Focus On Outcomes, Not Hours, For A Trusting, Productive Work Environment

In a country like India where 60-plus hour work weeks have become commonplace, do we need to step back to evaluate where this is leading us? Can we stop equating this constant hustle culture with productivity, and foster practices that improve employee well-being and creative thinking?

This question addresses multiple levels of complexity. It’s important to recognise that India is not homogenous; it encompasses individuals at the forefront of innovation and creativity alongside a significant population in hourly and daily-wage roles. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all solution isn’t feasible. What applies to a local kirana shop worker differs vastly from those in large corporate settings.

For large corporate setups, a significant challenge lies in aligning our social aspirations with more developed Western markets while our economic development lags behind. India faces significant income inequality and a surplus of labour — we have more workers than we can employ — limiting our capacity to support policies like unemployment benefits and shorter work weeks seen in Western economies. Emulating Western work styles without considering our unique circumstances may not be appropriate.

China’s success, for example, stems from its intense competition, driving innovation and leadership in AI, e-commerce, and robotics. This wasn’t achieved by adhering to 40-hour work weeks. Jack Ma even advocates for the 9-9-6 culture — working 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week. It’s unfortunate that we often compare ourselves to Europe, overlooking other regions like North America, China, Japan, and other major Eastern economies. In the US, for instance, young investment bankers typically work 15-hour days. Therefore, comparisons with European countries are unfair and misplaced, considering our economic trajectory.

However, the human factor is crucial in a knowledge economy where our primary assets are our minds. Adequate rest is essential for optimal performance, and individuals rejuvenate differently — some through sports, others through leisure activities like watching movies. Thus, rather than enforcing a blanket policy like a 35-hour work week, which may be impractical, we should promote personalised rejuvenation and flexibility. Some weeks may demand 80-hour commitments, balanced by lighter, say, 30-hour weeks.

The key challenge for companies lies in fostering flexibility and equipping managers to support it effectively. Frontline managers play pivotal roles as force multipliers, risk mitigators, motivators, and communicators. Developing a skilled cadre of managers allows organisations to adopt personalised, flexible approaches over rigid policies. This is how I would address the debate sparked by Narayan Murthy’s statement on 80-hour work weeks.

There’s a growing gap between progressive and traditional work styles. In your opinion, what strategy should leaders adopt to bridge the gap between generations to create a more inclusive workplace?

This is a question we’re currently grappling with, and I don’t think there’s a definitive answer yet. Leaders, companies, and managers, who are generally over 40, often find themselves managing employees who are around 25-30. This generational divide creates differing perspectives on work, workplace dynamics, and workforce expectations, leading to regular chaos.

I don’t have a one-size-fits-all solution, but in my experience, two strategies have proven effective. Drawing from my personal experience, I’ve seen that providing context to younger employees is crucial. For instance, just this week, we were delivering a major project and needed additional work over the weekend. Explaining the importance and impact of this work helped gain commitment from the team. When people understand the “why” behind a task, they’re more likely to engage and dedicate themselves to it. Viktor Frankl, one of my favourite authors, said, “If you give a man a why, he can survive almost any how.” This principle holds true in the workplace.

Instead of mandating a 35-hour work week, advocate for personalised rejuvenation and flexibility, accommodating heavier workloads with lighter weeks as needed.

Moreover, I encourage my managers to transition from being mere directive-givers to becoming influencers. Rather than simply issuing commands, they should provide context, outline the goals, and allow the team to discover their own methods to achieve these goals. This approach fosters greater commitment and engagement, especially among younger employees who may not conform to traditional 9-to-5 work hours but contribute significantly in their own flexible ways.

Of course, there are times when giving direct orders is necessary, particularly during critical deadlines. However, I believe that about 80 per cent of the time, leaders should aim to influence and engage their teams, while the remaining 20 per cent can be reserved for more directive management. This balanced approach helps bridge the generational gap and creates a more inclusive and productive workplace.

With the rise of remote and hybrid work models, how do we maintain team cohesion and ensure collaboration?

With great difficulty (chuckles). It is certainly challenging to maintain team cohesion and collaboration in the era of remote and hybrid work. Pre-Covid, we relied heavily on the emotional and relational bonds built through daily in-person interactions. These connections were vital for seamless teamwork and collaboration, and we have been drawing on this “emotional bank” ever since remote work began.

