top of page

By:

Rahul Kulkarni

30 March 2025 at 3:32:54 pm

Why the Majority Doesn’t Matter

Most change fails not from resistance, but from weak coalition design. Even if you negotiate well, you can still fail for a boring reason: You built the wrong coalition. This week we step into the third act of this series: modernize without backlash. Most leaders walk into an MSME thinking change is a vote. If most people agree, you win. That’s corporate thinking. In legacy Indian SMEs, the majority is usually passive. The people who matter are the ones who can stop the flow.   Which Seat...

Why the Majority Doesn’t Matter

Most change fails not from resistance, but from weak coalition design. Even if you negotiate well, you can still fail for a boring reason: You built the wrong coalition. This week we step into the third act of this series: modernize without backlash. Most leaders walk into an MSME thinking change is a vote. If most people agree, you win. That’s corporate thinking. In legacy Indian SMEs, the majority is usually passive. The people who matter are the ones who can stop the flow.   Which Seat Inherited seat: you may have authority, but you still need backing beyond the family name. Hired seat: you may have ideas, but you don’t have a home team yet. Promoted seat: you may have relationships, but you don’t automatically have permission.   In cricket, you don’t win because you have 11 batsmen. You win because the field is set right for the plan. A bowler can be doing everything right and still leak runs if the field leaves gaps. Singles become boundaries. The team blames the bowler. But the real issue was field setting. That’s how change fails in MSMEs.   Veto Players A small blocking group can stall you even if everyone nods in meetings. They don’t argue. They sit at gates: - Money release - Purchase approvals - Dispatch control - Owner access They can delay, create exceptions, raise “data doubts,” or ask for “one more confirmation.” And then they do the most effective thing of all: quietly wait for your energy to fade.   Own Work In one assignment, I thought I had the room. People smiled, agreed, even said, “Very good”. Two weeks later, nothing had moved. Two gatekeepers kept adding small speed-breakers. Every objection sounded reasonable. Over a month, the pilot died … no drama, just suffocation. That’s when I learned: in MSMEs, you’re rarely battling resistance. You’re battling veto power.   Coalition Math Political scientist William Riker had a simple idea: you don’t need everyone, you need a coalition that’s just big enough to win and hold. In a company, that means: enough of the right people so the new way becomes unavoidable. And people don’t jump alone. Most switch only when they see others switching because nobody wants to be the first person who looks foolish. So, your job is not “get buy-in from 50 people”. Your job is: 1. Build a small winning coalition 2. Neutralise the blocking coalition 3. Make it visible so the passive majority follows Politics Drama Name the gates Write the 3–5 gates your change must pass through (money, approvals, dispatch, data). Then write who controls them in real life. Pick your first five supporters Not supporters in principle. People who will act. Five is enough to cover gates without becoming a crowd. Pay the coalition cost upfront Each supporter needs one thing to stay aligned: respect, safety, credit, clarity, control of exceptions. Ignore this, and support disappears the first time pressure comes. Neutralize blockers calmly You have three moves: Convert: give them a dignified role and protect the interest they fear losing. Bypass: redesign the workflow so their veto reduces. Contain: limit their veto to exceptions, not the main flow. What you should not do is start a public fight too early. That creates camps. Camps create long wars. Wars kill modernization.   Field Test Name your first five supporters for your next change. Against each name, write ONE concession they need to stay aligned. Example: “You chair the weekly ritual.” “Pilot data won’t be used for appraisal.” “You control exceptions, but exceptions must be logged.” “Your method becomes the base standard.” “Your role is made explicit.” If you can’t name five, you don’t have a coalition yet. You have a hope.   In MSMEs, the majority is tired, busy, and risk-sensitive. They won’t lead your change. They will join it when it feels safe and inevitable. So, stop trying to convince everyone. Set the field properly. Build alignment with five. Neutralise the two who can block.   (The writer is a co-founder at PPS Consulting. He is a business transformation consultant. He could be reached at rahul@ppsconsulting.biz.)

