Law of Triviality
The Law of Triviality, also known as Parkinson's Law of Triviality, describes a phenomenon where people give disproportionate weight and time to trivial issues while neglecting more complex and critical matters. This cognitive bias leads to decision-makers focusing on simple tasks that are easy to understand and discuss, rather than tackling the more significant issues that require deeper analysis.
How it works
In a decision-making process, individuals and groups may face both complicated and straightforward issues. The Law of Triviality proposes that people tend to spend more time and energy on matters that are simple to grasp and discuss, often those that have little impact, because these issues are less intimidating and provide a sense of quick accomplishment. In contrast, more complex issues that may require more expertise, effort, and potential conflict might be side-stepped or given minimal attention.
Examples
A classic example is a committee spending hours discussing the color to paint a bicycle shed while glossing over the substantial details of an expansive power plant project. Similarly, in business meetings, discussions might focus extensively on minor details such as the choice of fonts in a presentation while major strategic decisions receive less attention.
Consequences
This cognitive bias can lead to inefficiency in organizational decision-making, resource misallocation, and poor prioritization, as energy is wasted on inconsequential details at the expense of critical issues that might shape the future of projects or organizations.
Counteracting
To counteract the Law of Triviality, organizations can set clear priorities, emphasize the importance of big-picture thinking, and provide training in critical thinking and decision-making. Encouraging structured agendas that allocate appropriate time to complex issues and limiting discussions on trivial matters can also mitigate this bias.
Critiques
Critics argue that while the Law of Triviality offers insights into decision-making inefficiencies, the binary distinction between 'trivial' and 'important' issues is not always clear-cut. Certain simple tasks might hold symbolic importance or contribute indirectly to organizational culture and morale, and thus their discussion should not be uniformly dismissed as trivial.
Also known as
Relevant Research
Irrationality: The enemy within
Sutherland, N. (1981)
Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress
Parkinson, C. Northcote. (1957)
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Law of Triviality manifests in practice
Context
A rapidly scaling fintech startup served 1.2 million customers and was preparing for a Series C funding round. The executive team juggled product polish, branding, and an expanding regulatory compliance load as they entered new markets.
Situation
At the monthly executive offsite, leadership devoted two full days to debating minor UI and branding choices—logo color, iconography, and font hierarchy—while the compliance team privately flagged an unresolved anti-money laundering (AML) configuration issue affecting cross-border transactions. The technical team had proposed a three-week remediation plan requiring budget approval that was repeatedly postponed.
The Bias in Action
Decision-makers fixated on trivial, visible changes that were easy to understand and argue about, spending hours and multiple votes on aesthetics. Because those topics allowed quick, unanimous opinions they dominated the agenda and felt productive. The AML problem, by contrast, was complex, technical, and required trade-offs in budget and roadmap priorities, so it repeatedly got deferred. This imbalance of attention and energy is a clear case of the Law of Triviality: the organization gave outsized time to simple, easy-to-discuss items while neglecting the critical, harder-to-parse issue.
Outcome
Six weeks later a routine audit by a partner bank uncovered suspicious transaction flows that exploited the AML configuration gap. Regulators issued enforcement actions, the startup incurred fines and remediation costs, and investor confidence dropped just before the planned funding round.