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.)

Gun Violence in America

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Gun Violence in America

On December 16, 2024, tragedy struck Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where a 15-year-old student, Natalie Rupnow, fatally shot a fellow student and a teacher before taking her own life. Six others were injured, with two in critical condition. This devastating event is a grim reminder of the United States' ongoing struggle with gun violence, particularly in schools.


A Long History of Gun Ownership in America

The issue of gun violence in the United States cannot be discussed without acknowledging its deep-rooted history of gun ownership. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


Initially, this amendment was intended to empower citizens to form militias for self-defense during a time when standing armies were distrusted. Over the centuries, however, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved. Today, it is often cited as a justification for individual gun ownership, a concept reinforced by landmark court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense.


Gun culture is deeply ingrained in American society, with nearly 400 million firearms in civilian hands—more guns than people. This level of accessibility, coupled with a powerful gun lobby led by organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA), has made significant legislative reform difficult.


Gun Violence in Numbers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), firearms cause approximately 40,000 deaths annually in the United States—equivalent to 109 deaths per day. This figure includes homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Among children and teenagers, firearms are now the leading cause of death, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.


School shootings are a particularly horrifying aspect of gun violence in America. Since 1990, there have been over 800 incidents in K-12 schools, resulting in more than 500 deaths and over 1,000 injuries. High-profile tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre (1999), the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012), and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack (2018) have shocked the nation and the world, yet meaningful reforms remain elusive.


A Global Comparison

The United States stands out among developed nations for its high rate of gun violence. In countries like Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, strict gun control measures have significantly reduced firearm-related deaths. For example: By contrast, the firearm-related death rate in the United States is 12.2 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than other developed nations. The prevalence of guns and the lack of uniform gun control laws contribute to this disparity.


Challenges in Addressing Gun Violence

Efforts to reduce gun violence in the U.S. have faced significant obstacles. One of the most notable is the prohibition of federal funding for gun violence research. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, effectively barring the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue. Although the funding ban was partially lifted in 2019, its legacy has left the country with a limited understanding of the causes and solutions to gun violence.


Advocates have long called for measures such as:

• Universal Background Checks: Closing loopholes in gun sales to ensure that all firearm purchases are subject to background checks.

• Safe Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely to prevent unauthorized access.

• Bans on Certain Firearms: Prohibiting the sale of assault-style weapons, which are often used in mass shootings.


The Debate Over Gun Rights and Reform

The debate over gun control in the United States often pits the rights of gun owners against the need for public safety. Opponents of stricter gun laws argue that restrictions infringe on constitutional rights and fail to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues. Proponents, however, point to the success of gun control measures in other countries and the overwhelming public support for policies like background checks.


A Way Forward

Despite the challenges, there is growing momentum for change. Grassroots organizations, survivors of gun violence, and some lawmakers are advocating for comprehensive reforms. The Madison school shooting serves as a stark reminder of the urgency of these efforts. As the nation grapples with its gun violence epidemic, it must look to both its history and the experiences of other countries to find a path toward a safer future.


(The author is a resident of US. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page