By John Q. Hosedrinker Larsen & Toubro chairman SN Subrahmanyan sparked controversy after advocating for 90-hour workweeks, citing China’s work ethic as an example. His comments, made during an employee interaction and captured on video, included insensitive remarks about employees’ personal time. Subrahmanyan’s justification emphasized the need for extraordinary effort to achieve national goals, a position met with significant backlash online. The company’s response defended the chairman’s remarks as reflecting a commitment to national development.
Read the original article here
The L&T chairman’s comment about how long one can stare at their wife, coupled with his demand for employees to work on Sundays, reveals a deeply troubling disconnect from modern workplace realities and healthy work-life balance. It’s a statement that showcases a worldview so entrenched in outdated ideas of productivity and family dynamics that it’s almost comical, if it weren’t so disturbing. The casual insensitivity of the remark, suggesting that a husband’s only weekend activity is staring at his wife, ignores the multifaceted realities of modern relationships and family structures. It’s a starkly patriarchal view that minimizes the contributions and needs of partners and families.
This comment doesn’t simply reveal a lack of understanding about personal relationships; it speaks to a much broader lack of empathy and awareness of employee well-being. Demanding 90-hour work weeks, including Sundays, isn’t just about productivity; it’s about power and control. It suggests a belief that employees are nothing more than cogs in a machine, devoid of personal lives and individual needs beyond fulfilling the chairman’s expectations. The implication is that employees should sacrifice everything for the company, a sentiment echoed by his apparent admiration for the supposed 90-hour work weeks of Chinese employees.
The chairman’s reference to a Chinese individual’s claim of working 90 hours per week as an example of superior work ethic is particularly concerning. It subtly suggests an acceptance of exploitative labor practices, effectively justifying excessive working hours as a route to national competitiveness. This approach fails to account for the detrimental effects of such intense workloads on employee health, mental well-being, and overall productivity in the long run. There’s an inherent flaw in equating long hours with success or national superiority; sustainable progress requires prioritizing both efficiency and employee welfare.
Furthermore, the underlying assumption that all employees are married men whose only weekend activity involves their wives is incredibly narrow-minded. It ignores the diversity of family structures and individual circumstances within the workforce. Many employees may be single, have partners of the same sex, or have responsibilities beyond their spouse or family that require their time and attention on weekends. The comment reveals a lack of inclusivity and a fundamental failure to recognize the diverse needs and experiences of his own workforce. Even for married men, suggesting that staring at one’s spouse is the sole leisure activity is condescending and frankly insulting. It overlooks the rich tapestry of personal lives outside work.
The broader context of L&T’s history, with past accusations of fraud and safety violations, paints an even more worrying picture. These incidents hint at a company culture potentially prioritizing profit and expansion over ethical conduct and employee well-being. The chairman’s remarks seem to fit this pattern, suggesting a leadership style that is detached from both the moral and practical realities of a healthy and productive work environment. The whole tone suggests a complete lack of awareness of how potentially harmful such a stance is to morale, recruitment and retention.
In conclusion, the L&T chairman’s remarks aren’t just insensitive; they represent a deeply concerning worldview that’s incompatible with a modern, ethical, and sustainable workplace. They highlight a dangerous combination of outdated ideas about work-life balance, a potential disregard for employee welfare, and a lack of awareness regarding the diversity of experiences within the workforce. The response to this statement is not merely about criticizing a single comment, but about challenging the underlying values and attitudes that produce such statements and promote an unhealthy work culture. It’s a call for a shift toward a more humane and balanced approach to work, one that prioritizes employee well-being and recognizes the importance of a fulfilling life beyond the confines of the office.