- That "once (women) reach the age of 30, 35 or 40 years, they get complacent and do not want to forge ahead".
- That single women's "anxiety, attitude, communication methods, etc, cause concern".
- That "Especially in divorced women, we commonly find problems".
- That some of the divorced women "are difficult to fit into teams; they can make both insensitive bosses as well as subordinates."
- That "at senior levels family women fit in much better".
Update: More people have blogged about this interview. Mridula stands up for me against those who say I was doing selective reporting in this post here (thanks, Mridula), while Nanopolitan voices his concerns here. Do read them.
Update2: SastWingees speak here about discrimination rampant in corporate India.
25 comments:
Disgusting. Also, in the article, he makes it look alright overall by saying that "on the whole, he is not averse to women employees" or something of that sort. Too many generalizations. I don't like it.
[shruthi] That is true - this indeed was disgusting. And to think he was talking in the capacity of the Vice President of an organization!
"They get complacent"??! Has he examined any other reasons why they don't 'forge ahead'?, like absence of family friendly policies in the company perhaps?
And how many divorced women could he have come across in his company to make a sweeping generalisation like that? He talks about it as if it was the result of a serious study!
Disgusting, surely!
Just one word, disgusting.
[anu]Obviously, there are too many generalizations. Also, I am not sure his ideas are actually based on any women he may have encountered. It seems more like opinions he has formed, and believes every woman fits into that mould! Absolutely gross!
[mridula] Absolutely, right!
Many first level managers in Satyam and other IT powerhouses do not reward for being able to accompish their tasks in the 8 hours they are there in the office. I've often heard of comparisons being made with their peers who are able to stay late and get things done late. Eyebrows are raised when a married woman or one with a baby leaves at 6pm, while the fact that the same employee shows up at 9am sharp is conveniently ignored. Many single men on the other hand waltz in way after 10, take breaks in the evening and pick up work after 8 or 9pm.
My rant stems from testimonials from actual employees who worked in Satyam and elsewhere.
Obiously u r doing selective reporting.
I read the whole article and from that it looks like he earnestly wants to improve the no. of women leaders in the organisation.
He said this also:
"Contrary to popular belief women don't gossip much in office. They complete their task in time and leave. You might find male employees in office till 7 or 8.30 p.m., but their overall productivity is not necessarily better."
But you didnt mention it, obviously u just wanted to flog someone with this whole feminism thing and get more comments.
So Rahul that last statement removes the huge stereotyping he did about women who are divorced? That last statement made it balanced? How magnanimous of him!
Hi Emma,
I am Divya and i work for Satyam
Nice to see that you came out with your ideas regarding Murthy's comments on your blog.
I would like to make a few clarifications though.
All of Murthy's statements are based on Data that numerous studies on the workforce in the IT industry have revealed.
It is a fact today that none of the Big 5 IT companies in India can boast of Women members in their senior leadership.
We,at Satyam have recognised this as a problem and earnestly taken the first initiative towards resolving this.
An organisation wide program to groom women leaders has been started covering all Women employees across our Offices in 53 countries worldwide.
In order to tackle any problem,we need to recognise the various causes that lead to the problem.Murthy was just listing the causes when he was talking about divorced women not being able to adjust in a team.
We however won't take this sitting down and our leadership program would rightly groom them into future leaders.
Satyam is definitely an equal oppurtunity employer and we also believe in being gender-sensitive.
It has always been a pleasure to be part of the Satyam family for me throughout my career.
This Murthy guy is sick. Had he made even 10% of these ignorant remarks in a Western country, he wouldn't be able to land another job! Not to mention his company going bankrupt, what with all the lawsuits that will be invariably filed! And such an MCP is the VP of HR in that company? Who would they hire next - a Nazi?
I do not agree with people who say Emma is doing selective reporting. He is indulging in huge stereotyping as far as single and particularly divorced women are concerned. I ranted about it too.
Ugh! This is just unbelievable!
[ggop]You are absolutely right - I have seen that happen in many other IT companies too. Yet another thing that irks me is with regards to travel - it is just assumed that married women will not travel; one is never asked. And then the complaint is that they aren't professional enough!
