[Or: When Nobody Moves First]
In game theory, a Nash equilibrium is a situation where no player can gain by changing their strategy alone.
It’s not necessarily the best outcome – just the most stable and sustainable one in a context of competing interests. And when you expect the other player not to move (a kind of focal point), you hesitate to move too.
So everyone stays put. No one takes risks. Nothing breaks, nothing shifts. We settle into an equilibrium that’s stable, but far from ideal.
You see this in business strategy, war, pricing, politics – and quietly, in everyday life.
The Game of Staying Stuck
There’s a kind of logic to self-doubt – was it personal or organisational.
You want change. But not at the cost of disrupting something that’s “working.”
Think of companies hesitant to innovate in mature markets. Blockbuster’s refusal to pivot to streaming because DVD sales were still profitable – while Netflix quietly gained ground. Or Kodak refusing to embrace digital photography despite early inventions.
You wait for a signal. The other side does too.
You both hold.
However, it’s not laziness. It’s rational hesitation.
From the outside, it looks like inertia. From retrospective, you often ask ”what was I or we thinking”.
From the inside, in the moment, it feels like silent negotiation.
It is so, because we assume someone else will shift first. That if we move alone – launch that risky product, cut costs drastically, reorganize teams, decide to walk away – we’d lose.
So we rather don’t. We don’t take the first step. We don’t make the move.
And that – the status quo – becomes the equilibrium.
But that equilibrium comes at a cost.
The price of waiting can be lost market share, missed opportunities, or being overtaken by competitors willing to break the silence and act first. So, the art lies in knowing when the equilibrium no longer serves.
Breaking Point vs Breakthrough
A Nash equilibrium doesn’t require anyone to be happy – just unwilling to change unilaterally.
And that’s where it gets dangerous. When staying stuck feels easier than disrupting the balance.
Take Salvatore Ferragamo’s recent rebranding under creative director Maximilian Davis. He broke with tradition, introducing a fresh, modern vision and a new visual identity to reach younger consumers. That shift carried risk – challenging a heritage brand and its loyal audience – but it also opened the door to new growth and relevance.
Change never starts in unison. Someone always moves first. That shift – the choice to break the silent contract – carries risk. But also potential.
You might lose the job, the relationship, the illusion of certainty.
Or you might step into something real – if you dare.
Personal Growth as a Coordination Game
Self-growth often feels like a repeated game.
You test a new move. If it’s not mirrored, you revert.
But growth requires pushing past the short-term loss – trusting that long-term gains can’t happen without some temporary imbalance.
When you begin to move – speak, shift, redefine – others might follow. Or they might not.
But either way, the system changes.
And sometimes, that’s what makes the next move possible. For you, and maybe for them too.
The Quiet Shift
So if you are not moving – if you are stuck – ask yourself:
Am I waiting for permission?
For someone else to speak first?
For the strategy to be safe?
Then remember – equilibrium isn’t always wisdom.
Sometimes, it’s just two people, parties, silently hoping the other will be brave first.
And sometimes, the most courageous thing you can do… is move.
