The Maruti case has become a notorious legend and cause of
debate amongst the academic intelligentsia of India in the past year. While no
one can pinpoint a single cause or method that could have prevented the
gruesome violence and abhorrent attack on the HR manager at Maruti in July
2012, we all like to understand, interpret, analyze and evaluate such incidents
in the hope that maybe tomorrow we’d be better prepared to face such
circumstances. Hope springs eternal, and as I hope to become a budding HR professional
who implements best practices in the corporate world, here are my musings on
the what, who, why and how of the failures that occurred in the Maruti Manesar
case.
Japanese Management:
- · Traditional Theory Z of management that was popularized as an efficient people management philosophy in Japan was not practiced by Suzuki in India. Traditionally, Japanese believed in taking over all the burdens of the employee workforce in and outside the workplace so they could in return focus on providing productivity and high quality. This would include the working environment, friendly benefits etc. The uncooperative conditions of the mediclaim policy as well as the working conditions and locations of utilities such as water and bathrooms defied this.
- · Top Japanese management moved focus from relationship orientation to task orientation as Maruti India became a large profit center for them, thus widening the preexisting cultural divide, as people and relationships built between the management and workforce lost importance.
- · Third culture: As is urged in any cross-cultural collaboration, rather than one party imposing its culture/values on another, it is important to create a common third culture that is equally owned by both parties. This was missing in the Japanese-Indian collaboration at Maruti Suzuki, as the Japanese had become inflexible and resistant to accepting differences with the Indian workforce (“response of Japanese…rigid..did not act”)
- · Inequity: By interfering in governance of one plant more than another, the top management created underlying inequity that could become a cause of discontent for the Manesar workers, as they felt less in ‘control’ compared to Gurgaon plant.
Indian Management:
- · Stagnation and ‘tied hands’: Although the Indian management had laid precedence for good HR practices, and led by example, somewhere during the phase of Maruti Manesar’s success they were left behind by the Japanese management and unable to take the lead. As Maruti Manesar become the hot spot for production of high demand vehicles, the Japanese management and style of thinking took over and the Indian management wasn’t able to help them in creating a strong connection with the Indian workforce. The lack of empowerment and autonomy in the hands of the Indian management, coupled with the controlling nature of the Japanese in the day to day matters led to discord and a wide barrier between the young Indian associates and the middle aged Japanese managers, who weren’t seen as ‘family’ or figures who cared for the well being of the associates. Here, the Indian management could have played a strong hand, had they tried to understand their Indian workforce better and present this knowledge as a core asset they possessed which could be of use to the Japanese to enhance productivity while maintaining a ‘great place to work’ that elicits trust, pride, and fellowship amongst its employees.
Associates:
·
- Demographics: The age (22-25) and place of origin (mostly from nearby towns rather than a healthy mix of diversity from all over India) led to an aggressive, foolhardy approach towards matters involving the management. Add to this the fact that they were needy and desperate to support their dependents (parents), and the result was a group of youth with high energy and a strong voice to fight for their concerns. Considering the lack of involvement of the Indian management and the strong controlling nature of the Japanese management, they had a lot of grievances as they felt they were not understood or treated well, and raised their voice against the management with desperate measures like allegedly secretly recording conversations and tailing the management.
- Theory of Needs: A lot of the basic needs of the young associate workforce were not met, which ultimately led to discord and frustration. Contractual labor dealt with a lack of job security and inequity in pay, the physiological needs of safety, transportation, washrooms, drinking water, and other needs like work hours etc. were also not met which added fuel to the fire. The need for belonging and a nurturing work environment wasn’t met as nor did the top Japanese management take initiative to build such a culture and take their grievances into account, nor were the young supervisors able to manage and lead their juniors who were peers in age. Also, the poor management of trade unions and MUKU led to detachment and disconnect amongst the workforce and management. Further, the need for self esteem and taking pride in the work one is doing was also left behind, as pride and confidence in the strengths was overtaken by harsh deadlines that required overtime.
- Communication, or the lack of it: Poor channels of communication along with the inability of the MUKU Union to help the cause of the Manesar associates led to a lot of frustration. Communication and transparency is the core foundation of trust, which is what was lacking the most in Manesar. The mechanisms of communication used by the management, such as waiting until union formation was at the doorstep to address the issues of the associates, as well as taking decisions in Gurgaon regarding Manesar workforce without any involvement/transparency with the workforce, were poor and ill-timed.
Work Environment:
The technology, equipment, layout
and infrastructure were excellent at Manesar, but machines don’t make a plant
successful, people and people practices do. Poor administrative/HR practices
related to transportation, housing, medical care, employee engagement,
contractual employment and inequity, task focus>relationship focus, lack of
transparency and participative involvement in decision making, cost cutting and
focus on production over employee engagement initiatives etc. all led to
dissatisfaction and detachment from the core purpose of excellence. Management
should have realized that the key to the hearts and efficiency of the workforce
lied in creating a friendly, cooperative work environment where their needs are
heard and met to the best of management’s ability. Had the benefits/engagement
policies been more employee friendly, the impact of harsher deadlines and
productivity demands would not have been so bad. If employees are able to feel
attached to the core purpose of the company’s existence, and able to identify
with Maruti Suzuki’s needs as well as they do with their own, productivity becomes
an easy target.
Too little too late:
Trust, communication, and
transparency were the core and simple needs at Maruti Manesar according to me.
Trust amongst all the employees
and management: trust that the Japanese management has the best interests of
everyone at heart and don’t just look at Manesar plant as a resource to be
milked dry, trust that the Indian management is given respect and empowerment
in merging the cultures and thinking styles of the young Indian workforce and
wise Japanese management, trust that the Indian supervisors can keep the best
interests of the associates at heart and ensure their needs will be heard and
met, and finally trust that the associates do wish to work and feel proud of
their association with Maruti, they just cannot work while their basic needs
are not met at the workplace.
Transparency of the decisions that
are being taken, and participative involvement where possible. Even if decisions
relating to Manesar need to be forwarded to Gurgaon, certain mechanisms need to
be in place where Manesar associate needs are heard and clarified, and taken
into account while decisions are made. Transparency and ease of the HR
practices, especially those relating to career management (promotions and
differentiating between casual/permanent workforce) was needed to be put into
place.
Finally, constant communication
was crucial and missed the most. Although efforts to communicate better and
clarify/work through grievances were made once the problems arose to the
surface, it was too late. Communication isn’t something to be used as a
reactive measure, which can help resolve problems that are ready to burst at
the seams from being held in too long. Communication is and should be used as a
proactive measure to maintain cordial and friendly relationships amongst all
the stakeholder’s of an organization’s existence and wellbeing. Organizational
health can be directly measured by the communication systems and mechanisms in place,
which lead to equity, justice, fairness, transparency, trust, and positivity at
the workplace. Strong communication from the beginning can help create a
culture where any problems/difficulties arising can be dealt with like a
family, example- increasing demands and stricter deadlines for production could
have been understood better by the associates had their needs for a trade union
(that could fairly represent them and help in resolving their grievances) been
heard in the first place.
Hence, trust, communication, and transparency
are the keys to rebuilding the Manesar plant’s strong work culture and remodeling
its practices to take everyone’s needs into account equally. The Maruti family
can excel again, and it can become a great place to work if the fundamentals
are paid more attention to from the very beginning rather than as a reactive
measure in the end to try to push the problems under the carpet.
