The Status Quo Bias: Embracing Change
The Status Quo Bias: Embracing Change
The Journey from Tradition to Transformation
Happy Tuesday, Transformation Friends. Another week, another opportunity to go Beyond the Status Quo.
We’re continuing our exploration into cognitive biases that influence our transformation efforts. Let’s start with a quote:
The most dangerous phrase in the language is ‘we’ve always done it this way.’
—Grace Hopper (1906-1992) was a pioneering computer scientist and United States Navy rear admiral
Hopper’s quote beautifully introduces today’s topic, the status quo bias:
People tend to be biased towards maintaining their current or past situation and decisions, even when there might be clear benefits to making a change.
We like the status quo and bias what we do and how we behave toward the perceived safety of its familiarity. I’m sure you’re all familiar with this bias and the frustration it can bring when trying to create change: the risk aversion, the resistance, and the suboptimal decisions it breeds.
Today, we’ll look at the factors influencing the status quo bias and its impact on decision-making and our ability to create change. We’ll also look at way to recognize it and minimize it in our environments.
Grab your morning coffee, and let’s get started.
If you’re interested in other cognitive biases, I've created a collection of the ones we've examined.
What is the Status Quo Bias?
People tend to remain at the status quo because the perceived disadvantages of leaving it dominate over the advantages. Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) first demonstrated this effect and called it the status quo bias. Since this first look, research consistently shows a wide preference for the status quo across many different domains—it’s everywhere.
The status quo bias is a fascinating psychological phenomenon with profound implications for decision-making: our natural tendency is toward the familiar, even when better options are available.
But what drives this bias? Several psychological factors play a role. For example (Kahneman et al., 1991),
Anchoring: our tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information encountered (often the current situation) when making decisions.
Cognitive dissonance: the mental discomfort we feel when holding two contradictory beliefs, can reinforce our inclination to stick with the status quo. For example, if we've always believed that a particular public service method is the best, we might resist new evidence suggesting otherwise to avoid feeling inconsistent.
The Endowment Effect: we value things we own (or are familiar with) more than those we don't, further cementing our attachment to the current state of affairs
Nebel (2015) and Eidelman & Crandall (2012) present a more philosophical aspect. They suggest that the status quo bias isn't just about preferring the current state; it's about favouring it simply because it exists, even if it might not be the best choice.
This last point is important to emphasize. It’s not that the status quo is inherently bad; the status quo might be the best option in many situations. Instead, the status quo bias tells us that people pick the status quo merely because it is the status quo, without more thought than that. Here’s a starting example I see all the time: Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) showed that merely labelling an option as the status quo creates a significant bias toward it.
How often have you seen options presented to a decision maker with one labelled the status quo…? The research shows that this has inevitably biased the decision toward that option. Oops!
Other factors that influence the strength of this bias (Eidelman & Crandall, 2012):
Loss aversion and regret avoidance can lead to a preference for the status quo over change.
The exposure effect, where familiarity increases liking and further strengthens the appeal of the status quo.
The perceived goodness of the status quo.
The number of alternative options to the status quo (the more alternatives to the status quo, the stronger the status quo bias).
Impacts of the status quo bias
The status quo bias profoundly influences decision-making, causing a ripple effect on our change initiatives.
Bad Decisions
The appeal of the familiar can influence individuals and organizations into making suboptimal decisions. For example, research shows that consumers tend not to stray from their favourite brands, and investors tend to stick to familiar stocks, even when presented with better alternatives (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988; Nebel, 2015). We often see a reluctance to adopt new technologies or methodologies in the public sector.
An inherent tendency toward the familiar can skew risk assessments. Organizations might underestimate the risks of sticking to the status quo and overestimate the risks of novel strategies or technologies. This imbalance can lead to missed opportunities.
A bias towards maintaining the current state can result in financial mismanagement. For example, we might continue to fund a failing project rather than redirect resources to more impactful areas (a classic example of loss aversion).
Resisting Change
The siren’s call toward the familiar can inadvertently stifle innovation. Organizations may hesitate to invest in ideas or technologies, favouring tried-and-true methods over potential advancements, “We’ve always done it this way!” This cautious approach can create missed opportunities.
The appeal of the familiar is a significant limitation when introducing new systems. In a study investigating resistance to information systems implementation, Kim & Kankanhalli (2009) showed that the status quo bias and lack of inertia played a significant role in the failure of these initiatives.
