Humans tend to devote the most time to that which requires the least. The unimportant details easily attract our attention, and the crucial matters go all but ignored. British naval historian and author Cyril Northcote Parkinson referred to this lack of assiduity as “bikeshedding”.

If we imagine a committee convened to approve plans for a nuclear power plant - in their two-hour meeting, they use three-quarters of it on deciding the aesthetic of the bicycle storage shed, the rest on what colour they should paint it. As everyone leaves the meeting, contented that they each shared an opinion, there is no agreement on whether the plans for the plant are adequate.

When is a topic is advanced and required genuine skill and expertise, it could only ever receive less of the unknowledgeable appointees’ time. The problem is with the committee, not human nature. Before a meeting begins, the purpose must be clear in the participants’ minds, and there must be a measure of success against which they can assess the outcome of the meeting. They should use this planning as a guide to select the appropriate people to join the discussions.

It is also pivotal to a meeting’s success to select a figurehead who has the final say, weighing the merits of each argument. Not only does this remove the all too likely possibility that they reach no consensus, but it also creates a person who must take responsibility for the result. This added skin in the game is crucial.