top of page

By:

Rahul Kulkarni

30 March 2025 at 3:32:54 pm

Governance Is Modernization

By now, if you’ve followed this series, you’ve done something rare. You didn’t walk in and start “fixing” blindly. You understood the equilibrium. You reduced the fear of loss. You made the new way easier than the old way. You created rhythm. You built reputation and credibility. You learned to negotiate, build coalitions, digitize in small steps. And the previous article, Rahul spoke about the hidden requirement: psychological safety because without truth, every dashboard becomes theatre....

Governance Is Modernization

By now, if you’ve followed this series, you’ve done something rare. You didn’t walk in and start “fixing” blindly. You understood the equilibrium. You reduced the fear of loss. You made the new way easier than the old way. You created rhythm. You built reputation and credibility. You learned to negotiate, build coalitions, digitize in small steps. And the previous article, Rahul spoke about the hidden requirement: psychological safety because without truth, every dashboard becomes theatre. Now we close the season with the most grounded definition of “professionalization” I know. It’s not ERP. It’s not fancy roles. It’s not a new org chart. Because when power is unclear, everything else becomes unstable. Which seat are you stepping into? • Inherited seat: you may have formal authority, but decision rights are often still “family-managed”. • Hired seat: you may have responsibility without authority. That is the fastest path to frustration. • Promoted seat: you may have influence, but your boundaries are fuzzy, and that creates daily conflict. Different seats. Same reality: the business runs on invisible boundaries. The property boundary line Think about a property boundary line between two neighbors. When the line is clear, people may still argue but disputes are limited. When the line is unclear, every small thing becomes a fight: • “This is my parking space”. • “That tree is mine”. • “This wall belongs to who?” In a company, decision rights are the boundary line. If the boundary is not clear: • approvals become political • escalation becomes emotional • responsibility becomes a trap • people start bypassing • and “urgent” becomes the excuse for everything This is why modernization fails even after you digitize. Because digitization creates visibility, and visibility creates conflict if authority is still fuzzy. Governance sounds heavy, but it’s actually simple When people hear “governance”, they imagine board meetings and legal language. In MSMEs, governance is much simpler: Who can decide what, within which limits, and what happens when there is a conflict. That’s it. If you can answer those three questions, you’re already professionalizing. Why governance matters more in family-influenced firms In many Indian MSMEs, decisions are not purely operational. They are emotional and relational. A pricing exception may be linked to a relationship. A hiring decision may be linked to loyalty. A capex purchase may be linked to ego and legacy. This is not “wrong”. It’s just real. But when the company starts growing, this style doesn’t scale. It creates confusion: • managers don’t know what they can commit to • teams don’t know whose instruction to follow • the owner gets dragged into everything • and the new leader becomes the “bad cop” without any real authority There’s a light-touch academic way to describe this too: Jensen and Meckling wrote about “agency” issues … when decision-makers and owners have different incentives. The fix is not more control. The fix is clearer decision rights. The three decision rights that change everything If you do only three things in governance, do these: 1. Pricing authority Who can approve discounts? Under what limits? What is the exception path? 2. Capex thresholds Who can approve spending? Up to what amount? What needs owner approval? What can be delegated? 3. Hiring approvals Who can hire? Who can approve headcount? What roles require founder/family sign-off? These three create a surprising amount of stability. Why? Because they cover money, investment, and people … the three biggest emotional zones in MSMEs. What happens when these rights are not clear? You’ll recognize these symptoms: • people take decisions and later say “I thought it was okay” • approvals happen through WhatsApp messages that nobody can trace • the owner says “Why did you do this?” after the fact • managers get blamed for decisions they didn’t have the authority to make • teams bypass the system because “it’s urgent” • and your new “process” becomes optional again It’s not because people are undisciplined. It’s because the boundary line is not drawn. Field Test: Negotiate and document three decision rights This week’s field test is not a workshop. It’s a negotiation. If you try to enforce governance without safety, people will hide. If you try to digitize without governance, conflict will explode. This 12-articles season wasn’t about “fixing operations”. It was about how an incoming leader enters a legacy MSME without triggering immune response and then builds rhythm, credibility, coalition, safe digitization, and finally governance. Now that you can enter the system and steady it, the next macro-arc becomes obvious: How do you build the middle layer that sustains it … so the company doesn’t fall back into founder-dependence? That’s where real scale begins. (The writer is a co-founder at PPS Consulting. He is a business transformation consultant. He could be reached at rahul@ppsconsulting.biz.)

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page