Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Satyagraha and Employee Relations: Lessons From A Multinational Automobile Transplant in India
Satyagraha and Employee Relations: Lessons From A Multinational Automobile Transplant in India
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
Satyagraha
Satyagraha and employee and employee
relations relations
Lessons from a multinational automobile
transplant in India 501
Saji K. Mathew and Robert Jones
Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of non-violent protest (satyagraha) in a
multinational automobile plant in India that has suffered from considerable employee relations
problems.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs a case study of a Japanese-owned company
using data obtained from 30 personal interviews and from internet media sources.
Findings – It is found that workers initially pursued their protests through satyagraha-style methods
before taking on a more violent posture when company management refused to accept any notion of
jointly seeking a new harmony. The reasons for these developments are explored.
Practical implications – The paper has implications for the manner in which scholars and
practitioners view the respective roles, significance, and management of satyagraha and non-
satyagraha protest in Indian companies.
Originality/value – The importance of satyagraha in Indian employee relations is under-researched
in comparison with other factors, and is especially significant for culturally-unaware multinational
companies in successfully understanding and managing protest in the workplace context.
Keywords India, Employees relations, Multinational companies, Automobile industry, Protest,
Satyagraha, Toyota
Paper type Research paper
Lean production methods have become ubiquitous across the global automobile
manufacturing industry. Lean production focuses on eliminating waste from all
aspects of the enterprise. Anything that does not produce value is classified as waste
(Womack et al., 1990). Opposition to lean production is widespread in the critical
literature, often condemned as an inhuman device that sacrifices human considerations
for commercial gain (Stewart et al., 2009). A popular analogy is to equate “lean” with
“mean” and “management by stress” (Parker and Slaughter, 1988a). The anti-lean
literature concentrates its analysis on the de-humanising and exploitative dynamics of
the system that sacrifices dignity and safety in an endless search for more from less
(Parker and Slaughter, 1988b; Babson, 1995; Elger and Smith, 1994; Stewart et al.,
2009). A number of researchers have published ethnographic accounts of the realities
for workers within lean factories in the automobile industry, for example, Toyota
(Kamata, 1982; Mehri, 2005), Subaru-Isuzu (Graham, 1995), Mazda (Fucini and Fucini,
1990), Vauxhall-GM and Rover-BMW (Stewart et al., 2009), and GM-Suzuki CAMI
(Rinehart et al., 1997). These studies have all occurred within developed industrial
nations (USA, Canada, UK, and Japan). However, the literature is far less rich in Employee Relations
Vol. 34 No. 5, 2012
connection with opposition to lean systems in the automobile industry in developing pp. 501-517
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
nations. In this paper we analyse the role of opposition to lean production in a 0142-5455
multinational vehicle producer in India. DOI 10.1108/01425451211248550
ER India is a heterogeneous country with diverse religions, cultural values, and
34,5 languages often varying between different states and regions (Tripathi, 1990; Sen,
2005; Das, 2000). This diversity can complicate employee relations for multinational
companies wishing to establish operations within the country (Sinha, 2004; Bagla,
2008). Numerous studies have pointed to the complexity of factors that influence
human resource management and employee relations in the country (Budhwar, 2003;
502 Bjorkman and Budhwar, 2007; Ramaswamy and Schiphorst, 2000). One aspect of
Indian society that outsiders often find difficult to grasp relates to the notion of protest.
Protest lies at the heart of Indian history and culture and can take on a bewildering
variety of forms (Bayley, 1962). But, arguably the form of protest that has most
captured the imagination of scholars relates to the Gandhian philosophy of satyagraha.
Satyagraha espouses that “non-violence is a power that can transform adversaries into
friends and resolve issues of injustice and oppression” (newworldencyclopedia.org,
n.d.). More fully, the word translates as “Truth-force” or “the force that is generated
through adherence to Truth” (mkgandhi.org, n.d.). Satyagraha was extensively
followed as a form of protest against British colonialism in the period after 1920. The
British left India in 1947 and Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in 1948 but there is
evidence that his mantra of non-violent protest still enjoys popularity in modern-day
India. For example, as recently as April 2011 the influential Indian social activist and
Gandhi adherent, Anna Hazare, commenced a satyagraha-style fast-until-death in
protest against the government’s refusal to allow a greater public role in the Anti-
Corruption Bill. This quickly developed into a mass movement ( Jha, 2011). Within
days the government acceded to all his demands.
