Saturday, November 09, 2024

Workplace culture: Regulation is unavoidable

Like so many others, I was shocked by the demise of Anna Sebastian, a young chartered accountant who worked for a Big Four accounting firm, repotedly because she could not cope with the pressures at work. I wrote up an article and sent it in to the Hindu late September. They carried it a few days ago. I reproduce it below:

We need to address India’s workplace culture

 

If we are to address the worst excesses of India’s corporate culture, some form of regulation seems unavoidable

 

T.T. Ram Mohan

 

In September, the mother of Anna Sebastian, the young chartered accountant who passed away in July allegedly due to work stress, said, “They say we have received freedom in 1947, but our children are still working like slaves.” Her anguished cry goes to the heart of the issue of workplace culture in India’s corporate world.

The inquiry report of the Ministry of Labour, promised within 10 days, is still awaited. The corporate world has chosen to remain largely silent on the tragedy. What corporate leader would dare to point fingers at others when the position at his own firm is not very different?  

Toxic work culture

The issue is not just long hours or having to put in extra effort to meet a deadline. Employees will gladly slog it out if they are shown respect, appreciated, and feel they are treated fairly.   From all accounts, much of corporate India fails on every count. Toxic work culture is pervasive in India’s private sector.

 

Long hours flow directly from a focus on the bottom line that comes at the expense of employees’ well-being. The management employs two people where four are required. It seeks to motivate the two employees by giving them the wages of three, thus saving on one employee. Impressive jargon hasbeen created to justify exploitation of employees and inhuman work hours. Meeting stiff targets against heavy odds is ‘organisational stretch’. There is ‘variable pay’ to promote a ‘performance culture’ that translates into a higher stock price — great for top management that corners most of the stock options. There is a ‘bell curve’ that identifies super-performers as well as under-performers. There are ‘stress management’ workshops to deal with the burn-out that ensues.  Management does not stop to ask itself why it is creating so much stress in the first place.

 

Long hours and employee burnout are typical of the corporate culture of the U.S. but not of Europe. France has a 35-hour work week. In the rest of Europe, the norm is about 40 hours. European firms lack competitiveness, did you say? Well, European standards of living are nothing to scoff at.

 

It is unrealistic to try to import the American culture into a setting that could not be more different. The per capita income in the U.S. is $85,000. In India, it is $2,700. The typical U.S. employee operates at a level of comfort — in terms of housing, commuting, health, diet, and leisure — that is way above that of the Indian employee. In India’s big cities, simply going to office and getting back can be an ordeal. So are getting school admissions for children (and then getting them into coaching classes), looking after an elderly parent, and generally ensuring that the household is ticking along.

 

Long hours are only part of the problem. Bosses often use language that can range from being unprofessional to abusive. During the tenure of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, his deputy, Dominic Raab, faced charges of ‘bullying’ from officials he had worked with in his previous stints as minister. An enquiry found that he had been “aggressive” and “intimidating” but not “abusive”. Mr. Raab, nevertheless, had to resign. Such was the fate of the U.K. Deputy Prime Minister, no less, for having breached norms of civilised behaviour.

 

One wonders what would happen if these standards were applied to India’s corporate world. In the U.S. and in Europe, employees can sue the firm for a range of objectionable behaviours including those that cause them mental stress. They often win huge settlements. No such recourse is available in India.

 

Employees also feel they are not treated fairly. The performance evaluation system is often suspect and the ruthlessness with which so-called under-performance is dealt with will make one squirm.  Top management will talk of “weeding out dead wood”, an expression that shows  scant regard for the worth of human beings. Variable pay is heavily skewed in favour of a handful of individuals at the top. When those below seethe with resentment at what they perceive as unfair, a toxic culture is inevitable.

 

Many public sector firms have a much better work culture. Employees may not get huge rewards but they have job security. Unions act as a check on the arbitrary ways of top management. Inequality in pay is nowhere as glaring as in the private sector. Officers at the middle and senior levels put in long hours. People have their grievances. But complaints about a toxic work culture are rarer.

 

Time to remedy matters

How do we remedy matters? Corporates can be expected to be respond along predictable lines: there will be affirmations of “core values”, a new “code of conduct” for management, programmes to address the “work-life balance”, more “town hall meetings” with employees. If these could make a difference, we shouldn’t be having a problem in the first instance. The board of directors should be paying attention to the company’s work culture, providing recourse and initiating corrective measures. Alas, boards  tend to be even more disconnected from reality than the management. Moreover, they lack the incentives or the motivation to challenge   management.

 

If we are to address the worst excesses of India’s corporate culture, some form of regulation seems unavoidable. Regulation may get boards to assume responsibility for the work culture, engage with employees at lower levels, and get a sense of what’s going on.  The Nirbhaya episode caused a paradigm shift on the issue of women’s safety. One hopes that Sebastian’s untimely demise will likewise turn out to be a defining moment for India’s workplace culture.

 


 


Central banks have won the battle against inflation

 

As inflation soared to levels unknown in decades in two years ago, central banks came in for severe criticism for not reining in demand earlier.  Bring inflation down to target would mean a huge sacrifice of growth, critics said.

They have been proved wrong. Inflation has been brought down over the past two years with a modest sacrifice of growth. One has lost count of the number of analysts who said last year that the US economy was sure to slip into recession, if that had not already happened.

