Develop Leaders Who Can End Work That Still Looks Successful

Make subtraction a leadership requirement

As boards review 2027 plans, they should ask more than whether leaders have identified the right priorities. They should ask what those leaders are prepared to stop.

Failing projects are the easier test. The harder test is an established activity with satisfied stakeholders, visible output and a credible sponsor. It may still produce value. Yet it may no longer justify the executive attention, specialist time or operating capacity it consumes.

A leader who cannot make that distinction will keep adding commitments. The strategy will change on paper while the organization continues doing yesterday’s work.

This is a development issue, not just a budgeting issue. Executives need practice separating an activity’s historical importance from its next-best use of resources. They also need to handle the loss of status, relationships and certainty that comes with ending it.

Research discussed in Harvard Business Review argues that leadership training often disappoints when the organizational context prevents people from applying what they learn.^[1] A workshop on prioritization will achieve little if every incentive rewards launching work and none rewards retiring it responsibly.

Test the next investment, not the past achievement

Give each executive a live development assignment: identify one recurring activity, program or service that deserves a fresh resource decision before its next funding cycle.

Do not require a predetermined cut. That encourages theater. Require a defensible comparison.

The executive should explain what the activity produces today, what maintaining it will require next year, and what else could be achieved with the same constrained resources. Past expenditure belongs in the history. Future costs, benefits and obligations belong in the decision.

McKinsey’s research on resource allocation examines the tendency to preserve historical allocations rather than move resources with strategy.^[2] The practical implication is clear: approving new priorities is not enough. Leaders must challenge the commitments that already occupy the budget and calendar.

Require three options: continue, reduce or end. Each should include customer consequences, dependencies, transition costs and the resources genuinely available for reassignment.

Distinguish cash savings from capacity released. Ending an internal forum may free executive hours without reducing expenditure. Closing a service may save money only after contractual obligations expire. Neither benefit should be claimed before it exists.

Coach the conversation before the decision

The difficult part is rarely the spreadsheet. It is telling respected colleagues that work they built may no longer deserve the same investment.

This is where coaching should become specific.

Ask the executive to rehearse the conversation with the activity’s sponsor. Can they acknowledge past contributions without treating them as a permanent claim on resources? Can they explain the alternative use clearly? Can they invite evidence that would change their recommendation?

Watch for two weak responses. One is avoidance: proposing another review instead of a decision. The other is performative toughness: announcing an exit before understanding the consequences.

Neither demonstrates sound judgment.

Harvard Business Review’s work on senior-management time highlights the importance of using executive meetings for consequential decisions rather than allowing routine matters to consume them.^[3] Apply that discipline here. The decision meeting should resolve the trade-off, not become a procession of presentations.

Set boundaries before the discussion. Legal, safety, security and contractual obligations are not discretionary capacity. Changes affecting employees require fair processes and appropriate consultation. Human leaders remain accountable for the decision and its consequences.

Assess what happens after the work ends

The development assignment is not complete when a closure is approved.

Require a short transition plan. Name who owns customer communication, remaining obligations, knowledge transfer and the receiving priority. Specify when people’s time or funding becomes available. Then confirm that the receiving team can use it.

Otherwise, the organization may absorb transition costs without gaining the expected benefit. Work can also return informally when an influential stakeholder asks someone to keep it going.

Review the outcome after the transition. Did the work actually stop? Did service quality remain within agreed limits? Did resources move? What did the executive underestimate?

Assess the leader’s reasoning and execution, not the size of the cut. A well-supported decision to continue can demonstrate better judgment than an unnecessary closure.

For CEOs and boards, the standard is straightforward: leadership development should improve the quality of consequential choices. In 2027 planning, one useful test is whether executives can release resources from credible existing work—and put those resources to better use.