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.)

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page