Although satyagraha has been well analysed in the literature in relation to such
topics as political studies, social change, and philosophy it is noticeable that its role in
regard to employee relations, especially in regard to multinational companies, remains
under-researched. This represents a significant gap in the literature. The purpose of
this paper is to analyse the role of satyagraha in a multinational automobile plant in
India that has suffered from considerable employee relations problems. We employ
a case study of Toyota Kirloskar Motors (TKM) because of the momentous impact of
industrial unrest during the early years of this company’s operation. Toyota Motors
entered India in 1997 as a joint venture with the Kirloskar group of manufacturing
companies with the name TKM and started producing motor vehicles in late 1999 at its
Bidadi plant near Bangalore. This gives us an opportunity to study the chronological
nature of protest at the plant and make a welcome addition to the literature on this
company. The academic literature is fragmented and analytically thin, comprising
only a few descriptive case studies (Majumdar, 2006b; Mikkilineni, 2006; Ray and Roy,
2006), book chapters (Das and George, 2006), and other scattered references (Sinha,
2004; Mooij, 2005).
It seems remarkable that the legacy of satyagraha is still strong in India despite
the momentous events that have occurred in the country since independence, most
notably the era of state-sponsored socialism (1948-1991) and the more recent impact
of capitalist-inspired globalisation (since 1991). Other competitive philosophies in India
have been in direct contrast with satyagraha, such as the propagation of violence as the
only way to attain freedom by Subhash Chandra Bose, the rise of extreme Hindu
nationalism, and the impact of communist-inspired political parties and trade unions.
We offer two potential explanations for this. The first lies in the all-encompassing
nature of Indian thought: “a unique feature of Hinduism has been its ability to
incorporate a wide variety of different beliefs” (Kumar and Sethi, 2005, p. 56). Scholars
have noted that over thousands of years Indian culture has exhibited the ability to Satyagraha
absorb fresh ideas without allowing itself to be dominated by any one of them. Kumar and employee
and Sethi (2005, p. 56) note that “the primary focus of Hindu thought has been on
incorporating new developments instead of trying to refute them”. These authors cite relations
the work of Doniger (2001) who writes “it is axiomatic that no religious idea in India
ever dies or is superseded – it is merely combined with the new ideas that arise in
response to it”. 503
The second potential explanation lies in the Indian mindset for improvised
solutions. Jugaad is a Hindi word that refers to an improvised solution to a pressing
need. It is predicated on the notion of going outside a system or process to solve
a problem. Within this context, jugaad literally means an arrangement or to “work
around” something. It implies alternatives, substitutes, make-dos, good-enoughs, and
plan Bs, etc., an alphabet soup of options that work ( Jana, 2009). It possesses the
characteristics of being an innovative solution to the problem at hand which
provides an answer to an immediate dilemma. Jugaad thrives within a context of scarce
resources, necessity, and personal survival, where more often than not things fail to
work, and where systems and processes are poorly designed and executed. To get
things done people must learn how to reconnoitre around these barriers (Chadha,
2009). The concept has a class component to it. Jugaad are things that poor people
do to survive in an environment where they have to make the most of the resources
they do have: a tribute to native inventiveness, ingenuity, cleverness, and lateral
thinking. Such an environment makes inventers and innovators out of ordinary
people.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next two sections we analyse the
respective roles of satyagraha and non-satyagraha as forms of protest. This is followed
by an explanation of our methodology and an analysis of our case study at TKM.
We conclude the paper with a discussion and conclusion of our findings.
Methodology
The authors have undertaken three separate field trips to Bangalore to gather data
conducting 30 separate interviews in the process: eight with business journalists,
four with external union officials, three with internal shop stewards, eight with senior
managers, two with middle managers, three with training personnel, and one each
with a maintenance worker, and an Indian academic. All interviews were tape recorded
and transcribed. At the end of each field trip the interviews were analysed for
important themes which formed the basis for our next round of interviews in
subsequent trips. We also performed an internet search for significant events
occurring at the plant during the period since 1999. These were downloaded, arranged
in chronological order, and analysed for important themes. This data were used to Satyagraha
inform our interview questions and add density to our data. and employee
The three shop stewards we interviewed had previously been rank-and-file
workers at TKM and had been at the forefront of on-going worker opposition in the relations
plant. All of them had served various periods of suspension from their employment
because of their agitation for union recognition. In particular they enjoyed almost cult
status amongst the workforce for their leading roles in occupying the factory in 2006 507
and threatening to commit suicide by igniting the LPG cylinders. After the recognition
of the Toyota Kirloskar Motor Employees Union (TKMEU) in 2007 these three
individuals were elected by the workforce to the three most senior union roles within
the plant – general secretary, president, and vice president. In addition, our four
interviews with external union officials took the form of two interviews in 2009 and
two interviews in 2010 with the general secretary and assistant general secretary of
Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU). This is the external union federation that the
workers in the plant turned to for assistance when their demands for union recognition
were first aired in 2001. CITU is a Marxist-oriented grouping of trade unions. These
two officials subsequently played major roles in the worker campaign against the
TKM management between 2001 and 2006. Consequently, although only eight of our
30 interviews were conducted with workers, shop stewards, or external union officials,
these individuals in total played the most significant leadership roles in the worker
movement and were well qualified to impart detailed information and to act as the
spokespeople for the mass of the workers themselves.
