After new corporate goals were announced, José realized he would need to find extra time to meet these expectations while still completing tasks tied to previous priorities. The lack of explicit guidance on what work should be stopped meant that employees like him were left to manage additional responsibilities on their own.
The article discusses how execution within organizations can become strained when new goals are introduced without addressing existing workloads. It notes that, in theory, priorities should help focus attention, but when nothing is explicitly deprioritized, people tend to continue with old tasks while trying to accommodate new ones. This leads to increased workloads and slower progress toward the latest objectives.
As new goals filter down through different teams and roles, they often conflict with ongoing commitments and limited resources. Leadership plays a key role at this stage; if leaders do not clearly identify which activities should be dropped or slowed down, individuals are forced to make difficult decisions about where to allocate their efforts.
The article highlights the challenges faced by employees who may feel unable to say no to continuing work due to concerns about job security or being perceived as less valuable. This can result in blurred accountability and overburdened staff members who remain essential yet under-recognized.
It stresses that leaders must take responsibility for clarifying which tasks or projects are no longer priorities before setting new team or individual objectives. Leaders should ask teams what is currently taking up their time—not just what appears on formal plans—and communicate openly about which initiatives will be deprioritized.
For those not in leadership positions, the piece advises making current workloads visible during goal-setting discussions so managers understand true capacity constraints. Open communication can prevent burnout and ensure that work is distributed more deliberately rather than by default.
If workload adjustments do not occur after new goals are set, employees are encouraged to promptly inform managers about any difficulties meeting expectations due to ongoing commitments. Early conversations allow leaders to adjust assumptions and avoid last-minute decisions driven by overload.
Ultimately, the article concludes that failing to make explicit tradeoffs at every level increases risk across multiple areas—delivery timelines, credibility, talent retention, and decision-making quality. It emphasizes that subtracting outdated or lower-priority work enables better focus and more effective execution as conditions change.
"Subtraction isn’t weakness. It’s focus. And focus is what allows execution to hold when conditions change," the article states.
