Would an HR Manager have handled Singur Better?
Enough has been written about the Tata’s exit from Singur and I will not dwell on repeating this well chronicled episode.
I would like to dwell on a completely different aspect of the issue. One that is linked to how the actual stakeholders (land holding farmers) saw in this issue their passport to exit the poverty of generations on one side of the fence and a denial of this passport on the other and on how to avoid a recurrence.
Ownership of land carries with it meaning far deeper than just a physical asset with a certain value. No matter how barren or small this is, it is the farmer’s link to life, his generational legacy and a hope (albeit tenuous in the case of small holdings like in Singur) of a better life someday and some livelihood in perpetuity. It was possible for doubts to be put in people’s mind by the famous lady of Bengal because she used the following tactics very effectively:
– Played on the deep rooted mistrust of the common man of governments and big business
– Played on the ‘perpetuity’ aspect of the loss
– Raised doubts about whether the exit from poverty would happen in reality
– Played on the deep rooted insecurity of giving up land
So what are the lessons for the future? Assuming that in certain cases industrialisation or the creation of Special Economic Zones does represent a better future for the people who give up their land, how can such issues be avoided in the future?
The HR Manager’s Approach
Create an org structure that is larger than just the organisation. Include the support services, environment required and place their development within the ambit of activity.Everything else will automatically follow from here.
– Communicate, communicate, communicate. Nothing like it to help build trust
– The organisations responsible for the economic activity (private company or government body) should be in the field well before implementation. Make an effort to really know and understand the people, much like an HR Manager in a factory township. The final parties in the deal should be interacting with each other. Critical for fostering trust.
– Look at the price being paid in a Compensation and Benefits fashion with fixed, variable, retention, long term benefits, retiral benefits perspective
– Make the people part of the vision. Let them be stakeholders. Give them the option of actual stake.
– Look at the displaced people as a pool of talent available for the functioning of the factory/economic zone. Here is an observation. The earlier village community was a more or less self sufficient entity with its own compliment of skilled labour and artisans to service the requirement of a particular cluster. So there would be a really good carpenter for every cluster of 3/4 villages, an iron-smith, a painter and so on. This group is in such demand in the big booming urban centres that villages are not left with many options. A Nano plant in Singur would have created a small but prosperous urban centre where such people would have found lucrative employment close to their homes.
Do add on your own thoughts and ideas. Today is the Bloggers Action Day on Poverty and in the context of our country this seems an important issue to discuss.
<a href=”http://blogactionday.org”><img border=”0″ src=”http://blogactionday.org/img/c22828e35bbbbd170004f0b51277ebbec99d976b.jpg” /></a>
“>
D5 Creation
Fantastic solution. In theory, this would work perfectly. But aren’t we “bajaoing been in front of the bhains” with this one? Is this practical?
Would we be able to sit across a table and be able to convince “didi” that this plan will work in favor of already well compensated people?
Politicians are de facto representatives of the people in question … unless we can give the people a better leader that they trust more than their government representatives … we will have to deal with politicians and with their agendas. And they will not see sense until the benefits they seek will make the project unreasonable.
The Ghosh Who Walks, thanks for your POV. Agreed that is what seems to have happened or happens in most cases.
Self interest is the strongest argument in favour of a win-win solution. A politician may twist facts but that is where the other ‘politician’ and/or business interest must pitch in. And when they do, it has to be with a basket of the real things communicated very clearly. If in any case the attempt has been from the beginning to get the land cheap or make promises that one does not intend to keep than you are exposing yourself to a politician with an agenda. Ultimately people will see their own best interest and reject a politician who is causing them harm. Again there are assumptions that there are no strong arm tactics or other forms of intimidation.
@Sanjeev: Most of the people we are talking about don’t know what’s in their interest. Between the choruses of “हम किसी को भी हमारी माँ को छीन ले जाने नहीं देंगे” and the reasoning of “हमारे बच्चे भूखे मर जाएंगे”, fairness and interest really go for a toss. State Hard-liners would fare much better. At times, we need someone else to decide what is best for us. That’s what I mean’t by giving them a non-government leader they trust more than they trust their politicos.
I think HR and management can create such leaders.
Hi. Tend to agree with Sanjeev’s viewpoint. While we have no way of predicting an outcome, in the Singur case, what might have worked is better community linkages and clearer communication. Primarliy involving three corporate departments — CSR, Communication and HR. Goal and communication clarity on the project’s deliverables was essential to build trust and manage expectations. Example: lending skill support to ensure youth from the community become suppliers, tie-up with a local training institute, a thorough need assessment on local soft needs, etc etc and etc. The list is usually endless, depending on how far a company wishes to take things.
The best part is that some Indian companies are doing a great job on this front. A multi-location Indian cement manufacturer begins this process as soon as a potential site is identified. Sometimes construction begins 3 years later. Sometimes they finally reject the site. But the promised work continues!
Walk the talk … Tata’s used to do it. Now they just seem to talk. That too about Ms!!!
How do you create a solution in which one side does not loose and other side does not win? How do you bring a completely inflexible player meet someone who thinks they are right and have been wronged!
HR thrives on scenarios like this. How often they have to just make two parties see each others point and make them change their attitudes. And how often they have to bring the good of organization to fore to make people rise over petty personal issues. HR would have definitely helped in Singur, and should have helped in Singur. But not in narrow traditional way, rather by bringing the power of people together. Afterall it mattered equally to both parties. Hope Gujrat and Sanand learns from this fiasco
first time i am writing on sanjeev’s blog. what prompted me was the intersting topic. being in hr for 20 years now, one felt saddened the evening (and wasnt that symbolic….dusk time for bad news..the nano sun had set in east only now to rise in the west!) this news broke in kolkata. and am very sure knowing tatas record on csr, they would have done plenty to lay down path for a swanky singur “city” to come up..much like a jamshedpur. and am very sure HR has played a role in the back end. it would have egged on mr tata to keep the dialogues on. but like they say “taali dono haath sey bajti hai”…somewhere patience dried up. HR can do that much in situations where politicians get involved. it really goes to the levels of the owners then. little is what HR professionals can do but to guide and advice. and am very sure this happened at the backend. cheers!