top of page

By:

Rashmi Kulkarni

23 March 2025 at 2:58:52 pm

Loss Aversion Is Why Your Good Idea Fails

Your upgrade is their loss until you prove otherwise. Last week, Rahul wrote about a simple truth: you’re not inheriting a business, you’re inheriting an equilibrium. This week, I want to talk about the most common reason that equilibrium fights back even when your idea is genuinely sensible. Here it is, in plain language: People don’t oppose improvement. They oppose loss disguised as improvement. When you step into a legacy MSME, most things are still manual, informal, relationship-driven....

Loss Aversion Is Why Your Good Idea Fails

Your upgrade is their loss until you prove otherwise. Last week, Rahul wrote about a simple truth: you’re not inheriting a business, you’re inheriting an equilibrium. This week, I want to talk about the most common reason that equilibrium fights back even when your idea is genuinely sensible. Here it is, in plain language: People don’t oppose improvement. They oppose loss disguised as improvement. When you step into a legacy MSME, most things are still manual, informal, relationship-driven. People have built their own ways of keeping work moving. It’s not perfect, but it’s familiar. When you introduce a new system, a new rule, a new “professional way,” you may be adding order but you’re also removing something  they were using to survive. And humans react more strongly to removals than additions. Behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky called this loss aversion where we feel losses more sharply than we feel gains. That’s why your promised “future benefit” struggles to compete with someone’s immediate fear. Which seat are you stepping into? Inherited seat:  People assume you’ll change things quickly to “prove yourself”. They brace for loss even before you speak. Hired seat:  People watch for hidden agendas: “New boss means new rules, new blame.” They protect themselves. Promoted seat:  Your peers worry the old friendship is now replaced by authority. They fear loss of comfort and access. Different seats, same emotion underneath: don’t take away what keeps me safe. Weighing Scale Think of an old kirana shop. The weighing scale may not be fancy, but it’s trusted. The shopkeeper has used it for years. Customers have seen it. Everyone has settled into that comfort. Now imagine someone walks in and says, “We’re upgrading your weighing scale. This is digital. More accurate. More modern.” Sounds good, right? But what does the shopkeeper hear ? “My customers might think the old scale was wrong.” (loss of trust) “I won’t be able to adjust for small realities.” (loss of flexibility) “If the digital scale shows something different, I’ll be accused.” (loss of safety) “This was my shop. Now someone else is deciding.” (loss of control) So even if the new scale is better, the shopkeeper will resist or accept it politely and quietly return to the old one when nobody is watching. That is exactly what happens in companies. Modernisation Pitch Most leaders pitch change like this: “We’ll become world-class.” “We’ll digitize.” “We’ll improve visibility.” “We’ll build a process-driven culture.” But for the listener, these are not benefits. These are threats, because they translate into losses: Visibility can mean exposure . Process can mean loss of discretion . Digitization can mean loss of speed  (at least initially). “Professional” can mean loss of status  for the old guard. So the person across the table is not debating your logic. They’re calculating their losses. Practical Way Watch what happens when you propose something simple like daily reporting. You say: “It’s just 10 minutes. Basic discipline.” They hear: “Daily reporting means daily scrutiny.” “If numbers dip, I will be questioned.” “If I show the truth, it will create conflict.” “If I don’t show the truth, I’ll be accused later.” In their mind, the safest response is: nod, agree, delay. Then you label them “resistant.” But they’re not resisting change. They’re resisting loss . Leader’s Job If you want adoption in an MSME, don’t sell modernization as “upgrade”. Sell it as protection . Instead of: “We need an ERP.” Try: “We need to stop money leakage and order confusion.” Instead of: “We need systems.” Try: “We need fewer customer escalations and less rework.” Instead of: “We need transparency.” Try: “We need fewer surprises at month-end.” This is not manipulation. This is translation. You’re speaking the language the system understands: risk, leakage, blame, customer loss, cash loss, fatigue. Field Test: Rewrite your pitch in loss-prevention language Pick one change you’re pushing this month. Now write two versions: Version A (your current pitch): What you normally say: upgrade, modern, efficiency, best practices. Version B (loss prevention pitch): Use this template: What are we losing today?  (money, time, customers, reputation, peace) Where is the leakage happening?  (handoffs, approvals, rework, vendor delays) What small protection will this change create? (fewer disputes, faster closure, less follow-up) What will not change?  (no layoffs, no humiliation, no sudden policing) What proof will we show in 2 weeks?  (one metric, one visible win) Now do one more important step: For your top 3 stakeholders, write the one loss they think they will face  if your change happens. Don’t argue with it. Just name it. Because once you name the fear, you can design around it. The close If you remember only one thing from this week, remember this: A “good idea” is not enough in a legacy MSME. People need to feel safe adopting it. You don’t have to dilute your standards. You just have to stop selling change like a TED talk and start selling it like a protection plan. Next week, we’ll deal with another invisible force that keeps companies stuck even when they agree with you: the status quo isn’t a baseline. It’s a competitor. (The writer is CEO of PPS Consulting, can be reached at rashmi@ppsconsulting.biz )