[rahul]Lest you missed out the last line of the post, I did mention that the HR manager's intention was hire more women at the senior level and "bridge the gap". What I don't believe is that he really intends to do that with such regressive statements he had to make about women. One statement for women, and it takes away all the sweeping generalizations he makes? Wow! I never realized that.
[mridula] Thanks for your response to Rahul. You said it so well, I don't have to say any more at all.
[dexter] Oh well! I would see you have done some selective reading here, then!
[satyamite]Divya, I don't question that you have had a wonderful time being a Satyamite. What I would have loved to look at in the interview is the way you have put things down here - yes, the fact is there are fewer women at senior management positions and I realize that too. But the reasons are not what Mr. Murthy stated. Where is the data to prove that "women's anxiety... cause concern" or that with "divorced women one finds problems"? I am aware of studies done on women professionals, but have never come across any research that proves this as you say. I would love to see it though! To me, this is nothing but extreme stereotyping! And frankly very disgusting.
[anonymous] You are right - if he had made the same statements in a western country, he would have been sued immediately. Seriously!
[mridula]Thanks yet again... To those who believe I am doing selective reporting, oh well - I have given the link to the entire article. Go, figure it out yourself! I am going to go and read your post on this now :).
[neha] Absolutely unbelievable. When I first heard about it from a friend I didn't believe it. And then he sent me the link to the interview - I couldn't believe what I was reading - while his desire to hire more women seems positive, I can't imagine that such statements really help the cause.
I work in Satyam for the last two years. And I heard about this Murthy guy. He is 50+ years old and has absolutely no HR experience before joining Satyam. What can you expect from an old hag like that. Being single is a crime and being divorced is a sin for old guys like him. He sickens me. The management should fire him.
if Satyam HR vice president has such regressive ideas about women, God save that company.
[anonymous] Thanks for the comment. Now, we have two views from employees of Satyam itself. I did imagine this person to be just as you described when I read the interview first. I agree with you - such people cannot be in the company's upper echelons or the company itself.
[kolchar] My thoughts exactly - they say policies often germinate from the way the top management thinks. And if one person in the top management (and one at least whose position seems to matter) has such opinions, god truly save the company.
Kolchar,Emma : Seeing the Quarterly results of Satyam and their Stock prices going over the roof,it does seem they are headed in the right direction,even if that means keeping Divorced/Single women out.And God can definitely rest for the moment.
We or for that matter anybody cannot decide decide Satyam's HR policy.It is the prerogative of the company to do that.If it think that its better for the company to keep single women out,then let it be.It is a private entity and i think it should be left on its own to decide things.after all,they work for profit.
We are not discussing a govt organisation here.Lets give some space to companies like satyam who have done India Proud.
Also lets not ask private companies to provide reservation for some categories of the society.
Whom to keep out or keep in should be left to them.
There are lots of American companies who bias against women,and conditions can be worse when you cant even protest.
Dont spread such propaganda about great Indian companies who are giving me more reasons to be proud in saying that iam an Indian.
I don't see how such things are going to result in the downfall of Satyam and why Satyam should make any efforts to hire and increase the number of women. After all, for centuries, companies have been running as entirely male bastions and there has been no significant improvement in competitiveness because of making special efforts to hire women. Even if the gap is not bridged, I dont think it will make any difference at all to the company...it is not as if women are critical to the running of any organization that companies have to bend backwards to recruit them and retain them any more than they do for men as a class. If women are meritorious and compete hard enough, there is no reason why they wont go up in Satyam or any other company. And I am sure there are enough cases of bias against men also in many companies and organizations which are very conveniently ignored because it is politically incorrect to suggest that men are disadvantaged in certain situations compared to women.
From the article, it is obvious that Mr Murthy is trying his best not to blame women for the lack of their ambition and other things. He has specifically mentioned that women face pressure from various quarters to give less attention to work. Plus his reply on single women is in reply to the question on married women being unable to aspire for higher positions. From the way things have been distorted into the form in which it is present in the blog, it is obvious that this blog is indulging in an extremely malicious campaign to make Satyam and men look like things which are to be treated with extreme disdain and contempt. While he has said things about single women, nothing has been said about single men because this article is about increasing the number of women in the company. Had it been about increasing the number of men in the company, I am sure he would have made similar comments about single men as well and would have probably said that family men provide a better fit. Plus considering the fact that Satyam is giving the women a chance to speak out to get what they want, it really does not justify calling Mr Murthy names. Overall, from the article, it is obvious that Mr Murthy is sincerely trying his best to bend backwards to accomodate women while this blog is trying its best to discredit him and Satyam by distorting things and selectively reporting as much as possible.
