I had been sleeping. Like I usually do, when I am getting back home in train. I get off at Masjid and take the return train to ensure that I get a seat, and almost always, a window seat. And then I doze off for the next 40 minutes or so.
So when I woke up, like I usually do just before the train reaches the Vashi Bridge, my mind was still in the hazy zone. The zone when you are awake but not fully awake, not fully aware of the surroundings. When the senses are not yet fully functional and you are somewhat away from reality.
I must have been dreaming something. I saw the vehicles at the road Bridge parallel to us. Their red rear lights and shiny bodies suddenly gave me a feeling that I was in some place modern. Maybe like my earlier visit to Dubai. I began wondering about the progress that my country has made. And is it going away from its roots? Its culture?
Then I suddenly saw the tempo. The 4 wheeler vehicle that is not as big as a truck, but is not as small as a Car either. That quintessential, open from the back, goods carrying vehicle, usually with agricultural produce, dispelled all my meanderings.
I was firmly in India. It was still the India I know, the India I love
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Why I hate formals
I hate formals. There, I said it in the open. Err, I think I have already said it publicly, but today I wrote it here.
Why? Because they:
Centuries ago some bloke got an idea that imitating penguins is a good thing and the trend stuck. So the western civilisation made it a "mark" of formal occasions. Whether it is a prom night or an important interview, men try to look their best by wearing formal suits. With the British invasion the symbol of the babu-giri spread in India as well. So it became a compulsory "uniform" beyond the schools.
Now it is alright if the sales team is going to make a pitch to the client and has to wear formals. But everyone in the organisation? Take my previous software employers TCS for instance. Their Thane office that was converted from Voltas had several ODCs (Offshore Development Centers). Now with clients sitting in their European and American offices, why were the 100 odd team wearing formals every weekday? For each other? If a client representing, say, Boeing, visits the ODC, obviously they will not visit unannounced. They won't make, say, more than 3 visits a year to the ODC? So why does the team have to wear formals 5 days a week (ok 4)? There is a seperate Offshore Coordinator in the company to take care of such communication for Pete's sake.
While my ex-TCS friend sitting in Seattle working for Microsoft goes to office in T-shirt and Jeans (some of his colleagues even wear shorts). Does Microsoft lose its business? Rather, will TCS lose its businesses if the employees do that? It should be the work of the employee that should matter more than whether he is wearing formal or is clean shaven or if his shoes are shining or not.
It is usually the HR heads that make such policies in any organisation. And the need to "control" and "standardise" grows larger as the organisation becomes larger. And the management tries to "micro manage" in many cases. Of course some organisations don't have the sort of culture in others, but this need to micro-manage is what causes terrible irritation to the employees. And it hurts the organisation more in the long run when it is in the service sector.
It reminds me of the last chapter of the The Dilbert Principle. Scott Adams says that organisations shouldn't try to control decisions over small stuff like what to wear and office supplies. Also that jobs are not supposed to satisfy people. People are supposed to satisfy jobs. People don't like to work. If they liked to work, you wouldn't have to pay them.
Why? Because they:
- are artificial.
- seem to be made for hiding deficiencies.
- hide the personality of the wearer.
- are merely there to please others.
- are not comfortable.
Centuries ago some bloke got an idea that imitating penguins is a good thing and the trend stuck. So the western civilisation made it a "mark" of formal occasions. Whether it is a prom night or an important interview, men try to look their best by wearing formal suits. With the British invasion the symbol of the babu-giri spread in India as well. So it became a compulsory "uniform" beyond the schools.
Now it is alright if the sales team is going to make a pitch to the client and has to wear formals. But everyone in the organisation? Take my previous software employers TCS for instance. Their Thane office that was converted from Voltas had several ODCs (Offshore Development Centers). Now with clients sitting in their European and American offices, why were the 100 odd team wearing formals every weekday? For each other? If a client representing, say, Boeing, visits the ODC, obviously they will not visit unannounced. They won't make, say, more than 3 visits a year to the ODC? So why does the team have to wear formals 5 days a week (ok 4)? There is a seperate Offshore Coordinator in the company to take care of such communication for Pete's sake.
While my ex-TCS friend sitting in Seattle working for Microsoft goes to office in T-shirt and Jeans (some of his colleagues even wear shorts). Does Microsoft lose its business? Rather, will TCS lose its businesses if the employees do that? It should be the work of the employee that should matter more than whether he is wearing formal or is clean shaven or if his shoes are shining or not.
It is usually the HR heads that make such policies in any organisation. And the need to "control" and "standardise" grows larger as the organisation becomes larger. And the management tries to "micro manage" in many cases. Of course some organisations don't have the sort of culture in others, but this need to micro-manage is what causes terrible irritation to the employees. And it hurts the organisation more in the long run when it is in the service sector.
It reminds me of the last chapter of the The Dilbert Principle. Scott Adams says that organisations shouldn't try to control decisions over small stuff like what to wear and office supplies. Also that jobs are not supposed to satisfy people. People are supposed to satisfy jobs. People don't like to work. If they liked to work, you wouldn't have to pay them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)