The bicycle shed effect

Today I want to talk about the British naval historian and author, C. Northcote Parkinson.  During his career, Parkinson wrote over 60 books, but his most famous was the best-seller Parkinson's Law, which he wrote in 1957.  The book describes what has come to be called, Parkinson's Law which states simply, "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion."  The book was partially based upon an essay that he wrote for The Economist magazine in 1955 (see link here).    

Perhaps less well known is Parkinson's Law of Triviality, his argument that the people within an organization typically give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.  You know what I am talking about if you've ever sat in a meeting discussing critically important topics such as the kind of cake to order for one of the executive's upcoming retirement party.  

The law is also known as the "bicycle shed effect" or "bikeshedding."  Parkinson would explain his "Law of Triviality" with an apocryphal story of a financial committee meeting with a three-point agenda to discuss:

1. A proposal for a $10 million nuclear power plant

2. A proposal for a $350 bike shed

3. A proposal for a $21 annual coffee budget

The committee spends very little time discussing the nuclear power plant - most of the members really don't understand all of the nuances in what is necessary to safely build a nuclear power plant, so they simply accept the proposal at face value.  

The committee moves to the next item on the agenda - the bike shed.  They all know what a bike shed looks like, and perhaps the majority have a bike shed at their house.  Several members join in a very animated discussion on what material to use for the bike shed, what color they should paint it, and on what design the architects should use to build the shed.  The committee spends a longer amount of time discussing the bike shed compared to the nuclear power plant.

Finally, the committee moves on to the third item on the agenda.  By this time, they are all warmed up and ready to get down to serious business.  Now, everyone on the committee has their own opinion on coffee.  "21 dollars seems like too much," says one committee member.  "21 dollars will never be enough," says another.  Before they know it, the meeting runs slightly past its ending time, and the committee agrees to table the discussion for next week.  They end up spending more time on the coffee budget than the nuclear power plant and bike shed combined!

Bikeshedding occurs because the simple topic is often the one that everyone understands and has an opinion to share.  When something as complicated as a nuclear power plant is discussed, the vast majority of us are way out past our comfort zone and will defer to the experts in the room (which usually are the ones making the presentation).  

The problem is that we probably should take more time discussing whether or not to invest in a $10 million nuclear power plant!  It's the decisions around trivial items such as the coffee budget or the bicycle shed that probably should be left to frontline leaders (think the HRO principle of "deference to expertise").  Alternatively, information on these trivial matters can be shared ahead of the meeting as pre-work and discussed only briefly before a decision vote.  Here, the meeting moderator should limit discussion on these items, so that more important decisions can be given the time that they are due.

It's a great story.  And we all have experienced it.  The lesson here is that we shouldn't.

Dirigibles, the Windy City, and the Goldilocks Principle

It's been about nine months since we moved to our new home in the city of Chicago.  Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and global economic shutdown, we've been able to enjoy at least some of what the downtown area has to offer.  For example, earlier this summer we took one of the city's famous architectural boat tours along the Chicago River and the lakefront.  We learned several interesting facts about the history of the city, but a few immediately come to mind.

The city's nickname ("the Windy City") actually has nothing to do with the fact that it can get really windy at times, especially along the lakefront.  Rather, at least according to popular legend, the New York Sun newspaper editor Charles Dana coined the phrase in an 1890 newspaper article (though the article has never been found) when he was referring to the local politicians who were full of a lot of "hot air."  Well there you go.

One of the buildings that makes up the famous "Windy City" skyline looks quite strange, even by architectural standards.  The building is the InterContinental Hotel on the so-called "Magnificent Mile".  The South Tower of the hotel was built in 1929, and it was the original site of the Medinah Athletic Club.  The Medinah Athletic Club was commissioned by the Shriners Organization.  The building contains several friezes depicting scenes from ancient Assyria, Sumeria, Egypt, and Greece, as well as other architectural elements with similar influences, including a gold-painted dome at the top.  The club was home to over 400 guest rooms, an elegant Grand Ballroom, a shooting range, an indoor miniature golf course complete with water hazards and a wandering brook, an archery range, a gymnasium, an indoor running track, and an Olympic sized swimming pool known as the Johnny Weismuller Pool, because the Olympic swimming champion Johhny Weismuller (who later played Tarzan) trained there.  

