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.)

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