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.)

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