Context & Background: The Myth of Multitasking in Business

The modern corporate environment is often characterized by a culture of “busyness.” Employees and leaders alike can feel compelled to be constantly engaged, juggling multiple responsibilities and initiatives. This can stem from a fear of missing out (FOMO) on emerging opportunities, a desire to appease various stakeholders with competing demands, or simply an ingrained belief that more activity equals more progress. The result is often a diluted effort, where resources are spread too thin, leading to mediocrity across the board rather than excellence in targeted areas.

The article from Harvard Business Review, “Your Company Needs to Focus on Fewer Projects. Here’s How,” published in August 2025, directly addresses this phenomenon. It posits that success is not achieved by initiating a greater number of projects, but rather by strategically identifying and discontinuing those that no longer deliver significant value. This perspective challenges the conventional wisdom that equates constant activity with progress, advocating instead for a more disciplined and discerning approach to project selection and management.

Historically, the push for more has been fueled by several factors. Globalization and rapid technological advancements have presented a constant stream of new markets, customer needs, and competitive threats. This has led many organizations to adopt a “yes” mentality, eager to explore every potential avenue. However, as organizations grow in complexity, their capacity to manage multiple, high-quality initiatives diminishes. The initial enthusiasm for diversification can quickly devolve into an unwieldy portfolio of underperforming projects, consuming valuable resources and hindering genuine innovation.

The concept of “opportunity cost” is central to this discussion. Every project a company undertakes means resources—financial, human, and temporal—are diverted from other potential endeavors. When too many low-value or stagnant projects consume these resources, the opportunity cost of not pursuing more impactful initiatives becomes substantial. This can manifest as missed market windows, delayed product launches, and a general inability to adapt to market shifts effectively.

Furthermore, the psychological impact of juggling too many projects cannot be overstated. Team morale can suffer due to constant context switching, feelings of being overwhelmed, and a lack of tangible progress on any single front. This can lead to burnout, decreased engagement, and a higher employee turnover rate, further exacerbating resource constraints.

In-Depth Analysis: The Mechanics of Strategic Pruning

The core principle advocated by the HBR article is that of strategic pruning—the active and often difficult process of identifying and stopping projects that are no longer aligned with strategic goals, are not delivering expected value, or are draining resources without a clear path to profitability or impact. This isn’t about abandoning innovation, but about channeling efforts into the most promising avenues.

Identifying Value Erosion

The first step in effective pruning is the ability to objectively assess the ongoing value of each project. This requires establishing clear metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) from the outset of any initiative. These metrics should be tied directly to strategic objectives. Examples include:

• Return on Investment (ROI): Is the project generating a positive financial return or showing a clear path to it?
• Market Share Growth: Is the project contributing to an increase in our competitive position?
• Customer Acquisition/Retention: Is the project effectively attracting or keeping customers?
• Strategic Alignment: Does the project still support the company’s overarching mission and long-term vision?
• Resource Efficiency: Are the resources (time, money, personnel) being utilized effectively, or could they be better allocated elsewhere?

Regular review cycles are crucial. Projects should not be allowed to continue indefinitely based on inertia or sunk costs. A formal process for quarterly or bi-annual project portfolio reviews, involving key stakeholders and leadership, can help ensure that each project is continually scrutinized against these value-based criteria.

The Challenge of “Sunk Costs”

A significant psychological barrier to project termination is the concept of “sunk costs.” Humans are naturally inclined to continue with something they’ve invested heavily in, even if it’s no longer viable, rather than admit a past decision was flawed. This can lead to “throwing good money after bad.” Acknowledging and overcoming this bias requires a shift in mindset towards evaluating projects based on their future potential, not past investment.

As behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman has extensively documented, the “sunk cost fallacy” can lead to irrational decision-making. His work on prospect theory highlights how individuals tend to be more risk-averse when facing potential gains and more risk-seeking when trying to avoid losses, making the decision to cut a project feel like a definitive loss. Therefore, framing project termination not as a failure, but as a strategic reallocation of resources to more promising ventures, can be more effective.

Building a Culture of Prioritization

Fostering a culture that embraces focus requires strong leadership and clear communication. Leaders must champion the principle of doing fewer things well. This involves:

• Setting Clear Strategic Priorities: Ensure that the company’s overall strategic goals are well-defined and understood by all. This provides a framework for evaluating project proposals. The McKinsey Center for Strategic Management frequently publishes insights on the importance of robust strategy formulation and execution.
• Empowering Decision-Making: Grant teams and individuals the authority to say “no” to projects that do not align with priorities, or to propose stopping underperforming ones.
• Transparent Communication: Clearly articulate the rationale behind project prioritization and termination decisions. This helps to build trust and understanding, even when difficult choices are made.
• Rewarding Focus: Recognize and reward individuals and teams for successfully completing high-impact projects, rather than simply for being busy or managing many projects.

Implementing a Project Portfolio Management (PPM) Framework

A robust Project Portfolio Management (PPM) framework is essential for effective project selection and termination. PPM is a centralized management approach that allows decision makers to view all proposed projects, select the best ones to maximize value, and resource them appropriately. According to the Project Management Institute (PMI), effective PPM aligns projects with organizational strategy and ensures that the right projects are undertaken.

