top of page

By:

Rahul Kulkarni

30 March 2025 at 3:32:54 pm

Psychological Safety, The Prerequisite for Modernisation

If people can’t tell you the truth, your dashboards will lie for them. So now you finally have what most leaders think they need: a system. And yet… the system still doesn’t show the truth. Numbers look “clean”. Reports look “reasonable”. Problems show up late. Bad news arrives only when it becomes a fire. This is where many leaders get fooled. They look at the dashboard and think, “Great, we’re improving.” And then reality punches them. A shipment fails. A customer escalates. A vendor...

Psychological Safety, The Prerequisite for Modernisation

If people can’t tell you the truth, your dashboards will lie for them. So now you finally have what most leaders think they need: a system. And yet… the system still doesn’t show the truth. Numbers look “clean”. Reports look “reasonable”. Problems show up late. Bad news arrives only when it becomes a fire. This is where many leaders get fooled. They look at the dashboard and think, “Great, we’re improving.” And then reality punches them. A shipment fails. A customer escalates. A vendor refuses. Cash gets stuck. Quality blows up. The issue is not your tool. The issue is fear. Which Seat? Inherited seat: people fear disappointing you, so they hide issues until they’re unavoidable. Hired seat: people fear you’ll judge them, so they show you what looks good. Promoted seat: people fear the relationship has changed, so they become careful and political. Different seats. Same outcome: silence. Doctor-Patient Problem Think about a doctor. The doctor can be brilliant. The hospital can be world-class. The tests can be advanced. But if the patient hides symptoms, the diagnosis will be wrong. Not because the doctor is bad. Because the input is false. That’s what modernisation looks like without psychological safety. You can buy software. You can design processes. You can set up dashboards. But if people can’t tell you the truth, your “data” will become polite fiction. And you’ll make confident decisions on top of fiction. What Is Safety? People hear “psychological safety” and imagine a soft HR concept. It’s not soft. It’s operational. Amy Edmondson, who researched this deeply, describes it simply: a climate where people feel safe to speak up, admit mistakes, ask questions, and raise bad news without being punished or humiliated. In MSME language, it means: “If I report a problem, I won’t be insulted.” “If I admit a mistake, I won’t be made a permanent example.” “If I raise a risk early, I won’t be told I’m negative.” “If I tell the truth, I won’t lose my standing.” If those beliefs don’t exist, people will still “cooperate” but it will be theatre. Hidden Blocker Low-data firms don’t naturally produce truth. They produce stories. Why? Because stories protect people. A late dispatch becomes: “customer changed plan”A defect becomes: “labour issue”A missed purchase becomes: “vendor problem”A cash delay becomes: “accounts is slow” Each story may contain some truth. But the function of the story is usually protection. So when you introduce digitisation, something changes: Now the story has to match a number. And if the number can expose someone, the system will do the only thing it knows: It will manage the number. That’s how dashboards become lies. Not because people are dishonest by nature.Because honesty has become unsafe. The Signs Bad news comes late, always. Meetings are full of explanations, not facts. “No issues” is the most common update. Problems are discovered by customers, not internally. People speak more in corridors than in review meetings. Everyone looks busy, but nothing is owned. If you see these signs, your modernisation effort is at risk. Because the system will look healthy until it breaks. Most leaders don’t wake up and say, “Let me create fear.” They kill safety through small habits: Sarcasm in meetings Public scolding Reacting emotionally to bad news Asking “who did this?” before asking “why did this happen?” Using pilot data for appraisal Praising only “good numbers” and punishing messy truths One harsh moment teaches the room a long lesson. After that, people stop volunteering reality. They start managing perception. Field Test Pick one recent failure. Not the biggest scandal. A real, medium-sized problem. Gather the involved people for 30–45 minutes. Then follow three rules: Start with the line: “This is not a blame meeting. This is a learning meeting.” And mean it. Ask only these questions: What happened, in sequence? Where did the handoff break? What made the wrong action feel reasonable at the time? What one change reduces the chance of repeat? No names, no insults, no ‘how can you’ If someone makes it personal, you bring it back to the process and the moment. Now the most important part: Track whether people volunteer issues unprompted in the next two weeks. That is the real signal. If people start bringing small problems early, safety is rising. If they stay silent and “all good”, your system is still running on fear. (The writer is a Chartered Accountant based in Thane. Views personal.)

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