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.)

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Mamata is seeing a ghost of Bangladesh behind the massive outrage and waves of protest over rape and murder of the trainee doctor. And the reasons are many.

It’s been over a fortnight. Yet with each passing day the voice of protest is getting louder and stronger. From the streets of Kolkata it’s pouring into roads of hinterland. The cry for justice for a rape victim has consolidated into a wail of demands to set a lot of wrongdoings right. Here in lies the fear and trepidation. Wasn’t the issue that brought the youth of Bangladesh out on the thoroughfares a simple, innocent one of quota reform?

The chief minister of Bengal, known for understanding the pulse of people better than many, was quick to read the signages floating in the political horizon.

The most obvious reason for her to be tensed is that both the regime change in Bangladesh and the mass protest in Bengal, were student-driven to begin with. The two incidents---end of 15 year old Sheikh Hasina government and turbulence in West Bengal, over the heinous crime, falling back to back, the first on August 5th and the latter from August 9th onwards, give natural scope for comparisons. More so, because in both the cases the movement strayed beyond an affected constituency to include aggrieved people at large, cutting across socio-economic demography. If the quota reform protest started by students in Bangladesh became a mass uprising against an autocratic regime, the campaign demanding justice for the rape victim and overall safety and security of women in Mamata Banerjee’s Bengal soon snowballed into a movement of no-confidence against the government. Slogans--”Mamata must resign” also got floated in social media much in line with the call for ouster of Sheikh Hasina. In fact “Resignation of Hasina” became the single point agenda into which all other fringe demands coalesced.

Incidentally, even before people started drawing parallels, that there could be a thread of commonality in the way the upheaval in Bangladesh and Bengal played out, Mamata was quick to point out that the Opposition were trying to pull off a Bangladesh by politicizing the tragic incident: “A coordinated approach has been executed by the BJP and the CPIM with support from the Centre to defame Bengal and exploit the situation....They want to make a Bangladesh here. They are taking cues from student unrest in Bangladesh and are attempting to capture similarly. I have no longing for the chair. I came here to serve people.”

Not only Mamata, her political lieutenants are consistently equating the turmoil in Bengal with the mayhem in Bangladesh. Cabinet minister for North Bengal development Udayan Guha threatened to take stern action against those, who would be trying to exploit the situation by emulating a Bangladesh like movement. “ Even after the hospital was vandalised, the police did not open fire on anyone. The police will not allow a Bangladesh type situation. We will not allow Bengal to turn into Bangladesh, Guha thundered.

Is the government’s fear unfounded?

Apart from the similarities on ground zero, as to how and where the future course of events are heading to, there are ample reasons for Bengal to mull on-- as to what led to a Bangladesh like boiling point. To begin with, it’ll be appropriate to talk of Bangladesh and the prevailing situation, that made the students’ protest become big in magnitude. The students were out on the streets because of a high reservation in public jobs. Unemployment and stagnant job market in private sector coupled with a high rate of inflation drove the educated youth to rebel against the government.

But soon the students found enormous number of sympathisers, who were equally at the receiving end. According to Bangladesh citizens, the last two terms of the Sheikh Hasina government were a mockery of democracy. Even elections would be compromised. As Hasina grew from strength to strength, she politicized institutions. The rank and file of police owed allegiance to the ruling dispensation. Extortion, harrassment and raids by police and people in power became rampant. An atmosphere of fear and repression reigned and people got restless to overthrow the government.

Politicization of institutions has been happening in Mamata government too. Allegations are quite strong that police in Bengal functions at the beck and call of political bosses. The lapses and alleged loopholes on the part of police in handling the rape and murder of the young doctor have yet again revealed a sense of confused or misplaced loyalty.

But above everything else both Hasina and Mamata governments allegedly seem to have twined in accepting corruption as a way of life. In Bangladesh jobs of primary and secondary teachers got sold at premium, Rs 10-12 lakh in the Hasina regime. Even police had to pay up for prized postings and transfers. In Bengal busting of the teacher’s recruitment scam has revealed how unsuccessful and ineligible candidates got government jobs in schools in exchange of bribes.

Similarities are multiple and inescapable. Mamata has good reasons to be apprehensive. It’s not only she, who can see and connect the dots. People, out on the streets, clamoring for justice, can see a providential pattern somewhere in the unfolding of future events in these two places-- Bangladesh and Bengal. True, they share more than 2,217 odd km of border. They share the same umbilical cord, other than language, culture, ethos, icons. Even emotions are the same. So she cannot take any risk.

(The writer is a senior jounalist based in Kolkata. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page