The Medinah Athletic Club filed for bankruptcy in 1934, and over the course of the next 10 years at a cost of $1 million, it was converted into a hotel.  The gold-painted dome and a small tower immediately adjacent to it are quite unusual in appearance.  I first learned on the architectural boat tour that the tower was originally designed to serve as a mooring site for dirigible airships.  I wasn't quite sure if I believed that or not, but when I looked into it further, I found out that it was true (for a great story, see the link here)!  Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the Medinah Athletic Club had to file for bankruptcy.  They built a facility that would never be used.  As a matter of fact, there has never been a dirigible dock on a skyscraper in the United States.  The architects completely misjudged where the commerical aviation industry was going.

Okay, I know what you are thinking ("Where's he going with all of this?").  There are so many examples of organizations throughout history that have made similar errors in predicting where a particular industry was going.  Whether entering an emerging market or creating a new one altogether, an organization's timing has to be almost perfect.  There is such a thing as a "first mover advantage" where businesses that are the first to bring a new product or innovation to market have a distinct advantage over their competitors.  For example, "first movers" can:

1. Establish their product or service as the industry gold standard

2. Reach customers before their competitors, which can establish brand recognition and brand loyalty

3. Control resources (raw materials, talent, etc)

However, it's not quite that straightforward.  There can be disadvantages to being among the first to enter a market with a new product or service too:

1. The first mover frequently has to invest heavily to try to persuade customers to try their new product or service for the first time.  Later entrants benefit by the fact that customers have already informed about and tried a new product or service.

2. The first mover will inevitably make mistakes - later entrants can learn from these mistakes. 

3. Later entrants can "reverse engineer" new products or make them better or cheaper.

Case in point - the Medinah Athletic Club tried to capitalize on the commercial aviation industry by being one of the first buildings in downtown Chicago to have a mooring station for the dirigible airships that were popular at the time.  However, in their case, they entered too early.  The concept never took off, and they were left with a novelty of history.

Perhaps the so-called Goldilocks Principle applies here.  Just as in the "Three Bears" fairy tale, a "not too early, not too late" approach may be the safest approach.  Rather, timing should be "just right."  Some organizations seem to always get it right.  Most, like the Medinah Athletic Club, do not.  An organization's strategy matters to a great extent here, which is why there are so many business books on strategy out there today.   

I'm really looking forward to learning more about the histroy of this great city.  There's a lot more to learn, and there are a lot more lessons on leadership to be found.

Masks are kind of like marshmallows...

 And once again, the famous Stanford marshmallow study (see also the great New Yorker cartoon here) explains everything!  The Stanford neurobiologist, Robert Sapolsky  reported wrote an opinion piece this past week for CNN's website entitled, "Wearing a mask is like turning down a marshmallow", in which he referred to the famous study on delayed gratification from the the early 1970's.  The study was conducted by the investigators Walter Mischel, Ebbe Ebbesen, and Antonette Zeiss and involved (over time) about 600 preschool-aged children.  Basically the children were placed in a room and told to sit in a chair at a table.  The investigators placed a plate on the table with a special treat - a marshmallow (hence, the name of the experiment), Oreo cookie, or pretzel.  Each child was told that he or she could eat the treat now or wait 15 minutes and get a second treat as well.  A surprisingly small number of children chose to eat the marshmallows immediately, thereby foregoing a chance at a second treat.  Approximately one-third of those children were able to resist the temptation to eat the marshmallow and wait the required time to earn a second treat.  

The results of the follow-up studies showed some really interesting findings that are relevant to the whole mask argument today.  Those children who were able to wait the full 15 minutes for the second treat had higher SAT scores, higher educational attainment, lower body-mass index (BMI) as adults, lower rates of substance abuse and addiction, and greater overall success.  Delayed gratification appears to be an important cognitive skill.

Here is Sapolsky's point.  We are being asked to wear our masks, wash our hands, and socially distance ourselves from each other.  The Thanksgiving holiday is coming up this Thursday (at least in the United States), and the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control is asking us to forego our normal holiday travel and gatherings.  All of this is designed to buy time.  Wearing masks and socially distancing doesn't eliminate the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.  Rather, wearing masks and socially distancing keeps us from getting sick until the day that a vaccine is available.  In other words, wear the mask now and the "reward" will come later - another case of delayed gratification.

I am tempted to make a statement about how some of our leaders in government have made wearing a mask a political issue, but I won't.  I just wonder how these same leaders would have done in the marshmallow experiment as children.  Hmm.  I just wonder.  Check out the New Yorker cartoon again.

