Interested in more careers-related content? Check out our new weekly Work Life newsletter. Sent every Monday afternoon.
At a meeting I attended recently on budgets with many managers from social service agencies and the MUSH sector of municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals, the virtual room was galvanized when one leader said he considered it vital to tell his staff when budgets are reduced that “less is less.” After several decades of hearing repeatedly we should be capable of accomplishing more with less in our organizations, both business and non-profit, it was a sane and satisfying counter-argument, a salve to the frustration of those folks in the trenches who need to get things done and can’t rely on flimsy hypotheses for better.
Although I didn’t make the connection initially, I was probably primed for less is less when at the start of the year, as members of my peer leadership learning group were sharing one-word themes for addressing 2025, I was fixated on reduction. That traced back in particular to the election of Donald Trump and the ever-growing number of items beckoning on my bookshelves, and the realization I wanted to reduce my intake of American news and book possibilities, among other things. But as I considered that prospect, I realized I also should use that reduction to enlarge other options for the time released. So “Reduce/Enlarge.”
In some ways, that’s an argument for less being better, another catchphrase to add to the list, alongside less is less and less is more. In the 1970s best-seller Small is Beautiful, economist E.F. Schumacher captured the zeitgeist with a catchphrase and argument that small-scale, sustainable practices were better than large-scale industrial development – smaller can be better for people and the environment. If as a society we had adopted a philosophy of less, we might have fewer climate disasters. But bigger is better won the day and the subsequent decades.
Even University of Virginia professor Leidy Klotz’s powerful book Subtract, promising on the cover what he calls “the untapped science of less” immediately afterwards on the inside flap reassures in big type: Less is more. He argues that we have been trained to routinely add, not subtract. In a series of experiments, from building with Lego and designing miniature golf courses to improving recipes and scheduling vacations, people seeking better results invariably opted for adding even when less was possible. More is assumed to be better. On the other hand, Leonardo da Vinci defined perfection as when there is nothing left to take away.
Mr. Klotz sums it up: “One option is always to add to what exists, be it objects, ideas or social systems. Another option is to subtract from what is already there. The problem is that we neglect subtraction. Compared to changes that add, those that subtract are harder to think of.”
I was surprised at the number of organizations during that virtual discussion on budgets which were applying zero-based budgeting, starting each year’s effort from scratch. That enlarges the opportunity to subtract from existing programs rather than automatically adding everything from the previous year back in as necessary. Of course, the reality in many tough budget situations is that somebody external is tightening the purse strings or revenues are dipping and less is not an active desire for subtraction but a desperate bid for survival.
Consultant Joan Garry warns against budgets that are too tidy in non-profits, where staff cuts to match expected revenue so the finance committee and board will be happy. Instead, she argues the sacrifices that have been confronted at the early end of budgeting should be illuminated through a “NOT-A-WISH list.” That may spark discussion of digging harder and looking wider to find more revenue, rather than just quick congratulations on another balanced budget. “More requires more” might be the catchphrase and focus.
Alongside doing more with less over the last few decades has grown the importance of focusing on outcomes and measurement. It started with businesses but spread quickly to social service and MUSH organizations, where conversations are peppered with the word outcome. But is that helpful or a trap? Is it possible to tell your boss that after a budget cut fewer outcomes must be accepted? And are those outcomes measured in numbers or quality?
Cal Newport, in his recent book Slow Productivity, argued for knowledge work we can’t measure productivity. So we just confine ourselves to seeking out more and more – being busier and busier, through faster response in emails and chats, increased meetings, extra tasks and additional hours. He calls it pseudo-productivity and counters with an argument for better that would be achieved through slowing down. His three avenues for achieving that come with handy catchphrases to consider: Do fewer things. Work at a natural pace. Obsess over quality. He argues it adds up to better.
In businesses, the desire for more often means straying beyond the core operation in search for greater profits. New businesses are added and added … until there’s a reversal and business units are sold off so the company can return to a supposedly stronger, more focused, entity. The argument: Less will be more profits.
In the end, it’s complicated and depends on the situation. Glib is bad. We need to be realistic in our catchphrases and the actions that support them. Less is not more but reducing can sharpen and enlarge possibilities. Less is not better but maybe it can be in some instances and we should consider subtraction more. At the same time, pretending less will be more undercuts leaders’ credibility and they would be wiser to figure how best to implement less is less, honestly facing, alongside staff, the sacrifices that should be admitted.
Cannonballs
- It’s a delusion to believe that bringing best practices from other organizations into yours will lead to improvement, argues consultant Doug Sundheim. Best practices, at their best, are directional maps. They are knowledge of the territory but do not guarantee the wisdom to navigate it. You can’t recreate excellence elsewhere without that wisdom – your own blood, sweat and tears.
- A large-scale research project that analyzed boards of 865 U.S.-listed manufacturing firms between 2010 and 2020 found those with directors who have military experience are more decisive in addressing CEO underperformance.
- Joe Davis, a senior advisor at the Boston Consulting Group, urges managers to engage with skeptics. If someone claims your idea will never work, instead of becoming defensive or ignoring them, ask for more information about why they feel that way and listen carefully to what they say.
Harvey Schachter is a Kingston-based writer specializing in management issues. He, along with Sheelagh Whittaker, former CEO of both EDS Canada and Cancom, are the authors of When Harvey Didn’t Meet Sheelagh: Emails on Leadership.