Now, as we face an increasing demand for remote work, many organisations are pushing for a hybrid model, often suggesting three days a week in the office. The reason is simple: collaboration is essential to success. None of us work in isolation; our tasks are interconnected. Think of it like a production line where each person has a role in moving the process forward. In this scenario, you need to account for the imperfections and nuances of human interaction. Sometimes, you need to stretch a bit to help a colleague, or hold onto your task a little longer to ensure a smooth handover. This flexibility stems from the relationships and mutual care among team members, which only come with in-person interactions.

To foster these relationships, we need to build and maintain our “emotional banks” within the organisation. While hybrid work is excellent for transactional tasks, it falls short in nurturing relationships and fostering creative collaboration for ideation purposes. You simply cannot get that from staring at a screen. You need physical presence and spontaneous interactions to drive innovation. We are not machines; we’re human beings who thrive on diverse stimuli and inputs, which are best received in a shared physical space. In my experience, certain activities are well-suited to remote work, while others benefit significantly from in-person collaboration. Finding the right balance is key.

I urge managers to evolve from directive-givers to influencers. Rather than issuing commands, provide context, outline the goals, and allow the team to discover their own methods to achieve goals.

Additionally, it’s important to note that the debate around hybrid work has been disproportionately focused on technology workers. This perspective overlooks the broader workforce, including retail employees, delivery personnel, and others whose roles inherently require physical presence.

For hybrid work to be effective, we must recognise that it involves more than just technology-based tasks. It requires a thoughtful approach to determining which activities can be done remotely and which require office presence to build relationships and networks. By striking this balance, we can maintain team cohesion and ensure effective collaboration in a hybrid work environment.

The work from home policy has indeed benefited technology workers, but jobs that require physical presence, such as retail sales, delivery personnel, and manufacturing shopfloor positions, face the risk of being replaced by automation. What are your thoughts on this issue, and how can we mitigate the impact on these workers?

We are indeed heading towards a future where automation and AI will replace many manual labour jobs. This presents a significant social challenge because, historically, new technological advancements have always created new jobs. However, the crux of the issue lies in the mismatch between those who lose their jobs and those who gain new ones.

The individuals who lost their jobs (due to technological shifts) were not the same as those who gained new employment opportunities

The last time we saw a similar shift was during the computerisation wave in India. The advent of computers led to job losses in certain sectors, but overall operational efficiency improved and new jobs were created. However, the individuals who lost their jobs were not the same as those who gained new employment opportunities. This discrepancy is likely to be repeated with AI and automation. When manual, labour-intensive jobs are replaced with automation, the affected workers face an uncertain future.

Reskilling these workers is crucial, but it is not a quick fix. There needs to be a robust strategy for social support and training programmes to help them transition into new roles. While new jobs will emerge in fields like eldercare services, especially in countries with aging populations, India may be able to tap into this market. With its demographic dividend, India has opportunities in emerging sectors. However, on a macro level, automation will undoubtedly bring about a new set of challenges.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our workplaces, what strategies should HR employ to ensure that essential human skills, such as empathy, creativity, and strategic thinking, remain central to organisational development?

We are investing extensively in training programmes to help managers become better at their roles. This includes developing essential soft skills such as empathy and effective communication, which are crucial for managing people effectively. Organisations need to invest disproportionately in these areas to ensure that these human-centric skills are prioritised.

Additionally, while it’s not an immediate concern, we must acknowledge the future scenario where bots and humans will work together. Preparing for this future will involve developing strategies for effective collaboration between AI and human employees. However, this is more of a long-term consideration. Our current focus remains on enhancing human skills to ensure they remain central to organisational development.

In the era of remote work, there has been a rise in the use of employee surveillance tools. What does the need for continuous monitoring suggest about our hiring practices and the quality of talent we attract? How can companies foster a culture of trust instead?

Trust is a complex issue. Some argue that surveillance in the workplace is akin to using baby monitors at home — a tool for peace of mind rather than an indication of mistrust. However, this analogy highlights the difficulty and sensitivity surrounding trust in both personal and professional settings.

A significant aspect of the trust problem lies in how we reward employees. Currently, a large portion of compensation is based on the time employees spend working, a concept rooted in the industrial age. This model assumes that supervisors can directly observe and measure work output. However, in many roles, particularly outside of sales, this time-based approach doesn’t align with actual productivity.

