A version of this article originally appeared in Quartz’s Leadership newsletter. Sign up here to get the latest leadership news and insights straight to your inbox.

At a time when organizational complexity is rising and simplicity is optional, success in 2026 may come down to leaders who choose simplicity with purpose.

So, a question to consider as we enter the new year: What deserves to continue?

One strategic, year-end maneuver to employ or fine-tune as a kind of organizational cleanse is a Keep-Kill-Change audit.

Inefficient or bloated meetings alone are costing companies millions. Studies show that meeting time has tripled since 2020 with the proliferation of remote work. Organizational psychologist Steven Rogelberg conducted a study finding that full-time employees now average about 18 hours per week in meetings, which amounts to an annual investment of $80,300 per employee each year. Just to be in meetings. Surveyed attendees estimated about 5.7 of those weekly hours were “wasted.”

Several of those employees could have skipped the meeting (as long as they were kept in the loop about what relevant decisions were made) and been more productive doing other things. Rogelberg’s study concluded that there was a potential “wasted” investment of more than $25,400 per employee.

That means average-sized companies are losing $2-3 million per year on meetings, and large companies (5,000+ employees) are losing as much as $100 million per year.

How the Keep-Kill-Change audit works

• **Keep: **What is working well, delivering value, and serving organizational goals?
• **Kill: **What is wasting time, resources, morale, or attention?
• Change: What has value but needs rethinking and adaptation for 2026?

This exercise forces prioritization and clarity, as well as shared language across teams.

“In construction, you walk the site to spot what’s slowing you down, what’s unsafe, and what needs a redesign. I treat workflows the same way, hands-on, honest, and focused on what actually moves projects forward,” said Greg Batista, president of G Batista Engineering & Construction. “I’ve learned that teams don’t usually notice the problems with the process they’ve had for a whole year.

“‘If this task disappeared tomorrow, what breaks?’ is the only question I ask when we do these audits,” Batista said. “Things go along as they should most of the time. Companies get stuck when they treat every job as if it were mission-critical. This is how bloat starts to form.”

A key component of a quality keep-kill-change audit is to run it with data, not opinions, though reported friction points and qualitative measures are still necessary to achieve a holistic view.

“The biggest potential trap for conducting an effective keep, kill, or change audit is to rush through it or view it as a check-box, potentially frustrating your team,” said Johannes Hock, president of Artificial Grass Pros. “To avoid these pitfalls, structure your audit by function, integrate both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a complete picture, and schedule follow-up meetings to ensure that your actions create lasting change.”

Other strategies for running these efficiency exercises include making sure every team has a voice in the process, and that changes are implemented with transparency regarding why they are being made.

“A keep, kill, change review becomes a much more powerful tool when all employees are able to describe the one moment in their week that makes them stop, find a work-around or make a guess,” said Eliot Vancil, CEO of Fuel Logic, a fuel management solutions company. “These micro-slowdowns tell more truth about your company than your entire quarterly report.

“I provide my managers with a structure for the keep, kill, change review discussions so that each employee identifies at least one recurring slowdown and assigns a tangible cost to the slowdown,” Vancil said. “A dispatcher, for example, could show that one unclear fuel order creates three additional phone calls adding up to $30 of labor and 10 minutes of added delay each time. Once this detail is provided, you then have the ability to determine whether you want to continue using the same process, eliminate the bad habits or change the overall system based upon clear data. The problem arises when the review begins to include subjective opinions instead of providing tangible numbers that all employees understand.”

Batista said he looks for friction points in the “change” category.

“Such as having to do the same work over and over, not being sure who is responsible for what, or workflows that need five handoffs to finish one small job,” he said. “There you have it: the secret cost drivers. You can get more done without spending any money once you fix them.”

Another important idea is that this exercise should become part of the leadership rhythm, not just a one-off purge.

“The audit helps my team to categorize work in terms of time use, cost, and outcome impact, so that high-value activities are preserved, low-value tasks are removed, and processes requiring enhancement are redesigned,” said Jason Vaught, director of content & marketing at marketing firm SmashBrand.

“Value-generating processes, safety protocols, and customer-facing procedures are always maintained, whereas non-essential reporting, manual duplication, and tasks with negligible impact are eliminated,” Vaught said. “The change initiatives focus on workflow bottlenecks, communication gaps, and task standardization, maintaining accountability and clarity across teams. In my practice, the end-of-year audit saves labor, prevents missed opportunities, and aligns staff priorities with organizational objectives, producing measurable gains in efficiency and morale.”

📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief