The Bicycle shed effect - The "why" of meaningless meetings

I came across something interesting.

In 1957, Parkinson's Law was introduced. It highlighted how work expands to fill the available time - all of us possibly know about it.

However, a lesser-known aspect of this law is Parkinson's Law of Triviality.

It can be explained with a simple example:

Let's assume a typical office, where a meeting with 5 people is planned.

Prior to the meeting, three agenda points are presented:

A. Approval for a 10 million dollar nuclear reactor

B. Approval for a 350 dollar bicycle shed for workmen (and women)

C. Approval for a 21 dollar refreshments budget for the Welfare committee

Seven people that are a part of the meeting take a seat.

The meeting begins with the discussion on the nuclear reactor.

The 10 million dollar nuclear contract gets approved in 2.5 minutes.

Why?

Because it is found to be too technical and difficult to comment on.

People thought the amount was too huge and the technical team would have, thus, done their due diligence. One person in the meeting, tries to raise a contrarian view - but soon realizes that it was of no use, because nobody could understand his point of view. Before much deliberation, the contract is approved.

Next on the agenda is the bicycle shed. Since bicycles are familiar to everyone, the discussion becomes lengthy and detailed.

The People & Culture team speaks of how giving a bicycle shed demonstrates a culture of care. The Employee Engagement Lead speaks volumes on how it gives a message to join back to work (from office). The Finance Lead speaks of how he parks his bicycle outside daily and why having the shed inside isn't a need at all!

The discussion then moves to the metal that should be used - is asbestos more economic than aluminum? Can it save the company 50 dollars?

The discussion eventually moves to the color of the shed - should it be red or yellow? How to align it with the brand?guidelines of the organization?

After an hour of discussion, a yellow bicycle shed made of asbestos is approved, saving a mere 50 USD.

Everyone is very happy because they have saved 50 USD.

The final agenda item is the refreshments budget for the Welfare Committee. This triggers heated debates on whether tea or coffee should be offered. Green tea enthusiasts stress on how green tea helps have a healthy lifestyle.

Even those who remained silent during the bicycle shed discussion suddenly offer their opinions.

After an hour of deliberation, the team eventually settles on a 21 USD budget for coffee.

However, to make the decision more relevant, it is decided to conduct a survey amongst employees to gather their preferences, which would be followed by another meeting to discuss the survey results.

How familiar does this situation sound?

How many meetings have you attended where such discussions occurred?

I'm sure it's likely more than you'd care to admit.

We often spend a significant amount of time on trivial matters we feel comfortable with, rather than focusing on important issues that we may not fully grasp.

This phenomenon is known as the "bicycle shed effect".

I confess to being guilty of it myself.

There are some things which help me avoid falling into this trap:

1. Simplifying and explaining complex topics, such as the nuclear reactor contract, using plain language and concise explanations (if I were the one supposed to cover that agenda point)

2. If I find myself in a meeting dominated by discussions on bicycle sheds or coffee budgets, I attempt to pause and redirect the conversation back to the main agenda (sometimes I do succeed :P)

3. If I'm in a meeting discussing nuclear reactors or any topic I'm unfamiliar with, I try to take proactive steps to educate myself beforehand. Requesting pre-read materials and making an effort to understand helps.

The bicycle shed will always capture our collective imagination.

How are you contributing to discussions on nuclear reactors and other crucial subjects?