top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Street Circus

The NEET-UG paper leak was a genuine grievance. Millions of students who spent years preparing for one of India’s toughest examinations deserved answers, accountability and justice. But what unfolded at Jantar Mantar was no movement for educational reform. It was a spectacle of rage, abuse and performative rebellion that often appeared more interested in viral clips than viable solutions. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which claimed to represent the anger of students, ended up exposing...

Street Circus

The NEET-UG paper leak was a genuine grievance. Millions of students who spent years preparing for one of India’s toughest examinations deserved answers, accountability and justice. But what unfolded at Jantar Mantar was no movement for educational reform. It was a spectacle of rage, abuse and performative rebellion that often appeared more interested in viral clips than viable solutions. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which claimed to represent the anger of students, ended up exposing itself, revealing itself to promote a culture of outrage without responsibility and more troubling, have aspersions cast on its funding sources. Besides the fact that just how many of those gathered were afflicted NEET students, the ugliest part of the protest was the language. Videos from Jantar Mantar showed protesters hurling the most obscene and personal abuses at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. One can dislike the PM or oppose his policies, reducing political disagreement to filthy personal abuse against an elected Prime Minister is gross cowardice and at the basic level, a sheer failure of basic civic etiquette. No entity cannot claim to be fighting for the dignity of students while abandoning all standards of dignity in public discourse. The irony was impossible to miss. A section of this self-proclaimed progressive generation speaks constantly about equality, feminism, tolerance and justice. Yet the very same voices displayed extraordinary intolerance towards anyone they decided was an enemy. Journalists were targeted, political opponents were dehumanised and anyone carrying a different opinion was casually branded with labels designed to silence rather than debate. Social media has created a dangerous illusion among many young activists that a viral video is a victory, and that shouting louder is the same as achieving something. A few Instagram reels, borrowed revolutionary imagery and slogans can create the appearance of rebellion. But governing a country and reforming institutions and fixing broken systems require far more than theatrical anger. The government, however, cannot escape responsibility either. The crisis was allowed to grow because of delayed communication and inadequate political management. A prompt response, transparent investigation and early intervention could have prevented a limited controversy from becoming a national embarrassment. Instead, the government was forced into damage control, and Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, a capable minister, became the political casualty. For the citizens, it was a colossal waste of time. After weeks of noise, confrontation and disruption, the students gained little. The examination system remains under scrutiny and larger problems remain unresolved. The only visible outcome is the removal of a minister. A protest that begins with a genuine grievance but ends as a contest of abuse and attention-seeking has not strengthened democracy. It has weakened the very standards it claims to defend.

The Status Quo Is a Competitor, Not a Baseline

“You’re not competing with other ideas. You’re competing with “leave me alone”.

You’ve seen this happen. You call a meeting. You explain the logic. People nod. Some even say, “Yes, correct.” And then… nothing changes. Not a fight. Not a refusal. Not drama. Just a slow, polite slide back to the old way. Most leaders call this laziness. I don’t. I think it’s something more precise: The status quo is doing its job.


Quick recap if you’re joining mid-series

Week 1: You inherited an equilibrium, not a business.

Week 2: People don’t oppose improvement; they oppose loss disguised as improvement.

Now Week 3: even if you reduce the fear of loss, there’s another force sitting quietly

behind it: “Do nothing” is not neutral. It’s a protected strategy.


Which seat are you stepping into?

Inherited seat: People will smile and wait for your “phase” to pass.

Hired seat: People will test whether you can enforce, or whether you’ll get tired.

Promoted seat: People may agree publicly and revert privately because habits don’t ask permission.


Different entry doors. Same default: do nothing.


Shortcut Route

Every industrial area has that one shortcut road. It’s narrow, broken, sometimes risky. But it avoids signals and saves a turn. So, everyone keeps taking it even when a better road exists. That’s how organizations behave. Your “new process” might be cleaner and smarter. But the old route is familiar. And familiarity feels like safety.


Researchers call this status quo bias where we stick with what’s already in place even when a better option exists (Samuelson and Zeckhauser wrote about it decades ago). But you don’t need a paper to believe it. You just need to watch what happens after your first improvement announcement.


Do Nothing

Incoming leaders often treat the current way of working like a baseline: “Okay, this is where we are. Now we improve.” But inside the system, the status quo is not baseline. It’s a competitor. It protects people in very specific ways:

It keeps accountability soft: everything stays “situational”.

It preserves informal power: who can “manage”, who has access, who gets heard.

It avoids hard data, which avoids hard blame.

It keeps old loyalties intact.

It keeps flexibility for firefighting even if that firefighting is the problem.

So, when you introduce a new system, you’re not offering a better idea. You’re threatening a survival arrangement.

That’s why resistance here is rarely loud. It’s quiet. Continuous. Patient. The real competition is friction


Practical Truth

People don’t choose the best option. They choose the easiest option. This is where the idea of defaults matters. Thaler and Sunstein popularised it in Nudge: if you make something the default path, most people follow it … not because they love it, but because opting out takes effort.


In MSMEs, effort is expensive. Not because people are incapable—because they’re overloaded. Understaffed. Running on memory, calls, WhatsApp, and urgency. So “small extra steps” are not small. They become the place where change goes to die.

If your new system adds friction, the status quo wins.


New Behavior

Use these four rules:

1. Remove one step, don’t add one.

If your change adds steps, it will lose. Kill one existing step immediately (a duplicate approval, a manual register, a second reporting format).

2. Attach it to an existing moment.

Don’t create a new ritual. Piggyback on something that already happens (dispatch call, purchase huddle, daily production chat). Change travels on existing rails.

3. Make it visible and usable.

If the new behavior produces something people need (a live queue, a simple list, a shared status board), it becomes real. If it produces a report nobody reads, it becomes theater.

4. Create a soft gate.


Not punishment. A gate. Example: “Only logged quotations will be discussed in the pricing huddle.” Calm rule, consistently applied. No drama, no exceptions-by-loudness. If you do only this much, you’ll notice something powerful: adoption starts rising without motivation speeches. Because you stopped trying to win by persuasion and started winning by design.


(The writer is Co-founder at PPS Consulting. He writes about the human mechanics of growth where systems evolve, and emotions learn to keep up. Views personal. Write to rahul@ppsconsulting.biz)

Comments

bottom of page