This reference to a “successful formula” indicates the belief by TKM and other
Japanese managements in the superiority of their manufacturing principles and
practices and their expectation that it should be followed without question.
Accordingly they made very little attempt to understand Indian culture and work
habits. We found several examples from our own research where this attitude showed
through. First, the media gave prominence to the views of a leading HR consultant
who blamed TKM management (as well as other Japanese company managements in
India, e.g. Honda) for causing industrial unrest by failing to handle issues in a more
sensitive manner and also by issuing periodic threats to transfer its operations out of
Karnataka if the industrial climate failed to improve: “the management goofed up on
both the PR as well as the HR front [y] Japanese managements have hardly made any
effort to learn how to deal with India’s highly politicised unions” (Majumdar, 2006a).
Second, during the early days of employee discontent TKM management refused to
cooperate with a worker-inspired trade union and attempted to impose its own
company dominated union using employees sympathetic to the dominant company
paradigm. Third, a senior trainer for the company commented that he realised much of
TKM training contradicted Indian culture and stated “but quite frankly we are doing it
anyway” (interview with TKM trainer), a statement which seems to indicate a certain
level of hubris and an absolute faith in their approach. Fourth, at the height of
industrial unrest during 2006, TKM management continued to defend its policy of not
re-instating workers who had been suspended or dismissed, arguing “we will not
compromise on discipline; we are efficient because we are disciplined”
ER (thehindubusinessline.com, 2006). This moral indignation expressed by management
34,5 reinforces the belief in the rightness of its cause. Fifth, during the latter stages of
employee discontent when disharmony was reaching violent levels, there were several
occasions when TKM management turned down the possibility of sitting together in
common forums in an exercise of jointly seeking a new truth. Management refused to
attend a conciliation meeting with the Labour Commissioner in 2006 and refused again
512 a few days later to attend the rearranged conciliation meeting because external union
officials were in attendance. The commissioner was forced to meet both sides
separately. When the commissioner recommended a potential solution this was turned
down by management but agreed to by the union.
During the early days of operations there is little doubt that Japanese trainers
and managers were frustrated by Indian work habits. Indians failed to share with their
Japanese visitors the emphasis on discipline, precision, timeliness, and quality. A Japanese
trainer was reported as abusing a worker by seizing his cap, throwing it to the floor, and
stomping on it, whilst shouting “you Indians” (interview with journalist). Local Indian
managers could only rise to a certain level in the management hierarchy, with senior
decision-making roles occupied only by Japanese (interview with senior manager). This
inability to incorporate local knowledge probably exacerbated the groupthink mentality
within the dominant TKM schema. An Indian manager reported an example of a Japanese
manager raging “what kind of a country is this?” His retort back to the Japanese manager
was “we know what kind of country it is, but you don’t [y] if it was like Japan then we
don’t need you to come here and set up a car plant” (interview with senior manager). This
retort again reveals the ethnocentric thinking behind much Japanese management
philosophy in India and their inability to understand or incorporate local culture.
References
Babson, S. (1995), Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry,
Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI.
Bagla, G. (2008), Doing Business in 21st Century India, Business Plus, New York, NY.
Bayley, D. (1962), “The pedagogy of democracy: coercive public protest in India”, The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 663-72.
Bjorkman, I. and Budhwar, P. (2007), “When in Rome: human resource management and
the performance of foreign firms operating in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 595-610.
Bondurant, J. (1998), Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
britannica.com (n.d.), “Satyagraha”, available at: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/525247/
satyagraha (accessed 4 March 2010).
Brown, J. (1972), Gandhi’s Rise to Power: Indian Politics 1915-1922, Cambridge University Press,
London.
