STOP IT! The glamour of eliminating low-value work

In today’s world of work, the day is short; it seems like we will never be able to do everything we have to do in a day.

You start a new assignment. What do you do? You want to get new things done. You allocate resources to new initiatives, to improve existing processes. You don’t start a job with the objective of stopping doing things.

How many of you included in your last performance appraisal (or CV) sentences that begin with the words “I developed, “I created, “I improved”. Probably most of you. One might say that’s what we are here for. And how many of you included sentences that start with the words “I eliminated”, “I stopped doing”, “I shut down”. Probably very few. The question is, why do we spend so much time trying to improve things when, sometimes, what we should really do is stop doing them? In the words of Peter Drucker, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently something that should not be done at all”.

Improving vs. stopping the work?

Stopping the work doesn’t have the glamour of improving it.?People are known for what they have created, invented, improved, not for what they have stopped. And eliminating work can be much more complicated – it’s not always obvious and can certainly be harder to implement. ?Also, recognition programs often reward people who develop new initiatives, improve existing processes, not those who stop doing things. However, eliminating work can have tremendous value to an organization, sometimes greater than improving the work. When you stop doing something that adds little value, time and resources are redirected to higher-value activities. And the work that remains to be done gets more meaningful. ??

Most of the work we do was created by someone. Someone started it at some time, and we keep doing it. Often, we improve it, but rarely do we ask why we do what we do, why it is needed, what fundamental need we are trying to address. Sometimes the work adds value to a few people, but the cost of doing it isn’t worth the benefit. Other times, the work adds some value but not a lot. It’s more like a nice-to-have than a must-have, but we keep doing it as if it were necessary. We don’t question it, because we are trained, motivated, and rewarded to improve the work, not to stop it. Some people don’t try eliminating low-value work because they think the benefit would be too small. Well, five small prizes may add up to a medium, and 2-3 mediums may add up to a big one. And you will be sending the message that stopping low-value work is worthwhile, regardless of how small it may be.

Three stages of work elimination

Usually, the first reaction to a proposal to stop some work is that it’s impossible, it can’t be done. People say they have tried it before, and it didn’t work or was not approved. If it happens while you’re in stage 1, don't give up. Every work elimination starts like this. Stay with it, persist, until you move to stage 2.

Once you are willing to listen, you start believing that the work can be stopped, but not entirely as proposed, you might say. Let’s stop it partially, perhaps half of what has been proposed. That’s a classic mistake. If something is not needed partially, it’s likely not needed at all. Another common mistake is agreeing to stop the work but only by adding compensating work to cover it (i.e., eliminate the work but create another work). Wrong direction. Don’t let it happen. When you are in stage 2, you’re getting there but not quite yet. Keep pushing until you reach stage 3.

At the last stage, you’re convinced that the work can be eliminated. You aligned with the different stakeholders that while the work appears to add some value to a few, stopping it will generate much higher benefits for the whole organization. ??

In the end, people may not remember who did it, but they will remember that someday, someone had the brilliant idea to stop doing it.?????

So, the question is, what will you stop doing???