Work labor management

(Marketing, Strategy and General Management)
Work, Labor, and Management Yaksha Prashna or Dharma-Baka Upakhyana is a question-answer session between Yudhishthira and Yaksha in the Hindu epic Mahabharata. This happens when the Pandavas were finishing their twelve years of exile in the forest and were getting ready to start their Agyat Vasa. In total, Yudhishthira was asked 125 questions under several headings. The questions were asked by a crane which revealed itself as Yaksha. Yudhishthira was able to answer all the questions correctly and satisfy Yaksha. This saved the lives of all the Pandava brothers. The answers given by Yudhishthira forms the basis of all further philosophical and theological discussions on Hindu religion down the ages. Yaksha asked Yudhishthira that what, according to him, is most wonderful. Yudhishthira answered that what is most wonderful to him is that although every day so many living beings are dying and going to the land of Yama (God of Death), yet we think, believe, and behave as if we are immortal and are going to live forever. Yaksha also asked what the news is, i.e., what is the real situation in the material world. Yudhishthira replied that the world which is full of ignorance is like a pan. The sun provides the fire with night and day as the fuel, and the months and the seasons are the wooden ladle. Time is cooking us in that pan which, according to Yudhishthira is a miserable place full of ignorance. According to Yudhishthira, Virtue or Dharma, Artha or Profit, and Kaama or Desire can co-exist only when one has a virtuous wife. Persons are condemned to everlasting hell when they promise a Brahmin some charity and then refuse, or speak falsehoods of scriptures or Vedas, or does not give even when he has because of his greediness. The real Brahmin, according to Yudhishthira, is only through Behaviour and not by birth, study, family, or learning. The True Man who possesses all kinds of wealth is the one who has overcome all the dualities of material life like happiness/sadness, friend/enemy, love/hate, heat and cold, etc. Yudhishthira was then asked questions on Virtue, Fame, Heaven, and Happiness. He replied that Liberty is the Highest Guard of Virtue, Gift is the Highest Guard of Fame, Truth is the Highest Guard of Heaven, and Good Behaviour is the Highest Guard of Happiness. Skill is the best of all Laudable Things, Knowledge is the most Valuable Possession, Health is the best of All Gains, and Contentment is the best of all kinds of Happiness. In answers to a separate set of questions, Yudhishthira answers that Renouncing Pride makes one Agreeable, Renouncing Anger leads to No Regret, Renouncing Desire makes one Wealthy, and Renouncing Greed makes one Happy. With a few modifications here and there, we may consider this as the first principles of thinking about human behaviour and how society structures and organizes itself in dealing with its members. This is not only true for India or the so-called Oriental but has remarkable similarity with the thought processes of the West at different points in time. Yudhishthira’s reflections were contemporary as well as modern and visionary – timeless. That is why it is the first principles of life. If one considers the question of who the real Brahmin is, and the answer is behaviour – it is crystal clear even in today’s society. A Professor who behaves like a construction worker in India, needs to be treated like a labourer and not given the respect that is due to a professor – supposed to be a man of letters. A senior politician or minister indulging in corruption and other nefarious activities has to be punished like any other criminal. Yudhishthira, at that age and time, completely ignores lineage or education from the consideration. The assumption being that if one is truly educated or is high born, it should be manifested in his behaviour and then only will he qualify himself for respect as a Brahmin from other members of the society. This is quite similar to our current thinking across the different cultures in this world. Dante’s Inferno which is a part of his epic Divine Comedy, gives us a glimpse of what ideally should happen or the kind of punishment a person deserves when s/he goes astray. The idea behind this was that any serious kind of misdemeanours or the commitment of a ‘sin’ should be or actually gets suitably punished. This irrespective of position, power, or the nature of work that person was involved in. Dante, in his journey through Hell, was guided by the ancient Roman poet Virgil who was the author of the epic Aeneid. Dante was also quite influenced by several works of Aristotle. In The Inferno, Hell is depicted as nine concentric circles of torment located within the Earth; it is the "realm ... of those who have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites or violence, or by perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice against their fellowmen". The three kinds of sin that brings people to the three major divisions of Hell are: incontinence, violence and bestiality, and fraud and malice. Dante’s Hell was divided into Upper Hell and Lower Hell and had nine circles. The punishments in Lower Hell were more severe than that in Upper Hell. According to Aristotle, incontinence is a sin of lesser magnitude than fraud or violence. So, those who were guilty of incontinence were placed in Upper Hell in the circles 2 to 5. Incontinence means people who could not control their appetite, desires, or other natural urges. That would mean people who were lustful, gluttonous, hoarders and wasters, and the wrathful and sullen. People in lower hell were those who committed violence and/or fraud. These are considered as “abuse of the specifically human faculty of reason”. So, the punishment for violence was lower hell in circle 7. For fraud, circles 8 and 9 were allotted. Circle 9 was mostly about treachery. These were in line with the basic structure proposed by Aristotle and then guided by Virgil. Now, Dante being a Christian, added a few things from his own religion. He assigned circle 1 for ‘’Limbo’’ in upper hell and circle 6 for ‘’Heresy’’ to lower hell. Limbo was for people who did not commit any grave sin but at the same time, were pagans who did not accept Christianity. So, in modern terminology – you reap as you sow. Since the topic of first principles came up in the discussion, let us have a look at the basic concept of what first principles stand for. Just like atoms or molecules are the building blocks of substances or any matter, first principles are the building blocks of reasoning, logic, and rationale. It is not possible to break it down further. First principles are the basic elements which forms the foundations of any scientific observation and logic. The idea is very similar to value engineering – break down complex and complicated problems into its basic elements and then reassemble and build it up from scratch. This really is a challenge to our creativity and innovativeness. Normally, when we talk about a problem there are a lot of assumptions and not so robust rationale and analogies which we are not even conscious about. Breaking things down to the basic elements frees our minds from the clutter of inadequate reasoning and gives us an opportunity to observe the problem with crystal clear clarity. Richard Feynman once commented – “I don’t know what’s the matter with people: they don’t learn by understanding; they learn by some other way—by rote or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!”. Aristotle defined first principles as “the first basis from which a thing is known”. He went on to elaborate – “In every systematic inquiry (methodos) where there are first principles, or causes, or elements, knowledge and science result from acquiring knowledge of these; for we think we know something just in case we acquire knowledge of the primary causes, the primary first principles, all the way to the elements”. This becomes clear when we look at sports. Football has always been played in the 4-2-4 formation. All leading teams in the world cup used to play in this format and this was the accepted norm. In the seventies, the Dutch national coach began questioning that. He then came up with the idea of total football. This meant that players are no longer assigned as forwards or defence players. When the team attacks, the whole team moves up and when the opponent attacks, the entire team falls back. This was spectacular football and a path breaking spectacular football strategy. It succeeded enormously and the Dutch national team came second (missing the champion position narrowly) in two consecutive world cups in the seventies, 1974 in Germany and 1978 in Argentina. The strategy came up because the extant wisdom or norms of world football was questioned and a completely new way of playing the game was created. This was by no means easy, but this form of play changed the way teams and countries approached football. This is typically thinking from first principles where the existing assumptions and reasonings and analogies were questioned and a completely new vision of playing the game of football was created – and this, at the pinnacle of world football played by almost two hundred countries in the world. Most coaches were restricting themselves to tweaking the same model and trying to get a competitive advantage by deriving a little extra efficiency and productivity from the same format. Thinking from first principles by the Dutch football coach Rinus Michels in 1974 and then followed by Ernst Happel in 1978, the Dutch created football history perhaps unparalleled so far in the game. However, one has to always remember that it is not only about strategy. It is equally important to implement the concept in the field and the Dutch team, at that time, produced some all-time great footballers like Johan Cruyff, Johann Neeskens, and Ruud Krol. This combination took the footballing world by storm and left their indelible mark in the history of world football. There are numerous examples of first principle thinking in the world of business. IBM did not see the PC revolution in time and this bluest of the blue-chip company was in complete doldrums. Then they started from scratch and has again build up the company to a formidable status in the industry across many verticals. However, the old glory is gone. In the meantime, tech companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, HP – to name a few – have stolen a march over IBM. Similar things have happened in the retail sector. The emergence of e-retailers like Amazon is putting pressure on the performance of even a behemoth like Walmart. There is an old saying in business – the seeds of tomorrow’s failure are in today’s success. Once we get accustomed to a certain way of doing things, it is very difficult to change even though we might notice the writing on the wall clearly. It is always fruitful to remember that other than the laws of nature, everything can and should be questioned. Most of