Impact on People
The status quo bias tells us that people prefer familiarity and stability. On one had, overemphasizing the "way things have always been" can lead to stagnation. Talented employees, especially those looking for growth and new challenges, might feel stifled and seek opportunities elsewhere. On the other hand, too much change will make people uncomfortable by not giving them the familiarity they need. It’s the duplicitous edge of change management.
Further, while people often appreciate consistency, a determined commitment to the status quo can lead us to overlook the evolving needs of the people we serve. Over time, this can create a disconnect between what we offer and people's needs, potentially eroding trust.
How we can mitigate the status quo bias
Our deep-seated preference for the familiar can dull innovation and impede forward momentum. But there are ways to mitigate it. Let’s look at a few.
Recognize the Bias
Recognizing the factors influencing this bias is an important first step. I mentioned a few above, such as anchoring, the endowment effect, cognitive dissonance, and loss avoidance. Here are a few examples of what these might look like:
Anchoring: When an initial budget is presented, subsequent discussions will revolve around that "anchor,” regardless of what new information might be available.
The endowment effect: An organization might value an outdated software system more than a newer one because they've invested time and resources into it, and it's "theirs." This might cause them to undervalue the benefits of a new system they haven't yet adopted.
Cognitive Dissonance: imagine a scenario where a city councillor of a suburban district acknowledges the need for greener transporting options but has always prioritized infrastructure for cars. The tension between these two positions can lead to resistance to adopting sustainable practices because it conflicts with their long-standing approach.
Loss Aversion: Decision-makers will find the “pain” of defunding a failing project far worse than the pleasure of reinvesting the money into something that may produce better results.
However, I’d suggest that you don’t need to be familiar with these psychological phenomena to recognize the bias. Just remember that people are biased toward the familiar, and think about how your environment reinforces this bias.
Reframing and External Perspectives
It's all about the story we tell. Frame changes not as departures from the norm but as steps towards a brighter, more efficient future or a return to core values (Masatlioglu & Ok, 2005).
Remember, don’t label an option as the status quo. Rather describe the status quo in the option and label it like all the others. In addition, keep the number of options reasonable: stick to the most viable and feasible.
Sometimes, a gentle push in the right direction is all it takes. Behavioural nudges, like setting a new system as the default, can subtly steer individuals towards the new state.
Nothing speaks louder than success. Highlighting instances where departing from the status quo led to tangible benefits can inspire confidence and motivate others to embrace change.
Additionally, adding external viewpoints from those not ingrained in the status quo can help to add unbiased perspectives. For example, consultants or experts can offer fresh insights. Assurance that is independent can help with risk advice and insights offering a better balance between negative risks (threats) and positive risks (opportunities).
Finally, engaging stakeholders, from employees to the public, ensures collective buy-in. Making sure that communication is transparent about the reasons and benefits of change, will go a long way in creating trust and collaboration.
Make change in smaller steps
Change doesn't always have to be revolutionary; sometimes, it's evolutionary. Rolling out changes in smaller phases can make the transition less daunting, allowing individuals to adjust step by step—each change being less of a jump from the familiar to the new. For a large transformation, you might consider adopting a programme management approach.
Wrap up
As we wrap up today, I hope you’ve learned a little more about a bias you likely were familiar with. Managing the status quo bias is crucial for driving meaningful change so that we can continuously evolve, innovate, and adapt to better serve citizens.
Let’s take a moment to reflect:
In what ways have you personally experienced or observed the status quo bias in your professional setting, and how did it impact decision-making?
How can you proactively identify and address the status quo bias in your organization to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation?
Given the strategies and mitigations discussed, which ones resonate most with your context, and how might you implement them to drive transformation in your domain?
Challenging the status quo is never easy. With awareness, intention, and action, we can lead the way to positive change.
Until next time, stay curious and I’ll see you Beyond the Status Quo.
References
Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(3), 270-281.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
Kim, H. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS quarterly, 567-582.
Fernandez, R., & Rodrik, D. (1991). Resistance to reform: Status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. The American economic review, 1146-1155.
Masatlioglu, Y., & Ok, E. A. (2005). Rational choice with status quo bias. Journal of economic theory, 121(1), 1-29.
Nebel, J. M. (2015). Status quo bias, rationality, and conservatism about value. Ethics, 125(2), 449-476.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1, 7-59.