Why we prefer the status quo, even when change is necessary
In Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, the Ranevsky family is at risk of losing their estate and wealth. Mounting debt, mismanagement, and bad luck have left them in a precarious position. At the center of it all is the family’s cherished orchard tree, a living symbol of their legacy, standing tall through generations.
Lopakhin, a self-made merchant, offers a practical solution: cut down the tree, build cabins, and rent them out. With some initial investment, this could potentially generate enough cash flow to pay off their debts and save the estate, preserving their wealth and legacy.
But the Ranevskys can’t bring themselves to act. Their bond with the orchard tree runs too deep. Unable to imagine tearing it down, they prefer inaction. Days later, the estate is auctioned and sold to Lopakhin, who expresses his intent to implement the proposed project the family refused, including cutting down the tree.
Due to their inaction, the family ends up losing the estate and their most beloved tree. They almost preferred the status quo to taking a risk and venturing into the unknown.
The psychology of inaction
In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman explains the concept of status quo bias, which can be seen in the Ranevsky family’s reluctance to act.
This cognitive bias reflects our tendency to favor the status quo over any change that might lead to uncertain outcomes. It stems from several interrelated psychological and existential factors, including loss aversion, and our habit of comparing potential outcomes to our current situation. We are more likely to regret decisions that lead to unfavorable results. So we stick to the familiar, resisting change even when it might be necessary to take action.
In a sense, we tend to favor the default course of events, even when it may lead to the same outcomes as taking action. This is, in effect, what happened to the Ranevskys. Although they ultimately lost their estate and the orchard tree was to be cut down, they still preferred the status quo and let things unfold naturally rather than making the difficult decision to cut the tree themselves and establish a new business.
The existential weight of decision-making
Why does this happen? Beyond the psychological factors already mentioned, our resistance to change is deeply tied to the existential burden and anxiety that come with risk-taking. This burden grows heavier when we are faced with multiple options, each carrying uncertain outcomes.
It often feels easier to let things unfold naturally. Rather than risking regret over decisions entirely within our control, we find comfort in accepting outcomes shaped by external forces. This is why the Ranevsky family chose to let someone else buy the estate and cut down the orchard, instead of taking the same action themselves.
Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard describes this kind of anxiety as the ‘dizziness of freedom.’ When faced with significant choices, especially those that would result in painful losses of legacy, memory, or wealth, the existential weight of responsibility can feel overwhelming. Uncertainty magnifies this burden, making it harder to act decisively.
Moving from inaction to purposeful risk
This challenge is not uncommon in the world of wealth management. Family offices and wealth managers often face this problem when advising families on their investment strategies. A key issue lies in the difficulty of articulating risk appetite, among other factors.
Even when assets are allocated across a diversified portfolio, spanning safe and riskier investments, some families react like the Ranevskys when faced with a market downturn. They decide to close their positions, and instead hold cash and risk-free investments, even if that means giving up the chance to recover their losses.
From an existential perspective, it’s easy to understand why status quo bias is so appealing, particularly when a family’s wealth carries the weight of legacy. Keeping cash in banks feels safer, even when inflation and other external forces slowly erode its purchasing power.
In these circumstances, inaction might seem like a better choice. And it still is a choice. With no decision-driven anxiety, no ‘dizziness of freedom’, no regrets, the status quo remains intact.
What are some steps and countermeasures that one could implement in these cases to avoid falling into inaction, much like the Ranevsky family?
In these cases, the problem isn’t a lack of knowledge or guidance on investment strategies. Without risk there’s no reward. Even the Ranevsky family had a potentially lucrative business proposal that could have turned their financial situation around.
The status quo bias, as we’ve seen, is a primarily an emotional and existential preference. It arises from our natural resistance to change. Overcoming this requires more than just financial savviness. It also calls for tools that would help us examine our assumptions and deep-rooted fears and anxieties that underlie our decisions to act or not act.
One such tool is philosophy, which offers us a way to combat this. Philosophy as an exercise helps us reframe the situation, question our assumptions, and shift our perspectives.
Philosophy as a tool for decision-making
Think of philosophy as a gym for your thoughts and emotions. Within this space, you can train yourself to explore your assumptions, confront your fears, and clarify your goals. By putting your ideas and emotions under varying levels of strain and resistance, you can explore worst- and best-case scenarios. This mental exercise helps you prepare to face uncertainty with greater confidence and clarity, and to solve problems more effectively.
Of course, this is easier said than done. When not only money, but legacy are at stake, the what-ifs can be overwhelming. But inaction, and extreme risk-aversion, is equally problematic.
Consider the following questions as a starting point:
- What will inaction cost me today, tomorrow, and in the future?
- Is inaction truly risk-free, or am I just shifting the risk to another form?
- How do my decisions align with my family’s long-term values and goals?
- What opportunities am I avoiding because they feel uncertain or uncomfortable?
Aristotle’s virtue ethics: finding a balance
Each person and family grapple with a different set of factors that influence their decisions. For the Ranevsky family, the orchard represented their legacy, a bond that made cutting the tree down unimaginable.
For the reader, it might be fear of losing wealth you or your family worked hard to accumulate. It could be realizing your risk appetite is smaller than expected or the desire to avoid regretting a decision entirely within your control.
This is the dilemma underlying many aspects of life, business, investment, and relationships. As Kierkegaard observes, life can only be understood backwards, but must be lived forward. In other words, you can analyze all the market data, do all the necessary research, but certainty is rarely guaranteed. To avoid regret, sticking with the status quo feels safer. But what if the outcomes were positive?
Aristotle’s virtue ethics provides one way to navigate this challenge. Excellence, according to Aristotle, is achieved by cultivating good character traits and habits. He argues that these virtues lie in the middle ground between extremes, avoiding excesses and deficiencies. Courage, for example, is the balance between recklessness and cowardice.
Similarly, in wealth management, the balance is between reckless, uncalculated risk and extreme risk aversion. The mean lies in calculated, purpose-driven risk.
Since this balance varies from person to person, it’s essential to reflect on long-term goals, how risk aligns with your values, which opportunities resonate, and where uncertainty might be worth embracing.
Legacy in action
Deciding under uncertainty, especially when there’s so much at stake, requires a lot of emotional and existential exercise. Inaction is not only harmful, but could also have worse outcomes than taking any action at all.
For families managing wealth, the courage to act decisively is not merely financial; it is existential. To risk is to affirm belief in possibility, in growth, and in purpose. In the end, it is not the orchard itself that endures, but the vision of those willing to navigate its labyrinth.
Engaging in philosophical reflection is one way to address the existential burdens that come with making decisions under uncertainty. While it doesn’t necessarily provide us with clear cut answers, philosophical exercise equips us with a variety of frameworks to address challenges that financial strategies alone cannot always resolve. It helps us examine our assumptions, ask better questions, clarify our goals, and deepen our understanding of ourselves and others.
As Voltaire puts it, “Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.” In the labyrinth of risk, the courage to act transforms discomfort into opportunity, and legacy into action. And like any habit, as Aristotle suggests, courage grows through reflection and practice.
Get your copy of Philosophy for Business Leaders