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 )

The Quiet Radical

Two and a half centuries on, Jane Austen still startles the world with her wit, wisdom and unflinching clarity.

Had Jane Austen been born in 1975 instead of 1775, she would have regarded her birthday with the same wry detachment she once reserved for vicars, vanity and the English landed gentry in her classic novels. Perhaps she would have refused the fuss altogether, preferring instead the subtle weaponry of her pen to a ceremonial fanfare. For few authors have captured the quiet warfare of manners and marriage, of class and constraint, quite like Austen. Her novels, deceptively dainty in their surface preoccupations with romance and social ritual, are in fact enduring critiques of a deeply stratified and patriarchal society.

 

Austen’s genius lies not merely in her command of irony or the precision of her prose, but in her uncanny ability to observe, almost anthropologically, the domestic theatres of late 18th century Georgian England. She noticed everything: the snobbery veiled as propriety, the vulnerability of women cast adrift by inheritance laws, the hypocrisies of clergy and gentry alike. From these observations she spun tales that were bold in sentiment and exquisite in structure, populated by characters whose dilemmas remain strikingly familiar today.

 

It is no accident that Pride and Prejudice (published anonymously in 1813 though written earlier) - her most celebrated novel - opens with the glinting satire of its now-immortal first line - “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” The line oozes irony and subversion. For the women in Austen’s world and still, in many parts of the modern one today, the reverse is rather more urgent: that to be without a husband is to be without position, protection, or power. Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy, Austen’s most beloved pair, begin as sparring partners in a society obsessed with fortune and lineage. Their journey – through a splendid Austenian thicket of misjudgment, revelation and moral growth - is at once romantic and radical. Beneath the charm lies a scathing commentary on the commodification of marriage, and the perilous economics of desire.

 

In Sense and Sensibility (1811), Austen turns her gaze to the emotional spectrum embodied by the Dashwood sisters: Elinor, who is composed and rational; Marianne, impulsive and raw. Their fates, shaped not only by temperament but by the cruel arithmetic of inheritance, reveal the vulnerability of women stripped of financial agency. Marianne’s passionate entanglement with the dashing but duplicitous Willoughby serves as cautionary tale; her eventual union with the steady Colonel Brandon, a man of quiet virtue, reflects Austen’s belief in constancy over charisma.

 

The class anxieties simmering beneath the surface become more overt in Mansfield Park (1814), where Fanny Price, a poor relation absorbed into her wealthier uncle’s household, occupies a liminal, uneasy space. Her quiet strength and moral rectitude unsettle those around her. Here, Austen is at her most unflinching in exposing the casual cruelties of genteel society towards the less fortunate which is often cloaked, ironically, in the language of kindness.

Persuasion (1817), her final completed work, is a novel suffused with longing and regret. Anne Elliot, overlooked and emotionally stranded, is a heroine of rare subtlety. Her quiet endurance and eventual reunion with Captain Wentworth is not merely a romantic denouement but a vindication of depth over superficiality, of constancy over caprice. The novel breathes with mature reflection, touched by Austen’s own awareness of time’s erosions and reversals.

 

Her legacy is both literary and humanistic. Alongside the Brontë sisters and other women of her era, Austen wrote in the shadow of exclusion. Yet her voice resounds, clear and undiminished. In an age when women could neither vote nor hold property, she authored characters who dared to think, to doubt, to choose.

 

To read Austen today is not simply to be transported to another time, but to be reminded of the persistent relevance of her themes - marriage as transaction, class as destiny, and dignity as rebellion. In the drawing rooms and hedgerows of Hampshire, she mapped the contours of the human condition with scalpel-like precision and humour. A quarter of a millennium later, Jane Austen is not merely still read; she is sorely needed.

 

(The writer is a Mumbai-based research scholar. Views personal.)


Comments

bottom of page