to a US company. Recently, a strange decision has been raised by the top management (Foreigners) to change all technical level designations like Engineer/Asst. Engn./Sr. Executive, etc., to Supervisors. The reason given for this change is to reduce the chaos regarding designations (as we had an issue in the past regarding the same). Also, Supervisor means the head in their country.
Kindly suggest if this is the right decision to make after giving the appointment letter to the employee, and how can I present my arguments against this act legally. Is there any law for it? I believe this act will create more distrust, and I won't be able to hire senior-level positions because the highest designation in the technical field will be Supervisor only. Additionally, the current senior employees may not like to be designated at a junior level.
Kindly suggest how much importance a designation holds in India. Are there any related laws or decisions in such cases?
If anyone can share an actual case study or reference related to the same, it would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Arpita
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I am working in a manufacturing industry as HR. The management belongs to a US company. Recently, a strange decision has been raised by the top management (Foreigners) to change all technical level designations like Engineer/Asst. Engn./Sr. Executive, etc., to Supervisors. The reason given for this change is to reduce the chaos regarding designations (as we had an issue in the past regarding the same). Also, Supervisor means the head in their country.
Kindly suggest if this is the right decision to make after giving the appointment letter to the employee, and how can I present my arguments against this act legally. Is there any law for it? I believe this act will create more distrust, and I won't be able to hire senior-level positions because the highest designation in the technical field will be Supervisor only. Additionally, the current senior employees may not like to be designated at a junior level.
Kindly suggest how much importance a designation holds in India. Are there any related laws or decisions in such cases?
If anyone can share an actual case study or reference related to the same, it would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Arpita
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Arpita,
Rather than writing your designation clearly, you have written that "you are from HR." Possibly, this could mean that you do not have a managerial position. In that case, to whom do you report? If it is the HR Manager, then why has he not raised this query on this path-breaking decision of your management? Does he consider it beneath his dignity to approach this forum of his own fraternity?
After going through your post, one can understand the dilemma that you are facing. On one side is the US management. They have a penchant for looking at the world from their perspective. Theirs is the No. 1 economy, and the world depends on them. Therefore, they expect others to fall in line. On the other hand is the Indian job market. It has its own dynamics, and a developing country like India has a plethora of MNCs and Indian companies that are mighty in their own way.
Before giving a solution to your challenge, it is pertinent to understand the transition of the Indian job market. It was different a quarter of a century ago than what it is today. Those who entered the Indian job market before 1990 would remember that one had to wait to get a managerial position for a decade, the next ten years to become a GM, and still another ten years to become a VP or Director. The pyramid of the organizational structure was inversely proportional to the age of the person who most of the time rose from the ranks. The exception was only for those who ushered their career from the top. It could be because they inherited the position rather than acquired it. However, economic liberalization after 1990 unsettled the job market. Newer and newer companies entered the market, and there was a shortage of manpower at all levels. Therefore, along with the length of service, one more factor of competency-based selection also came into the picture. This created a situation wherein just a couple of years of service, people were bestowed with a managerial position. By their thirties, a few started becoming GMs, and so on. However, a few industries like the IT industry still operated in a different environment, and they did not shower the designations.
Economic liberalization also brought in its wake the poaching of candidates. Seniors from well-established businesses were poached rampantly by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). They were enticed by offering a fancy designation which they could not have dreamt of if they were to continue in the same employment. Therefore, today in most industries, acquiring a position of Manager has become common within the first 7-8 years of one's career. Your challenge is vis-a-vis this scenario.
If you wish to write to your Management, then you may write a letter on two important counts. One is that in the Indian job market scenario, a supervisor is a position that is one notch above the lowest rung of the hierarchy, i.e., factory workers. The dictionary meaning of a supervisor is "a person who supervises a person or an activity." Going by this definition, a Manager or General Manager or above them are all supervisors. However, the dictionary meaning remains in the dictionary. Considering the characteristics of the Indian manufacturing sector, the allotment of the designation of a supervisor might be perceived as a demotion. The differing perceptions could demoralize those who have hard-earned their positions. In addition to salary, designation is a motivating factor. It would be difficult for them to accept a diminished designation though their role and responsibilities remain the same.
Keeping aside the job market scenario, there is one more legal roadblock as well. When the managers were employed, they were issued an appointment letter. In their appointment letters, the designations were given as per the old norms. Now changing the norms is equivalent to changing the conditions of employment. This is against the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as an appointment letter is a contract between the employer and employee. Contracts are signed under mutual agreement, and either party cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract unilaterally. If some managers approach the court to bring a stay order, it could create unpleasant scenes. A vitiated organizational culture is not conducive to the growth of the company.
Before approaching your management, I recommend allowing a few managers to raise their objection to the new diktat from the US. You must have a few written applications at hand. Otherwise, management could perceive that you are the only one who is against their order and that you could be instigating others. Therefore, it is better to keep yourself from this risk.
