“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

We have entered the “do more with less” era of management edicts.

And, just like the eras of “fail fast,” “synergy,” and “we’re a family,” the phrase is met with eye rolls, silent groans, and a deepening certainty that management is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground.

But what if doing more with less is possible without the extra hours and stress that lead to burnout?

 

(Re)Define “more.”

When we hear “more,” we naturally think of work. More meetings. More emails. More Slacks, texts, Zooms. For most of my career, I believed the more emails I received, meetings I attended, and documents I wrote, the more valuable I was.

Volume does not equal value.

“More” can’t (and shouldn’t) mean more work. It must mean something else.

More value creation. Less box checking.

More progress. Less process.

More meaningful work. Less meaningless activity.

What is the “more” you want from your team? Define it or you’ll get more emails, meetings, and documents. Name it (value, efficiency, progress), and your team will figure out how to do it.

 

Experiment with “less.”

A client’s team stopped sending meeting summaries. They didn’t send shorter ones, change the distribution list, or even share the link to the AI note-taker. They just stopped.

No one noticed.

Six months later, a new team member asked if they would send a meeting summary. The team leader said no but offered to recap next steps before everyone left the room. No one argued. Everyone left the meeting with clarity on what they needed to do next.

Activity does not equal achievement.

 Our days are filled with BS work, tasks that we do because we’ve always done them, because they feel important, and because we worry what happens if we stop.

Documents don’t ensure that people are informed, aligned, or are ready to act.

Meetings don’t guarantee that everyone has thoughtfully considered and agreed on a decision.

Meeting summaries don’t make people complete their next steps.

It doesn’t mean we don’t need documents, meetings, or meeting summaries. But “less” is possible.

Ask your team what you can do less of. Stop doing things and see if people notice. If you can’t stop something completely, ask what less of it looks like. Instead of a meeting summary, send next steps. Instead of a presentation, write a one-page summary. Instead of a spreadsheet build a visual dashboard.

 

Rethink “indispensable.”

The managers in my client’s training program were in roles that everyone called the most pivotal in the company. They didn’t feel pivotal. They felt reactive and overwhelmed, with no control over their own calendars.

The COO’s fix was simple. Just stop attending.

It surprised him that they wouldn’t. They couldn’t. The fear of missing something kept them in every room, including the ones that ran fine without them.

You’re in every meeting because you’re good at your job. Being good got you invited into every decision, and somewhere along the way no one uninvited you. Now you stay out of habit, not need. The permission to step back is usually there. You just haven’t tested it long enough to know what happens.

 Presence does not equal performance.

Look at your calendar for the meetings you sit in out of habit. Pick one this week to not attend. Resist the urge to instructions. Simply tell the team lead you won’t attend and that you trust them to keep things moving.

Your absence isn’t dropping the ball. It’s demonstrating that you trust the team and empowering them to do their jobs. It’s the rare version of less that gives you more time and your team their autonomy.

 

“Do more with less” isn’t a demand to work harder

The constraint isn’t going anywhere. Volume isn’t value. Activity isn’t achievement. Presence isn’t performance. It’s a reason to finally drop what doesn’t matter.

What Unconscious Trade-Offs Are You Making? And What Are They Costing You?

What Unconscious Trade-Offs Are You Making? And What Are They Costing You?

“How much did your last 1,000 long-distance calls cost you?”

Juan Enríquez Cabot, Mexican-American academic, businessman, author, and speaker.

Strategy requires making choices. It’s an exercise in trade-offs. It requires prioritizing one thing over another and saying “no” to more things than you say “yes.”

The same is true for life. It also requires making choices, setting priorities, saying “no,” and making trade-offs.

 

 

But what happens when you no longer need to make trade-offs?

That’s one of the questions that Juan Enriquez, best-selling author and TED All-Star, posed during his speech “An Uncertain, Scary, Exciting Future.”  To illustrate his point, he took us back to the late 20th century when we used to pay for long-distance calls. In the 1970s, long-distance (state-to-state) calls cost a minimum of $3.50 per minute (in 2020 dollars). In the 1980s as industry competition increased, phone companies started offering discounted rates for evening and late-night calls.

I remember my mom talking to my grandma in Pennsylvania for an hour each week and my grandma in California for two hours each month. Assuming those were the only interstate calls made (they weren’t), at a discounted rate of $1.25/minute, those five calls cost $450 in 2020 dollars.

That’s more than 3x what I currently pay for unlimited calls and text.

We used to trade off money, frequency, convenience, and quality simply to stay in touch with family and friends. Now we don’t.

But we’re still making trade-offs.

 

There are ALWAYS trade-offs

 No one likes trade-offs. We’d much rather have everything than just one thing. After all, if you have (or do) everything then when things change, you’re prepared. You’re safe.

But “all of the above” is not an option.

