Last year, I sat in a quarterly review where every team reported green.
Fourteen workstreams. All on track. Sprint velocity was the highest it had ever been.
Then someone asked a simple question: which of these moved a number we care about?
The room went quiet.
We had shipped more than any quarter before. And almost none of it had connected to a customer outcome, a revenue goal, or a retention metric.
We weren't failing. We were busy. And we had confused the two.
How We Got There
It didn't happen overnight.
It started the way it starts in every scaling company — a successful team grows, the roadmap expands, and new workstreams get added because there are now enough people to staff them.
No one asked whether those workstreams were the highest-leverage use of those people. They were available. The work seemed reasonable. So it got funded.
Within two quarters, we had teams maintaining initiatives that existed because they had been started — not because they were still the most important thing to do.
The dangerous part: from the inside, it looked like execution. Dashboards were full. Standups were happening. Status reports were flowing.
But output and outcome had quietly decoupled.
The Moment It Clicked
After that quarterly review, I started asking every team lead a version of the same question:
"If you could only keep one thing on your plate — the one thing that would matter most to the business in 90 days — what would it be?"
Every single person had an answer. Immediately.
The problem wasn't that people didn't know what mattered.
The problem was that the environment didn't force the choice. There was always room for one more thing. And one more thing. Until the important work was competing with everything else for attention.
Three Questions That Changed How We Prioritize
After that quarter, we started running every initiative — existing and proposed — through three questions. Simple, but brutally honest:
1. What outcome does this connect to — and how would we know it worked?
Not "what does this deliver." What changes in the world because we did this? If the answer is vague ("improves developer experience," "increases visibility"), it's not ready. A clear outcome has a verb and a measurable noun.
2. If we stopped this today, what would break?
This one killed more zombie workstreams than anything else. A shocking number of in-flight initiatives had no clear consequence of stopping. They persisted because cancelling felt like admitting failure. But continuing them was the actual failure — it consumed capacity that could have gone to something with real leverage.
3. Is this the best use of these people right now?
Not "is this a good use." The best use. Every person on a low-impact initiative is a person not working on a high-impact one. Staffing is a zero-sum game, especially in scaling companies where headcount always feels tight. This question forces a comparison, not just an evaluation.
What Changed
We cut five of fourteen workstreams that quarter.
Not because they were bad ideas. Because they weren't the best use of the people working on them.
The teams that were freed up got redirected to the three initiatives that actually connected to the metrics we'd committed to. Within a quarter, two of those three hit their targets.
The velocity number went down. The impact went up.
The Trap to Watch For
I still catch myself falling into this. The instinct to fill capacity is strong. An available team feels like an opportunity. An empty sprint feels like waste.
But the most valuable thing a leader can do in a scaling company isn't add work.
It's remove it.
Not because the work is bad — but because keeping it means something better doesn't happen.
If you've been in that quarterly review where everything is green but nothing moved — I'd genuinely like to hear how you handled it.
What helped your team shift from measuring activity to measuring impact?
👉 Sign up here to get new posts straight to your inbox. Or reach out directly at insights@nurdsoft.co.
