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 )

RSS had better intelligence gathering 98 years ago

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

RSS

Mumbai: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which was born in Nagpur in 1925, had a better intelligence gathering network in the city 98 years ago. At least this is what the official biography of its founder Dr K B Hedgewar, which is available on the official website of the organization, suggests.


The biography written by N H Palkar and bears a foreword from the second Sarsanghchalak of the organization M S Golwalkar, has an entire chapter dedicated to the 1927 Muslim riots in Nagpur. It was due to the way RSS handled the Muslim aggression, the organization could quickly spread across the central province and today's Vidarbha region, the book boasts.


The chapter titled "Nagpur Ka Danga" (Riot in Nagpur) narrates in very detail how the communal tension was brewing up in Nagpur since the 1920 Congress session in the city and how the incidents of Muslim aggression had increased ahead of the formation of the RSS in 1925 and how Hedgewar used to call it 'Muslim aggression' instead of 'Hindu-Muslim riots'. The chapter also cites editorial content of some of the then popular newspapers in the city while narrating the buildup.


The chapter also narrates how Muslims were planning to take advantage of caste divisions among Hindus and how Dr Hedgewar's efforts to unite Hindus defeated the purpose. At the same time the chapter also narrates how the intelligence gathering network of the RSS helped its leaders understand the aggressive plans of Muslims in the city. It also explains how Dr Hedgewar prioritised organizing Hindus to ensure that the community doesn't fall prey to such aggressions from outside and urged Hindus to overcome the feeling that they are 'alone'.


The then members of the RSS gathered information on how and when the Muslim goons would attack the Hindu areas of the city. Based on the information Anna Sohoni, the then head of physical training of the RSS trained cadres in defence as well as attack.


On September 4, 1927 on the auspicious occasion of Mahalakshmi poojan, the Muslims had planned a procession post noon. Most of the Hindus from the region enjoy ciesta post heavy lunch on that day. Also, the idols of Mahalakshmi are decorated with gold ornaments. There were plans to loot the ornaments also, states the book. However, the Muslim goons who had planned an attack on the Hindu locality in Mahal area of the city were taken by surprise when their aggression met with equally strong and quick retaliation.


Incidentally, the incidents of violence and arson on Sunday were reported from the same areas that were attacked 98 years ago.

Comments

bottom of page