Spend Your Time on the Things That Matter: A Story About a Nuclear Power Plant vs. a Bicycle Shed

Sitting in a utilitarian beige room on those uncomfortable chairs that are often found in government offices, a committee of eleven civil servants sat hunched over copies of a large, seemingly never-ending 400-page document. The first topic up for discussion is a proposal for the construction of a 90 billion dollar nuclear power plant.

The chair of the committee has just completed an extremely thorough and lucid argument outlining the pros and cons for the current design, and now it is the job of the committee to deliberate and vote on the proposal. As you may have guessed, a nuclear power plant is an extremely complex system. You would also be correct in assuming that the decision to build one should require a lot of time and deep deliberation based on an understanding of the complexities of nuclear engineering.

Sadly, none of the committee members have any experience with nuclear reactor design, and most are not even engineers. Even more unfortunate, a fear of appearing unknowledgeable prevents everyone in the room from voicing any concerns. In fact it took less than ten minutes for all the committee members to vote in favor of the design.

The next topic up for discussion was a proposal for a ten thousand dollar bike shed that would house the bicycles for the nuclear power plant’s employees. This was a much simpler topic to discuss as each committee member could easily visualize what a bike shed typically looks like and how it should function. However because the proposal was so simple, every committee member felt empowered to provide their own subjective input into the design of the structure. For hours, they debated colors, building materials, and even signage.

Once the meeting was adjourned, the chair of the committee reviewed the minutes. She was taken aback when she realized that the committee spent over 20 times the amount of time to discuss the bike shed compared to the much more important and complex nuclear power plant proposal.

Members of an organization give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.

Though the topics were different, chances are, you have encountered a similar experience in a meeting or discussion with your colleagues. If so, you aren’t the only one. In fact this phenomenon was observed and recorded back in the 1950s by C. Northcote Parkinson, a British naval historian. It became part of a larger concept that was coined as Parkinson’s Law, or the Law of Triviality. If this sounds familiar that’s because I wrote a blog post about it a few weeks back.

Through observation, Parkinson discovered that members of an organization give disproportionate weight to trivial issues because they are easier to grasp. He found that the more complex a topic, the less likely people were to discuss it for fear of appearing unknowledgeable. This leads to meeting fatigue (or disdain), and a general inability to move the needle forward.

Thankfully, the solution to this phenomenon, often referred to as bikeshedding, is really quite simple. The next time you are in a meeting, stop for a moment and consider whether or not the important topics are being discussed thoroughly before you move on to the less-important issues. If not, then say something. It’s highly probable that others are thinking the same thing, and by speaking up, you’ll have the opportunity to practice your leadership skills.

If you are leading a meeting, then it is your job to prevent bikeshedding.

When running a meeting, be prepared with an outline and agenda complete with an estimation of time for each topic. Moderate the discussion so that the important topics are thoroughly covered before moving on to the easier, but less important, issues. Don’t assume that everyone is on the same page as you. Make sure people ask questions. Finally, don’t be afraid to table a topic so that people can go away to learn more about it before an important decision is made. Remember, the goal is not to simply make a decision, it is to make the best and most well-informed decision possible.