Sergio Caredda
The Law of Triviality, also known as Parkinson’s Law of Triviality, is the second concept that was introduced by Cyril Northcote Parkinson in his 1957 book Parkinson’s Law, and Other Studies in Administration.
Whereas the Parkinson’s Law focuses on the relationship between time available and work at both the personal and organisational level, this law looks at decision-making processes.
The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to its importance. C. N. Parkinson (1957)
Parkinson observed that people in organizations often spend disproportionate amounts of time discussing trivial issues while neglecting more significant and complex matters. This tendency arises because trivial issues are easier for everyone to understand and engage with, while more critical issues, which may require specialized knowledge or involve more risk, are often overlooked or rushed through.
- Key Implications of the Law of Triviality
- 1. Focus on Trivial Issues:
- 2. Avoidance of Complexity:
- 3. Impact on Decision Quality:
- 4. Group Dynamics and Decision-Making:
- 5. Outcomes and Organisation Decisions:
- Applications and Countermeasures:
- 1. Agenda Setting:
- 2. Facilitation:
- 3. Pre-Meeting Preparation:
- 4. Decision-Making Frameworks:
- 5. Governance Model Alignment:
- Conclusion
- Comments and Feedbacks
- References
Bikeshedding is another common term for this law. It originates from Parkinson's observation of a committee organized to approve plans for a nuclear power plant. As Parkinson noted, the committee devoted a disproportionate amount of time to relatively unimportant details — such as the materials for a bicycle storage shed — which limited the time available to focus on the design of the nuclear plant.
Why would this be of interest for organisation design? Because it severely impacts decision-making, particularly when this happens in specific formats (such as committees, Parkinson himself dedicates a chapter of his book to what he names as “comitology”). The process itself of Organization Design is often affected by triviality, whereby discussions often happens more on details of individual tasks, rather than on design principles or strategic choices. Besides impacting on meetings and committee decision-making, this law often impacts also the outputs of some decisions. As we design a new team, for example, it is often visible that it’s easier to decide upon the more basic roles than the strategic ones. This effectively leads to bias in the design process, where the more strategic choices are delayed, or not discussed at the right level of depth.
Key Implications of the Law of Triviality
Let’s see the impacts of this law into decision-making process.
1. Focus on Trivial Issues:
The law suggests that in meetings or decision-making processes, participants are more likely to spend time discussing minor, easy-to-grasp topics rather than addressing more substantial and challenging issues. This can lead to inefficient use of time and resources, with the most important decisions receiving less attention than they deserve.
Example: In a corporate meeting, the team might spend a significant amount of time debating the color of a new product’s packaging, which everyone feels comfortable discussing, while the more critical issue of the product’s overall market strategy receives minimal attention.
2. Avoidance of Complexity:
Participants in a decision-making process may avoid complex or technical topics because they are harder to understand, more controversial, or riskier. This avoidance leads to a focus on simpler, less important matters, where everyone can contribute without fear of making a mistake.
Example: A board meeting might allocate excessive time to discussing the purchase of a new coffee machine for the office (a topic everyone can relate to) while glossing over a complex financial report that requires more specialized knowledge.
3. Impact on Decision Quality:
When trivial matters dominate the discussion, the quality of decision-making on more significant issues suffers. Important decisions may be made hastily or without the necessary depth of consideration, leading to suboptimal outcomes.
Example: A city council might spend hours discussing the design of a park bench while quickly approving a multi-million dollar infrastructure project with minimal scrutiny.
4. Group Dynamics and Decision-Making:
The Law of Triviality can be exacerbated by group dynamics, where individuals may feel more comfortable discussing topics they perceive as within their competence. This can lead to groupthink, where the group collectively focuses on less important issues while ignoring critical ones.
Example: In a team meeting, the group might collectively spend more time on less important tasks, like organizing a team outing, because it’s more engaging and less contentious than addressing significant project risks.
5. Outcomes and Organisation Decisions:
When trivial matters dominate discussions, a direct consequence may be the fact that agreement is found more on less relevant issues rather than the more strategic ones (which end up not to be discussed). In an Organisation Design process this often leads to decisions being taken around the edges of the organization, rather than on the core or more strateic topics.
Example: In a restructuring project, instead of questioning the need of an entire department (which would require more consequential discussions), the project team decides to redesign a number of trivial processes and suppress a few frontline roles.
Applications and Countermeasures:
What can we do to counteract the impacts of this law?
1. Agenda Setting:
Prioritize important items on the meeting agenda and allocate time accordingly. Ensure that the most critical issues are discussed when participants are fresh and focused, and limit the time spent on less important matters.
2. Facilitation:
Effective meeting facilitation can help keep discussions on track and ensure that complex or significant issues receive the attention they deserve. The facilitator should be prepared to redirect the conversation if it strays toward trivial matters.
3. Pre-Meeting Preparation:
Encourage participants to prepare for meetings by reviewing materials and thinking critically about the more complex issues on the agenda. This can help reduce the tendency to focus on trivialities during the meeting.
4. Decision-Making Frameworks:
Implement decision-making frameworks that emphasize the importance of prioritizing critical issues. Techniques such as the Eisenhower Matrix or other prioritization tools can help keep the focus on what truly matters.
5. Governance Model Alignment:
Do not decouple decision-making forum for projects and initiatives. Way too often the creation of ad-hoc steering committees for specific initiatives becomes, de-facto, a licence to expand trivial discussions, rather than aligning on a disciplined approach to who takes decisions about what.
The Laws of Organisation Design
- Conway’s Law and Intentional Design
- Parkinson’s Law
- Law of Triviality
- Goodhart’s Law
- Brooks’s Law
- Hackman’s Law
- Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior
- De Geus’s Law 🆕
- Metcalfe’s Law 🆕
- The Law of Constraints 🆕
- The Pareto Principle 🆕
- Law of Requisite Variety
- Law of Alignment
Conclusion
The Law of Triviality highlights a common pitfall in organisational decision-making: the disproportionate focus on trivial issues at the expense of more significant and complex matters. By recognising this tendency, you can prevent bias in decision-making, and ensure you don’t create separate decision making structures that would only increase the relevance of triviality in decision making.
Comments and Feedbacks
References
Read More
Related posts
Recent Posts
