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 )

Many Chiefs, No Chorus

Tamil Nadu’s opposition must find a common voice if it hopes to dislodge a tired but still-preponderant DMK.

Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu’s Opposition has begun campaigning for the crucial Assembly election this year by contradicting itself. When Amit Shah declared recently at a rally in Pudukottai that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) would form the next government in the State, Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS), leader of the AIADMK and the BJP’s principal ally, responded within hours by insisting that his party alone would return to power.


Shah’s assertion was delivered at the conclusion of the BJP’s Tamilagam Thalai Nimira Tamilanin Payanam yatra, a carefully staged effort to signal that the party has finally shaken off its outsider status in the Dravidian heartland. His pitch was expansive as he invoked Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership and promised a “revolutionary journey” for Tamil Nadu, while vowing to uproot M.K. Stalin’s DMK. He argued that a combined BJP-AIADMK vote share in recent elections would have yielded sweeping parliamentary victories.


However, his ally EPS, speaking the same day in Salem, was unimpressed. EPS said that Tamil Nadu did not elect coalitions but governments and that the new government in 2026 would be the AIADMK’s alone. The contretemps has exposed a divided Opposition with barely four months left for the polls.


This lack of coherence automatically gives the advantage to the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which, for all its vulnerabilities, still enjoys a position of preponderance. Five years in office have dulled the DMK’s reformist edge while several promises from employment generation to urban governance remain under-delivered. Yet the DMK continues to benefit from a fractured opposition and from its deep-rooted command over the state’s political narrative.


That narrative, however, is beginning to fray. The DMK has retreated into an increasingly insular interpretation of Dravidianism, treating it less as a broad project of social justice and linguistic pride and more as a closed ideological preserve. What began as a radical movement to dismantle caste hierarchies and entrenched privilege now functions as a gatekeeping creed, invoked to delegitimise critics rather than broaden participation. Power within the party is tightly concentrated, and in the grooming of Udhayanidhi Stalin as future Chief Minister, the DMK has come to resemble the very dynastic politics it once claimed to oppose.


The party’s confrontational posture on religion has further narrowed its appeal. Provocative rhetoric on Sanatana Dharma and repeated administrative curbs on Hindu rituals have energised its loyal base while alienating a wider electorate that distinguishes between rationalism and ritual denigration. The Dravidian movement’s original challenge to orthodoxy was aimed at emancipation from social exclusion; its present incarnation increasingly reads as cultural belligerence.


Against this backdrop, the BJP’s renewed push into Tamil Nadu deserves context. For decades, it has tried and failed to crack the Dravidian fortress. From contesting alone in the 1990s, to aligning with the AIADMK at various points, to mounting cultural and symbolic overtures under Modi, the party has steadily increased its vote share but not its footprint. Its recent emphasis on Tamil language recognition in form of civil-service exams, railway announcements, a Subramania Bharati chair in Varanasi, translations of the Thirukkural is a conscious attempt to blunt the charge of cultural alienness.


But the BJP still lacks the organisational depth and local leadership needed to challenge Dravidian parties on their own turf. That makes alliance politics unavoidable. An NDA that speaks in multiple voices only reinforces the DMK’s claim that it alone offers stability.


If Tamil Nadu’s politics is to be renewed, the DMK’s long-standing dominance needs to be challenged by a credible alternative. And the Opposition must get its own house in order. That means agreeing on leadership and purpose rather than fighting parallel campaigns against each other.


Tamil voters have, in the past, shown a willingness to punish arrogance and reward coherence. Whether they do so again in 2026 will depend on whether the opposition can present itself as a single, serious challenger to the DMK’s insular order that increasingly mistakes longevity for legitimacy.


Comments

bottom of page