us have our thinking outsourced to others. Most of us believe that what others say is extant wisdom and it is in our best interests to believe and follow them. In a way, having a role model is also not always beneficial. This is because then we just want to replicate what others have thought before us and they, in turn, would have probably learnt it from some others they thought were knowledgeable and ‘knows everything’. A few decades back, everybody wanted to be a doctor or an engineer. Nowadays, everybody wants to have an MBA. As a result, we see so many dissatisfied professionals in our country today. This herd mentality and the inability to think independently for himself or herself creates cognitive dissonance which undermines performance and develops an inability to live life to the full. Even if the choices are exercised in the early stages in the career, the person is well advised to be prepared for change even in the advanced years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as has been amply demonstrated in the Western countries. In India, the social structure and the education system does not equip the student to take decisions which are perceived to be high risks in one’s career prospects. This also stems from the fact that success in a career is almost always measured by the amount of money earned during the course of their career. This obsession with earning money is understandable in a poor country like India – but what is confounding is the absolute ignorance among the student community about their suitability to a certain profession or a career. This may arise from a lack of relative opportunity in our country where even youngsters are quite risk-averse by nature. Add to this the phenomenon of power distance and you have the heady concoction of a safe and secure way of life where thinking, original independent thinking, gets totally outsourced and is very often subject to the dictates of others. This environment is just not suitable for first principle thinking as we collectively do not realize that everything other than the law of nature is about shared beliefs. This includes literally everything in the material life, starting from money to national borders. The biggest stumbling block of all discussions in personal as well as professional life is the question why. So, the habit of questioning as practiced by Socrates is the way to find answers to fundamental challenges of life. Yet the answer to this question why is mostly avoided and can become an irritant for many. The boss in a corporate setting will more often than not snub down the questions and ask his team to just carry out his orders with minor tweaking here and there. This is not so much a question of democracy vs autocracy, but the simple observation that not only the boss does not know – he refuses to first acknowledge that he does not know and then refuses to learn. Excellent organizations and top managers know this too well and hence always encourages the team members – including the subordinates – to always question. This is because trying to find answers to the problems and challenges through the questioning method is much more effective in finding solutions – even more than established processes and systems in the organization. In fact, it is the established processes of an organization that needs to be questioned first and questioned more – there is no holy cow. Many or most managers uses the ignoring or snubbing-down method to avoid thinking and giving the right answers whereas the right approach should be to open this issue up for discussion across the relevant stakeholders at least. Young managers need to have the ability to pierce through this mode of self-defence such that they start learning more and implementing better with the right thought processes. TI Cycles, manufacturer and marketer of Hercules and BSA brand of bicycles were based in Chennai in the Southern region of India. The market leaders Hero and Atlas were based in the Northern region of India – Sonipat and Ludhiana belt. The component manufacturers were also mostly located there. This location advantage and the economies of scale ensured that Hero and Atlas were able to manufacture bicycles at much cheaper rates than Hercules and BSA. This ensured their leadership in market share as this product operates in a largely price sensitive market. Instead of taking things lying down, TI Cycles started questioning on how this situation could be changed – how TI Cycles can compete effectively with Hero and Atlas on the price points. After a lot of discussions and questioning a solution emerged. The solution was to get closer to the customer and bring the vendors closer to the manufacturing unit in Chennai. Further questions (soul searching) and discussions led to an even more dramatic solution. The factory in Chennai was to be broken down and four factories (smaller in size) were to be set up in the four regions of the country. This was a painful decision as it meant loss of jobs in Chennai. After a lot of discussions and continuous going back and forth, it was decided to go ahead with the solution – as it involved the basic question of survival of the company itself. So, TI Cycles started from scratch – downsizing Chennai factory and setting up factories in Nasik (West), Noida (North), and Durgapur (East) – one after the other in that order. The existing vendors were required to align themselves with the locations of these factories in line with the principles of supply chain reengineering. The other details need not be discussed here, but the gains for the company were way beyond our own expectations. This kind of supply chain reengineering has become very commonplace now – but, in 1997, this was a pioneering and visionary line of thinking. This is an example of first principle thinking at that time in the world of business. This exercise resulted in TI Cycles becoming number two as Atlas folded up within a few years. Most importantly, the company became extremely profitable, and the resultant stability and security went a long way in serving the customers better. All stakeholders benefitted immensely from this systematic and methodical application of the first principles. Henry Ford was once asked why he did not listen much to customer feedback. He replied that if he listened to his customers, he would have been still making 16-horse carriages. This meant that his customers did not have any idea about the possible invention of the automobile. They wanted faster and safer transformation and at that time it meant adding more horses to the horse carriage. First principles ensured that the internal combustion engine was invented and made available for commercial production. Henry Ford understood the significance of the engine which was going to change the transportation industry forever. This invention of the automobile far exceeded the expectations of the customers and of course became an instant hit. The same is true of all major inventions in human civilization, especially in the last two/three centuries – from the electric bulb of the great inventor Thomas Alva Edison to the telephone, right down to the aeroplanes, TVs, and computers in the modern ages. The lesson to be learnt is that the customer can only articulate his needs. He, however, is incapable of visualizing the exact nature of the product or service that is going to satisfy his needs. This is where business management and marketing come into the picture. It is our duty to translate the needs of the customer to a commercially viable product. All these inventions are born out of nothing but the application of first principles. This is how important and how useful first principles are to the human civilization. It is not necessary that first principles are only for extraordinary inventions. This principle can be used for even small progress. Some years back, the placement department of a reputed business school in India was just tottering around without any form of a sound strategy. The department were placing the students (a comparatively small number then) with great difficulty, and this was causing a lot of anxiety and stress in the system. Moreover, the entire placements were heavily dependent on the recruitment by two large organizations. The rest of the companies were not of top order and consequently, the average salary package of the passing out students were also not very encouraging. Then a new General Manager was inducted into the system and the manpower situation of the department was augmented further. Then the team sat down and realized that this way of working was not very methodical and systematic and hence the market coverage was inadequate. It became clear that the primary inadequacy of the department was that the department collectively were not even aware of companies and their recruitment teams across the country. In short, they needed a comprehensive database. Some databases were procured and even these proved inadequate as the data in most of them was inaccurate. The team then started developing the database themselves and through a slightly complex process they managed to develop a comprehensive database with very high degree of accuracy. This data was then divided based on size, geography (regions), and of course the industry category. The targeted companies were then followed up very methodically not only by the placement executives, but also by the student placement committee. The result is that lot of top order companies now turn up for recruitment in the campus of that business management institute. So, the first principle of B2B marketing is to target customers who will add value to the marketer – and, for this, the basic requirement is a near accurate database. Principally what is to be kept in mind is that the B2C consumers are diffused and hence requires mass marketing, which is collective in nature, while in case of B2B, marketing needs to be specifically targeted – if possible, individually. So, first principles are all about moving away from the assumed reality of incremental improvement and moving into the realm of possibilities. These possibilities need not be borrowed or influenced by others. This is because each individual is a product of his own experiences and the conventions that has been taught to him which he considers as sacrosanct. Here a bit of individualism may be good simply because there are numerous methods and approaches to a given problem, but the complex problem gets solved only when first principles are applied with honesty and integrity. In much of human history, man has learnt to work and work better with improving efficiency. Before the advent of the agricultural society, people were hunter-gatherers, and they had a lot of leisure time. They were termed as ‘the original affluent society’. This is because they could pluck fruits etc and live a life of harmony with other creatures. However, there definitely were problems of scarcity and diseases etc which were not taken into account. The leisure time also was used for cultural