Decision Tips
The decision to do nothing is a decision to maintain the status quo.
No problem is so big and complicated that it can’t be run away from.
—C. Schulz
“Where did the years go?” asked Cindy Tang. “It seems just like yesterday that I got out of school and joined The Eye Care Center as an optometrist. The years went by, and colleagues came and went. I occasionally thought about looking at other places to work, but I never acted on it. So here I am—having worked for the same employer in the same location for my entire career.”
“I just came back from my 25th college reunion. Sue, my roommate during my senior year, had changed careers three times and lived in five or six different cities. A couple of my sorority sisters had had a dozen different jobs and had moved up the corporate ladder. The whole experience made me wonder: Did I do something wrong? Did I miss opportunities? Was I afraid of change?”
If, as discussed in the previous chapter, maintaining the status quo can be an effective strategy, it also comes with a corollary: Maintaining the status quo is still a decision.
If Cindy Tang is guilty, it’s an error of omission. She never realized that the decision process isn’t limited to active choices that involve change. Doing nothing is a decision! It’s a decision to maintain the status quo. And in the case of Ms. Tang, her decision to not look for other jobs or not pursue advancement possibilities shaped her career every bit as much as her friends’ active decisions shaped theirs. In the previous chapter, we considered why you might want to do nothing. In this chapter, we address the implications of doing nothing.
You can maintain the status quo by following either of two paths—one active and the other passive. You can rationally assess your current situation, identify your options, carefully review the strengths and weaknesses of these options, and conclude that no new alternative is superior to the path you’re currently taking. This active approach is fully consistent with rational decision making. Our concern here, however, is with the passive approach—where the current path is followed only because you fail to consider your other options.
Inexperienced decision makers can get caught in an inaction trap.1 There are several explanations on why this might happen. One is fear of change. For many people, no matter how bad the status quo is, at least it’s a known. Change imposes an unknown ingredient that can be frightening to many. A second possible explanation is satisfaction with the status quo. Many decision makers are inactive because they have no motivation to change. Third is just laziness. Doing nothing is the path of least resistance. Such individuals are often disorganized and have difficulty in doing the legwork necessary for making a rational choice. A fourth explanation is unawareness. People do nothing because they never overtly think about pursuing a different path.
History is replete with decision blunders that can be traced to passive inaction.
History is replete with decision blunders that can be traced to passive inaction. In the 1930s, for instance, the United States watched as Germany built its war capabilities. By the time the United States decided to take action, the forces leading to World War II were already in place. In the 1980s, major retailers like Sears and Kmart paid no attention and took no action in response to the rapid expansion pursued by Walmart. By the time they decided to do something, it was too late. Walmart had stolen much of their customer base. And Borders, the bookstore chain, went out of business because it stuck with its retail strategy, treated the Internet as a passing trend, and failed to see the rise of e-books and e-readers. Meanwhile, Amazon stole its customers by offering a more convenient, online site to shop for books and aggressively promoting its Kindle e-reader.
What applies to countries and companies also applies to individuals. We continue pursuing a course of action even though, by taking an active decision stance, we could probably change things for the better. We continue to smoke because we never directly confront stopping. We never buy life insurance because we never carefully consider the benefits it might provide. We never get a health checkup—not because we purposely avoid going to the doctor, but rather because we never think of getting a physical as a decision.
How do you counter the nondecision decision? The first step is awareness. You can’t opt out of decisions by ignoring them. To do so is merely making a decision to continue along the path you’re on. That path may be the one you want, but the astute decision maker recognizes that there are costs associated with maintaining the status quo as well as with change. You also need to directly challenge the status quo. It’s not merely enough to know that doing nothing is a decision. You also need to occasionally justify why you shouldn’t pursue another path from the one you’re currently on. Are you happy in your current job? Is your relationship fulfilling? Do you have habits that make your life less satisfying? You can’t improve your life if you don’t confront whether the choices you made in the past would be the same ones you’d make today. To determine this, you have to make an active decision. Remember, in the rational decision process (see Chapter 2, “The Search for Rationality”), the first step is to identify and define the problem. So you may need to seek out weaknesses in the status quo and turn them into a problem, if one isn’t obvious. Interestingly, studies demonstrate that in the short run people may experience regret for actions taken, in the long run inactions are regretted more.2 Finally, consider the costs of inaction. Too often we focus only on the risks associated with change. You’re less likely to get caught up in decision inaction if you also address the risks from doing nothing.
Regularly question why you shouldn’t pursue another path from your current one.
Consider the costs of doing nothing.