In modern management, there is a great deal of emphasis on professional management of the human resources and recognition of the rights of all stakeholders in general and that of workers in particular.
Workers' rights are viewed as human rights and are, therefore, considered to be sacrosanct.
The underlying assumption behind the above advocacy, however, is that a sense of work ethics prevails at all levels in the organization. And, that the workers will respond productively and effectively to the inducements that the management would offer and would be active members of the organizational work team always working in the interest of the organization if their individual interest is made congruent with it.
It is important to examine the validity of the above assumption in Pakistan. Modern management prescriptions could then be contextualized and made practicable. The 1970s was the period when the blue collar factory workers in Pakistan were given unprecedented rights.
They acquired the right to unionize and to bargain collectively periodically to the satisfaction of all. They were given insurance, medical, and leave benefits. Motorbikes were given on concessional loans which facility was availed by a vast number. Subsidized wholesome meals were provided at the workplace. All textbook material incentives were provided to the workforce.
In return, though, they would practice go-slow so as to make a case for overtime. They would over stretch the two tea breaks and one lunch-cum-namaz break. Many would either sleep or reminisce about the seth's bygone era that they would remember as "horrible" failing to realize that their unethical work practices might usher the seths back in.
Tea consumption would be considered a lot more serious and more important an activity than work accumulated primarily for over-time. When over-time would be given endlessly, the regular time would be viewed as time for rest and relaxation at work to renew their energy for meeting targets during over-time.
Regular time targets were deliberately kept low and overproduction of parts, if any, was concealed for the following day's target. Feather-bedding too was common to create more jobs for kith and kin.
Supervisors and executives would flow with the tide to remain "popular" with the workers. If urged to work properly by some, pat came the reply, "Bhutto is still alive....!" The purpose of Bhutto's nationalization was lost on all and sundry. The beneficiaries of nationalization turned out to be the worst enemies of the aims and objectives of nationalization.
Many managements would feel totally helpless as they failed to mobilize a coalition of executives to resist the workers' resistance. As units incurred losses, the workers would still demand annual bonuses as a matter of "right."
They failed to realize that their virtually unearned salaries and bonuses were gradually eroding their right to even retain their jobs. Soon, many of them found themselves on the streets as the units got privatized and retrenched.
In their capacity as informal workers, this workforce that had completely abused the rights granted to them during the 1970s, had to work hard many times over to make ends meet.
So, while it is fine to say that workers' rights should be secured by managements, their obligations should also be made abundantly clear to them. The poor implementation of worker-friendly policies cannot be blamed on to nationalization alone.
Poor implementation of a policy does not mean that the policy itself was weak. For, it was over three decades ago that an elected government had presented the vision of good management at the micro levels.
That it could not be translated into practice is a story written not just by the workers who became lazy and abusive but also by the management cadre who took the deteriorating situation lying down.
Workers' resistance is reinforced through a laid back attitude of the management. Work ethics on the part of management requires that the management has to do its part in instilling work ethics throughout the length and breadth of the organization.
This would call for the development of a work culture forcibly in a situation where the workforce is not even amenable to work. By force is not necessarily meant using the "stick" or cracking the "whip" all the time but to not relent on the basic requirements for work and an earned salary.
This would, however, necessitate a meeting of the minds first and foremost within the ranks of the management. That is, they should all be sold to the same view of work ethics. This view would, however, be shared by all, inter alia, after a series of workshops and brainstorming sessions so as to bring all on the same wavelength.
The convergence would, however, not be possible if the management cadre too have some kind of vested interest in the inefficiency of the workers. For example, over-time payments to management staff along with those to the workers is a measure that would encourage more of over-time and not less.
In addition, a staff that is not inclined to work hard itself would not be able to make the labourers work any harder. Those who find modern management concepts impracticable due to workers' resistance have to first assess how much on course they themselves are.
Before making the workers fall in line, it is the management's ranks that have to assemble on the same platform. "Educative" and "rational" change strategies may be used for the purpose after, of course, changing all those policies that may be making the staff's interests more convergent with the workers than that of the management, as above.
It is only after the management cadres are adequately sensitized to the norms of work ethics can they be expected to take this issue up on the factory floor. To push it through the floor, the trade unions will need to be carried along without which there will remain a body for workers to hide behind.
And, since there are many literate and educated amongst the trade unions, "educative" and "rational" change strategy should be able to work. With the trade unions, as with the management cadre, the above change strategies will show results only if the top management is able to instill confidence in them which, in turn, will happen only if the top management is able to win the trust of all the rank and file.
Trust can be won only with openness, honesty, and transparency. To prepare different pictures for different stakeholders is to win the trust of none as people are intelligent and can see through the claims made at the top.
This discrepancy is the beginning of adversarial relationships between the top management and the stakeholders in general and the workers and staff in particular. Once caught in this vicious cycle, there will be no end to passing the buck.
Inculcating basic work ethics becomes even more challenging in Pakistan where the general cultural milieu supports cutting corners by viewing it as "smart," where hard work is generally mocked, and "work smart" is thoroughly misunderstood.
While "work smart" focuses on the attainment of organizational goals, "cut corners" focuses on the attainment of personal goals often at the expense of organizational goals.
With distorted work norms, additional management challenge in Pakistan is to insulate the organizational work environment from the external counterproductive cultural forces.
If managements are successful on this front, they will be able to make the organizations enter into a productive virtuous cycle for the benefit of all stakeholders. The various advocacy groups especially those for workers would need to be included.
For, the advocacy emphasis should be able to strike a balance between the rights and obligations of the entire workforce including the workers' and the top management's.