and social activities like initiation of the younger people into the ways and cultures of the tribe. This was supported in Greek literature as well. Hesiod (7th century BCE) talks about abundant resources especially in availability of food, in his book Works and Days. One remarkable aspect of huntergatherer society was that it was completely egalitarian in structure. Hierarchy came into existence only in the agricultural societies and communities. The renowned anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has this to say in his book Stone-Age Economics (1972): ‘A good case can be made that hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society’. If this is the case, then the obvious question is why then people work. The answer is simple. The primary motivation of work has not changed from the ancient times. That is, to earn a living. People work on two-time frames – one is the immediate or the short-term and the other is the future or the long-term. The short-term purpose is to obtain the necessities of life and the long-term purpose is to secure our future, that is to make certain that we continue to obtain the necessities of life in the future as well. In today’s world, the definition of necessities of life varies according to the positions in the hierarchy of the society. This is however a different discussion and can be done in some other context. For the time being, suffice it to say that everybody works for the present as well as for securing the future of not only himself, but for his progeny as well. In modern times work has become more complex and complicated and the possibilities of the nature of work available has exploded. There are so many different forms of work and so people have a much better choice of what s/he wants to do and what kind of work will be suitable for him. So, the purpose of work has become varied. For many, it is no longer about earning the basic necessities of life alone but is also a source of satisfaction and happiness – giving a meaning to our lives. Unfortunately, the inner motivation and the external motivation are often at loggerheads. There are so many high paying jobs with high status but lacks substance and is devoid of any meaning to the heart and mind of the individual worker. The opposite is also true. Many low paying jobs give a lot of satisfaction and happiness to educated individuals. This of course raises a fundamental question – why jobs with high satisfaction level like the job of a professor is so low paying whereas the job of a CEO which is so monotonous and stressful, such high paying. The scientist who sends satellites and humans to the moon and beyond gets a remuneration which is a fraction of a movie star, a sports star or even a high-profile corporate head honcho. Research shows that even in a highly commercialised society like USA, the most respected and loved profession is that of the teacher-professor and doctor, whereas one of the most disliked is that of a businessman or even high-profile business executives. The situation in India is very well known. So, the society has come a long way and the intricacies of the reward systems of the society has changed completely. As they say – nobody is ever remembered for the money they make. There is a point of view which tries to explain this conundrum. Since the world of work has become utilitarian – meaning, how useful one is to the organization determines the payback. One point of view goes even further. This is money goes to persons who are closest to money – meaning, how much money the individual is able to generate for the organization. So, apparently, a player like Lionel Messi earns much more than any doctor however much reputed he may be. Of course, there is one thing that must always be kept in mind – and that is that there is only one Messi in this world whereas there may be countless doctors in this planet. On an average, internationally famous football players earn much more than a reputed doctor. So, it is much more complex than what meets the eye at first glance. Since, this is a different area, it will be taken up later. What matters is that in the organized sector, money is slowly becoming a non-issue and what is becoming very important is the internal issue of job satisfaction – the question that every young man and women face today in any meet is what you do, and where do you work, and are you happy. This is also because work is becoming all-pervasive taking away the leisure time of every working person and hence it is as if life depends wholly and solely on work. At this point in time, it is difficult to say whether this development is good or bad for the individual as well as the society. However, one thing is certain and that is that life will always be much larger than only work and leisure and enjoying leisure time is an absolute prerequisite for a healthy body and mind – the overall well-being of individuals as well as the society. Ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius, a contemporary of ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, clearly segregated work into two different segments – one is the intellectual work, or the work done by the heart and mind, and the other form of work is done by physical labour or the strength of the body. Aristotle goes a step further and devises the hierarchy of work. According to Aristotle, at the top of the hierarchy is theoria – meaning thinking or contemplation. Below this is praxis or practical work. This primarily means political work including ethics. At the bottom is the techne which means craft and includes physical labour. At the bottom of the hierarchy were the slaves or the douloi, as it was then called. Their work was to collect and provision the necessities of life primarily food and drinks. According to Aristotle, there is an inherent dignity and goodness to thinking. That is not the case with physical labour. Aristotle says that there is no dignity in physical labour and the sole purpose of labour is to provide leisure to those engaged in thinking and contemplation. So, if for providing leisure, somebody else has to do the physical labour, it is par for the course. Aristotle is convinced that pursuit of intellectual work which is born out of leisure is the ultimate purpose of human life. In a way, Aristotle gives a tacit support to slavery which was deeply embedded in the Greek life then. So, in reality, our comfort is an outcome of deep discomfort of many others. This is definitely very controversial in light of modern thought processes. A more detailed discussion on this topic will be done in the subsequent paragraphs. Tom Angier published an article in Revue Internationale de Philosophie titled ‘’Aristotle on work’’. This article was published in 2016 (Volume 278, Issue 4, pp. 435-449). The concepts discussed flow from the basic thoughts discussed in the earlier paragraphs. Like the caste system in India, Aristotle also believed in the hierarchy of work. He was also influenced by Plato’s thinking that there is a correlation between class and occupation. So, theoria is the guardian and provisioning are assigned to the lower classes in the hierarchy. There is also an assumption that the perishable is ontologically inferior to the eternal. That also means that the body is inferior to the soul. This is remarkably similar to ancient thinking in India – the Vedas and the Upanishads. It probably means that the thought processes across the world are similar at the same timeframes. It is common knowledge today that information travels around the world in lightning speed and there is a continuous exchange of ideas and cutting-edge thought processes across the geographical boundaries. It is however illuminating to see that almost the same phenomenon was present during the ancient times as well. This crossfertilization of latest ideas and knowledge across the developed and developing world will keep the entire world in the right trajectory – moving towards inclusive growth consistently across national boundaries and also within the countries. Surprisingly, this theory as propagated by Plato and Aristotle held steadfast till the advent of the modern age. There were only two challenges to this theory in its entire history. The first came from believers of the Christian faith. Their contention was that when God Himself (Jesus Christ) was trained to be a carpenter, the fundamental principle of placing intellectual work above physical labour or crafts and skills, do not hold water. So, according to them, manual labour also has great dignity and can be, at least sometimes, be on par with intellectual work. Extending this logic, ‘vita activa’ should be placed at the same level as ‘vita contemplativa’. However, the proposition that the ‘unfree’ or ‘illiberal’ occupations are at par with supposed to be ‘guardians’ of society did not gain ground till the modern age. The second challenge came from Marxist philosophy. According to this view and this kind of thinking, labour and not reason distinguishes human beings from animals. The life of contemplativa was perceived as parasitic, idle, and totally unproductive. So, man is different from animals not because of his ability to think, but because he can produce his means of subsistence. It seems that Marx was very empathetic towards the well-being of the labours and not so much about the work per se. Like Aristotle he also believed that there should be enough leisure for the proletariat as well and they should be on par with leisured praxis at least, if not contemplative life. Aristotle always maintained that perishable material goods are inferior to things and creations which does not perish or are eternal. It is with this foundation that Aristotle makes the difference between doulai or physical work to techne, i.e., he subordinates physical work or labour to skills and crafts. There is definitely some merit in his proposition that doulai or physical work is performed on the basis of experience or ‘empeiria’ whereas techne transcends the result of producing something only through experience. Several experiences put together forms part of the memory and systematic coordination in our memory helps an individual to produce a single outcome based on the connectedness of the memory from experiences. So, physical work is the application of universal concepts while the techne is the capacity to make universal judgements about types or classes of objects. The techne does not make ad hoc individual judgements. This is a key area of improvement from doulai to techne. There are other differences also. The doulai or persons who do manual work only knows through experience that a certain event or an occurrence happens or is very likely to happen. The techne knows the reasons for that and has what is called explanatory knowledge. The technai has the rationale or knows the reasons and causes of events or occurrences happening. So, according to Aristotle’s philosophy, the manual worker is dependent on his master (techne) for the explanation of why something is occurring