Less but Better - Good Does Not Always Mean Right
Less but Better Week 2
By Rick Aman onWhen Good Programs No Longer Serve the Mission
One of the hardest leadership lessons is learning that a good program can still be the wrong program for the future.
In nonprofit organizations and higher education, programs often begin for sound reasons. A community need is identified. Funding becomes available. A team leader sees an opportunity. A board supports an idea that clearly aligns with the mission at the time. The program is funded and begins, people align with it, and over time it becomes part of the organization’s identity.
The difficulty comes later.
Needs change. Workforce demand evolves. Technology alters how services can be delivered. Funding models move in new directions. What once represented innovation can eventually become routine, and what once served the mission exceptionally well may no longer be the best use of organizational capacity. That does not mean the original decision was wrong. It simply means things change.
This is an important distinction for boards, CEOs, and executive teams. Leaders sometimes hesitate to revisit long-standing programs because they fear doing so somehow diminishes the people who created them or the students and communities they served. I have seen this happen many times. A program may have decades of history, strong advocates, and meaningful accomplishments, and yet the strategic question still needs to be asked: does this program continue to deserve the same investment today?
Last week, I introduced this series with the idea that organizational focus sometimes requires the courage to stop. This week, I want to go one step deeper. The real challenge is not deciding whether something is good. The challenge is deciding whether it remains right.
Mission Must Be More Than a Shield for the Status Quo
Organizations often invoke mission when defending existing programs. We say, “This is part of who we are,” or “We have always served this population,” or “This program reflects our values.” Those statements may be true, but they do not automatically answer the strategic question. Mission should guide decisions, but it should not become a shield that protects every legacy activity from examination.
During my years as a president, I learned that nearly every program could make some legitimate connection to the mission. That was not enough. If everything can be justified by the mission, then the mission stops being useful as a decision-making tool. The better question is whether a program is one of the strongest ways to advance the mission today. That requires leaders to separate mission from habit. It also requires us to distinguish between honoring history and being governed by it. Organizations should respect the work that brought them to the present, but they cannot assume that yesterday’s structure will automatically serve tomorrow’s needs.
This is particularly difficult when internal ownership is strong. Staff, faculty, donors, or community partners may feel deeply connected to a particular program. That commitment deserves respect, but sentiment cannot be the only criterion for continuation. Mission alignment should be demonstrated through outcomes, relevance, and impact. Are students succeeding? Are clients being served effectively? Is the program producing results that justify the resources required? Could those same resources create greater mission impact somewhere else? Those questions are not hostile to mission. They are expressions of stewardship.
Relevance vs Legacy
I believe boards and CEOs need a disciplined way to distinguish relevance from legacy. Legacy has value. It tells us where we came from. It gives organizations identity and continuity. Some programs become part of the institutional story and help define reputation. But legacy alone is not a strategy.
Relevance asks a different set of questions. Does this activity still solve an important problem? Is there evidence that the people we serve value it? Does it still represent an area where the organization has distinctive strength?
I have seen organizations continue programs with very low participation because “we have always offered them.” I have also seen institutions maintain processes that were once necessary but had become redundant because technology or regulation changed. In each case, the obstacle was rarely a lack of information. More often, it was a reluctance to challenge history.
That is where governance matters. Boards should not manage programs, but they should expect leadership to demonstrate how major programs and initiatives contribute to mission and long-term sustainability. CEOs, in turn, should create an environment where executive teams can raise difficult questions without being accused of disloyalty to the organization’s past. A healthy leadership culture makes it possible to say, “This has served us well, but we need to examine whether it still belongs in our future.” That sentence respects the past without surrendering the future to it.
Disciplined Way to Ask the Question
The guiding question for this week is simple: If we were starting today, would we create this again? I like this question because it temporarily removes the weight of history. It asks leaders to imagine that the program does not yet exist and then evaluate it based on today’s mission, needs, resources, and opportunities.
If the answer is yes, that is useful. It confirms that the program remains central to the mission and may warrant continued investment. If the answer is no, that does not necessarily mean the program should be eliminated. Instead, it signals the need for leadership to understand why. The program may need to be redesigned. A partnership may accomplish the same objectives more effectively. Or, after careful consideration, leadership may conclude that the program has served its purpose and it is time to stop.
I would pair the guiding question with several related considerations in leadership discussions. If we created this today, what problem would we say it solves? Who would we design it to serve? What outcomes would we expect? And how would we know whether it was successful? Those questions shift the discussion away from defending the current structure and toward evaluating purpose. The exercise can be especially powerful during board retreats or strategic planning sessions because it gives people permission to challenge assumptions without immediately advocating elimination. The goal is not to produce a list of cuts. The goal is to create clarity.
Honoring the Past Without Being Trapped by It
Strong organizations know how to honor what came before while still making room for what needs to come next. I think this is where leadership maturity becomes especially important. It is relatively easy to celebrate something new. It is much harder to thoughtfully conclude that something valuable has completed its useful life.
When that decision is necessary, leaders should communicate it with respect. We should acknowledge what the program accomplished, the people who built it, and the lives it affected. Ending or changing something should not erase its contribution. But respect for the past should not require permanent continuation.
The discipline of organizational focus requires leaders to make choices based on mission, impact, and future relevance. That may mean continuing some programs with renewed investment. It may mean redesigning others. And yes, occasionally it may mean bringing something to a thoughtful end. The goal is not less for the sake of less. The goal is less, but better.
Boards and CEOs have a responsibility to ensure that organizational resources are concentrated where they can create the greatest value. That responsibility becomes even more important in periods of limited funding, growing expectations, and rapid change. So, I would encourage leadership teams to take one significant program or initiative and ask the question without defensiveness: If we were starting today, would we create this again? Then listen carefully to the answer.
Next week, I will continue the series with The Cost of Organizational Clutter and examine what happens when too many priorities, programs, and initiatives begin competing for the same limited organizational capacity.
----
At Aman and Associates, I work with governing boards, CEOs, and executive teams to strengthen organizational focus and align resources with mission and impact. Through board retreats, CEO mentoring, strategic conversations, and a focused two-hour Zoom Futuring session, I help leaders step beyond traditional planning to define their preferred future and examine what should continue, what should change, and what may have completed its useful life. Clarity about what belongs in the future—and what does not—is one of the most important forms of stewardship a leadership team can provide.
Rick Aman, PhD, Aman & Associates - rick@rickaman.com | rickaman.com
-----