Subtraction Before Addition: A Smarter Way To Set and Execute Goals
Addition feels productive.
Subtraction is what actually makes progress possible.
In biopharma, goal-setting often starts with ambition and ends with overload. New priorities get layered on top of existing work, timelines compress, and leaders quietly absorb the cost. Execution suffers—not because the goals were wrong, but because nothing was taken off the table.
In my latest article for BioSpace, I examine why subtraction is the missing step in most goal-setting conversations—and why skipping it undermines results before the work even begins.
The piece explores a pattern I see repeatedly with senior leaders: well-intentioned goals that fail not at the strategy level, but at the capacity level. When tradeoffs stay implicit, teams compensate with effort. Leaders carry it longer than they should. And organizations confuse motion with momentum.
The article breaks down how to recognize when subtraction hasn’t happened, what it costs when leaders silently absorb the load, and how to reset goals in a way that preserves execution strength rather than eroding it.
Here’s the full article, originally published in BioSpace:
👉 Subtraction Before Addition: A Smarter Way To Set and Execute Goals
Key Takeaways:
Why most goals fail before execution even begins
How unspoken tradeoffs quietly transfer cost onto leaders and teams
The difference between ambitious goals and executable ones
What effective subtraction actually looks like in practice
Why capacity—not motivation—is usually the constraint
Reflection Questions for Readers:
What had to stay the same when this goal was added?
Who is absorbing the extra work created by this priority?
What would execution look like if something were explicitly removed?