or happening. It is also propagated that the techne is capable of teaching as he knows the rationale and the causes, whereas the doulai does not have the ability to do that. So, it is worth it to cross over from experience to craft and skills as then the knowledge can be transmitted to different people at different points in time. However, the point to note here is that the end result of the activities that the techne indulges in are material goods. As pointed out earlier, material goods are perishable and hence not equivalent to things which are eternal. The scope of the work for a techne is very narrow and is limited to his area of expertise. In today’s world specialization is the name of the game – but in those times, not much value was attributed to this kind of work. However, techne also gets divided into higher and subordinate work. The higher works belonging to techne is like the practice of medicine and is considered high up in the hierarchy of techne work. Similarly, occupations such as the making of shoes etc. will be placed low in the hierarchy of techne work. One area that is very important and contemporary is the understanding that the technical skills are subordinate to the virtues or moral principles of the society as well as the individual. The doctor should not indulge in unethical practices – that is the understanding and expectation. So, the techne needs to practice virtues or moral principles and subordinate his skills to that in order to occupy the higher levels of techne or cross over to praxis. The moral ends of a good life are more important than just craft or skill. Aristotle gives the maximum value to practical wisdom which is the antithesis which is unique but may not be utilitarian at all. So, the question whether wisdom is most uniquely valuable remains. This is what theoria is all about and is placed at the top of the hierarchy of the axiology of work. This also plays a major role in eudemonia or flourishing of the individual as well the society. ‘[T]his activity is the best’, he declares, ‘since not only is intellect [nous] the best thing in us, but the objects of intellect are the best of knowable objects’. The goal of theoria is wisdom or Sophia and this is so because wisdom deals with the first principles of life. This understanding is the foundation of all other sciences and is a sort of umbrella science which covers the basics of all other sciences. Aristotle says, ‘the first principles and the causes are the most knowable; for by reason of these, and from these, all other things are known, but these are not known by means of the things subordinate to them. And the science which knows to what end each thing must be done is the most authoritative of the sciences … and this end is the good in each class, and in general the supreme good in the whole of nature’. So, theoria is not just intellectual attainment, but also subordinates all other forms of knowledge and practice. Hence, techne is wider than experience or physical labour, the master worker is wiser than the mechanic, and theoretical knowledge is more oriented towards wisdom and hence better than just productivity. Sophia transcends all other sciences and interrelate them systematically and methodologically. The wise man is expected to know all the subordinate objects and this encyclopaedic grasp, according to Aristotle is a great achievement. The wise man must know things which are difficult to know and that is the highest degree of universal knowledge. According to Aristotle, wisdom is the most finished form of the combination of comprehension and knowledge, and all these follows from first principles. Those that have fewer principles are better than those with a large number of principles as they tend to be more accurate and has precision – like, arithmetic and geometry. This theory is of course questioned in present times. The first objection is whether it is at all possible to attain that level given the complexity and nature of modern sciences. The chances of having a singular subject which is all encompassing and acts as an umbrella subject for all other subordinate subjects is questionable. The second objection is that modern times are increasingly rewarding specializations and hence it is very difficult in present times to go against the market forces and have that kind of an all-encompassing knowledge of everything. However, generalists are also there in some areas and hence this theory at best requires some modifications – however, the overall direction it takes is, at a preliminary level, justifiable. After Plato and Aristotle’s views, the Christian views were varied. From work being considered as punishment for past sins to a situation where Protestant work ethic believed it is God’s Will. Then a major theory came from Marx which was very sympathetic to the plight of the Industrial worker and wanted a more egalitarian society with much less work and more leisure. According to Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, from then on, a lot of discussions has taken place and many new dimensions to our work and work-life has happened. In one of this discussions, Bertrand Russell (1932) remarked, “work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so.” It may be added that the object created out of work must have some objective value. The worker producing something, anything, gets paid for the value of the product he helped to make – and not from the effort that he has put in. Some experts think that with the advent of modern technology, mainly AI and robotics, work will become optional and not virtually mandatory as it is now. Some other experts think just the opposite. Throughout the history of human civilization work has continuously increased despite many technological breakthroughs. Hence it can be safely assumed that the situation is not going to change in the foreseeable future. In fact, it may become worse with work becoming all pervasive and take away even the leisure time of workers. Of course, we still have the class of people who need not work because of their antecedent wealth. Similarly, nobody else can enjoy a musical performance or a football match for you – it has to be done by the individual only. From definitions, it seems that for some people work can be laborious or stressful while for many others, it can be a pleasure. However, the condition that work produces objective value primarily for others remain in place. Another phenomenon that we need to keep in mind that the performance of work means that one is guided by the will of others as we try to create objective value for the enjoyment or consumption of others. So, work is valued by the value placed on the end result of the work by others. The worker who generates value for others also gains something out of it. The gain may not be only the remuneration but may also include factors from other facets of life. Work, no doubt, has an exchange value. More than that, people cannot remain unemployed over a long time as it starts affecting the person’s mental health. Work also has many positive social aspects. As is well known, human beings are social animals. Through the conduit of work, individuals try to meet their social goals, and this has positive effects of belongingness and other community fellow feeling aspects of life. Hence quality of the workplace culture and it’s fit with the individual is a crucial aspect of happiness at work. Work also is the opposite of passive consumption which is a characteristic of our society today. Work enables an individual to strive for continuous improvement and realize his full potential. This self-improvement is very crucial in developing a high self-esteem and drive pleasure and satisfaction out of life. This meaningfulness of work, whether grounded in autonomy or not, gives a sense of purpose to our lives. According to John Rawls, meaningful work means an individual is able to utilize his complex capacities and this then helps him to augment his self-respect. In other words, work is a journey of self-discovery. Sometimes, pushing the boundaries at work helps a person understand his true potential in ways that he would have never thought of before. As Thomas Carlyle famously said once – “Go as far as you can see; when you get there, you’ll be able to see further”. So, many philosophers believe that society should act as an “employer of last resort” and provide meaningful work if it is otherwise unavailable. Closely connected with this concept is the dignity of work. Modern thinking is that each and every job has dignity – but the challenge is that different jobs have different quantity or quality of dignity. Dignity, again, is closely associated with the conditions at work but has a very practical utility in that it helps to fight labour injustice and exploitation that does not allow upliftment of humanity. It is not that work is always a boon for all of us. Like Roosevelt once said that work is the best thing that human beings ever discovered. However, there are many who oppose the concept of work itself and there are some people who go further and say that the source of all evils in this world emanates from work. In fact, the criticism is not so much about work itself but work as is practiced in our current society and circumstances. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that work in our present environment and culture of organizations – falls far short of expectations for most of the people. ‘In “Useful Work versus Useful Toil,” (1884), for example, the socialist activist William Morris rejects “the creed of modern morality that all labour is good in itself” and argues for a distinction between work that is “a blessing, a lightening of life” and work that is “a mere curse, a burden to life,” offering us no hope of rest, no hope of producing anything genuinely useful, and no hope of pleasure in its performance’. Work has exchange value but the returns to workers in most cases fall far short of expectations. So, not only is it virtually untenable to expect meaningfulness in work, it does not even enable the workers to fulfil their basic expectations in life. Division of labour and too much of specialization has made most jobs monotonous and dull. This results in underemployment which has an adverse effect on the motivation and mental well-being of the workers. Other than the phenomenon of ‘working poor’, some jobs do not even give the basic recognition of the work done – and society completely ignores the benefits that it is accruing from these workers. Over and above this, there are many workers who are engaged in hazardous jobs and many others who has to work double shifts to have their home fires burning. These situations which are of course much more common in developing countries, take away all dignity associated with work. In India, for example, we have migrant labourers who many a times do not even know where their next meal is going to come from. Moreover, a characteristic of work-centred societies is the dichotomy that meaningful work are not high