Are We Drowning in Our Own Processes? Unpacking "Addition Sickness" and the Courage to Subtract

Have you ever felt like you spend more time navigating internal processes than actually doing the work those processes are supposed to enable? If you're nodding along, you’re not alone. It’s something I’ve been thinking about lately, as it is one of my responsibilities at work. We seem to be caught in a relentless cycle of adding steps, approvals, forms, and checks – piling on bureaucracy in the name of control, efficiency, or sometimes, just because adding feels like progress.

But what if the real progress lies not in addition but subtraction?

This thought crystallized for me when I came across this highlight in "The Friction Project" by Robert I. Sutton and Huggy Rao. They diagnose a widespread organizational ailment they call "addition sickness," highlighting a fundamental imbalance in how we value work:

"Organizations accentuate addition sickness by rewarding it with promotions, prestige, and money. And ignoring—or even punishing—people who subtract. Leaders who start big programs are celebrated, not those who disband bad ones."

I could easily identify with that. Think about it: launching a new initiative, rolling out a new software, creating a new multi-step workflow – these are visible actions. They generate buzz, require resources, and often come with hefty project plans and leadership roles. The people driving these additions are often seen as dynamic, productive, and influential.

Conversely, who gets celebrated for decommissioning an outdated system, eliminating a redundant approval loop, or killing a zombie project that refuses to die? Often, nobody. Or worse, the person suggesting subtraction might be seen as critical, lazy ("trying to get out of work"), or rocking the boat. This asymmetry, where addition is lauded and subtraction is ignored or penalized, creates a powerful current that pulls organizations towards ever-increasing complexity.

The Process Trap: When Means Become Ends

This "addition sickness" feeds directly into a common organizational trap: focusing on process over outcomes. Processes are essential, of course. They provide structure, ensure consistency, and manage risk. But when they become bloated, outdated, or simply exist for their own sake, they transform from enablers into obstacles. They become sources of friction – the grit in the gears that slows everything down, drains energy, and frustrates talented people.

I was reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's wisdom, often quoted by productivity guru David Allen: “As to methods, there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.”

How often do our processes become methods detached from the underlying principles or desired outcomes? We follow the steps because they are the steps, not necessarily because they are the best way, or even a good way, to achieve the goal. The process becomes the end in itself.

This is reinforced, as Sutton and Rao point out, by reward systems. Reading "Team Topologies" by Matthew Skelton and Manuel Pais, I noted a similar warning about how misaligned incentives can sabotage broader goals: they mention how rewarding individual performance metrics (like deploying features quickly, perhaps by adding quick-and-dirty processes) can drive poor system-level results (like technical debt or operational complexity). Similarly, rewarding managers for creating processes, regardless of their long-term impact, embeds bureaucracy deeper into the organizational DNA.

The authors of "Pirates in the Navy" (Tendayi Viki, Dan Toma, Esther Gons) nail this connection between rewards and culture: "Company cultures are determined by what they reward and celebrate." They argue that genuine change, like moving towards innovation or efficiency, won't happen unless the behaviour is incentivized at the management level. If we only celebrate addition, the culture will remain one of accumulation.

The Courage to Subtract: Wielding the Scalpel

So, how do we fight back against the relentless tide of addition? It starts with acknowledging the problem and cultivating the courage to subtract.

This idea resonates strongly with insights from "The Zombie Guide to Surviving Bureaucracy" by Max Borders and Walter E. Block, which isn't just about surviving but actively fighting the undead processes. They emphasize the critical importance of subtracting unnecessary steps and procedures. More than just doing it, they suggest we need to actively celebrate successful moments of subtraction – making heroes out of those who simplify and streamline, not just those who build.

Imagine recognizing a team not for launching a complex new program, but for successfully retiring three old ones, freeing up significant time and resources. Imagine performance reviews considering "simplification contributions" alongside "new initiatives launched." This requires a cultural shift, starting from the top.

Introducing the Subtraction Sprint:

One practical approach I've found compelling is the concept of a "Subtraction Sprint." Much like agile development sprints focus on delivering features, a Subtraction Sprint focuses intensely on identifying and removing sources of friction.

Here’s how it might work:

1. Identify the Pain Points: Gather input from teams. Where are the bottlenecks? What processes feel redundant, overly complex, or simply time-wasting? Use surveys, workshops, or direct feedback.
2. Target Specific Areas: Don't try to boil the ocean. Pick a specific workflow, policy, or system that’s a known source of friction.
3. Dedicated Time & Team: Assemble a cross-functional team with the authority to make changes. Dedicate a focused period (e.g., one or two weeks) to analyze the target area and implement subtractions.
4. Ask Brutally Honest Questions: Why does this step/process/rule exist? What outcome does it truly serve? What would happen if we simply stopped doing it? (Seriously, explore this!)Can we achieve the same outcome with fewer steps? Is this solving a problem that no longer exists? Does the cost (time, frustration, delay) of this process outweigh its benefit?
5. Implement Fearlessly: Make the changes. Remove the steps, kill the forms, simplify the approvals. Document the "before" and "after" to measure the impact.
6. Celebrate & Communicate: Share the results widely. Highlight the time saved, the frustration reduced, and the outcomes improved. Make the subtractors visible heroes.

Regularly running Subtraction Sprints can build momentum and create a counter-narrative to the constant pressure for addition. It makes simplification an active, valued pursuit.

Not All Friction is Bad: Finding the Right Balance

Now, a crucial caveat. While battling harmful bureaucracy, we must be careful not to swing the pendulum too far and eliminate necessary friction. Some friction is good; it’s productive.

Think about:

• Quality Checks: Processes ensuring work meets standards before release.
• Compliance Gates: Steps required for legal, regulatory, or ethical adherence.
• Deliberate Decision-Making: Processes that force us to pause and reflect before major commitments.
• Safety Protocols: Procedures designed to prevent harm.

Removing these essential checks and balances in the name of speed or simplicity can be disastrous. This connects to a point made by Adam Grant in "Think Again": he warns against praising and rewarding results without scrutinizing the process used to achieve them. Blindly chasing efficiency metrics without understanding why a process exists could lead us to subtract something vital, only realizing its value after something goes wrong.

The goal isn't zero friction; it's optimal friction. It's about consciously distinguishing between "good friction" that ensures quality, safety, and thoughtful action, and "bad friction" that merely slows things down, adds needless complexity, and drains morale. The Subtraction Sprint should focus squarely on identifying and eliminating the latter.

Moving Forward: From Addition Sickness to Subtraction Savvy

Escaping the clutches of piled-on bureaucracy isn't easy. It requires a conscious cultural shift, starting with leadership acknowledging the value of subtraction and actively rewarding it. It requires empowering teams to question existing processes and providing them with tools and methods, like Subtraction Sprints, to actively remove friction. And it requires the wisdom to differentiate between the bureaucratic sludge we need to clear and the essential structures that keep things running smoothly and safely.

I encourage you to look around your own organization. Where is "addition sickness" flourishing? Are people celebrated for building complexity or for achieving outcomes efficiently? Are there processes crying out for a Subtraction Sprint?

Perhaps the most potent question we can ask isn't "What can we add?" but rather, "What can we bravely take away?" The rewards – in terms of speed, focus, morale, and ultimately, better outcomes – might surprise us all.