In this industry—as in many others—those who persevere are applauded more than those who decide to let go.
Those who keep pushing a project even when it no longer makes sense. Those who insist on closing a business that isn't viable, just to avoid "losing" the emotional investment. Those who finish a project knowing it was flawed from the start… but deliver it anyway.
Because stopping something is perceived as weakness. As a lack of leadership. As if "giving up" were the worst thing you could do.
But often, the most responsible thing a leader can do is to pause. Evaluate. Rethink. Or let go.
I've had to do it. Projects with good intentions, but without conditions. Clients with great ideas, but without structure. Teams that started well and completely fell apart.
And it wasn't comfortable. Or quick. Or popular. But it was the right thing to do.
Harvard Business Review speaks of the "cost of over-commitment": leaders who continue out of inertia, ego, or fear of admitting they're past their prime. And that cost is high: wasted time, burned-out talent, mismanaged money, and jeopardized reputation.
Suspending is not improvising. It's a decision made with strategic clarity and respect for the original purpose. It implies understanding that leadership isn't about delivering at all costs, but about building something that truly has a future.
I don't celebrate projects that simply end. I celebrate the ones that were worthwhile.
And if someone doesn't go, they don't go. That's also leadership.
