Hi Seniors, I am working in a manufacturing industry as HR. The management belongs to a US company. Recently, a strange decision has been raised by the top management (foreigners) to change all technical level designations like Engineer/Asst. Engn./Sr. Executive, etc., to Supervisors. The reason given for this change is to reduce the chaos regarding designations (as we had an issue in the past regarding the same). Also, Supervisor means the head in their country.
Decision to Change Designations
Kindly suggest if this is the right decision to make after giving the appointment letter to the employee, and how can I present my arguments against this act legally. Is there any law for it? I believe this act will create more distrust, and I won't be able to hire senior-level positions because the highest designation in the technical field will be Supervisor only. Additionally, the current senior employees may not like to be designated at a junior level.
Importance of Designations in India
Kindly suggest how much importance a designation holds in India. Are there any related laws or decisions in such cases?
If anyone can share an actual case study or reference related to the same, it would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Arpita
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Decision to Change Designations
Kindly suggest if this is the right decision to make after giving the appointment letter to the employee, and how can I present my arguments against this act legally. Is there any law for it? I believe this act will create more distrust, and I won't be able to hire senior-level positions because the highest designation in the technical field will be Supervisor only. Additionally, the current senior employees may not like to be designated at a junior level.
Importance of Designations in India
Kindly suggest how much importance a designation holds in India. Are there any related laws or decisions in such cases?
If anyone can share an actual case study or reference related to the same, it would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Arpita
From India, Jaipur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Arpita, rather than writing your designation clearly, you have mentioned that "you are from HR." This might imply that you do not hold a managerial position. In that case, to whom do you report? If it is the HR Manager, then why has he not raised this query regarding this significant decision by your management? Does he consider it beneath his dignity to approach this forum of his own fraternity?
After reviewing your post, one can understand the dilemma you are facing. On one side is the US management, who have a tendency to view the world from their perspective. As the No. 1 economy, they expect others to align with them. On the other hand is the Indian job market, which has its own dynamics. A developing country like India hosts a plethora of MNCs and Indian companies that are formidable in their own right.
Before providing a solution to your challenge, it is important to understand the transition of the Indian job market. It was different a quarter of a century ago compared to today. Those who entered the Indian job market before 1990 would remember that it took a decade to reach a managerial position, another ten years to become a GM, and yet another ten years to become a VP or Director. The organizational structure was inversely proportional to the age of the person who often rose from the ranks. The exception was for those who started their career from the top, possibly due to inheritance rather than merit. However, economic liberalization after 1990 disrupted the job market. New companies entered the market, leading to a shortage of manpower at all levels. Consequently, along with the length of service, competency-based selection became a factor. This created a situation where people were given managerial positions after just a few years of service. By their thirties, some became GMs, and so on. However, a few industries like IT still operated differently and did not assign designations as freely.
Economic liberalization also led to the poaching of candidates. Seniors from well-established businesses were frequently poached by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), enticed by fancy designations they could not have dreamed of if they remained in the same employment. Therefore, today in most industries, acquiring a managerial position has become common within the first 7-8 years of one's career. Your challenge is in relation to this scenario.
If you wish to write to your management, you may address two important points. First, in the Indian job market, a supervisor is a position just above the lowest rung of the hierarchy, i.e., factory workers. The dictionary defines a supervisor as "a person who supervises a person or an activity." By this definition, a Manager, General Manager, or above are all supervisors. However, the dictionary meaning remains in the dictionary. Considering the characteristics of the Indian manufacturing sector, the designation of a supervisor might be perceived as a demotion. Differing perceptions could demoralize those who have worked hard for their positions. Besides salary, designation is a motivating factor. It would be difficult for them to accept a diminished designation even if their role and responsibilities remain unchanged.
Legal Roadblock
Apart from the job market scenario, there is a legal roadblock. When managers were employed, they received appointment letters with designations as per old norms. Changing these norms equates to changing employment conditions, which is against the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as an appointment letter is a contract between employer and employee. Contracts are signed under mutual agreement, and neither party can unilaterally change the terms. If some managers approach the court for a stay order, it could create unpleasant scenes. A vitiated organizational culture is not conducive to company growth.
