The Risk of Doing Nothing: How Status Quo Decisions Can Be Your Biggest Threat

The Risk of Doing Nothing: How Status Quo Decisions Can Be Your Biggest Threat 

By Tom Glover, Chief Revenue Officer at Responsive Technology Partners 

I learned something crucial about risk management early in my career that most business textbooks never mention: sometimes the most dangerous decision you can make is deciding not to decide at all. 

We spend countless hours in boardrooms and executive meetings weighing the risks of action. We analyze potential investments, debate new initiatives, and scrutinize every strategic move. But there’s a blind spot in most of these discussions—the assumption that maintaining the status quo is somehow the safe choice, the neutral position that carries no risk. 

That assumption is wrong. And it’s costing companies far more than most leaders realize. 

The Illusion of Safety 

Three years ago, I sat across from a manufacturing executive who was wrestling with whether to modernize his company’s aging infrastructure. The systems had been in place for fifteen years. They worked—mostly. His team knew them inside and out. Making a change felt risky, expensive, and disruptive. 

“Why fix what isn’t broken?” he asked me. 

It’s the question I hear most often when discussing significant changes, particularly around technology and security. It sounds reasonable. Prudent, even. But it misses the fundamental reality of how risk actually works in business. 

What wasn’t immediately visible to this executive was that his infrastructure wasn’t just old—it was becoming actively dangerous. Support for critical components was ending. Security patches were no longer available. His competitors were operating at speeds his systems simply couldn’t match. The gap was widening every month he delayed. 

Two years later, a ransomware attack shut down his operation for nine days. The recovery cost exceeded what the modernization would have cost by a factor of four. That doesn’t include the customers they lost or the reputation damage that took even longer to repair. 

He didn’t make a risky decision. He made no decision. And that non-decision turned out to be the riskiest choice of all. 

Understanding Status Quo Bias 

Behavioral economists have a name for this tendency: status quo bias. It’s our natural preference for the current state of affairs, even when better alternatives exist. This isn’t stupidity or laziness—it’s hardwired into how our brains work. Change requires energy, creates uncertainty, and forces us to confront the possibility that we might be wrong. 

The status quo feels safe because it’s familiar. We know its problems, we’ve built workarounds, we’ve learned to live with its limitations. New solutions bring unknown challenges and unpredictable outcomes. 

But here’s what makes status quo bias particularly dangerous in business: the world doesn’t stand still while you’re deciding. Your competitors aren’t frozen in time. Technology continues evolving. Threats keep advancing. Markets shift. Regulations change. Customer expectations rise. 

The status quo you’re clinging to today isn’t the same status quo you’ll have tomorrow. It’s eroding underneath you, getting weaker and riskier with each passing month. What feels like standing still is actually falling behind. 

The Hidden Costs of Inaction 

When we evaluate a potential investment or change, we typically look at clear, quantifiable costs. The price tag. The implementation time. The disruption to current operations. These costs are visible, concrete, and often scary. 

What’s much harder to measure—and therefore easier to ignore—are the costs of doing nothing. These accumulate slowly and hide in plain sight. 

I’ve watched companies pay these invisible costs in dozens of ways over the years. There’s the efficiency cost, where outdated processes consume hours of productive time that no one thinks to measure until they implement something better and realize how much time they were wasting. There’s the opportunity cost, where being unable to respond quickly to market changes means missing chances that competitors seize. There’s the talent cost, where the best people leave because they’re frustrated with antiquated tools and processes. 

Then there’s the security cost, which often remains invisible until it becomes catastrophically visible. Every day you run outdated systems is another day you’re exposed to threats that didn’t exist when those systems were designed. The longer you wait, the more attractive a target you become—because attackers know that older systems are easier to compromise. 

But perhaps the most insidious cost is what I call the “decision debt.” Every decision you defer today makes the eventual decision harder tomorrow. The gap widens. The change becomes more dramatic. The risk increases. You end up in a position where you eventually have no choice but to make a much larger, much riskier change than if you’d acted earlier. 

It’s like ignoring that check engine light in your car. Sure, you save money by not taking it to the mechanic today. But you’re not eliminating the problem—you’re letting it grow until it turns into something much more expensive and potentially catastrophic. 

When Inaction Becomes Action 

The distinction between action and inaction starts to blur when you realize that choosing not to change is itself a strategic decision with concrete consequences. 

When you choose not to upgrade your security posture, you’re actively deciding that your current level of protection is adequate. When you choose not to modernize your infrastructure, you’re actively deciding that the productivity and capability limitations are acceptable. When you choose not to address technical debt, you’re actively deciding that the compounding costs are worth bearing. 

These aren’t neutral positions. They’re strategic choices with real implications for your company’s risk profile, competitive position, and future options. 

The problem is that we rarely treat them as such. We don’t subject our non-decisions to the same scrutiny we apply to our decisions. We don’t calculate the ROI of doing nothing. We don’t map out the risks of maintaining the status quo. We don’t ask ourselves what the world looks like in twelve months if we change nothing. 

Yet these questions matter just as much—often more—than the questions we ask about potential changes. 