My mom would have been stuck on the phone for hours every day talking to my grandmas if long-distance calls were free. But, because we couldn’t afford the financial trade-off required for daily multi-hour, long-distance calls, my mom was free to live her life untethered from the kitchen phone.

Now, the financial and physical trade-offs of long-distance calls have gone away but we’re still tethered to our phones. Instead, we’re trading away our attention and energy, data and privacy, even our mental well-being for the “convenience” of always being connected and accessible.

 

What trade-offs are you making (because you ARE making them)?

Look at your business strategy, your team, your daily calendar. What are you trading off? What will you stop doing so that you can invest more in starting or accelerating something else?

If you’re like most executives, you can’t answer those two questions because you choose “all of the above.”

But you did make trade-offs.  You’re trading off time spent with friends and family and your physical and mental well-being to do more with less. You’re trading off your business’ future to maximize today’s profits.

There are always trade-offs. The ones you proactively and consciously choose are always better than the ones that creep up on you, promising “all of the above” while taking the things you’d never knowingly give up.

3 Deaths. 3 Lessons. 3 Questions to Survive (and Thrive)

3 Deaths. 3 Lessons. 3 Questions to Survive (and Thrive)

Sunday morning, my phone blew up. Thirty-three text messages. Most mornings, I have zero, so my first thought was “who died?”

The texts were about a death. Sort of.

Sloan Management Review died (ceased publication) and a group chat filled with academics, thought leaders, and consultants were having an absolute meltdown.

Knowing that my husband, an actual Sloan graduate, hadn’t yet seen the news, I broke it to him gently. “Okay,” he shrugged, not even glancing up from his phone.

This was in stark contrast to his reactions to the demise of Spirit Airlines (howling with laughter at the memes) and the resurrection of Allbirds as an AI company (thoughtful and incredibly technical analysis).

Lesson 1: The Race to the Bottom Never Ends Well

CNN’s headline said it all, “Why did Spirit fail? Too many passengers hated flying it.” To prove the point, the article opens,

“Lousy service, not the Iran war, killed Spirit Airlines.  Spirit was doomed to fail because of mismanagement, deep financial problems, and – crucially – its reputation for poor customer service.  The spike in jet fuel prices during the war just accelerated Spirit’s inevitable demise.”

If that can be written about your business, you don’t deserve to be in business.

It’s only a matter of time until you’re not.

 

Lesson 2: Be Patient for Growth and Impatient for Profit

Allbirds raised $348 million when it IPOed in 2021 and, at one point, was valued at $4.1 billion despite never turning a profit. Six years later, its stock price had fallen 95% and it sold its business and IP to a brand management company for $39 million.

How did this happen? There are plenty of theories – it expanded too aggressively into bricks and mortar retail, it made ugly shoes but operated like a fashion brand, its Tech Bro image is no longer aspirational for Gen Z customers – but the fact is that it prioritized growth over profit and that ultimately bit them in the balance sheet.

 

Lesson 3: Some Businesses are Butterflies

While my colleagues’ alarm was understandable, it missed the bigger picture.

Sloan Management Review (SMR) didn’t die. It metamorphosed.

Yes, the SMR brand is going away, but future ideas, research and findings will continue to be shared through digital newsletters, short-form videos, podcasts, and social-first content.

In effect, SMR is metamorphosing to better reflect how its subscribers consume information. Busy executives don’t have the time to read long-form, dense research articles. They grab information in snippets and soundbites. This change ensures the people who need the ideas the most get them.

3 Questions to Find Your Fate
  1. Do you treat your customers like they exist for your benefit? In other words, are you more focused on value extraction than value creation and delivery? If yes, start planning your business’ funeral and don’t expect anyone to attend.
  1. Do you have a financially and operationally sustainable business model? If no, start planning your funeral but take comfort in the fact that people will attend and may even say nice things about you.
  1. Do you know the unique, relevant, valuable, and hard to imitate reason why you exist? Can you articulate the rare and essential Job to be Done you do for your customers? If no, you’re on life support. When you can answer yes, you’ll be ready to be a butterfly.

 

One quick caveat

When businesses die, people lose their jobs and that is incredibly tragic. The psychological, financial, and relational impacts of job loss are tremendous, impacting people far beyond the individual laid off. It can take months, even years for people and families to recover and, for some, it never happens.

Creative destruction is real and necessary for long-term economic, technological, and societal growth. But the short-term impact has human consequences that should never be ignored.

Competing Priorities Aren’t a Trade-off.  They’re a Test.  Are You Passing?

Competing Priorities Aren’t a Trade-off. They’re a Test. Are You Passing?

“Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.” – Ron Swanson, Parks and Rec

With all due respect to Ron Swanson, leaders today need to whole-ass two things. In a world of constrained resources, you don’t have enough time, money, or people to put against your highest priority, let alone multiple high priorities.

