Those who are not active on social media (bless your stars) might have missed this, but there was a controversy of sorts that is brewing there because of Deepinder Goyal, the Zomato founder’s unusual post looking for a chief of staff for himself. To ensure that those who applied really wanted the job, he set a few unique conditions. Firstly, no salary would be paid for the first year.Not only that, Rs 20 lakhs needed to be paid by the successful applicant, which would be donated to a charity. Zomato, in turn, would contribute 50 lakhs to a charity of the candidate’s choice. After a year, the salary number was not committed, but it was promised that it would be significantly higher than 50 lakhs.
The logic offered for this admittedly innovative requirement was that what was on offer was a unique learning opportunity, and a sacrifice on the part of the candidate was essential to concretely express their commitment to the task.
Those who hailed this as an act of genius emphasised how incredibly lucky the young person would be to get to shadow the main man and work virtually as his alter ego. Those who have worked with Goyal attest to the fact that the job truly does offer a learning experience that will be invaluable in the candidate’s career.
Those who are repelled by the idea argue that this is an exploitative move that rides on the power asymmetry between the employer and employee in an unabashed way. They also point out that very few young people starting out would have the ability to pay a sum as large as 20 lakhs, and in putting forward this requirement, Goyal has ensured that the opportunity is available to the tiny few who come from affluent backgrounds.
Following the controversy, the founder has clarified that they never really meant to take 20 lakhs from the candidate, and it was just their way of making a point. While to some it might seem to be a way of saving face, there is no reason to doubt it. Clearly, this was a symbolic action; the question is, what exactly was it a symbol of?
At one level, it is throwing open a challenge to ambitious young people to put something at stake if they want something worthwhile in return. And while the financial requirement is onerous, it does not stop anyone from applying and making their case, which is apparently what has happened; the company has also received applications from those who do not have the money and still want to be considered.
At another level, it is a symbol of the inflated sense of self-worth that the start-up sector has been encouraged to develop. After all, Zomato is hardly unique in offering a great learning experience. By definition, a position like this offers precisely such an opportunity. Whether intended or not, it smacks of incredible arrogance that the ‘chance to work with me’ is valued so highly by the person himself to demand a great sacrifice from a young beginner. It is part of the overall air of self-congratulation that surrounds successful start-ups. Somehow this success and the adulation that has followed it have created a sense that they are somehow unique and that all that happened before them was inconsequential in comparison.
There is also a tendency to expect others to go ‘above and beyond’, without promising any tangible rewards in return. There is an asymmetry at work here—the employee is supposed to make the sacrifice, but the company, in return, is free to act in a completely transactional matter-of-fact way. In this case, for instance, by not giving a committed salary figure even after one year. What is also being overlooked is that the learning that young person would receive would go on to directly benefit the employer; it is hardly an act of charity.
There is an even larger issue, one that goes beyond what some might call an individual error of judgement by someone who is otherwise well regarded in business circles. The idea that every benefit that is offered must necessarily be monetised is a distressing idea. If I am giving you the opportunity to learn, regardless of the fact that I am doing it because it benefits me, then you must pay me something, even if symbolic, in return. It is almost as if the fact that the young employee would be gaining experience (for free) is begrudged and a cost is being extracted for the same.
Most of us who have worked in formal jobs would have bosses from whom we have learnt and to whom we owe a lot. Does this idea of ‘owing’ people need to translate into a more tangible form? And what about the teachers we learnt from? Again, most of us would have had a special teacher or two who were particularly influential in shaping who we are today. Should they get an equity stake in our future? Extending this logic, what if premier institutions demand royalty for the use of their name in furthering our career?
If some of this sounds far-fetched and ridiculous, it is because it is. The problem with putting a tangible value on intangible qualities is that there is no end to this. We can turn into a purely transactional society if we were to pursue this line of thought. Any societal surplus created would be hunted down and monetised.
Riding the crest of a social media-fuelled wave, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the ground beneath one’s feet is exactly where it always was. The world has changed a lot, in many ways for the better, as technology disrupts tired old ways of doing things. But some things do not and should not change. To live in a world where we cannot be of benefit to others without necessarily demanding something in return is hardly something to look forward to.
santosh365@gmail.com