paying and high paying jobs are not meaningful. The current labour markets distort the incentivizing system in such a way that meaningful work becomes an esoteric term which many people do not even understand or plainly ignores. There is also always the spectre of competition among the workers who by definition of the market forces are focussed on productivity and efficiencies. So, if we take a hard look at the way the organizations are structured today, the sole purpose seems to be to turn workers into robots. It remains a matter of conjecture what the role of workers are going to be when there will be widespread use of AI and robotics. Ultimately, nuclear physics is more used for making weapons and not so much for generating power. There is also an opportunity cost of work. In India workers are working for more than 2500 hours per year. In developed countries, the number of hours would be considerably lesser. To this one may add the time taken for travel etc. In addition, workers are expected to be connected with work or on ‘call’ for many more hours. This time could have been easily devoted to some other activities which are much more meaningful to the workers. There is also the cost of engaging other workers like maids and drivers as these workers do not find enough time to do this work – household or otherwise. This trend of work becoming all-pervasive and trying to take away even the free time of workers is definitely detrimental to the workers and also to the society in general. Marx was of the opinion that workers are alienated from their work as they have no say in what and how they produce. They do not even perceive their objective value in the end-product. Workers also perceives themselves as a factor of production and just join the workforce to have an income. Economic productivity of labour is continuously increasing, but the working hours are not getting reduced – in fact, that is also on the rise – and hence a delusion. So, there is no question of enjoying leisure or abundance for most workers at least in the developing world and probably in the developed countries as well. This has gone so far now that workers believe that they are just commodities to be marketed, and if possible, ‘branded’. Ultimately, it is not only about standard of living, but also about quality of life. Only when both are addressed will individuals/workers ‘work to live and not live to work’. Very recently, Gallup released their ‘State of the Global Workplace 2022 Report – The Voice of the World’s Employees’. This is the world’s largest ongoing study of the employee experience. In this report Gallup examines how employees feel about their work and their lives, an important predictor of organizational resilience and performance. Gallup analysed 1,12,312 business units in 96 countries. They found a strong link between engagement and performance outcomes, such as retention, productivity, safety, and profitability. According to Gallup, engagement and well-being are very important as on an average an employee spends upwards of 80,000 hours to 1,20,000 hours at work in his lifetime. And this is only organized labour, the tip of the iceberg, which is a small fraction of the entire workforce especially in developing countries like India. “Work,” according to Oxford Languages, is “activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.” Exerting mental or physical effort to achieve anything is rarely done without stress, worry or even pain. So, what are the major pain points in a worker’s life? The survey shows that the major sources of pain are unfair treatment at work, unmanageable workload, unclear communication from managers, lack of manager support, and unreasonable time pressure. One of the major reasons for all these happening in the workplace is universal – ‘bad boss’. The real fix, according to Gallup, is this simple: better leaders in the workplace. Managers need to be better listeners, coaches, and collaborators. Great managers help colleagues learn and grow, recognize their colleagues for doing great work, and make them truly feel cared about. In environments like this, workers thrive. World over, for 79% of the workers this is a pipe dream. However, for 21% - this is a reality. Stakeholder capitalists as well as shareholder capitalists will be happy to know that business units with engaged workers produce 23% higher profit compared to business units where workers feel miserable. So, having engaged workers and looking after their well-being make good business sense. Now, let us have a look at some of the fine prints of the health of our workplaces as highlighted in the Gallup survey 2022.Globally, employee engagement and wellbeing remain very low, and it’s holding back enormous growth potential. Engagement and wellbeing interact with each other in powerful ways. We often think of engagement as something that happens at work and wellbeing as something that happens outside of work, but Gallup’s analysis suggests that’s a false dichotomy. How people experience work influences their lives outside of work. Employees who consistently experience high levels of burnout at work say their job makes it difficult to fulfil their family responsibilities. Also, overall wellbeing influences life at work. For all its challenges, the U.S. and Canada region remains the best region in the world to be an employee. It is no. 1 in Employee Engagement, no. 1 in Job Opportunities, no. 2 in Wellbeing, and no. 2 in Living Comfortably. This despite employees in the United States and Canada region being some of the most worried and stressed workers in the world. The region also has the most engaged employees. Just over half of employees say they are “living comfortably” on their household income (vs. 22% globally), and the job market in 2021 in the United States and Canada region was exceptionally good, compared with the rest of the world. Globally, Employee Engagement stands at 21% only. The corresponding figures for Life Evaluation (thriving) is 33%. Gallup has divided the entire world in to 10 regions, namely: United States and Canada, South Asia (Indian subcontinent), Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, SubSaharan Africa, Commonwealth of Independent States, East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Middle East and North Africa, and Europe. In Employee Engagement, USA and Canada has the highest score at 33% closely followed by South Asia at 27%. Surprisingly, Europe comes out last with an employee engagement score at only 14%. However, in the Life Evaluation parameter (% thriving), South Asia is last with a score of only 11%. The corresponding score for Australia and New Zealand is 63%, that of United States and Canada is 60%, and that of Europe is 47%. This clearly shows the gap in standard of living as well as quality of life (and work life) between India and the developed countries. In the parameter of Daily Worry - Latin America and the Caribbean, and South Asia is very high with scores of around 50%. The corresponding score for Commonwealth of Independent States is as low as 22%. East Asia, USA and Canada, and Latin America and the Caribbean has a very high degree of Daily Stress with a score of around 50%. South Asia is slightly better off with a score of 35%. However, the lowest stress factor of only 19% is prevalent in Commonwealth of Independent States. In Feeling of Anger, South Asia is the highest at 34% with Middle East and North Africa at 32%. Europe and United States and Canada is only around 18%, whereas Australia and New Zealand and the Commonwealth of Independent States is around 12%. In Daily Sadness, South Asia has by far the highest score with 42% expressing daily sadness. In case of Europe, United States and Canada, and Australia and New Zealand – the score is around 20% only. East Asia is the lowest at 12%. In case of Treated with Respect, South Asia came out as the worst with 19% replying that they were not treated with respect, which is even higher than Sub-Saharan Africa with 16%. As expected, all developed countries are much better in this parameter with scores around 10% or below – and this includes East Asia and South-East Asia as well. In the question of ‘% Living Comfortably on Present Income’, Australia and New Zealand, and USA and Canada are in the best position with scores above 50%. This is closely followed by Europe with 42%. As expected, South Asia, East Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa are the lowest with scores of 15% and below. Now, let us have a look closer home at South Asia. In Employee Engagement, Bangladesh is way ahead of others with 40%, India at the median level of 26%, and Pakistan way below at only 13%. In the Life Evaluation parameter, Bangladesh and Nepal has a %thriving score of around 29%. India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are way below with scores below 15%. In the Daily Worry category, India is the highest at 50% very closely followed by all others at around 45%. In the question of Daily Stress, Sri Lanka is the highest at 55% followed by Bangladesh at 40%. Nepal, India, and Pakistan have done a little better here with scores at around 30%. However, in Daily Anger, India and Pakistan leads with scores at 37% while the others are around 25%. In Daily Sadness also, India leads with a score of 42% and the others at around 35%. In the question of Treated with Respect, 19% of Indian workers said they were not treated with respect. The corresponding figures for the other countries in South Asia hovered around 10% (except Nepal with a high score of 27%). If we look at East Asia, Japan has an Employee Engagement score of 5% and China is at 18%. In the Life Evaluation parameter, both China and Japan have a %thriving score of 28%. This is a surprising result as workers in both China and Japan are perceived to be much more committed to their work. Even if there is an element of force in China, the result of Japan has taken everybody by surprise. So, this clearly shows that workers may try to gel with the prevailing cultures in corporates and bottle up their feelings inside. In the ‘collective’ culture of Japan, individualism or ‘sticking out’ is not accepted at all. However, in today’s world, everybody wants to be recognized outside their own narrow sphere of work. This subjugation of self to the larger collective is no longer being appreciated as these figures clearly show. Individual identity is of paramount importance and hence customised non-material incentives are what the organizations need. However, the saving grace for Japan and China are they have a comparatively higher life evaluation score. This is also a characteristic of workers in the developed countries. They perceive their work as jobs only and they have a life which is not easily encroached upon by work. As the countries are developed, a high percentage of their people are able to enjoy their lives irrespective of what is happening at their workplace. So, in these countries, some workers may not be engaged at work, but their lives are not