One of the fastest ways teams lose trust is through overcommitment. Ambitious plans may look good on paper, but they often result in missed deadlines, stress, and reactive delivery.
For an EM, planning is not about optimism. It is about reliability. Overcommitment usually comes from optimistic estimates, unaccounted dependencies, constant context switching, and pressure from multiple stakeholders. When teams consistently overcommit, they spend more time explaining delays than delivering outcomes. Over time, this also leads to burnout.
Undercommitting does not mean lowering standards. It means planning with real constraints in mind — team capacity, focus time, and uncertainty.
How it works in practice:
In practice, this shows up as planning for less than theoretical capacity, making risks explicit, and treating stretch goals as optional rather than expected. Recommitment should happen only when progress is clearly closer to the finish line — and only if needed. Stakeholders value predictability far more than ambition when it comes to delivery.
Practically, it is important not to accept every timeline suggestion from stakeholders. Before committing, consider team capacity: existing priorities, vacations and dependency resolutions. Draft a plan and review it with the team as a confidence check. Always add a buffer of at least a sprint or a week, because unexpected issues are inevitable. The buffer creates breathing room and prevents corners from being cut. When this is communicated transparently, stakeholders better understand why timelines look the way they do.
Takeaway
When done intentionally, undercommitting and overdelivering supports realistic planning and more effective delivery.
Top comments (0)