top of page

By:

Rashmi Kulkarni

23 March 2025 at 2:58:52 pm

Making a New Normal Feel Obvious

Normal is not what’s written. Normal is what repeats. The temple bell rings at the same time every day. Not everyone prays. Not everyone even walks in. Some people don’t care at all. And yet when that bell rings, the whole neighborhood syncs. Shops open, chores move, calls pause. The bell doesn’t convince anyone. It simply creates rhythm. That’s how “normal” is built inside a legacy MSME too. Not by speeches. By repetition. Quick recap: Week 1: You inherited an equilibrium. Week 2: People...

Making a New Normal Feel Obvious

Normal is not what’s written. Normal is what repeats. The temple bell rings at the same time every day. Not everyone prays. Not everyone even walks in. Some people don’t care at all. And yet when that bell rings, the whole neighborhood syncs. Shops open, chores move, calls pause. The bell doesn’t convince anyone. It simply creates rhythm. That’s how “normal” is built inside a legacy MSME too. Not by speeches. By repetition. Quick recap: Week 1: You inherited an equilibrium. Week 2: People resist loss, not improvement. Week 3: Status quo wins when your new way is harder. Week 4 is the next problem: even when your idea is good and even when it is easy, it can still fail because people don’t move together. One team starts. Another team waits. One person follows. Another person quietly returns to the old way. So, the old normal comes back … not because your idea was wrong, but because your new normal never became normal. Which Seat? • Inherited : people expect direction, but they only shift when they see what you consistently protect. • Hired : people wait for proof “Is this just a corporate habit you’ll drop in a month?” • Promoted : people watch whether you stay consistent under pressure. Now here’s the useful idea from Thomas Schelling: a “focal point”. Don’t worry about the term. In simple words, it means: you don’t need everyone convinced. You need one clear anchor that everyone can align around. In a legacy MSME, that anchor is rarely a policy document. It’s not a rollout email. It’s a ritual. Why Rituals? These firms run on informal rules, relationships, memory, and quick calls. That flexibility keeps work moving, but it also makes change socially risky. Even supportive people hesitate because they’re thinking: “If I follow this and others don’t, I’ll look foolish.” “If I share real numbers, will I become the target?” “If I push this new flow, will I upset a senior person?” “If I do it properly, will it slow me down?” When people feel that risk, they wait. And waiting is how the status quo survives. A focal ritual breaks the waiting. It sends one clean signal: “This is real. This is how we work now.” Focal Ritual It’s a short, fixed review that repeats with the same format. For example: a weekly scoreboard review (15 minutes) a daily dispatch huddle (10 minutes) a fixed purchase-approval window (cutoff + queue) The meeting isn’t the magic. The repetition is. When it repeats without drama, it becomes believable. When it becomes believable, people start syncing to it, even the ones who were unsure. Common Mistake New leaders enter with energy and pressure: “show impact”. So they try to fix reporting, planning, quality, procurement, digitization … everything. The result is predictable. People don’t know what is truly “must follow”. So everything becomes “optional”. They do a little of each, and nothing holds. If you want change to stick, pick one focal ritual and make it sacred. Not forever. Just long enough for the bell to become the bell. Field Test Step 1 : Pick one pain area that creates daily chaos: delayed dispatch, pending purchase approvals, rework, overdue collections. Step 2 : Set the ritual: Fixed time, fixed duration (15 minutes). One scoreboard (one page, one screen). Same three questions every time: – What moved since last time? – What is stuck and why? – What decision is needed today? One owner who closes the loop (decisions + due dates). Step 3 : Protect it for 8 weeks. Don’t cancel because you’re busy. Don’t skip because a VIP came. Don’t “postpone once” because someone complained. I’ve seen a simple weekly dispatch scoreboard die this exact way. Week one was sharp. By week three, it got pushed “just this once” because someone had a client visit. Week four, it moved again for “urgent work”. After that, nobody took it seriously. The old follow-ups returned, and the leader was back to chasing people daily. The first casual cancellation tells the system: “This was a phase”. And the old normal returns fast. One Warning Don’t turn the ritual into policing. If it becomes humiliation, people will hide information. If it becomes shouting, people will stop speaking. If it becomes a lecture, people will mentally leave. Keep it calm. Keep it consistent. Keep it useful. A bell doesn’t shout. It just rings. (The author is Co-founder at PPS Consulting and a business operations advisor. She helps businesses across sectors and geographies improve execution through global best practices. She could be reached at rashmi@ppsconsulting.biz)

A Reckoning Beyond the Lab

As 2025 draws to a close, science and technology continue to shape global conversations. Artificial intelligence has become part of daily life. Space missions are more frequent and ambitious. New medicines are making their mark. Yet alongside this progress, public anxiety about technology, health, environment and data privacy has grown exponentially. Beneath the excitement and headlines lies a deeper concern that deserves reflection at the end of the year: public trust in science.


