To clarify, in this post I’m not talking about those occasional instances of real, emergent crisis where any professional steps up to do what needs to be done. I refer to when “being a hero” (e.g., working late, working weekends, sacrificing life balance, etc.) becomes an accepted and regular work practice, rather than anticipating and preventing the need for heroism.

Stop whining and hiding behind nonsense like “Sustainable Pace” and “Avoidable Heroism” and get on with the work!

I don’t care whether commitment with the possibility of unlimited renegotiation is still commitment. The question is what is *effective*.

And the fact is that working harder than is sustainable is in nobodys interest. Encouraging teams to “work harder” when they find out that something takes more effort than anticipated doesn’t help anybody.

Finding out as early as possible, and then being able to collaborate on changing the plan so that we can deliver the best value possible, in a sustainable way, that seems to make more sense to me.

One Monday a developer came to his manager and bragged about how he had worked all weekend to enable the team “make the sprint commitment”. The manager said something like “next time this happens, I want you to stay home at the weekend. I want you to feel the pain of knowing that on Monday you will have to tell the PO that you didn’t live up to your commitment. I hope that will help you learn to not overcommit.”

I was going to give you some more detail on this situation, but instead was struck with an inspiring postulation that: anti-patterns never exist as singularities.

“Avoidable Heroism”, left unchecked, can be abused. Commitment with expectation of unlimited renegotiation is hardly commitment. “Expecting” others to compensate for our mistakes is a missed opportunity for the full value of the learning experience they bring.

So, what anti-pattern(s) exist that provide additional boundaries to behaviors around commitment and negotiation that allow trust to flourish?