You send another nudge: a Slack ping, an email follow-up, a calendar alert. You escalate with sharper language, or perhaps a private conversation. Sometimes the task gets done, often it slips again. The cycle repeats. Leaders in this position can feel trapped between being too soft and too hard. But reminders do not touch the root of the issue. At its core, missed deadlines are less about effort or intent and more about how commitments are designed, understood, and supported.
The scale of the problem is significant. A global survey by the Project Management Institute found that only 52 per cent of projects finish on time (PMI, 2018). Harvard Business Review reports that missed deadlines are one of the top three sources of workplace stress, cited alongside unclear priorities and excessive workload (HBR, 2017). When teams fall behind, the pressure to “catch up” often leads to cutting corners. Research shows rushed delivery late in a project can increase technical debt by over 50 per cent, creating bigger problems later (Kruchten, 2012). Deadlines are not simply markers of time. They shape behaviour, quality, and trust.
It is tempting to view this purely as a discipline problem. Remind people more often, tighten controls, and push harder. Yet behavioural science tells a more nuanced story. People underestimate how long work will take. They make vague promises without specifying when or how. They avoid surfacing problems until it is too late. They disengage when they feel no choice or connection to the work. In other words, deadlines slip not because people do not care, but because human psychology often conflicts with the way commitments are typically structured.
This article introduces six behaviour-based levers that help explain why deadlines slip and what leaders can do differently. Each comes from research in psychology and organisational science, and each points to a design change that makes commitments easier to keep.
• Planning fallacy shows how optimism clouds judgement, leading teams to underestimate how long work will take. By shifting from individual guesses to evidence-based ranges, leaders can create more realistic commitments.
• Implementation intentions reveal the power of turning vague promises into specific if-then plans. Instead of “I’ll get to it this week,” effective teams anchor actions to times and triggers, making follow-through more automatic.
• Feedback loops highlight the danger of long periods of silence. Without timely updates, problems stay hidden until recovery is impossible. Shorter cycles of feedback create visibility, reduce anxiety, and allow for early correction.
• Social accountability reminds us that people are more likely to honour commitments when promises are visible to peers. Moving from private intentions to public agreements transforms ownership from “me and my boss” to “me and my team.”
• Psychological safety teaches that deadlines depend on candour. If people cannot admit mistakes, raise risks, or say “I’m stuck,” then timelines will unravel. Safety is not a luxury but a precondition for reliable delivery.
• Self-Determination Theory shows that motivation is strongest when work meets the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Deadlines framed as acts of ownership and connection are far more sustainable than those imposed through pressure alone.
Together, these six insights offer practical tools for leaders who are weary of sending reminders that do not work. They are not quick fixes but lenses for redesigning how commitments are made, shared, and supported.
The article then turns to stewardship, a perspective that asks a deeper question: beyond the tools, what kind of culture do we want around accountability? Stewardship reframes deadlines as agreements people choose with and for one another, rather than dates imposed by authority. It shifts the focus from coercion to co-created ownership. Seen this way, deadlines stop being sources of tension and become expressions of trust.
6 Behavioural science levers for accountable teams
1 – Planning fallacy
Deadlines are often missed long before the work begins, even when they are set. The planning fallacy, first identified by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), is a persistent bias where people underestimate the time required for tasks, even when they have evidence to the contrary. Teams imagine the “best case” path: uninterrupted focus, smooth hand-offs, no unexpected obstacles. Reality rarely unfolds that way. Decades of research confirm that even when groups are reminded of their past overruns, they continue to predict overly optimistic timelines (Buehler, Griffin & Ross, 1994).
This bias does not signal laziness or incompetence. It reflects how human cognition works. We are naturally drawn to what feels possible rather than what experience tells us is likely. Leaders often mistake this as a commitment problem, thinking people are not taking deadlines seriously enough, when in truth, the flaw lies in how estimates are made. Reminders cannot correct an unrealistic starting point. What helps is shifting from an “inside view,” where we picture only this task, to an “outside view,” where we anchor estimates in real evidence from past work or comparable projects.