Key components of a PPM framework include:

• Project Intake and Evaluation: A standardized process for submitting and evaluating new project proposals based on strategic alignment, feasibility, and potential value.
• Prioritization and Selection: A scoring or ranking system to compare projects and select those that offer the greatest strategic benefit and ROI.
• Resource Allocation: A method for allocating limited resources (budget, personnel) to the prioritized projects.
• Performance Monitoring: Ongoing tracking of project progress against defined KPIs and regular portfolio reviews.
• Project Termination: A formal process for decommissioning projects that are no longer viable or strategically relevant.

Pros and Cons of Focusing on Fewer Projects

While the benefits of a focused approach are substantial, it’s important to acknowledge the potential downsides and challenges:

Pros:

• Increased Efficiency and Productivity: By concentrating resources on a smaller number of high-impact projects, teams can work more efficiently, reducing context switching and improving focus. This often leads to faster completion times and higher quality outputs.
• Improved Quality: When teams are not spread too thin, they can dedicate more attention to detail, problem-solving, and innovation within each project. This results in better products, services, and outcomes.
• Enhanced Innovation: A focused approach frees up mental bandwidth and resources that can be redirected towards truly groundbreaking initiatives. Instead of incremental improvements across many fronts, companies can invest in transformational projects.
• Better Resource Allocation: Companies can optimize the use of their most valuable assets—their people and capital—by channeling them into initiatives with the highest potential for success.
• Higher Employee Morale and Engagement: When employees see tangible progress and feel that their work is contributing to meaningful outcomes, morale and engagement tend to increase. The reduction of overwhelm can also combat burnout.
• Reduced Costs: Stopping underperforming projects early can prevent significant financial waste associated with continued investment in non-viable initiatives.
• Greater Agility: A leaner project portfolio allows organizations to be more responsive to market changes and pivot resources more quickly when needed.

Cons:

• Risk of Missing Opportunities: Over-pruning could lead to companies being too risk-averse and missing out on emerging trends or disruptive innovations that might have been explored through a broader project portfolio.
• Stakeholder Disappointment: Stakeholders who championed or invested in projects that are ultimately terminated may feel disappointed or that their input was disregarded.
• Internal Resistance: Employees or departments heavily invested in specific projects may resist termination, leading to internal friction or a perception of unfairness.
• Difficulty in Objective Assessment: Accurately assessing project value can be challenging, especially for early-stage or long-term strategic initiatives where immediate ROI might not be apparent. This can lead to premature termination of potentially valuable projects.
• Perception of Stagnation: If not communicated effectively, a focus on fewer projects might be misinterpreted by the market or employees as a lack of ambition or a sign of the company’s decline.

Key Takeaways

• Prioritization is Paramount: Success in business is often achieved by doing fewer things exceptionally well, rather than many things poorly.
• Strategic Pruning is Essential: Regularly identifying and stopping projects that no longer create value or align with strategic goals is crucial for resource optimization.
• Define Clear Metrics: Establish objective Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for all projects from their inception to enable effective value assessment.
• Overcome Sunk Cost Bias: Make decisions based on future potential, not past investment, to avoid perpetuating failing initiatives.
• Build a Culture of Focus: Leadership must champion strategic prioritization and empower teams to make difficult choices.
• Implement a PPM Framework: Utilize robust Project Portfolio Management practices for disciplined project intake, selection, and termination.
• Balance Focus with Exploration: While focusing is key, ensure a mechanism exists to explore new opportunities without derailing core initiatives.

Future Outlook: The Agile and Focused Enterprise

The trend towards more focused operations is likely to intensify as businesses navigate increasing market volatility and complexity. Companies that master the art of strategic prioritization will be better positioned to innovate, adapt, and achieve sustainable growth. The future enterprise will likely be characterized by:

• Agile Portfolio Management: Continuously evaluating and rebalancing the project portfolio in response to market shifts and new data.
• Data-Driven Decision-Making: Relying on objective data and analytics to inform project selection and termination, minimizing emotional or political biases.
• Cross-Functional Collaboration: Fostering collaboration between departments to ensure a unified understanding of strategic priorities and project impacts.
• Emphasis on Outcomes Over Output: Shifting the focus from the number of projects completed to the actual business value and strategic outcomes achieved.

Organizations that embrace this paradigm shift will not only improve their financial performance but also cultivate a more engaged and effective workforce, capable of tackling the most critical challenges and opportunities.

Call to Action

Every organization, regardless of size or industry, can benefit from a critical self-assessment of its current project portfolio. Start today by:

1. Conducting a Portfolio Audit: Gather a list of all active projects and critically evaluate each one against your current strategic objectives and defined value metrics.
2. Initiating a Discussion: Bring together key stakeholders to discuss the findings and begin the process of identifying projects that may need to be paused or terminated.
3. Establishing a PPM Process: If one doesn’t exist, begin the work of implementing a formal Project Portfolio Management framework to guide future project selection and management.
4. Communicating the Strategy: Clearly articulate the rationale for focusing efforts to your teams, emphasizing the benefits of greater impact and sustainable success.

By embracing the principle of doing fewer things better, you can unlock your company’s true potential for productivity and long-term success.