In 1907, Henry Ford took a step that shaped modern manufacturing forever, but it was more abrupt than myth would have it. By this time, Ford's Model N was America's best-selling car, dominating the market with affordable pricing and reliable engineering. Yet, Ford saw something beyond the Model N, a new vehicle that would change the company and the entire world of personal transportation.
Ford secretly began developing the Model T in a makeshift experimental room on the third floor of his Piquette Avenue Plant. But rather than shutting down operations to chase this vision, he was strategic. Production of the Model N continued alongside the development of the Model T. As demand for this new vehicle grew, Ford gradually phased out his old best-seller and transitioned to a more efficient production system.
The real dramatic shift came much later, in 1927, when Ford halted all production of the Model T, a car that had been his cash cow for two decades. He shut down his Highland Park plant for six months to retool for the Model A, understanding that clinging to even his greatest success could become a liability.
Steve Jobs was a master of strategic abandonment as well, and one of the clearest examples comes from his decision to kill off the iPod Mini at its peak. The iPod Mini was wildly successful in the mid-2000s, dominating the portable music player market with its sleek design and colorful options. It accounted for a massive share of Apple's revenue, and most executives would have riden that success as long as possible. Not Jobs.
In 2005, when the iPod Mini was still the best-selling MP3 player in the world, Jobs boldly decided to discontinue it entirely. He had already seen the future: the iPod Nano, a slimmer, sleeker device that featured a color screen and flash memory instead of the Mini's hard drive. Despite the Mini's popularity, Jobs recognized that holding onto it would eventually limit Apple's innovation ability. His willingness to let go of a product at its height of success allowed the company to leap ahead in terms of design and functionality.
By abandoning the iPod Mini early, Apple continued to lead the market instead of becoming reactive to it. Like Ford abandoning the Model T for the Model A, Jobs' strategic ruthlessness with the iPod Mini wasn't just only scrapping a product, it was making room for something far better.
Knowing when to let go is an art. Ford's calculated evolution stresses the need for businesses to regularly assess what's no longer serving them, a practice that every organization should formalize through what I call "Abandonment Meetings."
Do You Have Abandonment Issues?
The longer companies cling to legacy systems, products, or ideas, the more they risk becoming irrelevant. Elon Musk has criticized the continuous growth of rules and regulations, stating, "The rules and regulations keep increasing every year. Rules and regulations are immortal, they don't die." Musk argues this accumulation of regulations makes it increasingly difficult to accomplish things over time and the government should regularly prune these items. This is where the concept of Abandonment Meetings comes in: a recurring opportunity to audit what's holding the company back and to systematically let go of outdated practices, tools, policies, or even mindsets.
Don't Hold on For One More Day
Sunk-cost fallacy, the psychological tendency to persist in something we've invested heavily in, even when it no longer serves us, is a major reason businesses resist letting go. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's research on decision-making shows that people feel a greater aversion to loss than they feel pleasure from gains. Companies are no different, they hold on to legacy products and systems, despite obvious signs that it's time to move on.
Kodak's refusal to adopt digital photography, despite inventing the technology, is a perfect example. They couldn't let go of film, a technology that had served them well for decades. By the time they attempted to pivot, it was too late. Kodak became a warning story of clinging to the past.
The Abandonment Meeting Framework
Here is my framework for running an Abandonment Meeting.
This is a dual-team effort. Start by building Team A from the most apparent or eager rule-breakers across the organization. Ideally, less than 8 people. Team-B will be the contrast team, those within the organization known for sticking to policy. If you use the DiSC behavioral assessment, these are your high-C's. Again, no more than 8 members.
Set the Objective - Make it clear to Team A that the goal is to identify what no longer aligns with the company's future direction. It could be a product, a process, or even a client segment draining resources without providing enough value. What's slowing us down? Review technologies, strategies, product lines, policies, and customer bases. Look at what worked two years ago and see if it still fits your vision for the next two year
Brainstorm & Cluster—Give Team A 10 minutes to write in silence and transfer each idea to a post-it note. Then, at the end of 10 minutes, have them speak to their idea and place it on the wall. Each member of Team-A will do this, and as they share, they should cluster similar ideas. Encourage the team to challenge assumptions and to speak up about what's become a burden, even if it was once a company pillar.
Team B and One-Way vs. Two-Way Doors - During Team-A's brainstorming we want Team-B to be silently listening, taking notes. Team B's job is to now review the clusters of "abandonment candidates" using Jeff Bezos' well-known idea of "One-Way vs. Two-Way Door" decision-making. This concept recognizes the difference between irreversible (one-way) and reversible (two-way) decisions to make decisions move faster and more efficiently. One-way door decisions are big, consequential, and hard to reverse, like launching a major new product. These decisions should be made cautiously, with thorough analysis.
On the other hand, two-way door decisions are small, reversible choices. If a decision doesn't work out, you can go back through the door and make changes. Bezos argued that most decisions are two-way doors, and companies often treat them as one-way doors, which slows down innovation and agility. Give Team B the authority to rank all issues as either Irreversible or Reversible. Then, immediately enact the reversible ideas and suggest the irreversible ideas to others for review before taking action.
Abandonment Meetings are about cutting losses and anticipating future needs. Companies that master the art of abandonment are those that adapt, thrive, and grow. They don't wait for disruption to force their hand; they disrupt themselves, just like Henry Ford.