Vaishali: If they have every right to hire whom they want - we have every right to criticize them. That's what "freedom" means.
Which US company are you talking about? Even Walmart is not immune from discrimination suits! Doesn't it make more money than Satyam?
Companies can't hire whomever they want. Look up EEOC when you get a chance.
The fact that companies cannot hire whomever they want is a practical reality, but not necessarily justifiable just like corruption is a practical reality which is bad for the society. If you are so concerned about discrimination by a company, why don't you start your own company and run it without discrimination or even better, fill it with women and women only and see how it fares.
This is an interesting debate. i can generally comment on some issues. any discrimination on personal status of a person by progressive companies is not in. whether it be single women, single men, divorced, hiv+, different sexual orientation or any other.
i think the debate should adhere to a few norms - while freedom of speech much be cherished. if somebody is 50+ or not does not make a person progressive or retrogressive. hence it wd be nice if personal attacks are refrained from.
what ever a person deduces from the statements - and how statements are reported there is enough room to speculate. the fact of the matter is that global organizations should be more progressive.
i do work with Satyam. i had at least two persons one male and another female - divorced working in my team. it did not matter what their status was. how they performed their role - both in achieving their tasks assigned to them and how they gel in a team what mattered most. one of them even got a promotion during their stay in my team.i agree that it is erroneous to judge the behavior of a person by his/her status.
while it is fine to be righteous and indignant we may not resort to personal attacks. then the spirit of debate gets vitiated. there is a chance that the very accusations and innuendoes hurled at the person in question could very well be pointed to the persons raising them :-) is it not a stereotype that 50+ folks are retrogressive as suggested? is it not discrimination that people not from HR cannot work or lead HR as is being alluded? Jack Welsch does not have a PhD in HR - he is a plastics-technology guy. but can any one take away his wisdom - inspite of him being dubbed as neutron jack? i am not comparing the person in question or mr. welsch. to each his own.
i believe that we should not condone any inappropriate behavior irrespective of who is involved.
all of this does not take away all that Satyam achieved in a very short period of time and all the good things with the company that helped it grow.
every organization grows by learning.
i am sure if there is learning from this debate - Satyam would definitely learn from it. let thousand flowers bloom and million thoughts contend!
cheers!
[vaishali] Making a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean that everything is good at the home base. I do not see why only government organizations should come under scrutiny and others shouldn't. I agree with you - as a private entity Satyam has a right to employ whomsoever it desires. But is that a stated policy? Even if it is, while I may not necessarily agree with it still, at least I know what the company stands for then.
[anonymous1] In the society and times that I live in, I find these policies objectionable. You are entitled not to. I agree with you - there are enough cases of bias against men as well. And I am not going to turn my face away and say it doesn't matter if I do come across such a situation.
[anonymous2] Firstly, I believe his statement on married women is anachronistic. Secondly, his statement on single women was in response to whether women should opt to remain single or childless. His response: "the examples of many single women at the top is not a proud example." Thirdly, if my intention was to indulge in "extremely malicious campaign" against Satyam and all me, pray can you also please enlighten me on the motive for the same? Ever since I read your comment, I have been racking my brain, but in vain. Finally, "selective reporting", you say - please to note I have given links to the original article itself. And you have the right to make your own inferences after reading the same.
[anonymous3] Thanks for your response to others who have commented.
[anonymous4] Thanks for the suggestion. If I do ever get to a state when I can start my own company, you can rest assured, non-discrimination will be my top-most stated policy.
[anonymous5] Firstly, I apologize - you are right. While protesting against discrimination, I have no right to indulge in any discriminatory remarks. I think I did get carried away. Thanks for pointing it out so very well.
I appreciate the apologies. there is no need. The idea is to keep the debate meaningful and fair.
I guess every organization's stated policies are interpreted from the implementer's prism of experience. Good, bad or ugly.
