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 “Technocrat-Politician” Reboot

How Devendra Fadnavis used celebrity chats to decode urban Maharashtra

Mumbai: In a political landscape often dominated by high-decibel rallies and aggressive mudslinging, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has successfully piloted a “silent revolution” in campaigning. During the recent high-stakes Municipal Corporation elections, Fadnavis bypassed the traditional stage to engage in a series of curated public interviews with Marathi celebrities—a move that analysts say has finally bridged a decade-long PR gap.


From the historic lanes of Pune to the bustling hubs of the MMR region, the image of Fadnavis sitting across from popular figures like Girija Oak and Tejashree Pradhan has redefined his public persona. What appeared to be a casual chat was, in reality, a precision-engineered communication strategy that prioritised local identity over generic political rhetoric.


Emotional Connect

The logistics of campaigning across 29 Municipal Corporations in just 14 days is a nightmare for any leader. Fadnavis, claiming the idea as his own “brainchild of necessity,” turned this constraint into a competitive advantage.


According to what Fadnavis revealed at one of the interviews, the campaign helped him in judicious time management. By opting for localized public interviews instead of exhausting cross-state rallies, he maintained a high-frequency presence without the physical burnout.


Another thing he achieved was hyper-local focus. Unlike a standard stump speech, these interviews allowed Fadnavis to dive into city-specific blueprints—discussing Pune’s traffic solutions or Nagpur’s infrastructure—with the nuance of an expert.


On another level the interviews also provided cultural validation, an aspect which generally remains neglected in hectic election campaigns. By choosing celebrities native to or associated with specific cities, the campaign tapped into local pride. Girija Oak’s involvement, for instance, added a “glamour quotient” that softened the BJP’s traditionally rigid image.


A Shift in PR

For years, Fadnavis was perceived through the lens of a stern administrator or a party strategist. Since 2014, while the BJP expanded its footprint, Fadnavis’ personal PR often struggled to move beyond the “serious leader” archetype. This campaign successfully positioned him as a relatable, tech-savvy visionary.


“It felt less like a politician asking for votes and more like a visionary IAS officer opening his heart about a city’s future,” noted one spectator in Pune.


This “Technocrat-Politician” hybrid persona allowed him to speak directly to the aspirational urban middle class. He wasn’t just selling a party; he was selling a vision of development that felt professional, planned, and deeply personal.


Low Cost, High Reach

Beyond the optics, the campaign was a fiscal win for the party. According to sources within the CM’s media team, the strategy leveraged the media’s own hunger for high-quality, long-form content.


“Contrary to our expectations, media houses willingly came forward to air these interviews,” a media team official revealed. “It saved a massive chunk of our advertising budget while ensuring our message reached the living rooms directly.”


By blending the precision of a technocrat with the charm of a celebrity-hosted talk show, Devendra Fadnavis has effectively “rebooted” his personal brand. He didn’t just sell the BJP’s vision for urban Maharashtra; he sold a version of himself that is accessible, empathetic, and deeply invested in the micro-issues of every municipal ward.


As the results for the 29 corporations trickle in, one thing is certain: the era of the “Mega-Rally” may be facing its first real challenger in the form of the “Intimate Interview.”

Comments

bottom of page