Central banks have improved their tool-kit over time. However, as I argue in my recent article in BS, Central banks have the last laugh,  their success in the recent bout of inflation owes to several factors beyond their control.


Central banks have the last laugh

The world economy will grow at 3.2 per cent in 2024 and 2025, says the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) latest Economic Outlook. That is below the 3.6 per cent growth rate seen during 2006-15. Yet, the relief over the growth projections is almost palpable. 

There is relief because  the battle against record levels of global inflation has been won- or so the IMF declares- without as much loss of growth as was feared. Inflation rates are trending down without the global economy going into recession. Commentators who had been critical of central banks’ responses to post-Covid inflation have been proved wrong.  

Global inflation peaked at 9.4 per cent year-over-year in the third quarter of 2022. In the US, the inflation rate rose to 9.1 per cent in June 2022. Since then, inflation rates have been dropping. Global headline inflation rates is now projected to reach 3.5 per cent by the end of 2025,   below the average level of 3.6 per cent between 2000 and 2019. 

As inflation started surging after the Covid-19 pandemic, central banks were roundly criticised for tightening too little and too late. Since central banks were slow to react, critics said, monetary tightening would have to be extremely aggressive. A soft landing was almost impossible.  

Central banks have also been faulted for being slow to loosen monetary policy when the inflation rate began to decline, and growth was seen to be faltering. Might they have done anything differently? Since the actions of central banks were broadly synchronised, let us focus on the actions of the US Federal Reserve.

The pandemic was correctly seen as giving rise to a supply shock as well as a demand shock.  Monetary (and fiscal) policies to boost demand were entirely appropriate.   Expansionary policy caused the inflation rate in the US to rise above the target rate of 2 per cent in March 2021. 

Once the pandemic-induced restrictions were progressively removed through the second half of 2021, producers found it difficult to ramp up output due to supply chain disruptions. Demand ran ahead of supply, the US inflation rate surged.  There was an expectation that as supply bottlenecks eased, inflation would come under control. In any case, the Fed could not have been expected to tighten policy when the pandemic was still raging.

By December 2021, the inflation rate in the US had touched 7 per cent.  Just as central banks were preparing to tighten policy in early 2022, there came another shock-- the onset of conflict in Ukraine in February that year. Oil prices rose sharply amid expectations that the oil market would be severely disrupted. Inflation in the US shot up to 7.9 per cent in February. By mid-2022, global inflation had tripled relative to its pre-pandemic level. 

The Fed commenced tightening from mid-March 2022, with a 25 basis points (bps) increase in the policy rate. By June 2022, the policy rate in the US had jumped by 150 bps. By July 2023, the rate had gone up by more than five percentage points. Should the Fed and other central banks have tightened even more and even earlier in response to the Ukraine conflict? 

The short answer is that central banks’ responses to such events can only be tentative.  Could anybody have imagined that the conflict in Ukraine would go on for over two years? And that, two years into the conflict, oil prices would be contained at below $80 a barrel, thanks in part to the EU/NATO-imposed price cap on oil imports from Russia?  How much to tighten monetary policy and at what pace in response to such events can only remain in the realm of guesswork.

Suppose the Fed had indeed tightened earlier. What might have happened? The IMF’s Outlook uses a model to examine the outcomes had the Fed tightened three quarters earlier than observed. It finds that peak inflation would have been 2 percentage points lower than what was observed. However, real gross domestic product (GDP) would have been 0.2 percentage points lower. The model suggests that the Fed got the timing right.

 Inflation in the US stayed above 5 per cent until March 2023. Even last September, it was above the target rate of 2 per cent. The conventional wisdom is that when inflation stays high for so long, it is very difficult to get the inflation rate to fall without a substantial sacrifice of growth. Yet the sacrifice of growth has been minimal. 

There are several explanations for this seeming miracle. 

First, as the IMF points out, inflation expectations stayed “anchored”, that is, people did not change their long-term expectations. One can only speculate as to why this happened. It may well be that the credibility of central banks has gone up in recent years.  Economic agents may have seen the pandemic and the deviations from the inflation target that happened as a black swan event.    They may have believed that central banks had the competence to bring inflation to heel sooner rather than later.

Secondly, the Phillips curve appears to have steepened during the high inflation period. This implies that any monetary tightening and the economic slack it creates would result in a greater reduction in inflation than when the Phillips curve is flatter. Central banks end up producing better results than in normal times.   But then how on earth are central banks to anticipate the steepening of the Phillips curve in such times?

Thirdly, high inflation rates did not trigger a wage-price spiral that would have rendered the inflation rate stubborn. One reason certainly is that the power of trade unions in the advanced economies has declined  and workers have less bargaining power. 

Fourthly, the increase in commodity prices was less than, say, during the oil shock of the 1970s, and the energy-intensity of economies itself has declined. Inflation caused by commodity shocks is intrinsically less of a problem today, and a lighter hand is needed to deal with it. It is fair to say central banks have been helped by a combination of favourable factors.

One issue remains. Should central banks have started cutting rates even earlier? Well, with the geopolitical risks that we face, central banks have to tread warily. The conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia have escalated. Either could have spun out of control –and still can. The American presidential elections have posed their own uncertainties. No central bank wants to loosen policy only to tighten soon thereafter.

 Getting policy right in the face of so many imponderables will always be a challenge. In the present round, central banks have had the last laugh. Whether their success is due to tactical genius or pure serendipity is anybody’s guess.