affected, and they feel that they are thriving in their personal lives overall. However, both Japan and China are way behind USA and Canada and many other countries in the life evaluation parameter as well. In case of India, the case is just the opposite. The employee engagement scores are close to that of USA and Canada which is very surprising by itself – but the point is that the corresponding life evaluation score is less than one-fourth of that of USA and Canada and many other developed countries. This can be easily explained by the fact that our daily lives are much more difficult compared to that of the developed countries. Unfortunately, it does not end there. The point is that the Indian organizations are not at all employee friendly. The working culture of these organizations are way below the expected levels and professional behaviour and attitude are more rare than common. Since the ambition levels of our corporate entities are very low – nobody wants to compete at the international level – there is satiation with ‘whatever we have is enough’ syndrome. Many corporates are still evolving from the feudal systems of the last centuries – the Nawabs and Zamindars are gone but their legacy lives on through large businesses. The way employees are treated in the unorganized sector – the lesser said, the better. In some business communities there is a particular thought process which is often reflected by some politicians as well. This thought process is that employees are nothing but servants and so indirectly they put themselves on the ‘high pedestal’ of ‘Masters’. When the job situation becomes difficult, most leaders would suggest that youngsters at least should try their hands on entrepreneurship rather than looking for jobs. These so-called entrepreneurs soon become petty businessman, mostly shopkeepers, and end up increasing the burden of society and the country without any meaningful contribution. To top it all, they are mostly unemployable. Let us now take a look at some data from the ILO report of 2019. ILO releases the figures for percentage of self-employed country-wise (180 countries). They use labour force surveys and household surveys for this exercise. They also use official estimates and censuses for supplementing the survey figures. The entire workforce is divided into three categories. There are wage and salaried workers. Then there are own-account workers who are self-employed without hired employees. There are also contributing family workers who are generally unpaid, but some compensation may come indirectly from the family income. A developed economy normally has a high percentage of wage and salaried workers. A large percentage of own-account workers indicate a large agricultural sector, and the formal economy is characterised by low growth. A large percentage of contributing family workers means a large rural economy. It is also characterised by low growth of jobs and weak development. Data shows that Middle East (Asia), at less than 5%, has the lowest percentage of selfemployed. The lowest is Qatar at 0.41%. Saudi Arabia has 4.62% self-employed and United Arab Emirates (UAE) has 4.94%. USA, the cradle of entrepreneurship, has only 6.09% self-employed. The corresponding figures for Norway, a highly developed country with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, is 6.46%. Hong Kong SAR (China) is the bastion of capitalism and entrepreneurship for a long time – yet the percentage of self-employed is only 8.40%. The corresponding figures for some other developed economies are Germany – 9.61%, Sweden – 9.84%, Japan – 10.05%, France – 12.13%, Singapore – 13.46%, Finland – 13.46%, Switzerland – 14.37%, Ukraine – 14.94%, United Kingdom – 15.57%, Spain – 15.68%, Netherlands – 16.62%, Poland – 20.01%, Iraq – 22.52%, Italy – 22.74%, Romania – 24.23%, and Korea – 24.57%. The number of selfemployed in the developing countries of South Asia, country-wise, are Pakistan – 56.32%, Bangladesh – 59.27%, India – 75.83%, and Nepal – 77.34%. At the top of the percentage scale are the least developed countries primarily of Sub-Saharan Africa like Niger – 95.06%, Somalia – 91.67%, and Mozambique – 84.28% etc. So, there is a distinct correlation between development of the economy and the percentage of the workforce who are self-employed – or, rather, percentage of the workforce which are on wages and salaries. Development of the economy means that there are educated workers who work in an organized industry with modern and progressive norms and principles. It is not only about incentivising entrepreneurship but also about the safety and security of workers who form the society. What is the use of business if the employees (workers in general) or other stakeholders cannot live a decent life with peace, prosperity, development, and hope. If this does not happen, then entrepreneurship ceases to be beneficial to the country and becomes a conduit of making money by hook or crook. Developed countries have found a way of aligning the goals and objectives of business with that of the society/country. However, the factor that weighs in their favour is that they have ensured opportunities of education and/or training for most of their population. The challenge in many developing countries is to make their people truly educated and push their economies for more organized and formal way of working. Every country which has become prosperous has done so on the back of a strong domestic market. Their investments in education have helped them in myriad ways. Education may not directly show up in the balance sheet or P&L statement, but who in today’s world do not understand the significance of an educated workforce and the contributions they can make to the individual businesses as well as the society. The entire concept of discontinuing education and start working at an early age is not at all tenable and beneficial to the country. These belief systems will produce a few top order entrepreneurs but will fall far short of the requirements of a country – especially, a country as large and diverse as India. The mark of a healthy country is an educated workforce engaged in the industry which is organized and primarily works on two platforms. One of them is the is the security and well-being of the employees who becomes committed to their work and organization. The other is the drive for continuous growth – at the domestic as well as the international markets. Competing worldwide will earn a lot of respect for the country and based on that, business and other economic activities will keep on growing and will then be able to satisfy the hopes and aspirations of the workforce. This is a virtuous cycle which can come only when proper investments are made in the education sector such that a large proportion of the workforce is truly educated and becomes active and meaningful contributors to the economy. Let us now move away from the mathematics of modern-day work in countries around the world and try and focus on some observations and theories of earlier centuries. According to Sigmund Freud, man needs two things for his happiness – “Love and work, work and love”. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi designed a study to ascertain and compare the mindset of people during work and leisure. He coined a term called ‘flow’ which means the optimal experience of people when they are totally immersed in their work. In the study he gathered more than hundred working professionals for one full week. Each day, the participants were randomly contacted eight times through pagers. At that moment each participant was required to write down what they were doing and how they felt. Mihaly had the following to say about his findings - “What was unexpected [from this experiment] is how frequently people reported flow situations at work, and how rarely in leisure." The contention here is that although people need rest and relaxation, work is where they find fulfilment in. This is because they are able to get the optimal experience or ‘flow’ more in work than in anything else. This claim however is contentious as everybody knows lots of people who has a miserable work life and are stuck in it. The point is even those people are capable of experiencing ‘flow’ provided they have the right fit with their jobs. According to Mihaly the problem is not with work but the way we have defined work – too narrow. So, human beings are conditioned to believe that what they do (work) for a living does not provide us with any meaningful satisfaction. We also believe that true happiness can come only when we are at leisure. However, Mihaly believes that there is an innate motivation within all of us to be productive and, possibly, creative. There is one interesting observation made by Professor of Philosophy, Nicholas Smith of Macquarie University published on 21st April 2011. He pointed out that there are some people who earn inheritance without doing any work for that per se. So, they get the benefits without any corresponding cost. However, he immediately pointed out that people who do not work also pays the price in various other ways including loss of self-esteem. German philosopher Hegel famously said that the status of being somebody depends in modern societies on the public recognition of skills and achievements, which participation in a suitably regulated labour market is able to secure. Besides this, work can also help people to get a sense of being connected with something larger than oneself. Many philosophers have put forward the idea that by working one is able to learn to cooperate with each other, solve problems together, and also forms social networks. This makes them good citizens of a healthy democracy. These goods which emanate from working life are intrinsic goods and not subjective preferences. So, workers learn a lot from working which is applicable even in non-work situations. However, simultaneously, we have to remember that not all jobs fulfil these criteria and are sometimes downright bad jobs which hurts the self-esteem and dignity of workers. So, quality of jobs being offered is very important. Otherwise, the intrinsic value of work goes away, and workers react negatively to work. Very closely connected to this concept is the concept of justice and human dignity, as discussed earlier. Distributive justice is the most important here as the current situation is that the costs and benefits of work emanate from the supply and demand situation in the job market. However, it is not always pure market play. In many countries, Government comes in with regulations mostly to protect the rights of the workers. One example of that is minimum wages. If these interventions are not there, exploitation in society may reach outrageously bad proportions. A look at what is happening in the unorganized sector which are not properly controlled or supervised makes the situation clear. The concept of Universal basic minimum income is also being discussed at various international forums – but no proper direction has been found