Roundabouts vs Intersections — what can we learn and apply to new ways of working in organisations
The idea of letting teams operate in a self-organised ways is core to thinking of new ways of working. However, the notion usually sends shivers down the spines of conventional managers. You get responses so vivid in descriptions of anarchy, rivers of blood flowing down the alleyways of regulators, banks losing license to operate … basically total chaos!
Hence, it is useful to point out that several examples of self-organised ways in our real lives and we are just too oblivious to them. The truth is that we are already self-organised in many ways in our day to day lives and there is no better example than the ubiquitous (at least in Europe) roundabouts to manage the flow of traffic.
In contrast, USA prefers intersections controlled by traffic lights. Recently, some of the cities in the US, such as Carmel, Indiana have started adopting roundabouts and their adoption story provide fascinating insights into culture and resistance to change. For most people who have adopted new ways (round abouts), their beauty is self-evident as it works flawlessly, as long as the participants follow the rules of the game.
About 9 years back, the city of Carmel started replacing its traffic light-controlled intersections with roundabouts. The initial results were very encouraging achieving outcomes such as financial savings due to lower fuel consumption and increased safety. For instance, a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggested an average 40% decrease in all accidents and a 90% drop in fatal ones. Overall, the view is that roundabouts are safer, efficient, and sustainable to environment. (However, more recent news reports show a lot more complicated and layered view of the success and a healthy debate on the numbers)
The purpose of the post is not to go down the rabbit hole of urban planning and transportation, but instead learn from the adoption itself. Clearly, the adoption was(is?) not a smooth affair at Carmel as there was initial scepticism.
Some of the challenges to adoption were:
· Driver behaviour and local circumstances can differ in various places
· Education and awareness to new drivers who drive into town was still critical
· Ongoing refinement — Some cities continue to fine tune their adoption by including measures such as lower speed limits on vehicles entering the roundabouts
· Cultural factors — some say there are deeper cultural factors (no surprises there!) at play such as the American psyche which is fundamentally based on freedom and individualism, where spontaneous co-operation is difficult, and regimentation is resisted. Dan Neil a motoring correspondent at the Wall Street Journal describes it aptly — “We like right angles, yes and no answers, … Roundabouts require more subtlety than we’re used to.”
· Boundaries of explicit policies — Even roundabouts work as long as the participants follow the explicit policies — such as a mandatory “Give way” rule for cars entering. People familiar with driving on British roads especially during the school rush hours are painfully aware of a small number of “rule breakers” causing a temporary state of instability in the system (usually means a few car horns) before a steady state returns.
So, are there lessons to be learnt from the roundabout business for those of us trying to usher in new ways of working in traditional enterprises?
Sources:
1. Carmel roundabouts were supposed to reduce crashes. It hasn’t worked out that way — https://eu.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/carmel/2019/12/01/roundabouts-carmel-indiana-traffic-safety-crashes-increase/2312652001/
2. Is the British roundabout conquering the US? — https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13863498