I am sure that a section of people must have been happy that PK hasn’t accepted Congress's offer. However, I feel we shouldn’t make too much out of the current situation where Prashant Kishore declined Congress’s offer to join the empowered action group of Congress. Whether it was a smart move of PK or not, it's too early to conclude. First of all, PK offered to work for Congress without any fee. He must have made the offer knowing all possibilities and all the shortcomings of Congress. And he had a mind to join Congress and work for Congress. So how could it be a smart or non-smart decision to turn down the offer? PK has been in the field of politics for the last ten years. I am sure he knows and understands Congress much more than you and I. His willingness to join Congress can not be a whimsical abrupt decision.
PK must have done extensive homework keeping in mind all possibilities, all equations, roadblocks, resistance from pressure group, internal lobbies, things that could derail his efforts, tricky issues, and possible counter moves to tackle obstacles and make in road. And it's not that only PK was interested in joining Congress, Sonia Gandhi seemed equally serious about having him on board. PK had extensive deliberation apart from the presentation he gave. I am sure in those few days both sides had open and threadbare discussions on the contagious issues. However, for some reason, things didn’t work. That is absolutely fine with me. In fact, I expected this outcome.
Now my question is - why did they fail to arrive at a converging point? Was PK’s homework not adequate, or did he fail to gain enough buying in his favour? Did PK fail to anticipate the deal-breaker issues, or could he not come up with suitable solutions? Did he fail to take the Gandhi family and other CWC members into confidence? I do not think Sonia Gandhi was not serious about making adjustments. But somewhere things didn’t work.
Why? Here I will bring reference to my professional experience in handling conflict situations and other professional negotiations. We generally work on 360-degree mapping of the target audience. For example one of the principles that work is - “MANI”. In any big project, different sets of people control each function of “MANI”
M- Money. In any professional deal, money represents a very important factor. You can call it budget, cost, profit, expenditure, etc. For example, the Defense Ministry wants to buy something, but the money is with the finance ministry. Unless the Finance Ministry allocates the budget the Defense Ministry will not be able to procure what it wants
A - Authority. The authority to make decisions maybe with someone who is not the user. Say the Defense Minister or PM will decide which fighter gets to buy.
N - Need. The need could be of the Indian Air Force, the user department. The user department may have some choices. But they are not the decision-makers. They could send 2–3 options or choices for the Defense Ministry to decide.
I - Influencer. They are the most complex and crucial set of people. At times it is really very difficult to identify them. You would never know why the deal failed. Because possibly you have failed to identify a potent influencer. They could be internal as well as external. They are quite often not visible in most establishments. There is no fixed or permanent set of influencers. Influencers could be created or even be removed.
When we work on a professional assignment, we need to take care of all these four sets of people. If you miss out on any of the links, you will definitely fail no matter how much effort you put. In major projects and bigger organizations generally, MANI is represented by different sets of people. Take the example of Congress. The (A)- Authority to make the final decision could be with Sonia Gandhi, but there would be N numbers of influencers (I) If we consider that the deal between Sonia and PK didn’t work because of some influencers, then possibly PK has failed to identify the so-called influencers and take care of them. Suppose the deal has failed because Sonia and her children couldn’t make a decisive call, then PK failed to influence the A - authority or he has failed to give a winning proposition.
In the professional domain, people may have to work in a competitive environment, but in this case, PK was alone working in the field. So the requirement was different. Possibly PK has failed to sell his proposition in this attempt. However, there is a positive element in this whole exercise - they came together - the need is there on both sides. In bigger issues, we may not get instant success because of wide-ranging perspective. And sometimes the central agenda itself could be too heavy to be decided in one attempt. This typically happens in most major deals. Because the bargains are really very hard.
Look at the Rafale deal, and how long it took. Rafale couldn’t close the deal during UPA government rule. Both sides didn’t agree on certain terms. But the basic need for the fighter jets by India and the need for sale by Rafale were there unchanged. Possibly Rafale was waiting for a government change. Possibly Rafale came out with a new proposition to the Modi government, where India government was made to agree to pay a much higher price than the earlier negotiation. Rafale didn’t give any discount. At times it's important to stick to your terms. You can actually strike a better deal if your homework is solid. I myself have gone back to the drawing board many times, redrafted the entire negotiation process, created new influencers, created new references, and made changes in solutions. And then went back with a new perspective.
It works everywhere - even in politics. I am sure PK is aware of these dynamics. Possibly Congress was not ready to give in on some points as well PK was not ready to compromise on those points. So the deal could not be closed. But the need remains unchanged. Otherwise, PK wouldn’t have offered to work without any fee and Sonia wouldn’t have invited him so many times to her residence. It is not necessary to give a discount, It's important to calibrate your offer in such a manner that the other side can’t refuse. He has to present a win-win proposition. This is possible since priorities need not be the same on both side. Rather on most occasions, they are different. For example in a hostage situation - the terrorist may demand the release of their colleagues from jail when the government wants the safe release of the hostages. So both side has a different pain area.
PK is a great strategist. But he not necessarily be a great salesman. In most occasions, the salesman fails for not being able to think out of the box and not being able to come out with a proposition that was not thought of before.
I have not discussed M - Money and N - Need specifically in the above section. However, I have explained the need part, which I believe should suffice.
M-money: Here in this case paying money or budget shouldn't be that big an issue. It is obvious that PK is definitely not doing charity. I suppose most politicians do politics for some kind of gain - money, fame, power, etc. Possibly you won't have someone doing selfless service. So let’s not blame PK in isolation. Most of the MP’s net worth increasing day by day. If PK has not asked for fees, there could be two reasons -1. This time he wants to join a party as a member of the party, not as an external strategist. 2. And secondly his free service could be an investment. A lot many businessmen make huge donations to get party tickets, which is also an investment. Earlier PK was paid monetary packages. This time he wants a party position. So it is not entirely a free service. And PK can manage his subsistence for a few years without taking a salary. However, I believe that there would be some payment for his team.
No comments:
Post a Comment