till today. Of course, this concept is way too complex from the implementation point of view and so beyond the scope of discussion of this article. Distributive justice is about protecting workers from discrimination and other wrong things that happen continuously in the workplaces around the world. Apart from distributive justice, workers’ rights are protected or at least guided by Contributive and Productive justice as well. United Nations in 1948 Article 23 – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – assures each individual “the right to work, to free employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment”. Many philosophers have argued that this right is fundamental as it gives the workers access to some desirable social goods. Also, it gives meaning to themselves and is a socially validated model for contributing to the society at large. However, the question is that if this right actually exists then who is responsible for fulfilling this right and if and when fulfilled, then is there a guarantee that the social goods can be obtained by the workers by working in the work provided. According to some opinions of experts, people are supposed to work because they need to fulfil their obligation to the society which has given them so much. However, some people believe that everybody or anybody has the right not to work as he himself is his private property and can achieve self-realization through other means. So, nobody can force another person to work as it is his personal decision. In modern times there are several conceptions of the good life and each man and woman have the right to choose his or her options in life in complete freedom – nobody from outside can interfere in this decision. This has an implication for managements of corporates as workers then should be free to work according to his choices, capacities and at their own pace. In modern corporations and even institutions, the underlying principle is standardization and people also are almost forced to work and produce according to the choices inflicted upon them by the corporate entity (or in any other form of employment). A worker with an MBA in marketing may not want to work in any other function but would be required to do so if he wants to rise and move up the hierarchy – in the name of job rotation. In this age of specialization, corporates have a confused policy - a generalist is preferred for the top job. Everyone wants to be in the fast track and hence it becomes easier for bosses to manipulate workers with the stick and carrot policy. In today’s world, the conception of the good life is also relative, and it keeps on changing – depending on the good life as decided by the peer group or even beyond. The concept of justice may require us to choose our work depending on moral values which comes before self-interest. However, it is not that all workers have to be merely a cog-in-the-wheel for social welfare. He is free to choose work which answers to his job satisfaction or the access to his preferred social goods. All that is practically possible is to keep in mind that social welfare or ‘’paying back to society’’ as we say today, should be an important factor while making our work choices. When all these things are resolved, we are still left with the most important yet most vexing challenges in our collective work lives. This is the matter of human dignity and consequently that of labour rights especially in capitalist democratic countries. It is well-known that over the last few decades, labour rights have been weakened and the power of the owners/capitalists and their managements have strengthened. Overall Governments also has lent tacit support to managements and has passed policies and laws which has resulted in the weakening of the bargaining power of labour. This has happened primarily because there is stiff competition among countries as well as among states within countries for attracting investments which results in the creation of jobs for all. The other reason is legacy. Some decades back, labour militancy has reduced industrialization of states and/or countries in various parts of the world. However, most of us gloss over the fact that managements and owners of industry were equally responsible for closing down of industries and hence the blame does not lie on the labour’s door alone. In India, we have seen how industrialists had manged to break the stranglehold of trade union leaders and now the city is the largest industrial hub in the country, by far. Kolkata was the opposite. Some political parties sponsored the labour movements, and the industrialists could not do anything other than closing down and/or shifting to other peaceful pastures. While all these are facts, the basic question of human dignity and labour rights are not resolved satisfactorily. Simultaneously, there has been an opposite movement in the corridors of power in the corporates. Many corporates, especially multinationals have realized that while the power balance has shifted, the competition for the market has only increased. Those who are not able to create new markets with new contemporary products and services and break free are stuck in the same old traditional industries where mostly demand is either stagnant or reducing and the competition for the same size of the cake is gruelling. This has led progressive managements to come up with various innovative schemes for their employees so as to keep them motivated. Employees expectations are going up and companies are trying to match those them to the best of their abilities. So, on one side there is more giving while on the other side there is more insecurity. It should be interesting to see whether the companies which are rewarding employees more are also creating more insecurity or are they mutually exclusive group of companies. The broad understanding is that they are mutually exclusive. So, the obvious conclusion is that some companies or group of companies are sensitive to their stakeholders in such a way that labour does not feel the need to organize themselves and create a bargaining disbalance with the management. For example, there were talks of one company being taken over by the government. The company belonged to the most reputed business group in India. The workers themselves objected to the government taking over the company and continued with the group. Unfortunately, this level of solid relationship between owners and other stakeholders, primarily labour force, is very rare in the Indian context. The problem with Indian industry is that we are neither here nor there. We are unable to become totally professional like in the developed western countries and, at the same time, we are unable to take care of the labour force in a satisfactory manner. However, off late, there are slippages being noticed in the functioning of many top companies in the western world as well. The case of twitter and meta and many others is an eye opener. One employee of a top tech company in the USA was asked to clear out in one day – after he has worked there for seventeen years. Is that dignity? So, the complication for human dignity is that it is not only applicable to labour but to all levels of workers. The complexity arises from the fact that our conditioning has made even human dignity relative. Before we go into the details of what human dignity and human rights mean, let us have a look at another dichotomy. We are all aware that off late Korean companies are doing very well, and their brands are household names across the world. Yet one very senior official of Government of Korea once commented that “if you can work in Korean companies, you can work anywhere”. One hears that there are many instances where labour was physically manhandled in some factories of Korean companies in India. So, on one side we want unbridled growth and on the other hand we are hooked on to efficiencies and productivity. These two are not necessary two opposing forces. Some companies, especially in the developed west, have found solutions wherein their growth is fuelled by efficiencies and productivity gains in the entire supply chain – but, without compromising on human dignity. Some firms are managing to take the employee well-being to the highest level and yet climb to the top of the global market. So, the question is how they do what others find so difficult. Many experts believe that it is possible because they are complementary to each other. Well taken care of employees will obviously result in superb performances in all areas of the supply chain – not least among them is a superb product (ex. Steve Jobs and Apple). The first step of human dignity is prevention of negative – that means, nobody whether manager or owner has the right to behave and act against the interest and well-being of individual worker. Once it is clear what is not permissible and implemented across the organization, then starts the positive actions of acting on some core issues which will continuously increase human dignity and respect for the individual worker across the organization. The farthest that can be thought about for now in India, is that the organization is actively aware of not only the individual, but also their individuality. This concept is very similar to internal marketing wherein marketers including the top brass “sells” the marketing philosophy and principles of the company to all stakeholders including all employees and workers. The challenge before all companies across the world is that each and every company is a world by itself, and their governance is a major area of concern for every stakeholder. Indians are fortunate that they live in a democratic country where there are adequate checks and balances such that nobody is allowed to dominate or harm individuals. The objective is the maximisation of welfare or flourishing of the entire population such that all of them are able to lead the good life – each according to their own perception or definition. The situation in organized work is totally different. The objective for most firms is just survival and maximisation of profits. Rest all are optional. So, the good of the workers will be done by the owner (or the management) in such a way that it gets done with the least minimum cost to company. No management wants to splurge on their employees, nor is it justified, or it does not make good business sense. However, the basic minimum or the amount that they can get away with is the goal of most managements especially in poor countries where the workers are dependent on their jobs even for their subsistence. This is still remotely acceptable as people in poor countries get used to being manipulated or exploited at all stages of their life cycle. The worst problem in most organizations is autocracy or dictatorial tendencies. It is a culture in most countries that any major activity or decision to be taken in organizations has to pass through the “boss”. So, unfortunately, in most organizations (private corporates) in democratic countries, decisions, big