Article
A version of this article originally appeared in The Globe and Mail on December 2025.
On the surface, that may sound absurd. Surely leaders can point to cost reductions, margin improvements, and new initiatives as evidence of strategic choices. But cutting expenses is not the same as making disciplined choices about what really matters. The harder question is not what to trim, but where to differentiate. And what differentiation actually means is eliminating or reducing areas that are less relevant to winning to the industry. Cutting such areas comes with perceived risk and that can be uncomfortable.
While no organization can excel at everything, many attempt to operate as if they can. Strategy is meant to bring focus, not widen it with an annual list of new activities. In practice, even the most sophisticated executive teams make two recurring mistakes that negate incremental value.
Leadership teams often align around ambitions such as profitable growth, market expansion, and innovation. These goals are usually supported by detailed metrics, which create a sense of precision and rigor. But broad categories, even when measured carefully, do not force meaningful choices.
What is often missing is another layer of clarity. CEOs should ask a more demanding question: Which five (or so) initiatives must we execute exceptionally well, or we will fail?
That level of specificity changes the conversation. It narrows attention to a small number of activities that genuinely determine success. It helps direct capital, leadership time, and talent toward the few efforts that matter most. When organizations make this shift, progress becomes more visible, accountability strengthens, and momentum builds. Without it, effort is spread too thinly and performance suffers.
This discipline has become even more important as organizations race to transform and adopt AI technologies. Leaders know transformation matters. In our research, 79% say transformation is extremely or very critical to their long-term growth strategy. Yet only 29% describe their organization as very or extremely successful at it, and just 43% believe their organization is taking the right approach.
Many companies are trying to layer transformation and AI on top of already crowded agendas. It is therefore unsurprising that 64% of executives report having too many conflicting priorities. Without sharper focus and clearer trade-offs, transformation risks becoming just another initiative competing for attention.
Even when management teams avoid the first mistake and narrow their priorities, they often fall into a second trap: too little focus on what not to do. As Steve Jobs famously said at Apple’s 1997 Worldwide Developers Conference, “You’ve got to say, no, no, no.” His point was simple. Focus is not just about choosing what to pursue. It is about deliberately rejecting what does not serve the core mission.
Moving toward one objective inevitably requires moving away from another. Every strategic commitment involves a trade-off. Yet this is where discussions often slow down. The focus must shift from ambition to sacrifice. Leaders must confront questions such as where they will deliberately invest less, and choose not to compete. In practice, that means defining where they will perform “at market average” or even below that.
These conversations can feel uncomfortable because moving focus can impact budgets, influence, and identity. In reality, every company is exceptional in a few areas and average (or below) in others, whether leaders state it openly or not. When trade-offs remain undefined and unspoken, the organization becomes vulnerable. Resources are fragmented, spending increases without clear return, and teams become distracted from higher-impact work.
Few CEOs want to signal that their company will not lead in every aspect it deems important. But attempting to excel everywhere—across platforms, use cases, functions, and markets—almost guarantees diluted impact.
The reluctance to make sharper trade-offs often comes down to fear. There is fear of losing resources or influence within the organization. Fear of defending bold decisions to a board or investors. Fear of appearing less ambitious. Fear of failure. Fear of disappointing others.
These concerns are understandable. But avoiding the decision does not remove the necessity for trade-offs. Every business will excel in some areas and underperform in others. The question is whether that reality is acknowledged and managed, or left to unfold chaotically. If there is always a mix of performing and underperforming initiatives, it is wiser to define where less effort should be spent. That definition will protect efforts that truly create competitive advantage.
We know that organizations with fewer priorities and clearer choices outperform those attempting to excel everywhere. They are also better positioned to deliver meaningful transformation rather than incremental change. When people understand what truly matters, they waste less time, experience less friction, and show stronger progress.
Focusing on fewer priorities requires courage. It requires leaders to say no and to accept not every area will receive equal attention. But in a world where transformation is urgent, the greater risk lies in trying to be strong across too many fronts.
It’s time to focus more on less, and less on more. Isn’t it too risky not to?
Henryk Krajewski leads Russell Reynolds Team Performance Capability globally. He is based out of Toronto, Canada.
zh-CN
登录
