Unaecademy CEO announcement shocked people.

 

By Palak Srivastava

What raised eyebrows in the internet fraternity was a new policy that one of India's biggest online education platforms, Unacademy, came up with. Employees who wear $400 Burberry T-shirts, the CEO announced, would not be eligible for a pay rise. It has started triggering a huge debate related to the culture at the workplace, fairness, and personal expression.

Unacademy has been plastered across the headlines for being an innovative disruptor of education and growing at a very high speed in the e-learning space. This policy more firmly focuses the limelight on internal management practices rather than the core educational mission. This step of the CEO would help alleviate concerns regarding workplace equality, reducing the visible gap between employees from different economic classes.

This policy is premised on the idea that expensive clothing can be viewed as a sign of disparity among employees. According to the CEO, this will ensure that flaunting of wealthy individuals brings discomfort and division among workers. By connecting salary rises to the rejection of luxury brands, the corporation strives to establish a more level work environment where workers are judged and remunerated in line with their performances rather than outward appearances.

For instance, the proponents feel that this policy engenders fairness and helps maintain a level playing field. According to them, by not encouraging conspicuous displays of wealth, the company.

This week alone, one of the online learning platforms made a surprising move that has attracted wide attention. Their CEO commented that any employee sporting T-shirts from $400 Burberry would not get pay raises. The policy is now driving debate on work culture, fairness, and freedom of choice.

Unacademy is an online educational platform known to make a difference in the online education space with its courses and study materials. However, the new policy of the CEO drifts the focus from educational goals of the company down to its internal management practices or workplace culture. The main objective behind this policy appears redress of the grievances the staff felt about inequality.

The underlying theme of the policy is discouraging staff from flaunting high-priced brands and promoting an egalitarian workplace. According to the CEO, high-end cloth-wearing employees might cause discomfort and division in the workplace. Hence, through salary hikes tethered to their choice of attire, there will not be the slightest appearance of favoritism or economic disparity working in the company, hence instilling a more united and harmonious atmosphere.

According to the proponents of the policy, it serves to help level the playing field. They believed that if luxury brands were not paraded, then envy and competition would be kept at bay amongst the staff. In this sense, this policy was to introduce equality and ensure employees are judged in relation to work performance and not based on style or financial statement.

Despite such intentions, the policy has met very strong backlash. Many employees and onlookers view the approach as unfair and intrusive. They argue what one wears personally has no bearing on professional assessment or salary decisions. Critics feel the policy unduly restricts personal freedom and, more importantly, self-expression. Concerns are raised that the policy may cause those employees who feel judged based on what they wear to experience resentment and lower morale.

The policy row epitomizes bigger issues with regard to how companies treat appearance and personal expression. Though companies enforce policies designed to uphold a uniformity and professionalism-bearing work environment, the policies go on to cross into the realm of personal freedom. As some critics argue, the policy at Unacademy could prove very stressful and uncomfortable for the staff, hence affecting them badly in terms of overall job satisfaction and the productivity level.

There are fears for unintended consequences that may be reaped from this policy. The pressure to dress according to certain set standards may infringe on the workers' comfort and self-expression. This creates an atmosphere of discomfort, reducing the morale and productivity of people. This means that the whole policy action is counterproductive to what was set to achieve a happy, inclusive working environment.

Others, however, take the view that this policy befits the equality and humility values espoused by Unacademy. Their argument is that for any organization to set dress code limits and attach them to salary decisions is a bold step—it's showing regard for fairness and inclusiveness in the work environment. In such a light, one could say that the policy exists to ensure all people are accorded equal value and not judged unfairly with respect to financial position.

The challenge for Unacademy is to be very careful while implementing the policy in order to address employee concerns. How much this policy works in bringing about workplace equality will equate to how it will be sensitively communicated and enforced. Making sure that employees still feel respected and valued despite the policy is what will matter in keeping a happy work environment.

The decision of Unacademy not to give salary hikes for those employees coming to work wearing $400 Burberry T-shirts raised many controversies. While the implementation of this policy serves two purposes—avoiding workplace inequality and avoiding the appearance of economic disparity—it definitely is surrounded by significant concerns with respect to fairness and personal freedom and how it could impact employee morale. It is, therefore, very hard to strike a balance between embracing the values set out by the company and upholding the rights of individuals. How Unacademy maneuvers this can very well dictate the future stance that other organizations take on implementing such policies in the workplace.

By

Palak Srivastava