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 )

Scholars: Don’t poke Aurangzeb’s spirit now

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

Mumbai: Days after his 318th death anniversary, the ghost of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb has suddenly come to haunt Maharashtra politics with hideous cries to uproot his remains from the final resting place in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (ex-Aurangabad).


The state has witnessed many spirited protests and agitations by right-wingers, besides clashes in Nagpur, seeking to raze the nondescript and unmarked grave of Aurangzeb.


It is a stark contrast to his mother Mumtaz Mahal’s magnificent and famous Taj Mahal in Agra – a legacy of his father Emperor Shah Jahan to the world.

Several intellectuals from different communities are pained over the clamour to erase Aurangzeb’s grave in Khuldabad, where he died at the age of 88 (Nov. 3, 1618-March 3, 1707), and caution that it may bode ill in the coming times.


Personalities like intellectual Dr. Ram Puniyani, academic and Mumbai’s N.M. College retired Principal Dr. Urmila Rai, Marathi satirist Saby Pereira, corporate legal eagle Faranaaz Karbhari or Muslim academic Maulana M. Burhanuddin Qasmi have frowned at the goings-on which they are observing closely, in their interactions with The Perfect Voice.


They almost unanimously feel the government should not be seen ‘bowing down’ before lumpen elements from extremist groups for earning short-term political brownies fraught with long-term perils.


Dr. Ram Puniyani:

“Razing a historical monument or other such structures will not erase history. We must understand that whatever Aurangzeb did was more as an Emperor/Alamgir I.

The palace politics of that era was evil and brutal,” said Dr. Puniyani, writer-intellectual and an ex-medico with the IIT-Bombay.

He cited multiple instances of royal families in the past indulging in bloody coups, not sparing parents, brothers-sisters, progeny, etc. in their crazed lust for power or political compulsions; most recently the Nepal palace massacre of June 2001 when the entire Royal House of Gorkha dynasty was annihilated in a family feud.


Saby Pereira:

“Let the grave lie as it is. Till now it was ignored and probably should have been that way. Rather than demolish it, I suggest it should be rebuilt and beautifully decorated as a Monument to Marathas Victory over the Mughals,” said Pereira, eminent Marathi humorist.

Justifying his contentions, Pereira said that Aurangzeb, the longest reigning Mughal Emperor and also over the largest territory in the sub-continent and beyond, failed to vanquish the Marathas, and hence the grave should be converted into ‘a symbol and pride of Maratha history’.


Dr. Urmila Rai:

Academician and retired Principal of N.M. College, Vile Parle, Dr. Rai said she is “firmly opposed to causing any harm to the grave, saying destroying a piece of centuries-old history will not benefit the country today even a bit”.

“On the contrary, it will give rise to other poisons, hatred and enmity between communities coexisting peacefully for centuries. Those wanting to raze the Aurangzeb grave must first clarify whether it will solve modern day problems like inflation, unemployment, atrocities on women, etc,” Dr. Rai asserted.


Adv. Faranaaz Karbhari:

Corporate legal advisor Karbhari opined that whether to bury Aurangzeb’s grave or not would depend on how the modern society chooses to engage with its history.


She said that though it is valid to critique his reign and the damage it may have caused, destruction of his grave may not be the best solution today.

“Preservation, paired with education about his reign and its impact, offers a path that acknowledges historical complexity while promoting an inclusive, reflective approach to India’s past,” averred Adv. Karbhari.


Maulana M. Burhanuddin Qasmi:

Director of Markazul Maarif Education and Research Centre, Maulana Qasmi instantly red-flagged the very idea of tearing down any structure of historical relevance for political purposes, particularly since it can’t help resolve any modern issues.


“Sit, talk and sort out things. The Khuldabad grave is a part of India’s rich and vibrant history which must be preserved. Tomorrow, other demands may crop up like bulldozing the Taj Mahal or even the Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai. There will be no end to the dark tunnel once you enter it,” said a grim Maulana Qasmi.


“There is no need to ‘punish’ those people now for their purported black or bloody deeds/crimes committed centuries or millennia ago, it will neither serve any purpose nor wipe out the history linked with it,” concluded

Dr. Puniyani.

Comments

bottom of page