This is from March of 2010 and it's still a pet peeve…
One of my long-standing pet peeves is what I call Plans Without Action. I could cite many examples but I'm thinking now of a producer I worked for years ago who liked to chair big staff meetings with everyone crowded around the conference table. We'd have a problem — say, too much money being spent on donuts. And we'd argue about the problem, discuss various ways of tackling the problem, propose and debate various solutions, etc. These meetings would always go on for much, much longer than the dilemma deserved…to the point where I'd always suggest we needed a staff meeting to discuss how to cut down on staff meetings. But at some point, having figured out a number of constructive ways to solve The Great Donut Spending Crisis, we'd adjourn…
…and then no one would do anything.
No one would get around to doing anything we'd discussed. None of the solutions would be implemented. The show would continue to spend just as much on donuts as it ever had. But somehow, everyone would feel good that they'd put in some hours and energy on the problem. And if I or someone said, "Hey, this problem still exists," the response would be, "Hey, we had a three-hour meeting and came up with a number of good solutions."
Somehow, that felt better…made folks feel like they weren't so helpless in the face of the problem, I guess. But I used to argue that having the meeting and not acting on its recommendations was basically the same thing as never doing anything. In some ways, it was worse. It's a lot quicker and easier to just do nothing than to have a three-hour meeting and then do nothing. I also think that having the meeting created the illusion that something was being done…and sometimes, such illusions get in the way of actual problem-solving.
I'm starting to feel that way when someone says, "The government needs to spend less" and then doesn't specify what should be cut. Fine. The government needs to spend less. We all agree. And the air should be cleaner and unemployment should be lower and all the good-tasting foods shouldn't be high in calories. But to me, saying the government needs to spend less is a Plan Without Action. It feels like doing something but isn't.
I keep reading articles and op-eds where folks say the beast has gotten too large. It's immense and it's growing larger and any day now, it's going to step on us all and grind us into oblivion. And then they either offer no way to make the beast smaller or, at most, suggest trimming its toenails.
Sometimes, when you offer a minuscule solution to a huge dilemma, you're off to a good start and, hey, you gotta start somewhere. But sometimes, the minuscule solution is another one of those "Let's pretend we're solving the problem" things.
I have no solution to any of these challenges like cutting government spending. Hey, I'm doing well if I can cut what I spend on computer equipment by a few bucks a week. That's okay because, you know, I write cartoons and comic books and TV shows. Dealing with the national deficit is not up to me, which is great because I'm never going to do anything that will solve that crisis or anything of the sort. The one thing I'll say in my defense is that at least I'm honest enough to admit it.
More and more as I get older, I believe that pretending (or even intending) to do something and not doing anything is usually the same thing as not doing anything…or maybe even less. And about all we onlookers can do is to be able to tell the difference and not get them confused. And if we can do that, maybe we can spark someone into actually doing something.