I began the Master’s in Technology Leadership at Brown University in early 2022 with the goal of learning what it takes to reach the C-Suite and steer a cutting-edge technology firm through the dangerous waters of change and uncertainty. My initial focus was to understand what skills I lack and to soak up these tactical aspects to transform my leadership practice. What I’ve come to learn in my short time in the program is that leadership is much larger than a set of traits one can execute, i.e., it’s not something you can just “learn to be better” in a classroom, seminar, or even on the job. Leadership in practice is the culmination of your experiences/values/traits and willingness to be present to constantly learn how to champion the people that trust you to do what is right.
One of this week’s topics is the dreaded Death March (Edward Yourdon)— the stage where a project is circling the drain and is doomed for failure. In practical terms, the Death March is defined as a project that has surpassed more than 50% of overage in terms of the scope and/or that the likelihood of failure is greater than or equal to 50%. Yourdon’s book gives great insight with case studies large and small to show the How and Why these projects fail and, I’m assuming, if you’re reading this post, you’ve experienced a project like this in your career. The issue with Death March projects is that following a prescriptive recipe for success is not a guarantee. Projects are carried out by people and people require leadership. Leaders need to know all of the aspects required for success, certainly, but as I’ve mentioned above, leadership is not a set of steps and the active presence component is key to avoiding the Death March.
Famous examples of Death March projects such as Boston’s “Big Dig” and the Denver International Airport’s baggage system are the fodder of case studies in project management land and given the definition, it’s easy to see why given the failure of the practical project aspects. Project management as a discipline looks at the discrete elements in these doomed projects and pulls out the commonalities that cause them in retrospect in the hopes of steering future projects correctly. The PM theory is that having the aforementioned recipe for success and awareness of pitfalls may lead to Death March avoidance. Some PM theory even suggests that a Death March project can be turned around with proper PM methodologies and direction. I love the optimism, but, I believe the issue is above the PM. The issue is with leadership.
Good leaders, those with the willingness to be present to constantly learn how to champion the people that trust you to do what is right, must have the awareness and foresight built on their experience/values/traits to avoid projects that burn people out, waste investment, build technical debt, and the like. Leaders must be accountable. The blame can’t be shifted to project managers as it can’t be dumped on developers, engineers, contractors, etc. A leader must stand up and protect the project team from moving goalposts, unrealistic deadlines, and scope creep.
Ultimately, as heroic as it may seem, a great project manager can’t save a Death March project when it is doomed to fail by poor leadership. As leaders, this is what our people, those who trust us to look out for them, need us to do- lead.