Vignette: A product team, eager to impress, commits to shipping a new feature in three weeks. Excitement runs high in the kickoff meeting, and no one questions the optimism. But as the weeks unfold, unexpected bugs appear, testing takes longer than expected, and integration with another system requires rework. By week six, the team is still pushing to finish. At the retrospective, the manager brings data from three similar launches: each had taken six to eight weeks. Seeing these numbers side by side is a turning point. The team decides that from now on, they will set timelines as ranges, best case, most likely, and worst case, and explicitly add buffer time. The very next project, they set a six to eight-week range and deliver within it. Stress is lower, quality is higher, and confidence grows, not because the team worked harder, but because they planned more realistically.
Five leadership moves
1. Ground in evidence. Begin every planning session with the question: “How long did similar work take last time?” Put those numbers on the table before new estimates are made.
2. Estimate with ranges. Replace single-point commitments with best, likely, and worst-case scenarios. This opens up space for realism and prepares stakeholders for the uncertainty that lies ahead.
3. Normalise contingency. Encourage adding explicit buffer time. Frame it not as “padding” but as a responsible acknowledgement of complexity.
4. Name points of risk. Ask directly: “If this were to slip, where is it most likely to go wrong?” This invites the team to surface vulnerabilities early.
5. Look beyond the team. When past data is thin, draw on external benchmarks or industry averages. Comparative evidence helps counter the pull of optimism.
Three leadership reflections
• Do I encourage optimistic estimates because they sound better, even when evidence suggests otherwise?
• How often do we stop and compare new commitments with actual performance from past projects?
• Am I modelling realism myself by openly acknowledging uncertainty and buffers in my own commitments?
2 – Implementation intentions
Missed deadlines are not always a sign of poor commitment. Often they result from intentions that are too vague. Saying “I will finish this week” leaves space for competing priorities and procrastination to take over. Behavioural science shows that turning goals into implementation intentions, which are specific if-then plans, significantly increases follow-through (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).
We see this in many corners of organisational life:
• Sales: Instead of “I’ll follow up with more leads this week,” a rep commits, “If it is 9am on Tuesday and Thursday, then I will send five follow-up emails before taking calls.”
• Operations: Rather than “I’ll check inventory regularly,” a supervisor sets, “If it is 4pm each day, then I will walk the floor and review stock levels before closing reports.”
• HR: Instead of “I’ll try to schedule interviews soon,” a recruiter defines, “If it is 10am after the Monday team huddle, then I will block one hour to book interviews for all open roles.”
• Project management: Rather than “I’ll keep the tracker up to date,” a PM decides, “If it is Friday at 3pm, then I will spend 20 minutes updating the project board before the weekly stakeholder call.”
These if-then structures shift tasks from vague intentions to anchored behaviours. When the cue arrives, the action follows more automatically, reducing reliance on memory or motivation alone. A meta-analysis of 94 studies confirmed that this technique produces medium to large improvements in goal achievement across settings, from health habits to workplace performance (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).
Vignette: A designer regularly misses their Friday deadline to complete mock-ups. Each week ends with excuses about last-minute meetings and shifting priorities. After some coaching, the designer reframes the task as an implementation intention: “If it is Wednesday at 9am, then I will block two hours in Figma before checking email.” The following week, the mock-ups are completed on time. Nothing about workload has changed, but the clarity of when and how transformed follow-through.
Five leadership moves
1. Push for specificity. When a team member commits vaguely (“I’ll finish this week”), follow up with: “When exactly? What will trigger you to start?” This gentle nudge turns broad promises into precise, anchored behaviours.
2. Turn calendars into contracts. Encourage people to block time for critical tasks in their diaries. A calendar entry is harder to ignore than a mental note, and it creates visibility for others.
