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 )

What is an Education for-A Crisis of Mind?

NEP 2020 envisions education as the foundation for building an equitable and innovative society. Although it is a comprehensive vision, its full realization is evaluated by its capacity of overcoming significant implementation challenges, especially in governance and equitable access. According to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the primary goal of education in India is to transform the system to an integrated, versatile, multidisciplinary, and aligned to the 21st century needs, and the ultimate objective is to create an equitable and diverse knowledge society. Forgetting the simple answers that involve: “to get a job”, “to learn facts”, a critical analysis of education would reveal that education is an extremely contested terrain of power, ideology, and social vision. We shall conjecture about the purposes of education and consider its conflicting roles in society. Any education should not just be a policy-making, but should be skill based with student orientation to nurture the ecology as well. and It is the predominant narrative in the present day. Schooling is an investment in human resources. It is focused on providing skilled, conforming workers to the economy, innovating, and increasing national competitiveness. They are informed that education is a means of questioning employment and economic mobility. Critiques of this view ask: Are students merely "products" to be fitted to market needs? Does this reduce learning to training?


Depending on the works of Socrates and Rousseau, these views on education are individual development and enlightenment. It focuses on developing the “whole person”, that is, moral reasoning, critical thinking, creativity, and wisdom. It is aimed at individual freedom, self-actualization, and the “good life”.


To democratic theorists such as John Dewey, education is the foundation of a healthy democracy. It gives rise to knowledgeable, active citizens who are able to take part in public life, hold power accountable, ideas and promote social cohesion. In this case, education is a social reproduction of democracy itself. Critics indicate that schools usually prepare passive citizens and nationalistic narratives as opposed to truly critical participation.


Education can be structured to build true agency, educating students to question, and not just to answer. It has the potential to develop the ability to solve problems together, deliberate ethically, and act socially. Actually, poverty has not been conquered by illiteracy but by education. Education is destroying the ecology in the name of development.


Asking "what is education for?" forces us to ask: Who benefits? The answer is never singular. Education is determined by the values and power of the people who control the institutions, the curriculum, and assessment. Truly critical education, nevertheless, renders this conflict visible. It must not only prepare students to perform well within the system, but also to analyze, critique, and transform the system itself. Its ultimate aim, as per this critical perspective, is not adaptation to the world as it is, but the development of the ability to re-imagine and rebuild the world as it ought to be. In order to accomplish this, the policy shifts the focus of content-heavy, rote-learning approaches towards an education that encourages critical thinking, creativity, morals, and practical problem-solving.


In place of these myths, Orr proposes six guiding principles for what education should be for:

1. All Education is Environmental Education: By what is included or excluded, every lesson teaches students they are either part of or apart from the natural world.


2. Mastery of Oneself over Subject Matter: The primary goal is not intellectual command, but the development of wisdom, humility, and self-discipline.


3. Knowledge Carries Responsibility: Learning should be accompanied by awareness of the impact on people, communities, and biosphere.


4. Minimize the "Say-Do" Gap: Education must confront the gap between its proclaimed ideals (e.g., justice, sustainability) and institutional practices.


5. Learning Transcends the Classroom: Real education takes place when we are directly engaged with the living world and community.


6. Improve the Learning Process: Go beyond the passive lectures to the interdisciplinary approaches that educate about interconnectedness.


The main thesis expressed by Orr is that the ecological crisis is a “crisis of mind”. He transfers the failure to a technical know-how to the flawed educational paradigm that teaches domination as well as separation. Critical pedagogy should go beyond education. While thinkers like Freire critique education for social oppression, Orr extends this to ecological oppression. He agrees with Freire in his disdain of the “banking model” of education, instead promoting an educational model based on engagement with place and community. His philosophy is similar to but extends beyond the critical theory by making the human-nature relationship the centre.


According to some critics, ecological awareness is necessary, but education should deal with economic systems, political power, and social justice, with equal rigor. The Orr-inspired curriculum risks, in other words, is a curriculum that concentrates on consciousness, but does not prepare students to deconstruct the structural drivers of unsustainability. His localized, place-based paradigm is strong but immensely challenging to scale in and resource-limited public education systems. Finally, David Orr makes us evaluate education based on its results: Does it help people who will preserve a habitable, humane, and beautiful world? His essay is a fundamental and provocative work for anyone reconsidering the ultimate purpose of education.

(The writer is Head and Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Mahatma Basweshwar College, Latur. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page