The Phenomena of Bikeshedding

Have you ever been in a meeting where a seemingly simple decision turned into a lengthy and heated discussion? You may have witnessed a classic example of bikeshedding.

I remember, when I first started my corporate career in the 1980s, I was in a large room with around 10 people, where the brand manager was presenting his bran plan for the year. As the management trainees, we had helped him prepare that plan, including budgeting. I recall that since the brand had very low sale, only one merchandised shop in an upper class area was planned, which in those days costs something like Rs2,500. Believe me that was the only expenditure in the outdoor section of the budget, which also had television and newspaper advertising, which was in high multiples of that amount.

On top of that the expenditure was placed in a month, which did not see TV or press advertising two months before or after that expense. As such, when the budget was shown on the slide this expense stood out.

The presentation took some five hours and for four-and-a-half of those the general manager marketing in the presence of the director marketing, as well, proceeded to question why that amount was needed and what impact it would create. In majority of that discussion, the general manager related how they would make at least 20 of such merchandised shops to create an impact.

I wondered then that the TV and press advertising for such a low selling brand was more questionable considering the huge amount that was not going to generate a sale. But that was approved with hardly any discussion. But that one shop expense consumed almost the entire presentation with the stories from the past and questions of how it would be done and what material would be used and the quality of it.

Not just that there was hardly any discussion on the brand strategy and how to get it out of a niche market into a mass seller.

Bikeshedding is a common phenomenon that plagues group decision-making, causing groups to get stuck discussing minor details, while ignoring more important issues. This can lead to wasted time, delays and poor decision-making.

One of the main reasons why bikeshedding occurs is that the people tend to be more confident discussing minor issues that they feel they understand well, as was the case with the GM who had risen up mainly from the sales and had been putting up shops in the majority of his career.

In contrast, more significant issues can be intimidating and complex, leading to a lack of action or reluctance to make decisions. Additionally, the people may feel pressure to contribute and demonstrate their value in a group setting, leading to excessive (and almost always unnecessary) discussions on minor details.

The term “bikeshedding” comes from a story in the book “The Mythical Man-Month” by Frederick Brooks.

In the story, a committee tasked with approving plans for a nuclear power plant, spent a significant amount of time discussing the design of a bikeshed, while the crucial and complex details of the power plant were left untouched. Bringing out that tendency of the people to focus on minor details, while ignoring more significant issues.

In a business or organisational setting, bikeshedding can lead to decision-making paralysis and delay the progress and can result in unnecessary discussions and debates. It can be especially problematic in situations, where there is a lack of expertise or knowledge, as the people tend to rely on their opinions and preferences rather than objective facts.

It happens at all levels and I have had at least two instances, where in a board meeting, I, as the chief executive officer, had to justify at length why I wanted to change, at slight incremental cost, the models of mobile phones used by the sales people that were shown in the budget, while there was hardly any discussion (that I had foreseen) on a shift in the institutional sales strategy that had been in place since the start of the company many years ago.

Bikeshedding can also be a symptom of group dynamics. When the people are working in a group, they may feel pressure to contribute and demonstrate their values. If you allow bikeshedding, be prepared for several disadvantages not just in that meeting but beyond it also, as the discussion can get extended for days and are often irrelevant and wastage of time.

How specifically does it harm? Here are some of the more significant downsides:

Time and resource waste

When a group spends excessive time and effort discussing minor or trivial issues, they may lose the sight of more critical and time-sensitive problems. This can result in delays, missed deadlines and wasted resources.

Lack of progress

Bikeshedding can also lead to a lack of progress, as the group may stuck on minor issues and fail to make decisions on more significant matters.

Poor decision-making

Focusing on minor details can lead to a lack of attention to important factors that may affect the quality of the decision. This can result in poor decision-making and negative outcomes.

Frustration and disengagement

When a group spends too much time discussing minor issues, the members may become frustrated, disengaged, and less motivated to participate in the future discussions.

Group polarisation

Bikeshedding can lead to a group polarisation, where the people become more entrenched in their views and less willing to compromise or consider alternative perspectives. This can lead to conflicts and impede progress.

To avoid the negative effects of bikeshedding, it is essential to be aware of its existence and take steps to mitigate its impact.

To do that it is essential to understand what causes bikeshedding and how can the groups overcome this habit to make more effective decisions?

One effective approach is to establish clear goals and priorities at the outset of a project or meeting. This can help keep the group focused on the most critical issues and prevent the people from becoming distracted by minor details.

Another approach is to assign the responsibility for decisions to individuals who have the necessary expertise or knowledge. This can help prevent the group members from feeling like they need to contribute to every aspect of the discussion and allow them to focus on their area of expertise.

I did that when I was the CEO and ensures that if we were in a monthly meeting, someone with little knowledge of say, product development, would not be given the floor on what we should be developing. Yes, he would have the right to bring up a point even if he was the powerful head of finance, as good ideas can come from anywhere. But if he started to question why we were using a certain ingredient when there was a cheaper version available, I would make the call and close the discussion, as he had no idea what ramifications an inferior ingredient would have on the product.

Also, establish ground rules for discussions, including time limits and guidelines for staying on topic. This can help prevent discussions from derailing and becoming unproductive.

Also try and use a structured decision-making process: This can help the group stay focused on the most important issues and prevent discussions from becoming sidetracked. For example, using a decision matrix can help prioritise the factors that are most critical to the decision.

Encourage critical thinking on the decisions that will impact the future of the company. Encourage the group to engage in critical thinking, question assumptions and challenge conventional wisdom. This can help prevent the groupthink and encourage the group to consider all angles of the decision. Just make sure it is on the bigger picture rather than on whether to merchandise that shop and how.

So yes, it is also essential to establish ground rules for discussions, including time limits and guidelines for staying on topic. This can help prevent discussions from derailing and becoming unproductive.

In conclusion just remember; bikeshedding is a common phenomenon in group decision-making that can hinder progress and lead to unproductive discussions. By understanding the causes of bikeshedding and implementing strategies to mitigate its impact, teams and organisations can improve decision-making and achieve their goals more efficiently.

(The writer is a corporate consultant, coach and former CEO with over 35 years of experience in leadership, building brands and organisational strategy. He now advises on business strategy, marketing, human resource and media management)