As far as Satyam as an organization is concerned or the top management's commitment to bring in a better balance of women at all levels - there is no doubt about it.
If an individual holds certain points of view which could be anachronistic, irrelevant or plain retrogressive - it is unfortunately an individual's take from his/her experience.
As I shared earlier, Mr. Murthy's comments or opinions do not necessarily drive Satyam's way of doing things. I did share that the two individuals in my team were well working during the tenure of Mr. Murthy at the helm of HR affairs.
Hence, I have reason to believe that the opinions are personal of the individual if he holds them, and do not represent the reality or the state of practice at Satyam.
It might add some more 'juice' 2 the debate - the case of a progressive policy aimed at curbing discrimination of HIV+ people - it was the same Mr. Murthy who stood for the progressive policy and argued for such a policy. The policy among other issues clearly states that there shall not be HIV testing during the medicals at the joining process. And that there would be punitive action against people who get to know some one's HIV status especially if it is positive, and that if the individual who has knowledge - abets or shares information leading to discrimination or stigmatization.
I guess very few organizations, especially among the Knowledge Industry have the gumption to take the HIV bull by its horns.
While there are millions who would fight for women's rights - it is politically correct, and while the battle is not completely won, has been raging, there are very few who speak for the PLHAs (people living with HIV/AIDS).
I guess any debate must be on balance fair. and focus on issues that matter. enough has been said about the person's - 'retrogressive' thoughts.
I am glad to see that there are many who would not like to hold candle to the inherent bias against women in patriarchical societies, especially Indian.
I am further glad that there are many would like to have their companies (whenever it happens) be progressive and non-discriminatory.
My humble appeal pl do speak about those who cannot come out and speak for themselves. The battle cannot be waged easily by the HIV afflicted. Again the most vulnerable are the women and chidren.
While I do not want to take away the indignation at retrogressive ideas and thoughts about divorced or single men and women, especially women - see if the same generosity and humanness is spread and available to the HIV affected.
I am sure you would congratulate Satyam for being at the forefront and being outspoken on HIV epidemic and challenge.
In my experience - given our 'victorian' values dubbed as Indian values - we hardly if ever, raise our voice on such a subject.
Is change easy? does it come naturally? do people need to speak out? You be the judge.
Let me assure you that Satyam is not what is made out to be. While everything is not hunky dory at Satyam like most companies - there is a zeal to look reality in the eye. The top management, especially the Chairman Mr. Raju does not flinch where it matters.
If you tend to be a student of organizations - I am sure Satyam would be an interesting and exciting case study.
The whole initiative to increase the presence of women at all levels, especially at the senior levels is born out of such a zeal.
And the curious case of Mr. Murthy. I can only wonder at the naivete and honesty of what he said in the report if he said.
I can only sense innocence than maliciousness or malafide intentions.
There are many suave, polished-looking people who exploit women or their vulnerability - often speaking the politically correct language - but nevertheless at the core worse than MCPs.
Go ahead, hang him. for he allegedly spoke his mind. One needs to work more hard to get the suave types. Like Karl Marx supposed to have said - if appearance is essence, all science is superflous! Simply put, if what appears is truth then we do not need investigation and research!
Let us not throw the baby along with the bath water.
Cheers.
[anonymous] I agree - the idea is to keep the debate meaningful and fair. I have no doubts whatsoever about Satyam's commitment, as an organization, to "bridge the gap". I am not even questioning that. I also believe that Mr. Murthy's comments or opinions are not Satyam's intended way of doing things. However, the fact is that Mr. Murthy is at the helm of HR affairs - and his interpretation of the policies is likely to be the way they are implemented. I am sure that these are Mr. Murthy's personal opinions, but one has reason to feel anxious when he is the one driving the policy implementation itself.
Reg. Satyam's take on HIV discrimination, it is indeed commendable. Unfortunately, as you rightly point out, this is not publicised enough for people to be aware of. I would never hesitate to speak out loud about such good practices; but I do believe it important to speak out for negative practices as well, probably much louder.
And lest you get it wrong - I am not interested in the suave, ever politically correct people of this world. I speak my mind (else, I shut up), and I expect everybody else to do so too. At the same time, if I find something objectionable in what one has to say, I will speak about that too.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It has been very enlightening.
Post a Comment