Have you ever been in a meeting where there was an intense debate about coffee but complex, difficult discussions were breezed over?
Opinion: It was just an everyday, normal board meeting. One when debate about the venue for Christmas lunch or brand of coffee stocked in the kitchen took the longest time of any agenda item.
I’ve even heard of a board of a large company spending an hour talking about teaspoons in the staff kitchen.
It’s called bike shedding or the law of triviality. The time spent on any agenda item will be in inverse proportion to the money or importance involved.
READ MORE:
* Correcting some wrong impressions of being on a board
* Inside our boardroom black boxes
Cyril Parkinson, who coined the phrase, used the example of a meeting that had three agenda items: build a $10 million nuclear plant; build a $350 bike shed; and allocate a $50 office coffee budget.
Parkinson argued that the team raced through the decision on the nuclear power plant and spent the bulk of the meeting on the other two agenda items. Everyone would leave the meeting feeling like they added value.
The worst time for meaty strategy decision-making is when everyone is looking at their watches, thinking about their flights home
Have you ever been in that meeting where trivial matters were intensely debated but complex, difficult discussions breezed over?
If something is comprehensible, such as a bike shed or coffee, we all pile in. When a topic is outside of our circle of competence, we engage less intensely. We risk making poor decisions and wasting valuable board time on things that don’t matter much.
In my work with boards, I see the ramifications: a focus on tangible, operational decisions, rather than strategy conversations; glossing over critical risks that no board member fully understands, for example cybersecurity; or having superficial, quick conversations about substantive, uncomfortable issues such as equity.
From the boardroom, the world still seems uncertain: perfect conditions for bike shedding our way through meetings.
Having a clear purpose for meetings and allocated time for agenda items is an antidote.
Putting the strategic topics as the first agenda items, when everyone is fresh, works well too. If you need more time for discussion, you have the rest of the meeting to catch up. The worst time for meaty strategy decision-making is when everyone is looking at their watches, thinking about their flights home.
It's critical too that meeting participants have the right information and access to expert analysis. When discussing that nuclear power plant, I’m sure all of us would want access to the best expert knowledge.
If bike shedding is happening in a meeting, the chair can re-focus board members. If the discussion is knees-deep in coffee brands, call it out as something that management can decide off-line.
A great chair is the best defence against bike shedding. The chair needs to be able to step aside from the weeds of a debate and with respect, and good humour, pull the board back to the substantial issues.
If it's engrained board behaviour, it might be time for some board development or a board performance evaluation to discuss how to be more effective.
But more than ever, we need boards focusing on the critical risks and opportunities for their organisations. Not in the weeds of coffee brands and colours of bike sheds; least not the number of teaspoons in the kitchen.