Science does not exist in isolation. Its real value emerges only when society understands, accepts and uses it wisely. Trust is the invisible link between laboratories and everyday life. When this link weakens, even strong scientific advances fail to deliver their full benefit.


Mixed Scenario

Across the world, public trust in science presents a mixed picture. In times of crisis, especially during health emergencies or natural disasters, people continue to rely on scientific advice. At the same time, scepticism has grown toward institutions, regulators, and large technology platforms. Many people trust science as a method, but question how scientific knowledge is produced, communicated, and applied.


India mirrors this global pattern. The country has achieved notable scientific successes in recent years. Space exploration, vaccine development, digital public infrastructure, and renewable energy initiatives have strengthened national confidence. Indian science has demonstrated its capacity to respond under pressure, and these achievements deserve recognition.


However, trust is not sustained by achievements alone. It is shaped by everyday experience. Citizens ask practical questions. Is the air safer to breathe? Is drinking water reliable and clean? Are new technologies tested carefully before adoption? Are medicines affordable and effective? When science appears disconnected from these concerns, trust weakens, often without loud protest.


Widening Gap

One major challenge is the widening gap between scientific complexity and public understanding. Modern science is complex by nature. Research papers are dense, data sets are large, and terminology is specialized. Complexity is unavoidable, but lack of clarity is not. Too often, findings are presented either as simplified slogans or buried in technical language. Both approaches damage trust. Oversimplification feels like promotion, while excessive jargon creates distance.


The media plays an important role in shaping perception. Science journalism has expanded, but it competes with misinformation, sensationalism, and the demand for instant attention. Early or incomplete findings are sometimes presented as major breakthroughs. Contradictory results are framed as failures rather than as part of the normal scientific process. Retractions and corrections, which reflect science correcting itself, are often portrayed as scandals. This confuses readers and weakens confidence. Social media has amplified these challenges. Direct communication between scientists and the public is a positive development. At the same time, unverified claims spread rapidly, often faster than carefully reviewed evidence. Individuals without scientific training can command large audiences, while expert voices struggle to be heard. Algorithms reward emotional responses more than accuracy, making trust fragile and easily distorted.


Another important factor is the perceived closeness between science, industry, and policy. Collaboration between researchers and industry is essential for innovation. However, when conflicts of interest are not clearly disclosed, public confidence suffers. People begin to question whether advice is driven by evidence or by economic considerations. Transparent disclosure and strong ethical frameworks are therefore essential.


The internal culture of science also influences public trust. Increasing pressure to publish frequently, secure large grants, and chase rankings has consequences. Quantity can overtake quality. Replication studies receive little attention and negative results often remain unpublished. When weak or flawed research enters public discussion, it does not remain a technical issue. It affects trust in science itself.


Education plays a central role in shaping long-term confidence. Scientific temper is not built by memorizing facts, but by understanding how knowledge is created, tested, corrected and sometimes rejected. Yet science education often emphasizes correct answers over questioning. Students learn conclusions without learning the process. This makes them vulnerable to misinformation later in life. India’s constitutional call to develop scientific temper remains highly relevant. Scientific temper does not mean blind faith in experts, nor constant suspicion. It means respect for evidence, openness to questioning, and comfort with uncertainty. Cultivating this mindset requires sustained engagement, not occasional campaigns.


Trust is also linked to inclusion. Communities that do not experience the benefits of science are less likely to trust it. When solutions ignore local realities, economic constraints or cultural practices, resistance is natural. Effective science communication treats citizens as participants rather than passive recipients.


Encouragingly, citizen science initiatives are gaining ground. Projects involving air quality monitoring, biodiversity mapping, water testing, and public health data collection have shown that participation strengthens both data quality and trust. When people contribute to knowledge creation, science becomes tangible and relatable.


Regulatory systems deserve equal attention. Transparent, competent, and independent regulators inspire confidence. Trust depends not only on outcomes, but also on clear and accountable processes.


In India, rebuilding trust will also require scientists to step beyond laboratories and journals. Engagement with schools, local communities, public forums, and regional languages can make science more accessible and humane. When scientists are visible, approachable and willing to listen, trust grows naturally, without persuasion or publicity.


At the global level, science diplomacy has become increasingly important. Challenges such as climate change, pandemics and resource scarcity require cooperation beyond borders. When scientific collaboration continues despite political tensions, it reinforces the universal value of evidence and reason. India is well placed to contribute meaningfully in this space.


Public trust in science cannot be taken for granted. It must be earned repeatedly. The future of science will depend not only on advanced technologies or larger laboratories, but on stronger relationships between science and society. As we turn the calendar, rebuilding and sustaining this trust may be the most important scientific challenge of all.


(The author is the former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune, a Visiting Professor at IIT Bombay, and among the first recipients of the ANRF Prime Minister Professorship.)

Comments

bottom of page