The tale of the phantom reference

 I came across a really interesting article on the Internet last week ("The mystery of the phantom reference" by Anne-Wil Harzing).  The article is about a scientific reference to an article that appears on the publisher, Elsevier's website under the author guidelines:

Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., 2000.  The art of writing a scientific article.  J Sci Commun. 163 (2) 51-59.

Just to check out the article, I looked up the reference on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed website.  Nothing.  Occasionally, I've found that references cited in textbook chapters or research articles aren't always correct.  So, I did what I always do in these cases, I looked up the first author.  Nothing.  There are six articles under the author "Van der Geer J" - not one of them refers to anything remotely close to an article on "scientific writing." 

The reason is fairly simple.  The article does not exist.  The kind folks at Elsevier were merely providing an example of how they wanted prospective authors submitting manuscripts to their journals to format their bibliographies.  

Here's the interesting part.  There are apparently almost 400 articles that cite this article in the Web of Science catalog!  Even more citing articles are found in Google Scholar!  The problem here seems clear.  There are authors who are citing this article without necessarily looking at what it says - if they had done so, they would have been unable to find the article itself.  The lesson here - always check your references!

If I were to be completely honest, I haven't alway read through all of the articles I've cited in a manuscript or textbook chapter, but I have at least looked at the abstract.  I have always tried to be careful to be inclusive when citing others' works, while at the same time trying to avoid creating a reference list that is too long.  The physical act of going through each abstract has certainly helped in this regard.

I would also wonder what checks there are for the editorial staffs of journals.  As Anne-Wil Harzing found out upon further investigation, a number of the articles that cited the "phantom reference" were either conference proceedings or articles in low-quality journals.  That certainly begs the question - do we have too many journals now?  Perhaps this would also be a good time to revisit the academic credo of "publish or perish"?  Surely there are better ways of looking at academic productivity in the new Information Age?  

The tale of the phantom reference is an interesting anecdote, a cautious reminder to "always check your references", and perhaps an admonition for academia to revisit the "publish or perish" mindset.  

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

The Gettysburg Address.  If you went to middle school in the United States, there's a really good chance that you had to recite President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in either your civics or social studies class.  It isn't that long, but I remember working hard to memorize it the night before I had to recite it to my teacher (thankfully, he didn't make us recite it in front of the class).  If you want to hear a really great version of someone reciting the Gettysburg Address, check out the actor Jeff Daniel's version here.

The Battle of Gettysburg was a major turning point in the American Civil War.  It was also the deadliest battle in that war.  Most historians estimate that both sides combined suffered between 46,000 to 51,000 casualties during the three days of the battle, July 1-3, 1863 (nearly one-third of all of the soldiers fighting those three days).  The death and destruction that accompanied the battle were still evident on November 19, 1863, when President Lincoln delivered his famous address to commemorate the battle and dedicate the new Soldier's National Cemetery there.  

Lincoln wasn't even the principal speaker that day.  Edward Everett, the politician, educator, and diplomat from Massachusetts was widely known to be one of the finest orators in America at the time, and it was his speech that was to be the actual "Gettysburg Address" on that day.  Everett's address was over 13,000 words and began with:

Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, the mighty Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren beneath our feet, it is with hesitation that I raise my poor voice to break the eloquent silence of God and Nature. But the duty to which you have called me must be performed;—grant me, I pray you, your indulgence and your sympathy.

The speech ended almost two hours later with the following:

But they, I am sure, will join us in saying, as we bid farewell to the dust of these martyr-heroes, that wheresoever throughout the civilized world the accounts of this great warfare are read, and down to the latest period of recorded time, in the glorious annals of our common country, there will be no brighter page than that which relates the Battles of Gettysburg.

President Lincoln then stepped up to deliver his address.  He was a little weak, as he had developed a mild case of smallpox the week before his speech.  He spoke for just a few minutes, summarizing the entire war in just ten sentences.  Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has gone down in history as perhaps one of the greatest speeches ever made.  

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

When he finished, he returned to his seat.  Everett reportedly told him, "I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."

Today, we celebrate Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  I hope that the teachers still make their students memorize it.  But more importantly, we would do well to live by it.

