Hi Reader! Daria’s here

Last week, a client told me she had 17 meetings in a single day. By the time she finished walking me through the list, I could feel the weight of it. Strategy calls, one-on-ones, project updates, alignment sessions—back to back, with barely enough time for coffee in between.

It’s a familiar scene for most leaders I know. Our calendars are stacked like unstable Jenga towers—one extra block and the whole thing tips. We move from meeting to meeting, decision to decision, without a moment to breathe. And somewhere in that blur, we still carry the hope of being more impactful, more available, more balanced.

When that desire for improvement surfaces, the instinct is almost always to add. Another tool to make things easier. Another person to take something off our plate. Another initiative to push results forward. It feels productive, and in the moment, it’s often the only option we can see.

But research suggests we’re overlooking a different path—one that can be just as effective, and sometimes more so.

The science of less

In 2021, Nature published research that examined how people improve systems, objects, and processes. Across eight studies and more than 1,500 participants, the results were striking: people overwhelmingly defaulted to additive solutions, even when subtractive ones were equally viable. The bias held across contexts—whether redesigning a Lego structure, improving a written draft, refining a schedule, or suggesting changes to an institution.

The pattern was consistent. Unless participants were explicitly reminded that removing something was an option, subtraction rarely came to mind. And when mental bandwidth was low—something most busy leaders can relate to—the likelihood of thinking about subtraction dropped even further.

Why we choose more

Part of the reason is cognitive. Adding is easier to think about than removing; it doesn’t require the same evaluation of what already exists. But there’s also a cultural pull. “More” is often equated with ambition, growth, and value. We measure ourselves by what we’ve built, launched, and controlled—rarely by what we’ve chosen to eliminate.

The result is bloated processes, overloaded schedules, and decisions driven more by momentum than by clarity.

How to lead with subtraction

Working with leaders who operate at full capacity has taught me that subtraction has to be intentional. It’s not something that happens by accident. It starts with taking the same critical eye you’d use to assess a budget or a project plan and applying it to your time and commitments.

A few places to start:

Audit your calendar like a CFO audits expenses. If every meeting carried a dollar cost, which ones would still make the cut?
Consolidate before you eliminate. Sometimes merging two commitments into one delivers more value than either could alone.
Create a weekly subtraction review. Set aside time to ask, “What no longer earns its place here?”
Make decisions under low load. Evaluate your schedule or processes when you’re fresh, not after a twelve-hour day.

What to do next❓

If the goal is to create more space—for your team, your family, or yourself—it’s worth remembering that impact doesn’t only come from addition. Some of the most meaningful improvements happen when we remove the parts that no longer serve the whole.

And the leaders who master this aren’t the ones who’ve found more hours in the day. They’re the ones who’ve learned which hours to give back.

See you next week.

Daria

P.S. If you made it all the way to the bottom, you’re a rock star. Hit reply and tell me what you’ve decided to subtract—or, if you’d like to work through it together, you can grab a spot on my calendar here.