In sales, outcomes are the primary focus: the number of units sold matters more than the time spent selling. This outcome-based measurement can be a model for other functions

By designing performance metrics that focus on outcomes rather than time spent, we can foster a culture of trust. Employees would then be evaluated based on their achievements, not their hours worked.

Transitioning to an outcome-driven performance assessment system is challenging and requires significant effort. Each job’s performance metrics need to be carefully designed to ensure they accurately reflect productivity and value. Poorly designed metrics can lead to undesirable consequences, such as a decline in customer service quality if employees focus solely on meeting the metric rather than the underlying goal. For example, in a call centre, if the metric is the number of calls handled per hour, employees might rush through calls, compromising customer service. This underscores the importance of thoughtful metric design. The famous case of seatbelts leading to more accidents outside cars highlights how flawed metrics can have unintended consequences.

In conclusion, designing effective outcome-based metrics is a crucial step towards building a culture of trust. By focusing on outcomes rather than time spent, we as organisations can create a more trusting and productive work environment. This shift would involve negotiating fair compensation based on outcomes and ensuring that metrics accurately reflect the desired goals.

As gig and project-based work become more prevalent, what new roles and structures should HR adopt to manage and support a non-traditional workforce?

To effectively manage and support a non-traditional workforce, I believe we should adopt a few key strategies:

Firstly, we should invest extensively in our frontline managers. These managers are pivotal in aggregating individual contributors and building robust capabilities within the organisation. They play a crucial role in personalising culture and managing reputational risks. By strengthening this role, organisations can ensure a more cohesive and engaged workforce.

Secondly, I categorise the workforce into three distinct groups: Stewards, transformers, and transactional workers.

Stewards are committed to the long-term well-being of the organisation. They navigate through ups and downs and are dedicated to the organisation’s enduring success. The organisational architecture for stewards should be built to support their long-term engagement and stability.

Transformers are brought in for specific outcomes, typically during periods of significant change or restructuring. These individuals drive transformation projects and are essential when specialised skills are required. Since their expertise is usually needed intermittently, it’s cost-effective to engage them as gig workers. Their focus on transformation rather than everyday tasks makes them ideal for short-term, high-impact roles.

Transactional workers handle the day-to-day operations and routine tasks within the organisation. By maintaining a clear distinction between these roles and focusing on the strengths of each group, HR can effectively manage a diverse workforce.

By adopting this approach and building the organisation around these fundamental roles, HR can navigate the complexities of a non-traditional workforce. This strategy not only ensures operational efficiency but also leverages the unique strengths of each type of worker, fostering a dynamic and adaptable organisational structure.

You have done your fair share of work in the social sector. What do you observe are the challenges in attracting talent to not-for-profit and social enterprises, and what strategies can be employed to overcome these challenges? What policy recommendations would you suggest to encourage the growth and development of social entrepreneurship?

The most significant challenge is the sector’s inability to offer competitive salaries comparable to those in the for-profit world. This disparity is problematic because achieving success in the social sector is often much harder than in the for-profit sector. We need the best talent to address these challenges effectively.

One way to address this is by reforming the corporate social responsibility (CSR) law. Currently, CSR expenses can include standard operational costs, but there’s a need for greater flexibility in how these funds can be utilised to cover the actual costs of delivering social services. This includes investing in the administrative and management expenses of social organisations, which are crucial for their effectiveness.

We also need to better articulate the intrinsic rewards of working in the social sector. Just as people willingly put immense effort into demanding hobbies because of the personal satisfaction they derive, we need to highlight the sense of fulfilment and joy that comes from making a real impact in the community. The work itself can be its own reward, offering a deep sense of purpose and achievement.

Additionally, increasing pay levels in the social sector to be more competitive with the for-profit sector is essential. By offering more competitive compensation and clearly communicating the impactful difference that social sector work can make, we can attract a higher calibre of professionals, which is critical for addressing some of the most pressing social issues.

Further, there is a need for a dedicated body or framework, similar to Nasscom for IT or FICCI for the industry sector, that can represent the interests of the social and not-for-profit sector. Such a body could advocate for policy changes, provide a platform for sharing best practices, and work to elevate the profile of social enterprises within the broader economy.