Lessons from the Post: The decision of the management of the originator of the post symbolizes the mindset of the bosses of the MNC. The basic rule of leadership is staying connected with the ground situation. Leadership wanted to obviate a chaos that had taken place due to designation. Though the originator of the post has not written what it was, going from her post, it clearly shows that to address the chaos, leadership may create a new chaos. Nothing is wrong if one does not have vision. What is the use of visionary leadership if it starts unleashing their perceptions on their employees? Staying connected with local conditions and avoiding chaos are more important than the vision itself!
The new decision, which I have termed as a diktat, neither fits into the old structure of the job market nor the prevailing conditions. "Pulling rabbits from hats looks nice in magic shows and not while running an enterprise." No management education is required to understand this.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
8218Rather than writing your designation clearly, you have written that "you are from HR." Possibly, this could mean that you do not have a managerial position. In that case, to whom do you report? If it is the HR Manager, then why has he not raised this query on this path-breaking decision of your management? Does he consider it beneath his dignity to approach this forum of his own fraternity?
After going through your post, one can understand the dilemma that you are facing. On one side is the US management. They have a penchant for looking at the world from their perspective. Theirs is the No. 1 economy, and the world depends on them. Therefore, they expect others to fall in line. On the other hand is the Indian job market. It has its own dynamics, and a developing country like India has a plethora of MNCs and Indian companies that are mighty in their own way.
Before giving a solution to your challenge, it is pertinent to understand the transition of the Indian job market. It was different a quarter of a century ago than what it is today. Those who entered the Indian job market before 1990 would remember that one had to wait to get a managerial position for a decade, the next ten years to become a GM, and still another ten years to become a VP or Director. The pyramid of the organizational structure was inversely proportional to the age of the person who most of the time rose from the ranks. The exception was only for those who ushered their career from the top. It could be because they inherited the position rather than acquired it. However, economic liberalization after 1990 unsettled the job market. Newer and newer companies entered the market, and there was a shortage of manpower at all levels. Therefore, along with the length of service, one more factor of competency-based selection also came into the picture. This created a situation wherein just a couple of years of service, people were bestowed with a managerial position. By their thirties, a few started becoming GMs, and so on. However, a few industries like the IT industry still operated in a different environment, and they did not shower the designations.
Economic liberalization also brought in its wake the poaching of candidates. Seniors from well-established businesses were poached rampantly by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). They were enticed by offering a fancy designation which they could not have dreamt of if they were to continue in the same employment. Therefore, today in most industries, acquiring a position of Manager has become common within the first 7-8 years of one's career. Your challenge is vis-a-vis this scenario.
If you wish to write to your Management, then you may write a letter on two important counts. One is that in the Indian job market scenario, a supervisor is a position that is one notch above the lowest rung of the hierarchy, i.e., factory workers. The dictionary meaning of a supervisor is "a person who supervises a person or an activity." Going by this definition, a Manager or General Manager or above them are all supervisors. However, the dictionary meaning remains in the dictionary. Considering the characteristics of the Indian manufacturing sector, the allotment of the designation of a supervisor might be perceived as a demotion. The differing perceptions could demoralize those who have hard-earned their positions. In addition to salary, designation is a motivating factor. It would be difficult for them to accept a diminished designation though their role and responsibilities remain the same.
Keeping aside the job market scenario, there is one more legal roadblock as well. When the managers were employed, they were issued an appointment letter. In their appointment letters, the designations were given as per the old norms. Now changing the norms is equivalent to changing the conditions of employment. This is against the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as an appointment letter is a contract between the employer and employee. Contracts are signed under mutual agreement, and either party cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract unilaterally. If some managers approach the court to bring a stay order, it could create unpleasant scenes. A vitiated organizational culture is not conducive to the growth of the company.
Before approaching your management, I recommend allowing a few managers to raise their objection to the new diktat from the US. You must have a few written applications at hand. Otherwise, management could perceive that you are the only one who is against their order and that you could be instigating others. Therefore, it is better to keep yourself from this risk.
Lessons from the Post: The decision of the management of the originator of the post symbolizes the mindset of the bosses of the MNC. The basic rule of leadership is staying connected with the ground situation. Leadership wanted to obviate a chaos that had taken place due to designation. Though the originator of the post has not written what it was, going from her post, it clearly shows that to address the chaos, leadership may create a new chaos. Nothing is wrong if one does not have vision. What is the use of visionary leadership if it starts unleashing their perceptions on their employees? Staying connected with local conditions and avoiding chaos are more important than the vision itself!
The new decision, which I have termed as a diktat, neither fits into the old structure of the job market nor the prevailing conditions. "Pulling rabbits from hats looks nice in magic shows and not while running an enterprise." No management education is required to understand this.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Labr laws for Vendor compliance Management.pdf
Stress management.ppt