3. Make intentions public. Have team members share their if–then plans aloud in meetings. Saying “If it’s Wednesday at 9am, I’ll…” not only clarifies the plan but adds social weight to the commitment.
4. Tie to existing routines. Help people link new behaviours to established habits. For example, “After our daily stand-up, I’ll send the client update” makes the action part of a rhythm they already follow.
5. Review and refine. In retrospectives, ask, “Did your if–then plan help you follow through? If not, what cue would work better?” This treats missed deadlines as design problems, not personal failings.
Three leadership reflections
• Do I accept vague promises, or do I help my team translate them into specific if-then commitments?
• Do I demonstrate implementation intentions in my own work to model the practice?
• What natural routines could we use as anchors for deadlines and commitments?
3 – Feedback loops
Even the best intentions can fade when progress is invisible until the deadline. Without interim feedback, small delays accumulate unnoticed, and by the time problems surface, recovery is costly. Feedback loops provide short, timely updates that make performance visible and allow for early correction (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). They help teams stay aligned, reduce anxiety, and create momentum by showing that progress is being made.
Consider how this plays out in different functions:
• Sales: A team that only reviews targets at month-end often panics in the final days. A better approach is a daily or weekly review of calls, conversions, and pipeline health, allowing for mid-stream course corrections.
• Operations: A warehouse that checks inventory at quarter-end is often surprised by shortages. Better is a daily stock review with a quick dashboard update that catches issues before they escalate.
• HR: An HR team that waits for the annual engagement survey struggles to respond meaningfully. Better is running quarterly pulse surveys and sharing results openly, so actions can be taken quickly.
• Project management: A project manager who waits until the end of a sprint to check deliverables risks late surprises. Better is running short stand-ups or mid-sprint demos that surface risks while there’s still time to adapt.
In each case, the difference is visibility. Long cycles hide reality until it is too late. Shorter feedback loops make problems smaller and progress more motivating.
Vignette: A global HR team was tasked with delivering a new employee handbook. In the past, they worked for months in near silence, only to discover late-stage misalignments between legal, policy, and design. This time, the leader introduced bi-weekly “pulse reviews.” Each subgroup shared a short update: what is done, what is stuck, and what comes next. By the second check-in, a misinterpretation of a legal requirement surfaced and was corrected, saving weeks of rework. The handbook was delivered on time with less stress. The difference was not harder work but earlier visibility.
Five leadership moves
1. Shorten the horizon. Replace long review cycles with shorter check-ins, even 10–15 minutes weekly. The goal is to catch small slips before they compound.
2. Focus on blockers, not blame. Structure updates around two questions: “What’s progressing?” and “What’s getting in the way?” This shifts attention from fault-finding to problem-solving.
3. Make progress visible. Use tools like Kanban boards, dashboards, or even simple checklists. Visibility creates accountability and reassurance without extra reminders.
4. Act on what surfaces. When issues emerge, address them quickly. People only keep raising concerns if they see that feedback leads to support and resolution.
5. Reinforce momentum. Celebrate micro-wins and small steps forward. Recognising progress fuels motivation and makes deadlines feel achievable rather than overwhelming.
Three leadership reflections
• How long do we usually go before surfacing real status updates?
• Do I treat feedback sessions as inspections, or as opportunities for shared learning?
• When was the last time early feedback saved us from a much bigger problem?
4 – Social accountability
Deadlines are easier to ignore when they are private, invisible commitments. Social accountability, making promises visible to peers, increases the likelihood of follow-through (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Humans are wired to care about reputation and belonging. When commitments are shared with others, people feel a stronger responsibility to keep them.
Here is how this plays out across different functions:
• Sales: A rep who privately promises their manager “I’ll follow up on leads” often lets it slide. Better is stating in the team huddle, “I will call 10 dormant leads before lunch tomorrow,” where colleagues will see if it happens.
