In last week’s Executive Brief, I introduced Strategic Subtraction as the discipline of periodically identifying and releasing resource commitments that no longer align with reality. The natural follow-up question is, “Where should I start?”
My recommendation is simple: start with governance. Governance is one of the most powerful lateral capabilities an organization can create. It establishes policy, allocates decision rights, and oversees the execution of critical operations. Because it sits at the center of coordination and accountability, governance also carries one of the highest organizational costs. Every governance team consumes executive attention, meeting time, preparation, follow-up, and organizational energy. That cost is entirely appropriate—provided the governance continues to serve the purpose for which it was created.
The problem is that most governance reviews focus on the mechanics rather than the intent. Leaders examine meeting cadence, attendance, agendas, and decision rights. Those are important questions, but they overlook the one question that matters most: Why was this governance created in the first place?
Every governance decision rests on a set of assumptions. Perhaps the organization was smaller. Perhaps regulatory oversight had increased. Perhaps coordination between business units had become difficult. Perhaps a strategic initiative required greater executive visibility. The governance was the answer. The assumptions were the reason.
Over time, those assumptions change. Markets evolve. Technology advances. Organizations mature. Strategies shift. Yet the governance often remains exactly as it was, not because it is still the best design, but because the reasoning behind it has gradually been forgotten.
This is where Strategic Subtraction becomes a practical leadership discipline. Rather than asking, “Should we eliminate this governance?” begin by asking: What assumptions caused us to create it?
If those assumptions were never documented, reconstruct them as best you can. Make them explicit. Then evaluate each one against today’s reality.
- Which assumptions remain true?
- Which assumptions no longer hold?
- If we were designing this governance today, would we build it the same way?
Only then should leaders decide whether to preserve it, strengthen it, simplify it, replace it with a lighter-weight lateral capability, or retire it altogether.
One of the simplest improvements any organization can make is this: Document assumptions—not just decisions. Every significant governance decision should be accompanied by the assumptions that justified it. Those assumptions become the criteria by which future leaders evaluate whether the governance still aligns with reality. Without them, future leadership teams inherit decisions but not the reasoning behind them, making it far more likely they will revisit questions the organization has already answered or unintentionally discard structures that continue to serve an important strategic purpose.
Strategic Subtraction isn’t about reducing governance. It’s about preserving the relationship between governance and the assumptions that justify it. When governance evolves alongside reality, organizations become more adaptable without sacrificing continuity. More importantly, they increase the likelihood that the intent of today’s leadership survives tomorrow’s leadership. That, ultimately, is what good governance should do.
0 Comments