Tag: status quo bias

• Thinking about the things we’re used to

  This is a powerful perspective:

  We evolved to be wary of change. Our attention is limited, new things can be a threat and the status quo feels comfortable.

  As a result, we spend a lot of time and energy being afraid (and arguing about) the upcoming changes in our lives, but almost no time at all thinking about the things we’re used to.

  As an example of this tension, check out this “exit interview” with Toronto’s former chief city planner, Gregg Lintern. The underlying theme is change and why it’s desperately needed.

  But of course, that’s not easy.

  The interviewer, Victoria Gibson, mentions this survey stat: nearly half (47%) of all Torontonians think the city is building too little housing, and yet only about a quarter (27%) think their area could handle more.

  We need this, but not here. Probably because we’re used to the way things are.

  But if you read the interview, you’ll see that the answer, or at least one answer, is to make the conversation personal, and ultimately think critically about, you know, the things we’re used to.

  Change starts with not giving the benefit of the doubt to the status quo.

  2024.01.02

• The Eiffel Tower and the awful tower

  It was explained to me this week that Paris has two principal towers: The Eiffel Tower and the awful tower. The awful tower is, of course, the Tour Montparnasse. Completed in 1973, the Tour Montparnasse is tall, brown, monolithic, and seemingly out of place with the rest of Paris’ urban context. At the time of its completion it was the tallest building in Paris and it remains the tallest building outside of La Defense (business district).

  But the Eiffel Tower is also tall. In fact, it’s taller. So how is it that the Eiffel Tower became such a symbol for Paris and the Tour Montparnasse became the “awful tower?” Both were intended to represent modernity (at their respective times) and both were controversial at the time of their construction.

  Today people respond to these two towers very differently. Is it because the Eiffel Tower is set in a beautiful park and more separated from its urban context? Or is it because the Eiffel Tower has had almost another 100 years to settle in. It’s not exactly clear. But we do know that as humans we have a bias toward the status quo. And so I like to think of change in the following way:

  – There’s change that people immediately like

  – There’s change that people hate and will always hate

  – And there’s change that people initially hate but will eventually like

  The Eiffel Tower, you could argue, falls into category number three. It was big, modern, and alarmingly different when it was built at the end of the 19th century. But now people seem to like it. I know this based on the number of street vendors selling little replicas. For the record, I have yet to see little replicas of the Tour Montparnasse sitting on blankets on the street. I’m a buyer if I do come across one though.

  But is it really right to place Montparnasse into category number two? Could it be that it just needs more time to settle in and then it will ultimately move into number three? Maybe. In 2017, an international design competition was held to find an architect for the redesign of the tower. Studio Gang submitted an entry. But Nouvelle AOM was ultimately selected.

  I wasn’t part of the selections committee, but I think a good way to evaluate the success of this project will be whether or not it moves the tower into category three. That is, people start to like it. Then maybe Paris will become known as a city of two towers, as opposed to a city with one nice one and one awful one.

  2022.05.03

• The game of life

  “Anxiety is experiencing failure in advance.” — Seth Godin

  I mention and quote Seth Godin fairly often on this blog and so it only seems right to share this recent podcast that he did on the Tim Ferriss Show. Broadly speaking, the conversation is about “the game of life, the value of hacks, and overcoming anxiety.” I think most of you will find it useful regardless of what you do and what you’re involved in. It’s over an hour long, but there’s a full transcript available if you’d prefer to read, rather than listen. If you’re looking for something even shorter, here’s a quick video by Tim Ferris that has Seth talking about why worrying isn’t productive and that it’s really in service of our need for status quo and reassurance.

  2020.10.27

• The status quo, please

  In 1988, William Samuelson (Boston University) and Richard Zeckhauser (Harvard University) published a seminal paper called, Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.

  In one of the experiments cited in the paper, two groups of people are given a hypothetical task that involves picking from a selection of different investment opportunities.

  In both cases, the groups are told that they are someone who regularly reads the “financial pages”, but that up until recently hasn’t had much money to invest.

  Both groups are then told that they have just inherited “a large sum of money” from their great-uncle. This is now where the groups diverge in terms of the information given.

  The first group is given a neutral version. They are told they can invest in any of the following portfolios: a moderate-risk company, a high-risk company, treasury bills, or municipal bonds.

  The second group is given the same selection of portfolios, but is also given a “status quo selection.” They are told that a significant portion of their great-uncle’s portfolio is currently invested in a moderate risk company. 

  (They are also told that the fees associated with an investment change are insignificant and should not be a consideration for this decision.)

  What do you think happened?

  A number of different scenarios were tested, but as soon as one of the options was presented as the status quo, it became “significantly more popular”.

  This status quo advantage also tended to increase as the number of investment options increased. Perhaps people just got overwhelmed by the options and went with the “safe bet”.

  This phenomenon has become known as the status quo bias. 

  It is one of the reasons why some political offices have term limits. The incumbent bias can make for an uneven playing field. People vote for the name they recognize on the ballot.

  And it is one of the reasons why change, in general, can be so unsettling. The countless studies suggest we have an inherent bias towards the status quo irrespective of its objective merits.

  P.S. This is what came to mind as soon as I heard people calling the King Street Transit Pilot a “disaster” before the first weekday of its run was even over.

  2017.11.14

• We are all biased against creativity

  

  I would like to do a follow-up to yesterday’s post about innovators and creators, because I recently stumbled up the following quote:

  “We think of creative people in a heroic manner, and we celebrate them, but the thing we celebrate is the after-effect,” says Barry Staw, a researcher at the University of California–Berkeley business school who specializes in creativity.
  

  It is taken from a Slate article called: Inside the Box – People don’t actually like creativity. And it’s supported by a bunch of research, including a 2010 study conducted by professors at Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of North Carolina.

  The key finding was that people generally hold a bias against creativity, and it’s activated when we become motivated to reduce uncertainty. This might be because we fear rejection or because we’ve come to learn that reducing uncertainty and promoting the status quo is often better for career advancement. 

  There’s less perceived risk.

  But here’s the thing: celebrating creativity after the fact is meaningless. There’s no genius in that. Everyone now knows this truth. The heroics come into play when you’re both willing to be misunderstood and willing to be dead wrong.

  Of course, talk is cheap. 

  Here are 5 suggestions for promoting greater creativity at your company taken from Tom Tunguz’s blog, who himself is borrowing from Barry Staw (author quoted above):

  1. Hire people who’s skills aren’t precise matches for the needs of the company.
  2. Encourage employees not to listen blindly to corporate policy and conventional wisdom; not all to speak with the same voice.
  3. Those in power should go as far as possible to encourage active opposition to ideas. (Similar to Drucker’s obligation to dissent).
  4. Optimize for adaptiveness. Have extra labor capacity and explore side projects. (How many creative companies started or were reinvigorated by side projects? Twitter and Slack are two that immediately come to mind).
  5. Lead rather than follow. Take risks.

  2017.05.24