Addition and Subtraction During Strategic Planning

Recently, behavioral scientists Benjamin Converse, Gabe Adams, Andrew Hales, and Leidy Klotz wrote a great op-ed in The Washington Post on their research. This passage jumped out at me:

“Across a series of studies that we published this month in the journal Nature, we demonstrated that, when asked to change or improve something, people tend to overlook the option to subtract parts. We asked research participants to make changes to designs, essays, recipes, itineraries, structures and even miniature-golf holes. Our studies showed that people’s first instinct is to change things by adding.”

That jumped out because it almost perfectly describes many of the strategy conversations I’ve been in recently.  

For example, a survey of the board and key staff of a small nonprofit included this question: To have greater impact, what should [the organization] be doing that it is not doing currently?

18 of the 21 respondents had an answer. 

But in response to the question What is one program or activity [the organization] does today that may have outlived its usefulness?—a soft version of asking “What should we cut?”—only two of the people who completed the survey had a concrete suggestion. Most others gave no answer or weren’t sure.

Of course, in my experience working with clients, no one objects to the idea that focus and prioritization are important. It’s just that it’s hard to do in reality.  

So What Can You Do About It?

1. Prime the process for subtraction.

In Subtract, Leidy Klotz writes: “Let me be clear here: to find the options we are missing, we need to go from thinking add or subtract to thinking add and subtract.” 

The most straightforward version of this is to include an explicit prompt for people to consider subtraction. That is, What should we start doing or stop doing? The research suggests that simply priming subtraction as an option increases the likelihood that people find solutions with less.

2. Set arbitrary limits. 

Arbitrary limits are a blunt tool, but they’re helpful in forcing choices about what’s most important to do and what’s a nice-to-have. Whenever I’ve seen it, the conversation about whether project #5 or project #6 is more important only happens when there’s a rule like We’re only going to take on 5 projects. Without limits, prioritization is just a theoretical concept. 

(By the way, formal planning systems like Objectives and Key Results can be helpful in that they create a template for limiting activity.)

3. Use different words.

One of the reasons it’s hard for us to subtract is loss aversion. Klotz suggests reframing loss as the critical path to a simpler, more elegant solution. 

“...[L]oss aversion should not excuse our subtraction neglect. The subtraction we are after is an improvement—and improvement is not a loss, even when it comes via less.”

Part of that reframing is to change from words that have a negative “valence” to those that are more positive and do not activate loss aversion.

He writes: “Less is not a loss. But to avoid any misunderstanding, we can invert subtraction—just like [landscape architect] Kate Orff. Her verbs reveal, clean, and carve are gentler alternatives to subtract.”

Changing the language we use helps to paint a positive and compelling picture of what things will look and feel like after subtraction. On this point, Klotz cites Marie Kondo’s advice on tidying: “Before you start, visualize your destination.”

Leadership Wisdom

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, in Airman's Odyssey