"There's no team without trust"

Paul Santagata, Head of Industry at Google, said, "There's no team without trust."  Google conducted a study in which they interviewed over 200 Googlers (as Google employees are commonly known) and examined more than 250 attributes of nearly 200 different Google teams over a 2 year study period.  They wanted to find out what makes a Google team effective?  What they found may surprise you.

As it turns out, "who is on a team" matters a whole lot less than you think.  What's really important is how the different team members interact.  One of the most important variables was something called psychological safety.  Timothy Clark (not at Google) defines four stages of psychological safety, in which humans feel (1) included, (2) safe to learn, (3) safe to contribute, and (4) safe to challenge the status quo.  

Let's break those four stages down.  First, everyone wants to have a sense of belonging or to be part of a group.  As Clark states, "The need to be accepted often precedes the need to be heard."  We want to be included.  Recall one of my old posts about the "Jeep Wave" ("Why didn't you tell me about the Jeep Wave?").  I felt really great the first time a fellow Jeep Wrangler driver passed me and gave me a wave - it's great to share a group identity with others.  Similarly, when we bring others into our group, we in turn give them a sense of identity and belonging.  That builds respect and trust.  And psychological safety depends upon mutual respect and trust.

Second, we are all lifelong learners.  Learning new knowledge and skills sometimes means that we will fail.  We can't have learning without failing at least once or twice.  When we learn that failing is okay, especially when we are part of a group, we become more comfortable with taking risks.  We stretch our limits a little, and we push others in the group to do as well.  Taking risks means that we will fail at times, and when we realize that failing is perfectly acceptable, we further build a psychologically safe environment.

Third, we all want to contribute.  We need to contribute.  Sharing our knowledge with the other members in our group, and in turn recognizing the knowledge and skills of those members is the essence of teamwork.  Again, if we aren't willing to take some risks - in other words, if we are stuck in the previous stage of psychological safety - we won't be comfortable stepping up to contribute to the group.  Google conducted another study, which they called Project Oxygen in which they found that the most effective team leaders are the ones who empower the team and don't try to micromanage.  We don't like to be micromanaged, because we want to contribute.  

The last stage of psychological safety occurs when we are willing to challenge the status quo.  When we reach this particular stage, we feel empowered to speak up, to dissent, and to respectfully disagree.  Speaking up or speaking out takes a great deal of courage, and if we don't feel like we are in a psychologically safe environment, we just won't do so.  If members of the group don't feel comfortable challenging the status quo or disagreeing with the leader, we end up with groupthink. 

Psychological safety is incredibly important, and it may be one of the most important characteristics found in so-called high reliability organizations.  Given all of what we know about high-performing teams, it may be one of the most important determinants of team chemistry and team culture.  Google was absolutely right - "who is on a team matters less than how the team members interact, structure their work, and view their contributions."  

Happy Veteran's Day 2020

 It's been an incredible year - and I don't necessarily use the word "incredible" in a good way!  I don’t want to get political, but I think all of you would agree that we are at a unique time in our nation’s history.  I don’t think that there has ever been a time in my lifetime that we’ve been so fractured as a society.  COVID-19 has both highlighted that fact and magnified it.  

I remain optimistic that we will get through this though.  I heard Chicago's Mayor give a speech today, and she said that veterans have always placed country over self.  As I thought about it more, I realized she is exactly right.  Unfortunately, with all that is going on, it seems like that willingness to place country over self is a rare thing in today’s world.

I can't help but think of the famous song "This Land is Your Land" by the late folk singer, Woody Guthrie.  He apparently wrote the song in response to Irving Berlin's song, "God Bless America."  Bruce Springsteen called it one of the greatest songs ever written.  

This land is your land, this land is my land

From California to the New York Island

From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and me.

As I was walking that ribbon of highway

I saw above me that endless skyway

I saw below me that golden valley

This land was made for you and me.

I roamed and I rambled and I followed my footsteps

To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts

While all around me a voice was sounding

This land was made for you and me.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling

And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling

A voice was chanting, As the fog was lifting,

This land was made for you and me.

This land is your land, this land is my land

From California to the New York Island

From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and me.

It's a beautiful song that says that the land belongs to all of us.  Not just Republicans, not just Democrats.  Our country should be a country for everyone.  We will always have our differences, but we should never let those differences forget that we are stronger, together.  We will go farther, together.  We will be greater, together.

Country over self.  I am reassured that there are individuals still in this world who are willing to do so.  That, more than anything, gives me great hope for the future.  It only took Veteran’s Day to remind me.