Asking Teams To ‘Do More With Less’ Is A Cop-Out, Not A Strategy

This voice experience is generated by AI. Learn more.This voice experience is generated by AI. Learn more.Joanne Rencher is the chief people officer at National Kidney Foundation.

gettySomewhere, in an all-hands meeting, the phrase “We can do more with less” is being used to mean “Stop complaining and figure it out.” Almost always, it’s capacity, time or attention that we’re getting less of. For example, after a team is redesigned to drive a new business strategy, its leader’s capacity becomes strained by having several new meetings added to their calendar with a different configuration of resources. This kind of scenario is often unavoidable, but failing to do anything about it is a cop-out.

There’s an abundance of smart strategies in the area of prioritization. However, once we begin to move from concepts to action, the pace of business highlights how relentless decision making is. Unfortunately, many leaders then become overwhelmed and hesitate to make tough calls. The result is a workforce where everything is a priority—and you know what that means.

Leaders who avoid tough decisions or offer undefined promises of prioritization are asking their teams to keep doing what they’re doing, but with fewer resources and diminished capacity. What they need to do instead is surgically engage in the hard work of prioritization. One way to accomplish this is through what I call the DROP method: ditch, reduce, offload and protect.

​The best strategic plans I’ve seen are just as clear about what the business won’t do as they are about what it will. At the Girl Scouts of the USA, where I served as the chief business and talent officer, the organization operated with this kind of selective commitment during the launch of its Digital Cookie Program in 2014. Historically, the iconic cookies were only sold through traditional face-to-face entrepreneurship. Introducing an e-commerce option initially resulted in backlash from parents, volunteers and those who feared dilution of real-world skills and high costs. The model held, and was strengthened, because the company had the courage to essentially say “No” to the pushback.

In order to reimagine work in an organization—particularly in a nonprofit—two conditions must exist. First, an organization must clarify the tradeoffs between mission value and business value. Then, it needs to grant employees the permission to make those tradeoffs. Leaders who actively help their teams shed low-impact work help to create these conditions.

Naming what the organization will no longer do is one of the hardest and most clarifying actions to take. Every unspoken “Yes” quietly taxes the workforce, and the leader who finally says “We will no longer do this” gives back the hours and focus that no additional headcount ever could. Leaders who are less concerned with popularity or the status quo will ultimately be rewarded for taking this harder path.

​If someone handed you a map but didn’t specify your destination or expected arrival time, would it be reasonable to ask you to find a shortcut? Of course not. You need the specifics before you can consider making any adjustments.

Business outcomes are nonnegotiables, but the road to those outcomes can vary widely. When asking employees to make scope reductions, leaders must provide all the critical information needed, such as the dollar gap to close, topics that aren’t up for discussion and a time horizon. Explicit communications can avoid unmet expectations, unmanageable workloads and, even worse, failure.

​Across my career, helping my teams offload work has been key to utilizing a priceless commodity: time. There’s never enough of it, but learning how to maximize it separates good leaders from great ones. Years ago, as a business owner, this was just as vital. Every client deliverable was important, though not all required the same degree of urgency. I was able to delegate deliverables based on that assessment.

Along the way, I’ve used tools like the Action Priority Matrix and the Pareto principle to help make micro and macro-offloading decisions. I know many other leaders who apply the Eisenhower matrix so they can prioritize by urgency and importance. But remember that the matrix requires knowing what your team is actually spending their time on. So it won’t replace asking the right questions at check-ins. ​

There will always be business activities ​which must be protected at all costs. When those aren’t clear, everything degrades. Areas like financial health, core deliverables and cultural standards must be sustained, even when ruthless prioritization requires other tradeoffs. Be sure that your nonnegotiables are clear before tough calls need to be made so that they’re seen as the floor, not the furniture.

For example, at the National Kidney Foundation, we pride ourselves on having clarity about one of our nonnegotiables: ​patient-centered care. It’s the center of gravity for our key initiatives and long-term Objectives. Empowering individuals, expanding access to equitable care and aligning clinical quality measures with patient priorities serve as our North Star, especially when making difficult decisions.

Quality planning and execution don’t exist because of statements like “Do more with less.” They’re the result of the mid-level managers who’ve been given permission to make tradeoffs and the employees who clearly understand where the scope of their portfolios can be reduced, and they’re revealed in the moments where the spine and character of an organization is tested.

When key priorities are moving the needle without killing people, it means the workforce is largely able to name the DROP.

Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?