and small, has to go through the major “boss” – probably money power dictates this. So, “boss satisfaction”, instead of the content or quality of work, is always the major objective. This holds good for all forms of work – organized, unorganized, etc. It can be argued that this phenomenon differs from organization to organization and is dependent on the work culture of the entity. This is absolutely true. However, building the overall culture and the work environment of an organization is the responsibility of the owner- manager and the top management. In poorly run organizations, work can become drudgery at all levels. In some other organizations, work is fun, and people enjoy not only the work, but also the socialising and the network building. Most organizations are somewhere in between and honest efforts by the top management to take their eyes off from relentless pursuit of the top line and the bottom line to the recognition, respect and appreciation of individual workers go a long way in building top performing organizations. Most companies make the mistake of putting all their efforts in satisficing the managers and not the labour force which they think are easily substitutable. Reality is quite different. The battle for the market and the minds of the customers are won the moment top management starts working on the well-being of the labour force. This is of course easier said than done but visible efforts also have a tremendous effect on the morale of the employees. Family-owned organizations, especially in India, always insist that all stakeholders are part of the family. While this is a great attitude to have, this also breeds the benevolent dictator kind of management ownership style. The underlying principle that every worker perceives is that owner of the organization is also our owner and to put it crudely, it is owner who feeds us. Moreover, the reward systems in such kind of organizations are based on loyalty and obedience. Similarly, in educational institutions especially private ones, staff and faculty will do well to remember that it is the students who pay the salaries and not anybody else. This is a completely different culture from professional companies where the employees are made to understand that it is the consumers who are paying the salaries of all workers in the organization. P&G, for example, makes it mandatory for all workers and managers to spend one week in the market (irrespective of their functions). So, human dignity starts when the company recognizes the need for human rights and because it is about business, it must be said that working towards full fledged human dignity of workers has positive outcomes only – a healthy top line and a healthy bottom line. Of course, this works better in meritocracies like USA or other developed countries in the western world. India may still be struggling to reach that level, but there is no harm in companies trying it out individually. Some organizations in India have done that or are in an advanced stage of implementing that, already. Snowball effect is also expected soon, hopefully. Let us have a look at what UN resolutions says about human dignity and/or human rights. The Preamble of the Universal Declaration very clearly talks about “human dignity …… of all the members of the human family”. It also expresses faith in the “dignity and worth of the human person”. Article 1 asserts that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and that they “are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The Preambles to both Covenants (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) assert that human rights “derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.” The Universal Declaration also articulates specific rights and in Article 22 presents “economic, social and cultural rights [which include labour rights] as indispensable for [persons’] dignity and the free development of [their] personality.” There are three types of rights, which are practically salient around the world, and enumerated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They are the following: (a) Rights regarding access to work (including, e.g., opportunities for employment, free choice of employment, non-discrimination in hiring, and some security in holding jobs) (b) Rights regarding decent conditions at work (e.g., adequate remuneration, equal pay for equal work, safe and healthy conditions, rest, and holidays) (c) Rights to form and join unions (and to strike). This and many other relevant ideas have been discussed in “Dignity at Work” by Pablo Gilabert (Philosophy; Concordia University, Montreal) [Philosophical Foundations of Labour Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press)]. What is to be kept in mind here is that human dignity has a deontic status which means every human being is owed adequate respect and dignity. It is also important to appreciate that the word dignity is not complete by itself – there are many factors/variables which constitute dignity for each and every human being. So, every human being has the right to live a decent and flourishing life – the good life as described from the ancient times. In this aspiration, there are two forms of duties – negative and positive. The negative or the termination of negative actions is not to resist, block or destroy valuable human capacities – which means, the positive actions are that not only every human being can aspire to the realization of his or her full potential, but it is simultaneously our duty to help him or her to protect and facilitate the entire process of attaining that goal and to ensure that they succeed. When one talks of human rights, the meaning that one gets is probably the basic minimum. However, modern conceptualisation goes further and hence labour rights are perceived to be much more than just basic human rights. Of course, in all these discussions, the assumption remains that we are discussing things with the background of a modern, industrialized, and overall capitalistic society. This issue is quite complex as the concepts of human dignity and human or labour rights are entangled with a lot of other related areas and social justice is one among them. For example, how do you talk about dignity or rights when there are so much of inequality within the same system or society. So, if justice is not delivered, social or otherwise, how do the system ensure that the workers get the minimum expected dignity. Are they then able to exercise their rights which may help them in their quest for a flourishing life. If the society were functioning efficiently all these answers should have been affirmative and readily available – at least, in the normative sense. However, as we all know, we are very far off from that ideal situation and hence we need to cover a lot of ground if we are really interested in improving the lives of the workers ensuring that they get their deserved respect and dignity and can exercise their rights properly. There are five types of goods and access to these goods becomes possible comparatively easily through work. In these cases, work cannot be substituted by any other means and more costeffectively in the given environment. The five types of goods are: consumption goods, selfdevelopment, socializing, contribution (to and for others), and self-esteem and self-respect. These goods or access to these goods are quite similar to what is known in management as Maslow’s Law. So, the worker will first satisfy his primary need of food and shelter etc, and then will go up the ladder until reaching the self-actualization stage. It is our duty to collectively help the workers to attain that level – physically as well as mentally. Workers are in need of and seek decent work. Now, decent work varies in the perception of each individual worker. However, there are conditions which are quite common, and they may include decent remuneration, no harassment, and opportunities for growth and development of the worker. Noe expectations from a decent job may go further. It may include adequate rest in terms of vacations and work time limits as also the opportunity to participate in the social, cultural, and political life of the society. Another very important feature is the availability of free time to be devoted to friends and family. This one is crucial for every worker as for most workers, family and friends are the biggest source of encouragement and motivation. It is generally believed that workers will not get all these until and unless they have a good clout on their management. This means the bargaining and negotiating power of the workers with their management must be strong enough. This stems from the belief, correctly assumed, that no management wants to give more to workers than is absolutely necessary. It is not that there are no exceptions – but this is the normal situation. In today’s capitalistic societies, workers have to assert their rights and not be dependent on the benevolence of their employers. This organization of labour is very complex as there are lots on interested parties in the equation. The biggest obstacle to the unity of workers are the different political beliefs and consequently the interference and active participation of the political parties from outside. While political forces may be necessary to organize workers, the competition between the political parties to gain control over the workers becomes a divisive force which are then utilized by the owners/management of the organizations. It is also a fact that solidarity of workers has many benefits not only for the workers but also for the organization and the society at large. So modern capitalism is doing a disservice by trying to break down or bring down the power of the workers solidarity. Modern societies should thrive on dialogues, discussions, debates, and negotiations. Lobbying the government for favourable policies and laws is a legacy that every country and every government should try to come out of. Through the encouragement of ultra large corporates, big money, and big tech, society is creating Frankenstein which will drive out the basic balance in a society already reeling under the major challenge of inequalities. The day is not far off when these business entities will start challenging the governments themselves and some time the governments will become dependent on them. Unbridled power of these corporates will one day encourage them to even run parallel governments in some of the impoverished countries. Even developed countries will not be out of the ambit of these large entities. This will be a real dangerous development for the society – the checks and balances between the various segments of society will completely vanish giving rise to chaos and anarchy. Your imagination is your preview of life’s coming attractions – Albert Einstein. Go as far as you can see; when you get there, you’ll be able to see further – Thomas Carlyle. Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life –

Confucius. R. G. Choudhury 27/11/2022