Growth isn’t always about adding

Over the last few years, we’ve become brilliant at adding.

New tools. New metrics. New platforms. New processes. New specialisms. 

More data. More dashboards. More reporting lines. More transformation programmes.

But I’m not sure we’ve applied the same energy to subtracting.

From where I sit in our industry - working with brands and agencies navigating significant change - what I’m noticing isn’t a lack of ambition. It’s not even resistance.

It’s fatigue.

Not burnout. Not drama. Just that low-level hum that comes from layering new expectations on top of old structures without removing anything underneath.

We are all living through seismic change. AI is reshaping workflows. Commercial pressures are intensifying. The demand for exceptional creativity hasn’t softened - if anything, it’s sharper. And the expectation to deliver more for less feels embedded, not temporary.

None of this is unreasonable in isolation. But taken together, we’ve built systems that excel at accumulating.

Take measurement.

We can now measure almost everything – attention, engagement, incrementality, attribution pathways, brand lift, cultural impact. The sophistication is impressive. The transparency is valuable.

But when everything is measurable, everything becomes monitored. And when everything is monitored, trust can quietly erode.

So we add more reporting. More proof points. More optimisation loops. But paralysis by analysis isn’t just data overload. It’s accumulation without subtraction, without focus.

The same pattern shows up elsewhere.

• We add approval checkpoints to manage risk, even when they dilute accountability.
• We add transformation programmes without dismantling the habits that undermine them.
• We change agencies when performance dips, instead of fixing the system they’re entering.
• We add meetings for alignment, when what’s missing is ownership.
• We add governance for control, even when it blurs decision rights.
• We add KPIs without strengthening the brief at the centre.

It feels safer (or quicker) to build on top, than to dismantle.

And yet growth cannot just be an additive exercise. At some point, doesn’t leadership require an equal assessment of what can now be subtracted, released, stopped or let go?

In the pursuit of exceptional work – in a more-for-less world – it strikes me that we have to ask harder questions and act on what we hear and see:

• What are we holding onto because it once worked?
• What are we maintaining because stopping feels uncomfortable?
• What are we measuring simply because we can?
• What are we continuing because no one has made the call to end it?

This isn’t about recklessness. Or cost-cutting disguised as strategy. It isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about trade offs and intentionality.

In many client–agency relationships I see, the ambition for better work is genuine on both sides. The appetite for braver thinking is there. But the system surrounding the work has grown heavy.

More touchpoints. More sign-offs. More documentation. More “just in case” layers.

We have become highly sophisticated at managing complexity. Less disciplined at removing it.

And complexity is rarely neutral. It consumes time. It fragments focus. It drains energy - at individual, team and organisational levels.

Fatigue doesn’t usually come from working hard. It comes from working hard inside systems that no longer work.

In many cases, the same heritage processes and internal sign-offs that made sense when brands delivered one or two major campaigns a year are still being applied to a world that now demands constant, multi-channel output.

The industry has rituals for launching. We celebrate new products, new partnerships, new tech, new strategies, new models. We are far less comfortable with endings.

• Letting go of activity that fills time but not impact.
• Ending a misaligned relationship with clarity and respect.
• Removing an approval layer that protects no one but slows everyone.
• Retiring a reporting structure that no longer drives better decisions.

Sometimes the bravest commercial decision isn’t what we add next. It’s what we take away.

In periods of significant change, growth doesn’t just happen at the business level. It shows up in how we lead ourselves, how we shape our teams, how we focus our functions.

And focus is created through choice.

This isn’t an agency issue. Or a client issue. It’s a system issue - and we’re all part of it.

If we want genuinely exceptional work in a more-for-less world, we have to be as disciplined about what we end as what we start.

We have to create space before we rush to fill it.

Because space is not indulgent. It’s not inefficient. It’s not a luxury. 

It is a prerequisite for creativity.

Growth in change will demand new capabilities, new thinking and new models. That’s inevitable. But it will also demand quieter courage.

• The courage to question.
• The courage to simplify.
• The courage to let go.

Not just as organisations, but as leaders working within the constraints of time, energy and attention.

Adding is visible. It signals momentum. It evidences value and contribution.

Subtraction is harder. It suggests limits. It requires judgment. It requires trust. 

But sometimes growth isn’t about building higher. It’s about clearing space. It’s about finding the better. Not just the more. 

I’d genuinely love to hear what you’re seeing.

Where have you kept adding when subtraction might have created more impact?
What have you let go of - personally or organisationally - that made the work better?
And at what level - self, team, function or business - has that made the biggest difference?

Do share your thoughts with us – and feel free to share these questions with peers and colleagues. This conversation feels more important than ever.