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 )

Knives out in legislature

Updated: Mar 21, 2025

Disha Salian

Mumbai: Death of celebrity manager Disha Salian in 2020 once again rocked the Maharashtra legislature on Thursday. While cabinet ministers Nitesh Rane and Shambhuraj Desai demanded that Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray be arrested in the case, BJP MLA Amit Satam in the assembly and another BJP member Chitra Wagh in the council demanded that the report of SIT to probe Salian’s death be made public.


Incidentally, amidst repeated disruptions in both the houses, some members from the treasury benches were seen speaking in favour of Aditya Thackeray, while Shiv Sena (UBT) members like Adv Anil Parab were seen supporting the BJP members’ demand that the report of the SIT probe be made public. In addition, there were allegations and counter allegations and personal accusations among members from the treasury and opposition benches which led to heated debate on occasions.


The opposition termed the attempts from the treasury benches to link Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray’s name in the case, as a ‘conspiracy’.


“I think this matter has gone to the court. We have no idea what he (Disha’s father) has said, but Aaditya Thackeray is a mature leader, a young leader. The Bharatiya Janata Party is conspiring to defame him by putting pressure on him. We don’t need to answer to this conspiracy. The court will answer,” Ambadas Danve said.


Earlier in the day, when the house gathered for the business, Minister of State for Home appraised the assembly of the status in this case. “SIT has been formed to probe in the case. Their report has not been received as yet. However, the government shall act according to directives from the court,” the minister told the house.


Another BJP minister Nitesh Rane, however, said that since Satish Salian has levelled allegations against an MVA minister, that leader be treated like a common person and that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Shiv Sena minister Shambhuraj Desai too supported the demand. “Since the allegations are grave, the person in question should be immediately arrested and the case be investigated,” he said.


Later, while speaking to media in the legislature premises, Rane asked Uddhav Thackeray to come clean on the issue. “If they say that we are politicizing the issue, Uddhav Thackeray should also tell the people why he had called, not just once but twice, to the then union minister Narayan Rane urging him to save his son?” Rane said.


He also accused the opposition of shying away from coming clean on the issue. “If they feel that we are not telling the truth, they should say so in the house. But they are shying away from doing so. Bhaskar Jadhav, who is always aggressive, was nowhere to be seen when this issue came up in the house. Sunil Prabhu too escaped the house under the pretext of a phone call. I challenge them to say that whatever I said on the issue is wrong,” Rane said.


He also said that Aditya Thackeray should resign on moral grounds till his name is cleared in the case.


BJP MLA Amit Satam demanded that the details of the SIT probe be made public so that the people would know if the probe is headed in right direction.


Interestingly, while the ruling parties were targeting the opposition in the case, senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar surprised all with his unexpected support to Thackerays. “I do not have any evidences in the case. But if her father has made any fresh allegations that needs to be investigated thoroughly. The assembly can discuss the issue at length tomorrow. In the meanwhile, members like Rane, who seem to have some evidences in the case should hand them over to the investigating agencies and help the probe,” he told the house.


Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Gaikwad and Sheetal Mhatre too toed the line and demanded that more and more evidences should come forth.


Similarly, when members of treasury benches were pushing for revealing the details of the probe till date to the public, Shiv Sena (UBT) member Anil Parab supported the demand. “Doing that shall conclusively prove the innocence of Aditya Thackeray,” he said.

Comments

bottom of page