The Pressure of Perfect Information 

One of the biggest obstacles to timely decision-making is the quest for perfect information. We want to be certain. We want to eliminate all risk. We want guarantees that a change will work exactly as planned. 

This is impossible, of course. But the impossibility doesn’t stop us from trying. We commission another study. We wait for one more data point. We schedule another meeting to discuss the options. Each delay feels justified—we’re just being thorough, just doing our due diligence, just making sure we have all the facts. 

Meanwhile, the costs of inaction continue accumulating. 

I’ve learned over three decades that you never have perfect information. You never have zero risk. The question isn’t whether a decision involves uncertainty—they all do. The question is whether the risk of action exceeds the risk of inaction. 

Most of the time, once you honestly assess both sides of that equation, the answer becomes clear. The risk of doing nothing is often substantially higher than the risk of taking measured, strategic action. 

This doesn’t mean being reckless. It means being honest about what staying the course actually costs you. 

Breaking the Paralysis 

So how do you overcome status quo bias and break out of decision paralysis? 

The first step is recognizing that inaction is a choice. Stop treating it as the default neutral position. When you’re evaluating whether to make a change, explicitly articulate what staying the same means. What are the costs? What are the risks? What opportunities are you foregoing? Force yourself to defend the status quo with the same rigor you’d use to defend any other strategic decision. 

The second step is shifting your time horizon. Status quo bias gets stronger when we focus on short-term disruption and ignore long-term consequences. Yes, making a change is disruptive in the next three months. But what does your situation look like in three years if you don’t make that change? When you extend your view, the calculus often shifts dramatically. 

The third step is acknowledging that waiting isn’t risk-free. It might feel safer, but it’s not. The world is changing whether you participate in that change or not. The question is whether you’re shaping that change or being shaped by it. 

Finally, recognize that small, early action is almost always less risky than large, late action. The changes you defer today don’t disappear—they compound. When you eventually can’t defer them any longer, they’ve often grown into much more complex, expensive, and disruptive undertakings. Acting sooner, even in smaller increments, typically reduces your overall risk. 

The Competitive Dimension 

There’s another critical factor that makes inaction increasingly risky: your competitors aren’t standing still. 

When you choose to maintain your current infrastructure, processes, or capabilities, you’re not just staying where you are—you’re falling behind competitors who are advancing theirs. The gap widens with every quarter you delay. 

I’ve seen this dynamic play out repeatedly across industries. The company that hesitates to invest in better tools watches its more agile competitors respond faster to market changes. The organization that defers modernization finds itself unable to compete for the best talent, who gravitate toward companies with better technology and processes. The business that postpones security improvements becomes the easier target in an industry where others have raised their defenses. 

Your risk isn’t measured in absolute terms—it’s measured relative to the threat landscape and competitive environment you operate in. Both are constantly evolving. Standing still means your relative risk is increasing even if your absolute position hasn’t changed. 

Making Better Non-Decisions 

The goal isn’t to eliminate careful consideration or to act rashly. The goal is to bring the same analytical rigor to evaluating inaction that you bring to evaluating action. 

When you’re faced with a significant decision, ask yourself these questions: 

What does our situation look like in one year, three years, five years if we make no changes? Be specific. Don’t just assume things will stay the same—map out how the gap between where you are and where you need to be will grow. 

What are we giving up by maintaining the status quo? What opportunities become impossible or more difficult? What capabilities do we lack? What efficiency are we sacrificing? 

What risks are we accepting by not changing? How does our security posture compare to current threats? How does our capability compare to competitive requirements? How does our infrastructure compare to current standards and support realities? 

What will this decision cost us if we defer it for another year? Not just in direct costs, but in widening gaps, lost opportunities, and accumulated technical or strategic debt? 

These questions force you to confront the reality that doing nothing isn’t free, isn’t safe, and isn’t actually maintaining the status quo at all. 

Living With Uncertainty 

At the end of the day, leading a business means making decisions with incomplete information and uncertain outcomes. That’s the job. The risk of making the wrong decision is real and should be carefully considered. 

But so is the risk of making no decision at all. In my experience, that risk is often substantially higher—it just takes longer to materialize, which makes it easier to ignore. 

The most dangerous place to be is where you think you’re safe simply because you’ve changed nothing. The ground is shifting beneath you whether you acknowledge it or not. The question is whether you’re going to respond to that reality with intention and strategy, or whether you’re going to let inaction dictate your future. 

I’ve been in this industry long enough to have watched countless companies face this choice. The ones that thrive are the ones that learned to evaluate the risk of inaction as carefully as they evaluate the risk of action. They understand that in a world that never stops changing, standing still isn’t really an option. 

The real choice isn’t between action and inaction. It’s between deliberate change on your terms and forced change on someone else’s terms. Between addressing challenges while you have options and addressing them when you’re out of alternatives. Between managing risk and letting risk manage you. 

That’s not about being reckless. It’s about being honest. And sometimes the most honest thing you can acknowledge is that the riskiest decision you can make is deciding not to decide at all. 

About the Author: Tom Glover is Chief Revenue Officer at Responsive Technology Partners, specializing in cybersecurity and risk management. With over 35 years of experience helping organizations navigate the complex intersection of technology and risk, Tom provides practical insights for business leaders facing today’s security challenges.