In a culture of accumulation, the value of taking things away is often overlooked. As I listened to this short Atlantic podcast featuring Professor Leidy KlotzI from University of Virginia (author of Subtract: The Untapped Science of Less) I was reminded of a couple of things about the challenge of subtraction.
Firstly, when it comes to designing solutions the temptation is always to add layers of complexity. Craig Mod once compared this to the results of Homer Simpson designing a car:
‘When Homer Simpson was asked to design his ideal car, he made The Homer. Given free reign, Homer’s process was additive. He added three horns and a special sound-proof bubble for the children. He layered more atop everything cars had been. More horns, more cup holders.’
In product design, says Craig, the simplest thought exercise is to make additions, and it’s the easiest way to make the old thing feel like a new thing. I think the same is true of many things in life.
Simplifying something however, is much harder. In order to simplify we have to understand relative value, what we cannot do without and that which we can afford to leave out. Prioritisation is always subjective, meaning that simplification can lead to disagreement and potentially uncomfortable conflict about what are the most important elements to keep. Far easier to simply keep what we had before and just add to it.
I think the same is true in strategy. Strategy is all about making deliberate choices about what you are going to do and what you are choosing not to do (as David Ogilvy once said ‘the essence of strategy is sacrifice’). And yet so many strategies are pretty vague in specifics, particularly about what the company or team is going to stop doing to make space for the work needed to go in a new direction. Or the new strategy simply adds layers of complexity on top of what already exists.
More broadly, de-prioritisation is one of the big challenges in business. We like to show that we’re willing and competent. Or we fear the loss of status from giving something up that may result in a reduction of our budget or resources. We worry that once something is let go, it becomes very hard to reverse that decision. So responsibilities are often additive – do everything that you were doing before but now take on responsibility for this as well. We rarely ask ourselves the question: what are we going to stop doing to free up capacity?
The discussion on the podcast talks about how creating space in this way can be very uncomfortable for many people. Klotz references a famous study by Tim Wilson which revealed that some people would rather administer electric shocks to themselves rather than be left alone with their thoughts. And she also makes the point about how the more you care about something, the harder it is to subtract.
If additive is always easier we need to work harder at being comfortable with the space created by subtraction. Sometimes we need to be better at saying no, and more focused not just on prioritisation but on deprioritisation. Simple frameworks like MOSCOW (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won’t have this time) can go some way to help spotlight deliberate deprioritisation. But the best place to start is the simple acknowledgement that subtraction is harder than being additive, meaning that it requires more intentional focus.
After all, focus means saying no.
Image source
Leave a Reply