Before approaching your management, I recommend allowing a few managers to raise objections to the new diktat from the US. You should have a few written applications at hand. Otherwise, management might perceive you as the only one opposing their order and possibly instigating others. Therefore, it is better to avoid this risk.
Lessons from the Post
The management's decision symbolizes the mindset of MNC bosses. The basic rule of leadership is staying connected with the ground situation. Leadership wanted to avoid chaos due to designations. Although the original post does not specify what it was, it suggests that to address the chaos, leadership might create new chaos. Visionary leadership is pointless if it imposes its perceptions on employees. Staying connected with local conditions and avoiding chaos are more important than vision itself!
The new decision, which I have termed a diktat, neither fits the old job market structure nor the prevailing conditions. "Pulling rabbits from hats looks nice in magic shows and not while running an enterprise." No management education is required to understand this.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(4)
Amend(0)
8072After reviewing your post, one can understand the dilemma you are facing. On one side is the US management, who have a tendency to view the world from their perspective. As the No. 1 economy, they expect others to align with them. On the other hand is the Indian job market, which has its own dynamics. A developing country like India hosts a plethora of MNCs and Indian companies that are formidable in their own right.
Before providing a solution to your challenge, it is important to understand the transition of the Indian job market. It was different a quarter of a century ago compared to today. Those who entered the Indian job market before 1990 would remember that it took a decade to reach a managerial position, another ten years to become a GM, and yet another ten years to become a VP or Director. The organizational structure was inversely proportional to the age of the person who often rose from the ranks. The exception was for those who started their career from the top, possibly due to inheritance rather than merit. However, economic liberalization after 1990 disrupted the job market. New companies entered the market, leading to a shortage of manpower at all levels. Consequently, along with the length of service, competency-based selection became a factor. This created a situation where people were given managerial positions after just a few years of service. By their thirties, some became GMs, and so on. However, a few industries like IT still operated differently and did not assign designations as freely.
Economic liberalization also led to the poaching of candidates. Seniors from well-established businesses were frequently poached by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), enticed by fancy designations they could not have dreamed of if they remained in the same employment. Therefore, today in most industries, acquiring a managerial position has become common within the first 7-8 years of one's career. Your challenge is in relation to this scenario.
If you wish to write to your management, you may address two important points. First, in the Indian job market, a supervisor is a position just above the lowest rung of the hierarchy, i.e., factory workers. The dictionary defines a supervisor as "a person who supervises a person or an activity." By this definition, a Manager, General Manager, or above are all supervisors. However, the dictionary meaning remains in the dictionary. Considering the characteristics of the Indian manufacturing sector, the designation of a supervisor might be perceived as a demotion. Differing perceptions could demoralize those who have worked hard for their positions. Besides salary, designation is a motivating factor. It would be difficult for them to accept a diminished designation even if their role and responsibilities remain unchanged.
Legal Roadblock
Apart from the job market scenario, there is a legal roadblock. When managers were employed, they received appointment letters with designations as per old norms. Changing these norms equates to changing employment conditions, which is against the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as an appointment letter is a contract between employer and employee. Contracts are signed under mutual agreement, and neither party can unilaterally change the terms. If some managers approach the court for a stay order, it could create unpleasant scenes. A vitiated organizational culture is not conducive to company growth.
Before approaching your management, I recommend allowing a few managers to raise objections to the new diktat from the US. You should have a few written applications at hand. Otherwise, management might perceive you as the only one opposing their order and possibly instigating others. Therefore, it is better to avoid this risk.
Lessons from the Post
The management's decision symbolizes the mindset of MNC bosses. The basic rule of leadership is staying connected with the ground situation. Leadership wanted to avoid chaos due to designations. Although the original post does not specify what it was, it suggests that to address the chaos, leadership might create new chaos. Visionary leadership is pointless if it imposes its perceptions on employees. Staying connected with local conditions and avoiding chaos are more important than vision itself!
The new decision, which I have termed a diktat, neither fits the old job market structure nor the prevailing conditions. "Pulling rabbits from hats looks nice in magic shows and not while running an enterprise." No management education is required to understand this.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Change Management.ppt
Notice of Employee Change.doc