• Operations: A supervisor who silently plans to “tighten shift handovers” rarely changes behaviour. Better is agreeing with the shift team, “We will run a 10-minute debrief at 6am and 2pm every day,” so everyone expects it.
• HR: A recruiter who tells themselves “I’ll schedule interviews soon” easily pushes it back. Better is announcing in the HR meeting, “All shortlisted candidates will be scheduled by Friday noon,” where peers will notice if it slips.
• Project management: A PM who privately intends to “update the tracker this week” often forgets. Better is declaring in the weekly stakeholder call, “I will update the tracker by Friday 3pm,” so others rely on it being done.
The difference is not the size of the task but whether the commitment is made visible. Peer accountability turns intentions into shared expectations, which strengthens ownership.
Vignette: A report writer misses three consecutive submission dates despite reminders from their manager. At the next team meeting, the manager introduces a new rhythm: each person states one commitment aloud for the week ahead. The writer promises, “I will have the draft done by Tuesday.” By Tuesday, the draft is delivered. Later, they admit: “I couldn’t let the team down after saying it out loud.” Peer visibility succeeded where reminders failed.
Five leadership moves
1. Bring commitments into the open. Shift promises from one-to-one conversations into team settings. Public commitments increase follow-through because peers, not just managers, are watching.
2. Create visible trackers. Use shared boards, digital dashboards, or even simple wall charts where tasks and owners are clear to everyone. Transparency builds mutual responsibility.
3. Pair people up. Encourage “accountability buddies” who check in with each other mid-way through tasks. Peer check-ins feel supportive rather than managerial.
4. Frame accountability as community. Position visibility as a way to support the team’s reliability, not as surveillance. The message: “We succeed together when we can all count on each other.”
5. Celebrate follow-through. Publicly acknowledge when commitments are delivered on time. Recognition strengthens the norm that visible promises matter.
Three leadership reflections
• Where do we keep commitments hidden instead of making them visible?
• How can I design peer accountability that feels supportive rather than punitive?
• When did peer expectations last help me stick to a commitment I might otherwise have missed?
5 – Psychological safety
Deadlines are not only missed because of poor planning or weak follow-through. They are often missed because problems are hidden until it is too late. Psychological safety, defined by Amy Edmondson (1999), is the shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. In safe teams, people ask questions, admit mistakes, and surface risks early. In unsafe teams, silence wins, and by the time the truth emerges, the deadline is already gone.
Edmondson’s early research showed this paradox clearly: hospital teams with higher psychological safety reported more errors, not because they made more mistakes, but because they were more willing to acknowledge and correct them (Edmondson, 1999). Google’s Project Aristotle later confirmed psychological safety as the single strongest predictor of team effectiveness (Rozovsky, 2015). For deadlines, this is critical: no matter how carefully you plan, if people cannot say “I am stuck” or “I see a risk,” then delivery will slip.
The four stages of safety: Timothy R. Clark (2020) describes psychological safety as a progression through four stages:
1. Inclusion safety: Do I feel accepted here?
2. Learner safety: Can I ask questions and admit what I do not know?
3. Contributor safety: Am I free to offer ideas and input without fear?
4. Challenger safety: Can I raise concerns or challenge the way things are done?
Deadlines are most resilient when teams move through all four. If inclusion is weak, people keep quiet. If learner safety is absent, confusion goes unspoken. If contributor safety is missing, creative solutions are lost. If challenger safety is low, risks go unraised until the deadline has already been missed.
Edmondson’s seven questions: In The Fearless Organization (2019), Edmondson offers a diagnostic: listen to how people answer these questions.
• If you make a mistake, is it often held against you?
• Are you able to bring up problems and tough issues?
• Do people sometimes reject others for being different?
• Is it safe to take a risk on this team?
• Is it difficult to ask other team members for help?
• Do people deliberately act to undermine each other’s efforts?
• Are unique skills and talents valued and used?
If the answers reveal fear, reluctance, or defensiveness, deadlines are in jeopardy not because the team lacks ability, but because the truth is not reaching the table soon enough.
