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 )

Polygraph Testing: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern Legal Investigations

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Polygraph Testing: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern Legal Investigations

The polygraph, referred to as the “lie detector,” has historically been a subject of significant scholarly interest and controversy within the domains of law enforcement, security, and forensic investigation. Advocates of this technology contend that it serves as an essential instrument for revealing deception, as it purportedly identifies physiological variations linked to lying, including modifications in heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity.

The inception of the polygraph can be traced to the early 20th century. Researchers William Marston and John Augustus Larson initiated experimental endeavours employing diverse methodologies to quantify physiological reactions in a quest to ascertain falsehoods. With time, the polygraph has experienced significant evolution, characterised by enhancements in sensor technologies and data analytical methodologies that facilitate more precise and dependable assessments of the physiological alterations potentially linked to deceptive behaviour.

In India, several high-profile cases have involved the use of polygraph tests. Notable cases from the 1990s include the Bombay Bomb Blast Case (1993), where Yakub Menon was convicted for his role in the serial bombings, and the Shivani Bhatnagar Journalist Murder Case (1999). In the 2000s, the Nithari Hatya Kand (2005), while the Aarushi Talwar Murder Case (2008) captured public attention. In 2007, the Mecca Masjid Hyderabad Case and the Madhumita Shukla Murder Case were widely covered. In the 2010s, cases like the Adarsh scam (2011), the Sheena Bora Murder case (2012), the 2G scam case (2012), and the Vyapam case (2013) highlighted the role of polygraph testing in complex fraud and murder cases. In 2015, the Udahmpur Attack Case, involving a Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist, and the Pathankot Airbase Attack case (2016) also saw using polygraph tests for interrogation. Hathras gang rape case (2020), Shraddha Walker Murder case (2022), and Kolkata rape-murder case (2024), are some of the recent major cases where polygraph has been used.

The Supreme Court has adopted a sophisticated perspective regarding the utilisation of polygraph results as evidentiary material in judicial processes. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the utility of polygraph examinations as a method for collecting evidence, particularly in scenarios where alternative forms of evidence may be deficient. The court has concurrently articulated apprehensions concerning their dependability and admissibility as legal evidence. In the seminal case of Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court decreed that no person may be compelled to undergo a polygraph examination without their explicit consent, underscoring that such procedures are intrusive and infringe upon the fundamental right against self-incrimination as enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. However, the court has allowed voluntary polygraph tests, but any information obtained may be used as supplementary or corroborative evidence.

Recent scientific innovations have sought to improve the precision of polygraph tests by exploring alternative methodologies, including the use of artificial intelligence algorithms and machine learning techniques. These approaches aim to analyse polygraph data with greater accuracy, reducing the occurrence of false positives and enhancing overall reliability. These algorithms are designed to identify subtle physiological patterns that may elude detection through traditional polygraph methodologies. As scientific and technological paradigms progress, the polygraph may ultimately establish itself as a more dependable and ethically justified instrument for truth verification; nonetheless, it is imperative to uphold a prudent and deliberate approach to its application within the judicial system.

(Keshav Kumar is a retired IPS and forensic consultant to Assam Government. Samiksha Das is Forensic Psychologist, Assistant Lecturer (OPJGU). Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page