For over 30 years, the masterful conducting of Herbert von Karajan (1908–1989) made the Berlin Philharmonic, which he led between 1955 and 1989, one of the most highly rated orchestras performing Wagner’s music. At the same time, Karajan also set new standards for the interpretation of the classical and romantic repertoire of concertos and orchestral works of Ludwig van Beethoven, Anton Bruckner, and Richard Strauss. And as if that was not enough, Karajan was rated one of the most competent interpreters of works by Giuseppe Verdi.
In addition to making almost countless recordings, Karajan also attained an unusually powerful position on the European music scene. Apart from leading the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, between 1956 and 1964 he was in charge of the Vienna State Opera and took on various other top jobs as well, including at the Salzburg Festival, the Salzburg Easter Festival (which he founded in 1967), and the Salzburg Whitsun Festival, which began in 1973. Through his production companies, Karajan comprehensively exploited his artistic performances across multiple media, combining live appearances, audio recordings, and videos. Karajan himself was always enthusiastic about new technical developments and was invariably among the pioneers when it came to exploiting new technology for his own ends. Another fact that should not be overlooked is that many young artists, like the violinist Anne-Sophie Mutter, largely owe their original breakthrough to Karajan’s benevolent influence.
Yet as extensive as Karajan’s various activities and commitments were, he was also a maestro at “purposeful abandonment,” and it is in this connection that you, as a manager, can learn some valuable lessons from him.
Purposeful abandonment is a technique exploited by many people and organizations that achieve greatness. The concept is nothing new, having been discussed at length by Peter F. Drucker as long ago as 1964 in Managing for Results and again in 1967 in The Effective Executive. Nonetheless, most organizations are not systematic about practicing purposeful abandonment, despite how extremely useful it is today, faced with a glut of possibilities and the associated risk of dissipating their efforts and energy.1
Karajan’s exceptional drive may be characterized by impressive versatility, but he was also perfectly capable of devoting his full attention to just one activity during a particular creative phase while deliberately suppressing or totally abandoning others. He was aware that no orchestra can on the same day put in world-class performances of works by composers who are stylistically worlds apart. Furthermore, even when concentrating on just a few composers, like any competent conductor, he did not overstretch his repertoire with them when he wanted to set new standards. This paved the way for excellent performances, while other orchestral pieces and composers were set to one side.
This is one reason why conductors with very broad repertoires very rarely rank among the world’s best, Simon Rattle being one such exception, as you will discover in Chapter 26. Ordinarily, people are simply incapable of excelling at lots of different things. But even where genius enters the picture, sometimes there may be justification in claiming that less would probably have been more. This, for example, is what Giorgio Vasari, a contemporary of Michelangelo and biographer of famous painters, sculptors, and architects of his time, wrote about Leonardo da Vinci in the sixteenth century: “We see that to really find out what art was all about Leonardo started all manner of things, but saw barely any through to completion.”2
Just how important the concept of offloading ballast is can be seen from literature as well. English author Charles Dickens, whose most famous works include Oliver Twist and David Copperfield, improved his books by gradually shortening them, reviewing them over and over again. Instead of writing more text, he used different colors to successively delete words, sentences, or entire passages from his manuscript in the course of successive revisions. By the time he had finished, his manuscript could be peppered with red, green, and blue markings and be just a third of its original length!
If such eminent individuals as these saw a need to make a habit of systematically scaling back their activities, then humble managers must surely embrace the same principle. Yet the concept does not only apply to individuals, entire organizations can substantially boost their effectiveness and efficiency by practicing purposeful abandonment. In this connection, the following few basic considerations and procedures may prove useful.
Neither managers nor organizations can simultaneously notch up remarkable achievements in multiple domains. This is simply a fact. Accordingly, the first and most important step must entail systematically setting aside anything that detracts from effectiveness and efficiency. If this is not done regularly and as a matter of course, resources will constantly be squandered on things that no longer need to be done. And not infrequently your best people will end up being wasted, assigned to deal with old, outdated business instead of being allowed to focus their attention on opportunities with future promise. What is more, any wasting of time, money, or human resources will subsequently make itself felt in areas where urgently needed resources could otherwise have been put to very productive use.
The process of self-renewal through systematic, purposeful abandonment and innovation is essential because all products, services, processes, systems, and guidelines will sooner or later become redundant, quite simply either because the objectives associated with them have already been achieved, or because different goals will need to be met in the future. Quite apart from this, it is worth bearing in mind that it is considerably better to actively drive forward the process of systematic abandonment yourself than only to react when forced to do so by one’s competitors. Playing an active role puts you in a far superior position. Organizations and individuals who expedite change may take certain risks, but neglecting to make such changes at all, or only doing so too late, would definitely represent a greater risk. Organizations that are intent on making names for themselves as change leaders will inevitably have to undertake a rigorous process of systematic purposeful abandonment anyway.
There are many different ways of setting up such a process. Two tried and tested methods are drafting a “stop-doing” list and scheduling regular meetings on systematic, purposeful abandonment (called “abandonment meetings” for short).
Writing a stop-doing list can work wonders for your own personal efficiency. Effective managers keep some kind of to-do lists to note tasks they wish to perform. But instead of merely listing what you intend to do, you should also write down what you plan to stop doing in the future. Keeping a stop-doing list will help you understand not only what you should no longer do, but also how you can go about making sure that there is no need for you to do it any longer, if it still needs to be done at all.
Be mindful in this context that many successful people swap money for time, whereas the vast majority trade time for money. And even if this still seems like only a distant notion to you, keep it in the back of your mind because you will soon find ways of buying time for money, probably on a rather limited scale to begin with, but soon, if you persevere, on a much broader scale. And you will see that the situation is very similar to that concerning interest, which generates compound interest, which in turn generates even more interest, and so on. The more time you can afford to buy, the better you will be able to concentrate on things that generate greater added value for others, which in turn will further boost your resources. Obviously, then, stop-doing lists are not only helpful for you as a manager, but more importantly can help you make your organization more effective.
The second method (holding monthly abandonment meetings) is based on an idea that is both simple and sensible. It entails setting aside a fixed day every month for a meeting at which the participants discuss any activity they feel ought to be sloughed off. Some organizations consistently hold such meetings once a month at every management level. Each such meeting focuses on a different core area, such as products, services, designated uses, markets, groups of customers, distribution channels, processes, rules, or guidelines. The aim of the exercise is to scrutinize all aspects of an organization’s activities over the course of a year with a view to practicing systematic, purposeful abandonment. The general questions to be asked in so doing are these: “Do we want to keep on doing what we are currently doing?” “What should we stop doing in the future?”
It was in response to the following two questions that legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch set his goal of ensuring that GE should be the number one or two in every single one of its companies’ markets, asking: “If you weren’t already in the business, would you enter it today?” And if the answer is no, “What are you going to do about it?”3 Apply these questions correspondingly to different areas of your organization. What you should expect to happen over the year is to see significant changes regarding both what is done and how it is done. In addition, some worthwhile activities that you would like to take on are bound to crop up. And you can make the process dynamic and more effective if, in keeping with good implementation management practices, you regularly communicate what is being achieved and what has changed as a result of these abandonment meetings.
Introduce a monthly abandonment meeting (or a meeting geared toward purposeful abandonment) and spread the word within your organization about the results of systematically following up on them.
Keep a stop-doing list.
Find out where you might usefully exchange money for time.