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 new fairway for Indian professional golf

Mumbai: The launch of the CIDCO Open 2025 presented by Larsen & Toubro marks a significant moment in the evolution of professional golf in India, not merely as a sporting event but as a statement of intent. Scheduled from December 16 to 19 at the Kharghar Valley Golf Course in Navi Mumbai, the tournament enters the Professional Golf Tour of India (PGTI) calendar with a prize purse of Rs 1 crore, instantly positioning itself among the more consequential domestic events on the circuit. Its timing, scale and location collectively underline a growing ambition to broaden golf’s footprint beyond its traditional enclaves.


At its core, the CIDCO Open is about competitive golf of a high order. A field of 126 professionals will contest the tournament in a four-round stroke-play format, with the cut applied after 36 holes to the top 50 and ties. On a par-72 course designed to international standards, consistency across four days will be the defining test, rewarding not just power but course management, mental resilience and adaptability. Such formats mirror global professional norms, ensuring that Indian players gain exposure to conditions comparable to international tours.


Further Weight

The strength of the field adds further weight to the event’s sporting significance. Leading Indian professionals such as Yuvraj Sandhu, Manu Gandas, Angad Cheema, Arjun Prasad, Khalin Joshi and Om Prakash Chouhan bring with them pedigree, recent form and fan following. Their presence guarantees quality competition and provides a benchmark for younger professionals aspiring to climb the PGTI Order of Merit.


Equally important is the diverse international participation, with golfers from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Europe, the United States and Africa. Players like N Thangaraja, Jamal Hossain and Stepan Danek introduce contrasting playing styles and experiences, enriching the competitive fabric of the tournament.


Deliberate Effort

Beyond the leaderboard, the CIDCO Open reflects a deliberate effort to decentralise elite golf in India. Hosting a PGTI event at the Kharghar Valley Golf Course for the first time signals confidence in newer infrastructure and emerging urban centres. Navi Mumbai, often associated with planned development and infrastructure-led growth, now finds itself on India’s professional golf map. This shift matters because the sustainability of golf as a sport depends on expanding access, audiences and aspirational pathways, rather than confining elite tournaments to a handful of legacy clubs.


The role of institutions in shaping this ecosystem is noteworthy. CIDCO’s position as organiser, with Larsen & Toubro as presenting partner, demonstrates how public-sector vision and private-sector execution can converge around sport. Large-scale sporting events require long-term thinking: course maintenance, logistics, sponsorship stability and player welfare. By anchoring the tournament within a robust institutional framework, the CIDCO Open creates the conditions necessary for continuity rather than one-off spectacle.


For Indian professional golfers, tournaments of this scale serve as critical career platforms. A Rs 1 crore purse not only enhances earning opportunities but also sharpens competitive intensity. Ranking points, visibility to sponsors and confidence gained from performing in strong fields all feed into a player’s progression, including aspirations to qualify for international tours. In that sense, the CIDCO Open functions as both a destination and a stepping stone.


Equally significant is the symbolic value of bringing top-tier golf to the financial capital region. Globally, golf and financial hubs share a symbiotic relationship, with corporate patronage sustaining professional circuits. By embedding a PGTI event in Navi Mumbai, the tournament aligns Indian golf with global sporting geography, potentially attracting new sponsors, corporate amateurs and future investors into the sport.

Comments

bottom of page