C. Northcote Parkinson (no relation to the disease) was an English author that has written several books describing several behavioral observations esp. as it relates to the business environment. He was the one that coined the phrase that "work will expand to the length of time required to complete it" meaning that if a project is given a schedule, people will work to the schedule's complete length, not to the work's completion. Another of his ideas has to do with what he considers the
Law of Triviality (or Parkinson's Law of Triviality). This adage states that more people will be passionately involved in a debate the more trivial the topic is. The law is also called "Bike Shedding" as a tongue-and-cheek nod to one of the more famous examples that Parkinson often used to explain his observation. The story goes that there is a business meeting to discuss the construction of a nuclear power plant in some city. The meeting itinerary includes a list of 3 items for topic during the meeting: 1) the feasibility of constructing the $1-billion plant, 2) discussion of creating a bicycle shed for the plant's employees, 3) and the design of the plant's stationary logo. The meeting begins with the first topic of the feasibility of the entire project; as most of the people in this meeting have underlings that know the specifics of material costs, environmental impact studies, legalities, etc. the people in the meeting just assume that their underlings have done the proper research, so this part of the meeting goes rather quickly with very little discussion before a final vote is taken to start the plant's construction. The 2nd topic about the bike shed lasts a little longer, however. Since everyone in the meeting can imagine what a bike shed is, everyone feels that they have something "important" that they can add to the discussion. However as the discussion turns from the size of the shed (something everyone can provide input for) to something a little more esoteric like the material that should be used for the shed, fewer people chime in, and shortly thereafter the vote is taken effectively silencing any more debate on this topic. The final topic of the meeting is about the company's logo that has already been designed and approved; the final bit of detail remaining on the topic is whether the dot above the letter "i" should be colored blue or green. Since there is nothing specific that people in the meeting need to know in order to make a comment about this topic, everyone is therefore an "expert" in deciding which color to use. Everyone has their own opinion, and because opinions are related to personal feelings, everyone thinks their ideal is the "best" and those that criticize the idea are being mean to the person. As such, everyone has a lot to talk about this topic, at times with heated debates between some of the meeting's members. After going on for several hours, the discussion is tabled until the next meeting so that the members can research the topic more in-depth. In other words, for topics that are more complex (and are usually more important for the success of the actual project), the fewer people will have knowledge of all the information needed to make an effective decision and therefore fewer people will feel the necessity to give their 2-cents, while topics that require very little actual knowledge and rely more upon personal feelings will have more people talking about the topic even though in the grand scope of things the topic is less important to the overall success of the project.
I've noticed some of these things myself when looking at the different topics in the FC forums.... Some topics that are more opinion oriented (eg "How Do You Like Your Eggs Cooked?") tend to have more members making a comment in the thread than those topics that require more thought and knowledge behind it (eg "The Motive for the Pulse Nightclub Shooting"). Also, some topics are phrased in a certain way so as to use Parkinson's Law to gain more discussion on a topic. For example, notice that I didn't title this topic as "Is Parkinson's Law an Actual Phenomenon?" but rather asked if FC expresses this law of triviality. Were I to use the former title for my topic, people would a) have to have a decent understanding of the law and b) be able to describe situations where they have seen this occur. But since everyone reading the FC forums have some opinion about the forums, by positioning my question in relation to an opinion that all readers should have at least a general / gut feeling for, more FC members may be inclined to respond.
Community Forum
Topic: Is FC a Microcosum of Parkinson's Law? (Read 361 times)