But if you think you must choose between investing in today or the future, know that you’re most likely choosing between killing your company quickly or slowly.  That’s what “And, not or,” and it’s required in these three areas.

 

 

Development AND Research

“Right now, it’s not sufficient to just keep treading water.” – L. Rafael Reif, former MIT president and current professor of electrical engineering and computer science

“America Is Losing the Innovation Race” screamed the Foreign Affairs article in which Reif detailed evidence that America is falling behind China in electric vehicles, nuclear energy, war technologies, and other areas of critical technology.

Since 2015, as China invested in science and technology to develop the capability to produce high-end products at scale, US federal spending on basic research, as measured in real 2017 dollars, has declined.

Even the research that is funded isn’t keeping up. A paper published in 2022 examined nearly 50 million academic papers and patents from 1945 to 2010 and found a precipitous decline in the “disruptiveness” (i.e. makes previous findings obsolete or pushes the field in a new direction) of research across all scientific fields, including a 100% drop in the physical sciences and a 78.7% decline in computer and communications patents.

The funding story is quite different but no less alarming on the corporate side. Between 1964 and 2022, business funding as a source of R&D funds more than doubled but the vast majority of those funds are spent on applied research (13%) and development (80%), not the type of fundamental research that launches a country forward economically or societally.

 

 

Operators AND Innovators

“It’s a trap” – MBA student

For two hours, we discussed Netflix’s culture: the no vacation policy” policy, the “act in Netflix’s best interest” expense policy, and the management philosophy that stresses hiring people for their expertise and then trusting them to make decisions.

To me it sounded like a dream. So, when I asked who wanted to work for Netflix, I was shocked when not a single hand went up.

To my students, it sounded like a trap.

And that’s ok. Not everyone wants to face the accountability and repercussions of taking risks, exercising judgment, and making decisions.

Companies need people who want to follow processes, become experts in their fields, and keep the business steady and growing. AND they need people who question processes, explore far beyond their industries, and challenge the business to do better and grow further.

 

 

AI AND Humans

“What keeps me up is the fact that so many people are being convinced that they don’t matter anymore.” – Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

When 16,000 jobs, on average, have been lost each month for the past year due to AI, it’s pretty hard to convince a human and they matter.

Yet a growing body of research shows that humans enabled by AI generate new and novel ideas more quickly and cost efficiently than either AI or humans alone. In a battle between 125 “global problem solvers” and one expert in prompt engineering, the latter produced 180 ideas in 5.5 hours at a total cost of $27.01 and none of the ideas were meaningfully different in terms of strategic viability, environmental or financial value, or overall quality than the human-only ideas.  At P&G, researchers found that the most innovative ideas were generated by AI-enabled teams and that those teams worked about 12% faster than other teams and AI-enabled individuals.

 

Ultimately, the companies that succeed won’t be the ones that make the best bets.

They’ll be the ones that learn to whole-ass two things.

Want to Know Your 2027 Priorities?  Look to Nebraska.

Want to Know Your 2027 Priorities? Look to Nebraska.

In October, at InnoLead’s annual conference in Boston MA, everything was AI. When the facilitator of a LEGO Serious Play workshop announced we would not talk about AI, the room erupted in applause.

In April, at Inside Outside Innovation’s biannual conference in Lincoln NE, everything was human. By day’s end, speakers and attendees alike were celebrating the sweet relief of a human-led, AI-supported future.

Why the difference? AI hasn’t fallen out of the news cycle, nor have AI-driven layoffs ceased.

Perspective.

InnoLead’s conference featured practitioners living the day-to-day reality of change and innovation. IO 2026 spotlighted thought leaders like Eric Ries, David Bland, and Erin Stadler, advisors able to see across organizations and invited into the C-Suite’s inner sanctum.

One conference talks about what is. One about what will be.

So, if you want to know what your C-Suite will task you with in six months, look to Nebraska.

 

To move forward, we must face hard truths

Eric Ries, the creator of Lean Startup and author of the forthcoming Incorruptible, exposed the myth that free markets reward value creation. They reward value extraction. Companies focused on extraction forget their purpose, serve themselves over their customers, and ultimately fail.

Elliott Parker, CEO of Alloy Partners and author of  The Illusion of Innovation, declared corporate innovation to be alchemy. Isaac Netwon spent his life pursuing alchemy (creating calculus was just a side quest) but failed because the basic building block of matter, the atom, is immutable. The same is true of big company executives pursuing innovation. The atomic elements of corporations (efficiency) and entrepreneurship (autonomy, passion, urgency, skin in the game, and freedom) are immutable and incompatible. Just as lead cannot become gold, companies can’t create like startups.

