Men, Media and Masala

The last few days we have been bombarded with headlines created by TOI and also headlines from other media created by the TOI headlines. I am sure by now, you all know I am referring to the TOI- Deepika fiasco.

India is a country where for generations the society has been dominated by men. Men have made decisions for the country (only 11% of our Parliament comprises of women), for their families (very often being the sole bread earner of the family) and also for the women of the family. Women were supposed to only and alone manage the house, raise the kids. And no, they were not supposed to expect any help from the spouses. While the men of the house having already decided what the women would do, also decided where she could go and what she would wear. A daughter wearing a low neck kurta would be frowned upon, the wife wearing a low neck not even imaginable. It is not surprising that a society which existed in this way for generations, women today are finding it so difficult to break the barriers and actually gain the freedom of  movement, employment and expression (including what you say and what you wear). Crime against women is a case in point.

At the same time there has been a paradigm shift in the way news papers and the entire media operated twenty years earlier and now. Twenty years ago, the sole claim to fame for a newspaper would be the authenticity, integrity and ethics, and to a lesser degree the speed at which news is delivered by a paper. Today these are taken to be hygiene factors and it is generally presumed that all newspapers would uphold these ideals. This presumption is to such an extent that readers would often overlook the commitment of a newspaper to these ideals. Today the most famous criteria has become the amount of subscription and the wild race to proclaim oneself as the "Country's most read" newspaper. Some masala is now an accepted by even the most discerning of readers. But it seems that in this wild race somewhere the thin line is sometimes overstepped. The TOI-Deepika fiasco clearly demonstrates that.

What is really surprising is that media is one industry among the very few in India where the representation of women is quite high. There is an almost 50:50 sex ratio in many of the media houses. It would be expected that given such a percentage of women, there would be more respect for a woman for who she is. Probably the journalist who authored the controversial article is very respectful towards women in his personal life. Maybe he raises a voice if he sees someone ogle or whistle at a passing woman. We don't know. What we do know is that he in the quest for more masala for his article ended up creating the blasphemy.

But it is surely not the fault of one journalist. We all are responsible, the TOI house, other media houses, and us readers. We all helped create an environment where only juicy news would sell and we not just tolerated, we accepted masala as a part and parcel of news. While newspapers kept on printing masala after masala - all in the quest to become the most widely read paper. In this wild race they forgot the weight of  the responsibility that rests on its shoulders. Media has to be cognizant of the fact that it is not entertaining, it is educating large parts of the country. In a country where so few get to complete graduation, newspapers and TV serve as a way for them to let their minds soar in the winds of the world. Not only adults, even children are affected and groomed by the media. This responsibility they cannot shrug and the larger their readership grows the greater becomes their responsibility. After all "With great power, comes great responsibilities"

  

Fashion and The Common Man or eh... Woman

I had watched this movie several times. But yesterday this movie "Devil wears Prada" got me thinking about fashion in my life and in the lives of mere mortals like me. All of us, I take the liberty of assumption here, like to look good and if fashion is "good", I would say most of us would love to look fashionable. All other aspects remaining the same like comfort, cost and acceptability, in that case, all those who look at the mirror and wish they were fashionable would actually be fashionable. But it is so often not the case.

As we see in the movie, Anne Hathaway (Andrea), the girl hired by the queen of fashion as a P.A. has to use the company wardrobe to dress herself in fashionable clothes. Immediately she ditches her sensible flats for high heeled shoes. Now, even if we consent to all torture in the name of high fashion, access to such free extensive wardrobes is beyond imagination for people like you and me. This closes the gates of one road to being fashionable. 

Even if we were actually able to get cheaper versions of Chanel or Prada, there is this larger question of acceptability. All through the movie, there is this underlying distinction being spoken of between "Us" and "Them". This is true not only in movie but also in lives of normal people like us. Will we be accepted by our friends, family and colleagues, if one fine day we go wearing the latest fashion on the Paris street. The rich and the famous who go strutting in haute couture have been so portrayed by the media that they comprise "The other side" in our minds while all such people and their lives may not be so different. And thus has grown this stigma in the eyes of the common people for high fashion. It takes a brave lady to risk her position among friends and acquaintances.

However, the third factor is what I feel is the most important. Invariably high fashion comprises clothes that are all for the looks and none for comfort. For a common woman working eight to ten hours a day, what is important is comfort and clothes that make her feel confident. It is difficult to imagine that clothes in which the wearer is uncomfortable could boost her confidence. And so these women steer a mile clear of high fashion. I am sure that unless Louis Vuitton, Chanel and the like do not improve on the comfort factor in their clothing line they will find few takers among common women. But... isn't that what they want ?

What makes our office different

Today, after a long time I met up with a friend who has recently shifted from Germany to India. Over cups of coffee at Starbucks our conversation veered towards the differences of workplace culture between India and abroad. And for that matter, even between workplaces within India. It can be generally understood that the difference is more of a mindset than physical. Underneath there are just a couple of variables whose permutations and combinations can result in widely different work environments.

For instance, the work principles of the head office can play a major role. Specially, if there is strong and deep interaction between the Indian office and the Head office abroad with frequent visits and transfers.  Stronger HR policy implementation and controls such as emphasis on certain values or ethics also help to this effect. In that case, as is often in IT and ITES companies the head office culture rubs on the local office. Certain aspects of organizational culture like information sharing, trust for the employees and integrity very easily percolate into the local offices in this way.

Another parameter that strikes as may be important in shaping the local office environment is the general portfolio of employees. Consulting firms with hiring predominantly from top B-Schools have a very different culture than other organizations. And the difference is not just because of different work requirements. The educational and professional background of the majority of employees or at least that of the top layer of the office plays a major role. Apart from educational or professional background, the age of the employees also make a huge difference. How formal or informal a place is, how cut-throat or laid back an environment is can well be decided by the background of the employees.

The other obvious aspect that defines the local office environment are the rules written or unwritten and the monitoring of the following of these rules. A workplace that has strict timings is more likely to have an environment where people come and go on time and is less likely to have employees reporting late for work or leaving without completing their tasks.

However, no singular factor is responsible for any prevailing work culture. It is a combination of all the above three and also a myriad of other factors which lead to a single cultural identity in an office. And every office thus shaped by its policies and more importantly its people gains a unique persona.