Today 24-November-2019, one month after Maharashtra Election results were announced, we are all waiting for a government in Maharashtra. Some people view this as the case of opportunism, but I see this as a great case-study for psychology and management.No one had a visibility of this changing split behind the curtain. Well, that’s what we call politics. But behind this is also a leader’s psychology.As a common man and an experienced professional, I describe this as a leader’s continuous assessment of the situation “What’s in it for me today? and What’s in it for me for tomorrow/future”?When the regional political parties are formed and grow, there are local aspirations and situations which make them different. Sometimes it is a compulsion to choose a certain path. But in the end, they all want power. In the current situation, Shiv Sena found limitation in growing along with BJP and so, the only way of growth they found was realignment with other players.“What’s in it for me (my party) today and tomorrow by continuing with BJP” must have been the question in their leader’s mind.I do not want to discuss and argue about the methods of Shiv Sena and time, but their actions lured other political parties NCP and Congress to support such a non-BJP govt. Congress has a lot of advantage in this post-poll alliance but NCP? I am not sure the game plan of thought leaders of NCP, but I always felt it was not a really good win for their all leaders.When Ajit Pawar decided to take a different path (supporting BJP), he must have asked the same question to himself. ie. “What’s in it for me?”. I do not think he has anything against his family members or other NCP / congress leaders. But, what is in it for him if he becomes part of three-party govt.? What are his gains/losses today and in future (maybe after 5 years) if he goes with the newly formed alliance?Ajit Pawar must have thought multiple times – Do I want to remain a secondary player in this whole political exercise? What’s in it for me, my family, my political career ….. today and in future? Risk of continuing vs advantages of taking Risk?Will I have similar situations/conditions after 5 years, (where the current senior-most leader may not be able to save the party as they could revive this time)?I am not a political leader to understand next moves of each political party, but in general as the number of leaders grow we will see more such challenges when each strong Leader will start assessing “What’s in it for me and my party today + tomorrow” before elections and as part of the changing political scenario.So, to avoid political crisis and make state/country progress faster, … not sure what can be a best possible approach, but hopefully, all political parties will become more sensitive of this situation as they try to fulfil their aspirations.