Budhwar, P. (2003), “Employment relations in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 132-48.
business-standard.com (2006), “Toyota labour unrest continues”, available at: www.business-
standard.com/india/news/toyota-labour-unrest-continues/231786/ (accessed 20 October 2010).
Chadha, R. (2009), “The limitations of jugaad”, available at: www.thehindubusinessline.in/
catalyst/2009/06/25/stories/2009062550040200.htm (accessed 25 June 2009).
Das, G. (2000), India Unbound, Viking Penguin, New Delhi.
Das, K. and George, S. (2006), “Labour practices and working conditions in TNCs: the case of
Toyota Kirloskar in India”, in Chang, D. (Ed.), Labour in Globalising Asian Corporations:
A Portrait of Struggle, Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong, pp. 273-302.
deepdictionary.com (2008), “Toyota Kirloskar motors hopes Corolla Altis will drive sales”,
available at: http://deepdictionary.com/automobile/864285-toyota-kirloskar-motor-hopes-
corolla-altis-will-drive-sales.html (accessed 15 November 2010).
dfong.com (n.d.), “Basic concepts of satyagraha: Gandhian nonviolence”, available at: www.
dfong.com/nonviol/basicsat.html (accessed 3 March 2010).
Doniger, W. (2001), “Hinduism”, available at: www.kat.gr/kat/history/rel/hinduism.htm (accessed
15 October 2010).
Elger, T. and Smith, C. (1994), Global Japanization: The Transnational Transformation of the Satyagraha
Labour Process, Routledge, London.
and employee
Fucini, J. and Fucini, S. (1990), Working for the Japanese: Inside Mazda’s American Auto Plant,
Free Press, New York, NY. relations
Gadgil, M. and Guha, R. (2007), “Ecological conflicts and environmental movement in India”, in
Rangarajan, M. (Ed.), Environmental Issues in India: A Reader, Dorling Kindersley,
New Delhi, pp. 385-428. 515
Gandhi, M. (1920), “Written statement: definition of satyagraha”, Disorders Inquiry
Committee, available at: http://sfr-21.org/sources/satyagraha.html (accessed 2 February
2011).
Gandhi, M. (1930/1999), “Some rules of satyagraha”, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,
Vol. 48, Government of India, New Delhi, p. 340.
Gandhi, M. (1939/1999), “Requisite qualifications”, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,
Vol. 75, Government of India, New Delhi, pp. 195-6.
Graham, L. (1995), On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese Model and the American Worker,
Cornell University Press, New York, NY.
Habib, I. (1995), Forms of Class Struggle in Mughal India, Tulika, New Delhi.
Hardiman, D. (2003), Gandhi in his Time and Ours: The Global Legacy of his Ideas, Permanent
Black, New Delhi.
ICMR (2006), “Labour unrest at Toyota India”, available at: www.icmrindia.org/
Business%20Updates/Labor%20Unrest%20AT%20Toyota% (accessed 8 October 2009).
Jana, R. (2009), “India’s next global export: innovation”, available at: www.businessweek.com/
innovate/content/dec2009/id2009121_864965.htm (accessed 2 January 2010).
Jha, D. (2011), “It’s a fight to the finish for citizens’ rights: Anna Hazare”, available at: http://
articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-06/india/29384874_1_anna-hazare-lokpal-
bill-anti-corruption-bill (accessed 6 April 2011).
Kamata, S. (1982), Japan in the Passing Lane: An Insider’s Account of Life in a Japanese Auto
Factory, Pantheon Books, New York, NY.
Kelly, J. (1998), Rethinking Industrial Relations, Routledge, London.
Kumar, R. and Sethi, A. (2005), Doing Business in India, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Majumdar, S. (2006a), “Labour militancy back in India?”, available at: www.rediff.com/money/
2006/jan/12guest.htm (accessed 17 October 2010).
Majumdar, S. (2006b), Labour Unrest at Toyota: The Decision Dilemma, IBS Research Centre,
Kolkata.
Mehri, D. (2005), Notes from Toyota Land, Cornell University Press, New York, NY.
Mikkilineni, P. (2006), IR Problems at Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited, ICFAI Centre for
Management Research, Kolkata.
Mitra, M. (2010), “Toyota leaves a window open for improvement: Hiroshi Nakagawa”, available
at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-09-03/news/27600595_1_hiroshi-
nakagawa-toyota-kirloskar-motor-toyota-way (accessed 6 September 2010).