Debunking EVM Myths: Restoring Trust in Elections

Debunking EVM Myths

In India’s diverse democracy, elections are more than a constitutional duty—they celebrate unity and plurality. Central to this process is the commitment to free, fair, and credible elections. A key innovation in this effort was the introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to combat fraud, inefficiency, and logistical issues of paper ballots. Despite their proven reliability, EVMs remain controversial, with recurring claims of hacking and manipulation. These often baseless allegations fuel a false narrative that undermines the credibility of India’s electoral process.


Scepticism around EVMs often arises after unexpected electoral results, with losing parties questioning their integrity to deflect from defeat. This tactic isn’t unique to India; even in advanced democracies like the U.S., doubts about electronic voting systems have surfaced. However, India’s EVMs are offline, insulating them from external interference. Despite this, allegations persist, fuelled by misinformation and amplified by social media. Viral videos claiming EVM tampering often feature crude replicas, not genuine machines, yet their visual impact plants doubt. The lack of immediate clarification allows these myths to spread. Globally, scepticism about electronic voting adds perceived credibility to these local claims, despite differences in technology.


A common misconception about EVMs is that they are vulnerable to remote hacking because they are connected to the internet. This narrative is entirely false. Indian EVMs are standalone devices, designed to operate offline without any connectivity to external networks. This offline design is one of the primary safeguards against tampering, ensuring that no external party can remotely access or alter the machines.


Additionally, the devices are secured through tamper-evident seals, strict storage protocols, and constant surveillance, making unauthorised access highly improbable. Another persistent myth is that EVMs can be manipulated during their storage or transport. Critics often point to the logistical complexity of elections as a potential weak point. However, the Election Commission of India has implemented stringent measures to address these concerns. EVMs are stored under the watchful eyes of election officials, political party representatives, and security personnel. They are equipped with seals that show visible signs of tampering, ensuring transparency and accountability at every stage.


Genuine Indian EVMs are manufactured under stringent conditions by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL), and their software is embedded in one-time programmable chips that cannot be altered or rewritten. The claims of hacking are thus not only misleading but also an affront to the rigorous processes that ensure the integrity of these machines. The introduction of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system has added another layer of transparency to the electoral process. With VVPAT, voters receive a printed slip confirming their choice, which is stored securely for potential audits. This system provides tangible proof of the vote cast, addressing doubts and reinforcing trust in the process. Yet, even this innovation has not been spared from criticism, as detractors seek to cast aspersions on its efficacy without offering substantive evidence.


The Election Commission of India has organised open challenges and invited sceptics to prove their claims. These challenges, held under controlled conditions, have yet to yield any credible evidence of tampering. Furthermore, the judiciary has repeatedly upheld the reliability of EVMs.


The Supreme Court of India, in particular, has recognised the vital role of these machines in ensuring the integrity of elections and dismissed allegations of hacking as baseless. India’s EVMs have also earned international recognition for their robust design and efficiency. Several countries, including Bhutan and Nepal, have adopted similar systems inspired by India’s model. This global validation underscores the effectiveness of Indian EVMs in delivering credible elections, even in challenging conditions.


The real threat from the fake EVM narrative is democratic, not technological. By eroding trust, it risks alienating voters and undermining confidence in democratic institutions. Political actors exploit this distrust to divert attention from real issues. The danger lies in the misinformation, not the machines. Combating this requires public awareness campaigns on EVM security and safeguards. The Election Commission must engage stakeholders, counter misinformation, and explore technologies to boost transparency. Citizens, too, must question claims and rely on verified information.


As India continues to uphold its democratic ideals, it is crucial to ensure that truth prevails over propaganda, safeguarding the sanctity of the electoral process for generations to come.


(The author is a Senior Research Associate,Vishwa Samvad Kendra, Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page