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 )

Growing Risks Of Cyber Warfare

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

In a shocking series of events, multiple coordinated explosions have rocked Lebanon and parts of Syria, killing dozens of people and injuring thousands. The blasts occurred after explosive devices, hidden inside pagers and other radio communication devices, were detonated. The targeted individuals were primarily members of Hezbollah, with the explosions taking place in densely populated areas, resulting in widespread injuries to civilians, including children.

The devices, mainly pagers, walkie-talkies, and radios, had been in the possession of Hezbollah operatives, who had acquired them months prior, under the assumption they were secure. However, Hezbollah has accused Israel’s intelligence agency, Shin Bet, of tampering with the devices during transit.

According to security experts, Israel’s elite secret cyber warfare unit was behind the attack. This unit, known for its global cyber operations, is also linked to the creation of the STUXnet malware, which was responsible for the failure of Iran’s nuclear power plant. The pagers were rigged with explosive materials in place of a battery, and a relay switch was installed, allowing the explosions to be triggered remotely in a synchronized manner. The result was devastating injuries to the eyes, face, hands, and legs of those carrying the devices.

The incident occurred in Hezbollah-stronghold areas, including the Dahieh suburb of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and parts of the Beqaa Valley, with some explosions also reported across the border in Syria. The blasts overwhelmed hospitals, as hundreds of victims sought medical help for injuries ranging from severe burns to shattered limbs. The intensity of the explosions, far beyond that of ordinary battery malfunctions, indicates a highly sophisticated sabotage operation.

These explosions have not only deepened the crisis in Lebanon but have also raised critical questions about supply chain security, intelligence tactics, and the legality of using booby-trapped electronics in conflict zones.


What Are Pagers, and Why Are They Still Preferred?

Despite being old-school tele communication technology, pagers or beepers are still used in many countries, particularly in critical sectors and organizations. Pagers primarily facilitate one-way communication, pager uses higher frequencies than car radios i.e. 400 MHz band frequency. It also used a very basic type of VHF spectrum. These devices operate in restricted areas to transfer messages, alerts, and information. These devices are considered more secure and harder to trace or track compared to mobile phones, as they only receive messages, similar to a car radio that receives signals without revealing the listener’s identity or location. Additionally, pagers lack features like Bluetooth or GPS, making them more difficult to hack or compromise.

Among their many advantages, pagers are known for their long battery life and durability, making them ideal for continuous use in specific industries. There are an estimated two million active pager users worldwide. Hezbollah began using pagers after Israel successfully assassinated a high-ranking Hezbollah target by hacking his cellphone and precisely targeting him with a missile. Since then, many Hezbollah members have switched to more primitive communication devices, like pagers, to avoid being tracked via the internet.


Are Mobile Phones and Smartphones Similarly Vulnerable?

American and European security agencies suggest that, theoretically, it is possible to alter mobile phones and other smart devices to turn them into explosive devices. However, practically, it is more difficult due to the advanced security systems in modern smartphones. A hacked smartphone may exhibit various signs, such as abnormal temperature changes, slower system performance, unexpected reboots, odd sounds during calls, hung applications, or irrelevant messages and pop-ups, all of which could indicate tampering. These security systems make it more challenging to modify smartphones in the same manner as simpler devices like pagers.


New Security Challenges

The Hezbollah pager explosion serves as a wake-up call for sectors involving critical infrastructure and aviation. In an era where smartphones are network-connected and can be charged wirelessly, the possibility of tampering with batteries or embedding explosives, like HMX, PETN and other type of plastic explosives pose significant risks. During flights, even a minor explosion could result in catastrophic consequences. On the ground, the threat extends to damaging nearby aircraft, equipment, and infrastructure. Airport security may soon impose stricter regulations, potentially banning pagers, walkie-talkies, and radios, much like power banks, which are now restricted on flights. In the future, mobile phones may only be allowed in switched-off modes, placed in lithium-safe bags during flights. Suspicious devices could be handled separately in Faraday-sheet bags to block any network or signal connections.

This incident highlights the growing risks of cyber warfare and the dangers posed by everyday communication devices being exploited for sabotage. It is an alarming call for a nation’s security as the treat of such critical infrastructure being handled by terrorist organisations can compromise the use of day-to-day electronics for malicious activities. As technology advances, so must the protocols for ensuring public safety, particularly in high-risk environments where even the smallest vulnerability could lead to devastating consequences.

(The writer is an eminent cyber and explosives forensic expert. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page