Mooij, J. (2005), The Politics of Economic Reforms in India, Sage, New Delhi.
Murali, J. (2000), “Toyota yet to decide on second offering”, available at: www.blonnet.com/
businessline/2000/04/27/stories/192702ty.htm (accessed 3 November 2009).
newworldencyclopedia.org (n.d.), “Satyagraha”, available at: www.newworldencyclopedia.org/
entry/Satragraha (accessed 3 March 2010).
ER Parker, M. and Slaughter, J. (1988a), “Management by stress”, Technology Review, Vol. 91 No. 7,
pp. 36-44.
34,5
Parker, M. and Slaughter, J. (1988b), “NUMMI: a model of management by stress”, in Parker, M.
and Slaughter, J. (Eds), Choosing Sides: Unions and the Team Concept, South End Press,
Boston, MA, pp. 100-22.
Prabhu, R. and Rao, U. (1967), The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Navajivan Trust, Ahemadabad.
516 Ramaswamy, E. (1974), “The role of the trade union leader in India”, Human Organization,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 163-72.
Ramaswamy, E. and Schiphorst, F. (2000), “Human resource management, trade unions and
empowerment: two cases from India”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 664-80.
Ray, S. and Roy, U. (2006), Toyota Motors in Emerging Markets (Part A), IBS Research Centre,
Kolkata.
Rinehart, J., Huxley, C. and Robertson, D. (1997), Just Another Car Factory: Lean Production and
Its Discontents, Cornell University Press, New York, NY.
Salamon, M. (2000), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Sangameshwaran, P. (2005), “Indians are not good at manufacturing”, available at:
www.rediff.com/money/2005/dec/20inter.htm (accessed 11 February 2010).
satyagraha1.com (n.d.), “A theory of satyagraha”, available at: www.satyagraha1.com/
theory.htm (accessed 5 March 2010).
Sen, A. (2005), The Argumentative Indian, Penguin, London.
Sharma, J. (2008), Satyagraha: Gandhi’s Approach to Conflict Resolution, Concept Publishing,
New Delhi.
Shepard, M. (2000), Mahatma Gandhi and his Myths, Shepard Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Sinha, J. (2004), Multinationals in India: Managing the Interface of Cultures, Sage,
New Delhi.
Spodek, H. (1971), “On the origins of Gandhi’s political methodology: the heritage of Kathiawad
and Gujarat”, Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 361-72.
Stewart, P., Richardson, M., Danford, A., Murphy, K., Richardson, T. and Wass, V. (2009), We Sell
Our Time No More, Pluto Press, London.
Surendran, P. (2010), “It is now time for Bangalore-Japanese bhai bhai”, available at: www.
dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_it-is-now-time-for-bangalore-japanese-bhai-bhai_1401395
(accessed 2 July 2010).
thefreedictionary.com (n.d.), “Dharna”, available at: www.thefreedictionary.com/dharna
(accessed 18 August 2010).
thehindubusinessline.com (2006), “Toyota management, workers’ union to meet on Thursday”,
available at: www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-corporate/article1721380.ece
(accessed 16 October 2010).
thehindubusinessline.in (2009), “Toyota thinks big for India small car”, available at: www.
thehindubusinessline.in/bline/2009/07/14/stories/2009071451330200.htm (accessed 20
August 2009).
Tiberg, K. (2009), “Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi”, available at: www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/
uploads/2010/05/Tiberg-Karma-Gandhi-Yes.pdf (accessed 1 February 2011).
Times of India (2010), “Protest turns to party in Karnataka assembly”, available at: http://news.
oneindia.in/2010/07/13/protest-assembly-karnataka-illegal-mining-party.html (accessed 16
July 2010).
Tripathi, R. (1990), “Interplay of values in the functioning of Indian organizations”, International Satyagraha
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 25 Nos 3-6, pp. 715-34.
and employee
wikipedia.org (n.d.), “Satyagraha”, available at: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha (accessed
4 March 2010). relations
Wintle, J. (2002), Makers of Modern Culture, Routledge, London.
Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Harper Perennial,
New York, NY. 517
Further reading
mkgandgi.org (n.d.), “What is satyagraha?”, available at: www.mkgandhi.org/faq/q17.htm
(accessed 4 March 2010).
Ramdev, S. (2006), Yog: Its Philosophy and Practice, Divya Prakashan, Uttaranchal.
Corresponding author
Robert Jones can be contacted at: [email protected]