A Bold Stand Against Jihadist Networks

Updated: Dec 23, 2024

jihadist ambitions

The Special Task Force (STF) of Assam Police has dealt a significant blow to jihadist ambitions in India’s northeast. In a carefully coordinated operation spanning three states, eight operatives of the Bangladesh-based terror outfit Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) were apprehended last weekend. The arrests underscore the persistent threat posed by transnational jihadist networks and the vulnerabilities exploited along India’s porous borders.


As the multi-state ‘Operation Praghat’ unfolded, among those captured was Mohammed Shak Radi, alias Mohammed Shab Sheikh, a Bangladeshi national tasked with setting up sleeper cells for the ABT—a wing of Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Radi’s chilling mandate included not only fostering subversive networks but also planning immediate attacks against religious and political leaders to destabilize India.


The intelligence coup marks a critical milestone, but it also reveals the contours of a larger threat. ABT’s agenda is not merely ideological; it is operational, aiming to exploit Assam and West Bengal’s proximity to Bangladesh as launchpads for chaos. The arrest of Radi and his associates prevented a covert operation planned for December, likely targeting densely populated areas to cause maximum damage.


The arrests revealed a deeply entrenched network. Assam, often a gateway for illegal cross-border activity, has emerged as a key operational base for the ABT. Over the years, the group has sought to exploit the state’s geographical proximity to Bangladesh and its historical ethnic tensions to further its radical agenda. The ABT’s plans, as disclosed by Assam Police, included covert operations aimed at maximum destruction in Assam and West Bengal.


The ABT’s activities are emblematic of a broader strategy by transnational jihadist organizations to destabilize India by exploiting local vulnerabilities. From using encrypted communication devices to leveraging existing socio-political fissures, groups like the ABT are adapting their methods to outpace traditional counterterrorism frameworks.


India’s security concerns are compounded by recent political developments in Bangladesh. The release of Jashimuddin Rahmani, the ABT’s chief ideologue, in August has raised alarm bells in New Delhi.


Rahmani, convicted for inciting violence and implicated in the hacking death of a secular blogger, was freed on parole under the new caretaker government in Dhaka. His release, alongside the jailbreak of over 500 inmates, including high-profile militants, highlights a worrying shift in Bangladesh’s counterterrorism posture.


During Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, India had found a reliable partner in combating terrorism. With her ousting following violent protests, India’s fears of a rollback in counterterrorism cooperation are proving prescient.


The nexus between ABT and Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) further complicates the picture. Intelligence reports suggest that LeT has been collaborating with ABT since 2022 to establish a foothold in India’s northeastern states, particularly Assam and West Bengal. Such alliances demonstrate the regional dimension of jihadist threats, requiring India to view counterterrorism not as an isolated national effort but as part of a broader regional strategy.


The northeast is not merely a frontier region; it is a linchpin in India’s Act East policy, serving as the gateway to Southeast Asia. Instability here risks derailing New Delhi’s broader geopolitical ambitions, from enhancing connectivity with ASEAN nations to countering China’s influence in the region.


The rise of terror networks could undo years of progress in integrating the region with the national mainstream. The northeast’s security, once considered a regional issue, has become a national imperative.


As the shadows of transnational terrorism loom larger, India must shine the light of vigilance and preparedness to dispel them. The battle for the northeast’s stability is not just a fight against terrorism but a fight for India’s future.

Comments

bottom of page