TCS Firing: A news that questioned a lot of unfair practices and poor employee grievance redressal systems in the Indian Corporate scenario. We might be part of the educated and organised job scene but the treatment we face in the case of termination and/or unethical treatment in case of disputes within the organisations in India; is no where close to any employment standard anywhere in the world. Even global MNC's with offices in India make the most of the current loop holes in the system.
Even though most companies have ethics helplines and Grievance redressal sytems in some form or the other but it is only because of compliance and not to actually any resolve issues. There are hardly any statics on how many cases have been reported and how many been have been resolved and its any body's how many are in favour of the complainant, that are being published. I dont think all complains are genuine. But there are a few cases that I am sure we all know or have heard which deserves the merit of a fair treatment, before being decided in favour of the management, however out of the fear of retaliation most of these cases have never even see the light of the day.
Recently, a very close friend of mine narrated the plight he went through in his organisation and how scapegoats are found to save a few on top. There is no question of fair treatment. I will let you decide and hope that some day sense would prevail and there would be some logical answers and punishments for those abusing the position of strength.
THE CASE
An impromptu Career discussion meeting (Calendared 30 mins before the meeting with CDM as the subject) is called for with all the stake holders (reporting manager, Group Manager, HR and the person. During the meeting it is informed (not discussed) to the person, that the business has decided that he would be best suited for a role which is at a lower level than the one currently being held(same level as he was 7 years ago and to pacify him they add its not a demotion). This decision is based on feedback from the team and previous engagement and other inputs and that the concerned person needs to accept the role effective immediately. On seeking specific reasons for this decision and requesting for documenting the Minutes of the current meeting it is mentioned that there was no need for it. (Its a business decision so we wont need the minutes documented and its to inform). On insisting for reasons and basis which the decisions was made vague reasons are highlighted and an corroborated by the HR (in the form of some due diligence conducted by them) without taking into view or giving an opportunity to the affected person to explain or defend their position. Lets for a moment look at the reasons on which the so called decisions was made to get rid of the person.
1. Skills Set - (No area specifically mentioned apparently a skill set check was conducted across the org and the person did not fit the job requirement. The effected person has never taken any skill assessment as claimed)
2. Unable to Handle Stress (How they came to this conclusion again the basis is not shared)
3. Feedback (From different people against the person)
On asking specific questions.
Why does the change have to be made immediately ? As there are timelines to meet it has to be immediately come into effect
What is the new assignment/options does he have for the new role? Nothing has been thought and it has to be explored and something will be assigned shortly.
Assume for a moment that all the accusation made against the person are true, even then Nature Justice and fair treatment would recommend that a fair warning is issued, a memo raised, Skills reinforcement done, regular course correction and review done on the progress. If the person fails to meet the criteria inspite of all the efforts taking the business decision or even firing makes a lot of sense. NO, none of it is followed. All that is done is that the person is told that it is decided take it or leave the organisation (the ultimate goal, which could not be accomplished because of lack of paper work to support it).
I dont want to influence the above scenario with my own observations but its important to highlight that this person has been with the organisation for almost 9 years. Managed several responsibilities, excelled in previous roles and now almost after close to a decade with this company they decide without giving an opportunity to explain or even correct the wrong, take whatever is thrown at you or get out.
What should be the Natural Justice ? What would be a fair way to handle this situation ?
Does the employee stand any chance when the entire management gangs up against one person? How do you let the truth prevail?
Even though most companies have ethics helplines and Grievance redressal sytems in some form or the other but it is only because of compliance and not to actually any resolve issues. There are hardly any statics on how many cases have been reported and how many been have been resolved and its any body's how many are in favour of the complainant, that are being published. I dont think all complains are genuine. But there are a few cases that I am sure we all know or have heard which deserves the merit of a fair treatment, before being decided in favour of the management, however out of the fear of retaliation most of these cases have never even see the light of the day.
Recently, a very close friend of mine narrated the plight he went through in his organisation and how scapegoats are found to save a few on top. There is no question of fair treatment. I will let you decide and hope that some day sense would prevail and there would be some logical answers and punishments for those abusing the position of strength.
THE CASE
An impromptu Career discussion meeting (Calendared 30 mins before the meeting with CDM as the subject) is called for with all the stake holders (reporting manager, Group Manager, HR and the person. During the meeting it is informed (not discussed) to the person, that the business has decided that he would be best suited for a role which is at a lower level than the one currently being held(same level as he was 7 years ago and to pacify him they add its not a demotion). This decision is based on feedback from the team and previous engagement and other inputs and that the concerned person needs to accept the role effective immediately. On seeking specific reasons for this decision and requesting for documenting the Minutes of the current meeting it is mentioned that there was no need for it. (Its a business decision so we wont need the minutes documented and its to inform). On insisting for reasons and basis which the decisions was made vague reasons are highlighted and an corroborated by the HR (in the form of some due diligence conducted by them) without taking into view or giving an opportunity to the affected person to explain or defend their position. Lets for a moment look at the reasons on which the so called decisions was made to get rid of the person.
1. Skills Set - (No area specifically mentioned apparently a skill set check was conducted across the org and the person did not fit the job requirement. The effected person has never taken any skill assessment as claimed)
2. Unable to Handle Stress (How they came to this conclusion again the basis is not shared)
3. Feedback (From different people against the person)
On asking specific questions.
Why does the change have to be made immediately ? As there are timelines to meet it has to be immediately come into effect
What is the new assignment/options does he have for the new role? Nothing has been thought and it has to be explored and something will be assigned shortly.
Assume for a moment that all the accusation made against the person are true, even then Nature Justice and fair treatment would recommend that a fair warning is issued, a memo raised, Skills reinforcement done, regular course correction and review done on the progress. If the person fails to meet the criteria inspite of all the efforts taking the business decision or even firing makes a lot of sense. NO, none of it is followed. All that is done is that the person is told that it is decided take it or leave the organisation (the ultimate goal, which could not be accomplished because of lack of paper work to support it).
I dont want to influence the above scenario with my own observations but its important to highlight that this person has been with the organisation for almost 9 years. Managed several responsibilities, excelled in previous roles and now almost after close to a decade with this company they decide without giving an opportunity to explain or even correct the wrong, take whatever is thrown at you or get out.
What should be the Natural Justice ? What would be a fair way to handle this situation ?
Does the employee stand any chance when the entire management gangs up against one person? How do you let the truth prevail?
No comments:
Post a Comment