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 )

Is Priyanka Gandhi the Congress’s Best Bet?

As the grand old party falters, the Congress’ most assured parliamentary voice is forcing a long-deferred reckoning on leadership.

With electoral reverses in Bihar, chronic infighting in Karnataka, and organisational drift elsewhere, Congress can no longer evade the question of leadership. It is in this context that Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s measured but firm address in Parliament assumed significance. Delivered during the Winter Session debate commemorating 150 years of Vande Mataram, her speech cut through the chamber’s cacophony with clarity rather than confrontation. Its viral resonance has reignited a debate the party has avoided: has Congress already found its most persuasive parliamentary voice?


The question sharpened after former Odisha MLA Mohammed Moquim wrote to Sonia Gandhi, flagging Rahul Gandhi’s prolonged absences, limited accessibility, and thin engagement with party workers, while urging Priyanka to assume a larger national role. Similar anxieties had surfaced earlier from Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, before his eventual defection to the BJP. Moquim’s expulsion from the party may have restored formal discipline, but it sidestepped the real problem: stifling dissent only postpones the reckoning.


Leadership Test

When a first-term MP commands attention across party lines while the designated Leader of the Opposition (LoP) struggles with visibility, the debate shifts from lineage to performance. When Rahul was away in Germany and facing BJP criticism for frequent overseas trips, Priyanka led the Congress in the Lok Sabha. She launched a scathing attack on the government over replacing MGNREGA with the VB Gram G Bill, highlighting its potential impact on rural employment.


This was not an isolated performance. It followed her widely praised maiden speech in December 2024 during the Lok Sabha debate marking 75 years of the Constitution- in a 32-minute intervention, Priyanka adopted a combative yet controlled tone, addressing the Opposition’s principal concerns with precision. She flagged the BJP’s alleged attempts to undermine the Constitution, raised questions over the Adani Group’s growing dominance, spoke to violence against women and unrest in Sambhal and Manipur, and pressed for a nationwide caste census by ensuring that the speech could not be ignored. Rahul himself conceded that it was better than his own maiden speech in 2004. Once may be chance; twice begins to resemble capability. In contrast, even after years of parliamentary experience, Rahul’s recent intervention on electoral reforms was widely seen as long on rhetoric but short on substance.


The contrast becomes sharper against Priyanka’s uneven political journey. She stayed away from frontline politics until 2019, when she was appointed Congress general secretary in charge of eastern Uttar Pradesh, ahead of the General Elections. Congress, fighting in alliance with the Samajwadi Party, won only one seat - Raebareli, retained by Sonia Gandhi - while Rahul Gandhi lost Amethi. Priyanka escaped serious blame because the dice were already loaded. Her real test came later, when Jyotiraditya Scindia, who had been in charge of western Uttar Pradesh, exited Congress in 2020, and the entire charge of the state of UP was then handed to Priyanka. The 2022 Assembly elections were billed as her moment. She led the campaign, promised 40 per cent tickets for women, and popularised the slogan “Ladki hoon, lad sakti hoon.” The messaging was fresh, but the verdict was harsh: Congress won just two of 403 seats, and its vote share fell from 6.25 per cent to 2.33 per cent. Political courage without organisational depth rarely delivers success.


Visible Campaigner

The 2024 Lok Sabha elections offered Priyanka a different role. She did not contest initially but emerged as one of the party’s most visible campaigners, travelling across 16 states and one Union Territory. During the campaign, Prime Minister Modi warned voters that Congress would survey women’s gold, including mangalsutras, to redistribute wealth. Priyanka struck back, recalling how Sonia Gandhi had sacrificed her own mangalsutra for the nation. In Uttar Pradesh, she camped in Raebareli and Amethi- the two Gandhi family bastions, helping secure victories for Rahul and Kishori Lal Sharma respectively. The SP-Congress alliance won 43 of the state’s 80 seats, dealing the BJP a shock and contributing to its reduced national tally. When Rahul later vacated his Wayanad seat, which he had won with around 58 per cent of the votes, Priyanka contested the by poll and won by a thumping margin, securing roughly 65 per cent. Numbers do not explain everything, but they rarely mislead entirely.


Inside Parliament, Priyanka has arguably been more convincing than on the campaign trail. Her interventions have been sharp without being shrill. Priyanka called on Modi to close the chapter on Nehru’s ‘blunders’ and confront the real challenges of unemployment and poverty, flipping BJP rhetoric into a governance test. Rahul’s uneven record makes the contrast unmistakable. As per PRS India, between 1 June 2019 and 10 February 2024, his attendance was just 51 per cent - well below the 71 per cent national average; he participated in only eight debates and asked 99 questions, compared to national averages of 16 debates and 210 questions. Even after becoming LoP in June 2024, when signing the attendance register is not mandatory, he participated in just 11 debates and raised 34 questions against averages of 16 and 74. Measured against this, Priyanka’s attendance ranged from 83 to 90 per cent, with active participation in debates, reflecting a consistently serious parliamentary approach.


Dynasty or Delivery?

This duality defines the Congress’s dilemma. Rahul is criticised for inconsistency and frequent absences. Party president Mallikarjun Kharge, widely respected but constrained, has struggled to contain factionalism. Retaining him largely to deflect charges of dynastic politics has not strengthened strategy. The dynastic tag will persist regardless of leadership, but electoral outcomes are determined by performance, not pedigree. Congress needs organisational rejuvenation and credible parliamentary leadership. If Priyanka combines consistent presence with strategic engagement, she could provide the focus the party has long lacked. Though replacing Rahul with Priyanka cannot be a cure-all, within Parliament she has shown the ability to challenge the BJP with poise rather than provocation. Rahul, despite holding positions on statutory bodies from the selection of the CBI Director to the Central Information Commissioner, has struggled to make a visible mark. In contrast, after the Lok Sabha adjourned sine die, a cordial tea-party photograph of Priyanka with PM Modi, LS Speaker Om Birla, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, and others sent a powerful signal: she can forge connections and project influence more effortlessly, gradually stepping out of her sibling’s shadow.


Yet, for Priyanka, the road ahead is full of challenges. She has shown command over parliamentary proceedings and maintained consistent engagement, yet this contrasts with her campaign record—despite tireless efforts in Maharashtra and Bihar, Congress achieved only limited success. This underscores that while she exudes political presence in Parliament, her ability to convert that into mass mobilisation remains unproven. Political hurdles too remain, as her husband’s scrutiny by investigative agencies is a vulnerability. But if she tackles issues that resonate more directly with the common citizen, rather than dwelling on Rahul’s familiar narratives like vote-chori allegations, she could carve out her own space.


In the end, voters hold the verdict. But for a party that has spent a decade waiting for the Rahul project to soar, the answer may already be sitting quietly beside him. When all doors appear closed, sometimes the one left ajar deserves a closer look.


(The writer is a political commentator. Views personal.)


Comments

bottom of page