Stop Admiring The Problem
The psychology of why recognition so rarely turns into action
Most of us are very good at seeing what isn’t working. We can spot all the things that bug us, from a broken process, to an awkward dynamic, to a thing that is plainly not working.
In a meeting or discussion, the act of pointing at something broken feels productive and resembles progress (you’ve done your bit, right?). What is far rarer is the move from recognition to action: the person who not only identifies the blocker but does the unglamorous, uncertain work of trying to remove it. The gap between noticing problems and taking action to address them is a gap that human behaviour predicts almost perfectly.
So, why is inaction so often the more natural response to things that frustrate us?
Why noticing feels like enough
Part of the answer is that diagnosis and action draw on very different psychological resources, and our minds reward the cheaper of the two. Identifying a problem is a low-cost, low-risk activity. It requires no commitment, exposes us to no failure and can be done from the comfortable position of the observer. Acting, by contrast, means putting something at stake.
The behavioural economics literature offers a pretty sensible explanation for why that stake feels so heavy:
Back in 1979, research by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky established that people evaluate outcomes as gains and losses from a reference point, and feel losses more acutely than equivalent gains.
Several years later, the same authors estimated that a loss is felt roughly 2.25 times as strongly as a gain of the same size.
Later work found somewhat different and lower multipliers, but the underlying fact that losses are felt more strongly remains.
To be honest, you can probably tell from your own life experience! So, in simple terms, the downside of trying something and failing looms larger than the upside of succeeding.
Inaction also carries a second advantage: when you do nothing and things go wrong, the failure feels less like your fault. This is omission bias, documented by Ilana Ritov and Jonathan Baron: in their hypothetical vaccination scenarios, many participants would not vaccinate a child when the vaccine itself carried a small risk of death, even though declining left the child at a higher overall risk from the disease. People who did not vaccinate their child tolerated a worse expected outcome to avoid being the cause of harm through their own action. We feel more responsible for what we do than for what we merely allow to happen, which makes standing back the psychologically safer choice even when it is the worse one.
There is also the matter of how good it feels to be the person who understands. Labelling a problem astutely signals that we are perceptive and not easily fooled. The issue here is that this signal is satisfying enough on its own to substitute for the actual work it was supposed to kick off. So the diagnosis becomes the destination rather than the starting point.
The Art of Asking Questions is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. And check out my Perks page!
The diffusion of responsibility
Even when a problem is widely acknowledged, action often stalls for reasons that have little to do with any individual's willingness.
Some great evidence comes from John Darley and Bibb Latané's study on bystander intervention. Participants who believed they were the only witness to someone apparently having a seizure went for help 85 per cent of the time; when they believed another person was also present, that fell to 62 per cent; and when they believed they were one of five witnesses, only 31 per cent acted. Those in groups also hesitated longer before doing anything.
The mechanism they identified, the diffusion of responsibility, is not cowardice or indifference. It is a reasonable inference that when responsibility is shared across a group, each person's individual obligation feels smaller, so everyone waits for someone else to move first. Organisations reproduce this dynamic constantly: a problem that everybody can see is, for that very reason, a problem that nobody feels they specifically should act on.
The wider the agreement that something is wrong, the more diffuse the sense of who ought to fix it.
The same logic shows up in ordinary group effort. Latané, working with Kipling Williams and Stephen Harkins, found that individual effort also declines as group size grows, because each person’s contribution becomes harder to identify and therefore harder to hold to account.
Visibility and ownership turn out to be the conditions under which people often act. And a roomful of people agreeing that something is a problem provides neither.
The intention that never becomes behaviour
A third strand of research addresses the cases in which people genuinely mean to act and still do not. The gap between intending to do something and doing it is one of the findings I personally find most frustrating.
Paschal Sheeran synthesised earlier meta-analyses covering 422 studies and found that intentions matter, but they leave most of the story unexplained: a large share of people who sincerely intend to act do not follow through.
What closes the gap is not stronger intention but more concrete planning.
Peter Gollwitzer and Paschal Sheeran found that forming a specific plan like “If situation Y is encountered, then I will initiate goal‐directed behaviour X” produced a medium-to-large improvement in goal attainment.
The lesson is that the problem-admirer who says “we really should fix this” is operating at a level of abstraction likely to result in nothing happening.
Vague resolve dissolves on contact with a busy day, whereas a plan that pre-decides the moment and manner of action removes the need to summon willpower. It becomes what you do, like a standard operating procedure in everyday life!
This connects to a broader feature of how people manage effort: the brain treats deliberate action as costly and defaults, where it can, to the path of least resistance. William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser demonstrated across a series of experiments that people disproportionately prefer things to stay as they are, even when an alternative is plainly better, simply because changing requires a decision and a justification that staying put does not.
The existing situation, however frustrating, has the considerable advantage of already existing. Acting means accepting the friction and personal exposure that the status quo avoids. This is exactly why the above goal-directed plans are so valuable.
Take a small, accountable step
Accurate diagnosis is necessary. It is just nowhere near sufficient, and the research is clear about why: we overweight the risk of acting, feel less culpable for what we passively allow, assume someone else will step in and let sincere intentions evaporate for want of a concrete plan.
These are default settings of ordinary human behaviour, so the practical implication will sound quite demanding: if inaction is our natural state, then action has to be engineered against the grain of it.
That means:
Giving problems a single named owner rather than a shared audience.
Converting “we should” into a specific commitment about who will do what and when.
Accepting in advance that trying carries a risk of making mistakes.
The people who close this gap are the ones willing to take the small and sometimes awkward first step while everyone else is still admiring the problem.
Enjoyed this piece? Become a paid member and get my Consulting with AI prompt library, the full Asking Questions Like a Pro course ($199 standalone), practical templates from a decade of fieldwork, and discounts on many other resources. 🔗 See everything included in the paid tier.
Every stalled initiative I've seen had a meeting somewhere in its history where everyone agreed on exactly what was wrong.
Diagnosis got treated like progress. Yet, that's where it stopped. Pointing out what's wrong.... not moving toward what's right.
I’m so curious what we hear about this topic from different sectors / communities / workplaces! Speaking from my own (engineering-land) experience, while pointing out a problem is expected and encouraged - not having a proposed solution or at least a start of an idea is looked on as lack of rigor.