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)

India’s Batting Obsession Derailing its World Cup?

In every ICC tournament cycle, India walks in branded as a batting superpower. The aura is built around depth, firepower and the assumption that any total is chaseable and any platform can be converted into a match-winning score. Yet in the ongoing ICC Men's T20 World Cup, a troubling pattern has resurfaced: when the batters fail, India appears to have no safety net. The question is no longer whether India possesses talent with the bat, they undeniably do, but whether an excessive strategic dependence on batting is quietly undermining their campaign.


The modern Indian T20 template is built around aggression in the powerplay, boundary-hitting through the middle overs and a finishing surge at the death. It is a formula shaped by franchise cricket and perfected on high-scoring surfaces. However, World Cup cricket rarely offers such comfort. Surfaces are more competitive; bowling attacks are better prepared and pressure is magnified. In these conditions, India’s batting has looked less invincible and more vulnerable.


The recent setback against South Africa national cricket team was emblematic. After early breakthroughs with the ball, India allowed the game to drift and then capitulated during the chase. The top order’s dismissal inside the powerplay triggered panic rather than recalibration. Instead of stabilising the innings, batters attempted to counter-attack their way out of trouble. The result was a collapse that exposed not just technical frailties, but a mindset conditioned to dominate rather than adapt.


This is where over-dependence becomes dangerous. When a team’s identity is overwhelmingly batting-centric, the psychological burden shifts disproportionately onto that unit. Bowlers are seen as supporting actors, tasked merely with containing damage until the batters seal the deal. But T20 cricket at the global level demands multidimensional control, strangulation through disciplined bowling, sharp fielding and tactical flexibility. India’s bowling unit has often provided early inroads, yet their contributions are overshadowed because the narrative remains fixated on batting fireworks.


Another concern is the top-heavy structure. If the first three deliver, India looks unstoppable. If they don’t, the middle order is forced into dual roles, rebuilding and accelerating simultaneously. That is a tactical contradiction. Successful T20 sides distribute responsibility; India appears to concentrate it. The dependency is not merely statistical; it is structural.


The deeper issue lies in adaptability. India’s batters are exceptional stroke-makers, but tournament cricket rewards situational intelligence. Rotating strike on two-paced pitches, absorbing pressure spells and constructing partnerships of 40 rather than searching for instant 80-run bursts, these are championship traits. Too often, India’s innings oscillate between explosive and erratic with little in between. When boundaries dry up, dot balls accumulate. When dot balls accumulate, risk escalates. And when risk escalates, collapses follow.


It would be inaccurate to claim India lack bowling quality. On the contrary, their pace attack and spin resources are among the most skillful in the competition. But bowling excellence needs scoreboard backing. Defending sub-par totals repeatedly is unrealistic. The imbalance is therefore less about personnel and more about planning. Selection debates have often prioritised an extra batting option over a specialist bowler, reinforcing the perception that matches will be won primarily through run accumulation.


The irony is that India’s greatest T20 successes have come when the team functioned as a cohesive unit rather than a batting exhibition. Championship teams absorb pressure; they do not amplify it. In this World Cup, moments of crisis have revealed a side unsure of how to win ugly. And tournaments are often decided by the ability to grind, not glamourise.


Is over-dependence on batters costing India? The evidence suggests it is contributing significantly. Not because the batters lack quality, but because the team’s strategic blueprint leans too heavily on them delivering flawlessly. In elite sport, flawless execution is rare. Balance, however, is sustainable.


If India is to reclaim control of the campaign, it must recalibrate the identity. Batting can remain the headline act, but it cannot be the only act. World Cups are not won by reputation; they are won by resilience, versatility and composure under duress. Until India reduces their reliance on batting dominance and embraces a more rounded tactical approach, the question will persist and so will the vulnerability.

Comments

bottom of page