 

 

To do better, we must focus on people

Erin Stadler, founder of Design Culture and author of one of my all-time favorite articles on innovation, shared a forgotten truth: “When we lead with people, the human element, the science, the innovation comes with it.”  To do this requires leaders and organizations to find and state their purpose, to build principles and values, and to act on them every day

Dan Hassenplug, VP of Design at sport tech company Hudl, boldly declared that customer obsession is the “real AI strategy.”  After all, getting 10x faster at something doesn’t matter if it’s on something that doesn’t matter. And what matters are your customers. Living with them, talking to them, listening to them. You’ll get radical and game changing insights that no competitor, survey, or synthetic persona can.

David Bland, founder of Precoil and author of Testing Business Ideas, implored the audience to flip the 80/20 ratio of feasibility experiments to desirability experiments. Why? “We can make anything these days. It doesn’t matter if you can make it if no one wants it.”

 

 

To focus on people, we must serve them

Ted Ullrich, co-founder of Tomorrow Lab, reminded us that “simplicity is earned,” not a starting point. We start by trying to do all the thingsfor customers, but that’s overwhelmng and unnecessary. Only by listening to humans and staying humble can we create the simple solutions that create value.

Julie Ann Crommet, founder of Collective Moxie and former VP at Disney, dazzled us with the simple fact that “the more specific the story, the more universal.”  She backed this up with data that films with Authentically Inclusive Representation perform nearly 3x better at the box office and the story behind how Coco became Pixar’s highest grossing movie in China, despite content that is typically banned.

 

 

The future is wonderfully human

AI isn’t going away and it will change almost all aspects of life and work. But if the thought leaders, advisors, and designers in Nebraska are right (and I think they are), the future will be far more human than machine.

You’re Addicted to AI. That’s by Design.

You’re Addicted to AI. That’s by Design.

“AI is the new cigarette.”

When a colleague said this in the waning days of 2022, days after ChatGPT burst on the scene, she took my breath away. The idea that this miracle would kill us seemed confined to hysterical handwringing foretelling the birth of Skynet.

She was right.

But neither of us knew it was designed to be that way.

 

Designed for addiction

My friend predicted that ChatGPT would stay free and helpful until usage reached “critical mass,” and then we’d have to pay. Less than three months after its November launch, OpenAI introduced its $20 per month service.

But it’s not the “first one’s free, the next one will cost you” aspect of drugs that makes AI addictive. It’s the design decisions at its core that keeps you coming back:

  • Purchase Decoupling in which you convert real money into tokens, creating psychological distance between you and your actual spending
  • Difficulty Curve where skills and benefits accumulate quickly giving you the sense that you’re becoming more capable over time and therefore more committed after progress slows.
  • Skill Atrophy where every skill you stop practicing because the machine does it for you, quietly disappears.

Even casual AI users have experienced one or more of these:

  • You get a message mid-chat telling you you’ve used all your tokens and need to come back in three hours even though you’ve paid your monthly $20 fee
  • You’re prompting in all caps because it’s the only way you can think of to get the LLM to stop hallucinating, while reminiscing about the days when it was a brilliant thought-partner
  • You’ve relied on AI to outline articles for the last several months, but you need to write in a different style and have no idea how to get started.

And yet, we keep going back.

But it’s not just individuals who are addicted. It’s entire organizations.

 

Signs that your organization is addicted to AI

Your CFO asks for the total AI spend across the organization. Three weeks and four departments later, the number is three times what anyone expected because the licenses are buried in IT infrastructure budgets, the pilots are expensed as innovation projects, and half the tools were purchased by business units on corporate cards.

The board approved the AI transformation initiative based on the pilot results. Eighteen months later, the pilot case study slide hasn’t changed, headcount has been reduced in anticipation of productivity gains that haven’t materialized, and the team running the pilot has quietly moved on to other work.

You eliminated the analyst pool two years ago because AI could do in minutes what they did in days. Now you need to evaluate whether the AI’s output is actually correct, and you’ve just realized there’s nobody left in the organization to check it because everyone who’s done it is gone.

Sound familiar? Your organization is an addict.

 

Recovery is possible

Addiction can’t be cured, only managed. The same is true for AI.

The road to recovery starts in a similar place: Visibility

  • Centralize AI spending the way you centralize other business processes AND allow some flexibility by setting strict spending limits and clear decision-making criteria and ownership.
  • Start pilots with the end in mind by establishing success metrics and scaling plans at the start of the pilot, not when it’s already in process.
  • Treat certain human capabilities as strategic reserves the same way you’d treat any critical operational dependency. Before automating a function, explicitly document what judgment and expertise currently lives there, who holds it, and what it would cost to rebuild it if needed.

Unlike cigarettes or gambling, we’ve reached a point where we can’t quit AI.

But we can be aware of our addiction and we must manage it.

The first step is admitting that it’s real.  And by design.