Vignette: An engineer spots a critical bug that could delay a product launch. On their last project, a manager reacted harshly when problems were raised, so they stay silent. The launch slips by three weeks. In the next cycle, a new team lead opens every stand-up with, “What is worrying you right now?” The engineer raises the bug immediately, and the team fixes it in two days. The difference was not competence but safety.
Five leadership moves
1. Invite risk openly. Start updates with prompts like “What risks are we running?” or “What might derail us?” This makes risk talk part of the rhythm rather than a special occasion.
2. Model vulnerability. Admit your own mistakes and uncertainties. Leaders who show fallibility create permission for others to surface their own challenges early.
3. Reward truth-telling. When someone raises a difficult issue, thank them, treat it as valuable input, and act on it. This signals that raising problems is contribution, not disloyalty.
4. Normalise uncertainty. Reinforce that “I don’t know yet” or “I need help” are valid answers. This reduces the pressure to perform certainty and helps learning needs emerge.
5. Close the loop. When risks are flagged, respond quickly. Show that candour leads to support and action. Otherwise, silence will return.
Three leadership reflections
• How do I respond when someone brings me bad news with curiosity or with frustration?
• Do I unintentionally reward only good news and on-time reports, rather than the honesty of early warnings?
• What small act of vulnerability could I model this week to make it safer for others to do the same?
6 – Self-Determination Theory
Deadlines are not just about calendars; they are about motivation. Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (1985; 2000), explains why some deadlines energise people while others drain them. At its core are three psychological needs that drive intrinsic motivation: autonomy (a sense of choice), competence (a belief in capability), and relatedness (a feeling of connection to others). When these needs are met, people are more engaged, persistent, and reliable. When they are ignored, deadlines feel imposed, and motivation weakens. A meta-analysis of 128 studies confirmed that intrinsic motivation, grounded in these needs, consistently outperforms extrinsic rewards in sustaining performance (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999).
Autonomy: People are more motivated when they feel a genuine sense of choice, even within constraints. Deadlines imposed without discussion often breed resistance or passive compliance. But when leaders invite input into how the work is done, or give flexibility in sequencing and method, ownership increases. A deadline framed as, “We need this outcome by Friday, how do you want to tackle it?” lands very differently from, “Do it this way by Friday.”
Competence: Deadlines create anxiety when people doubt whether they have the skills, clarity, or resources to succeed. The need for competence means leaders cannot simply set timelines; they must equip people to meet them. This might involve coaching, simplifying processes, or pairing less experienced staff with mentors. When competence is strengthened, deadlines shift from stressful hurdles to achievable goals.
Relatedness: Work becomes more reliable when it is connected to others. The need for relatedness is about feeling that your effort matters to the team and contributes to something larger than yourself. Deadlines tied to shared purpose, protecting a client relationship, helping colleagues succeed, or advancing a mission carry far more motivational weight than abstract due dates. People meet deadlines more consistently when they know the work strengthens bonds, not just ticks boxes.
Vignette: A policy analyst repeatedly missed deadlines for drafting reports. Their manager initially increased reminders and pressure, but nothing changed. A new manager asked three questions: “Which part of this work do you feel most confident in? Where would you like more freedom? How does this task connect to what matters to you?” Together, they reshaped the workflow: the analyst had greater autonomy in how they approached the task, received coaching to strengthen competence, and saw how their work supported colleagues’ success. The result: deadlines met consistently and with more energy.
Five leadership moves
1. Co-design the process. Involve team members in deciding how work gets done, even if the what and when are fixed. This creates a sense of choice and ownership.
2. Strengthen competence. Scan for gaps in skills, tools, or clarity before commitments are locked in. Offer training, resources, or pairing to build confidence.
3. Connect to purpose. Explicitly show how each deadline serves clients, colleagues, or the organisation’s mission. This ties effort to meaning.
4. Make interdependence visible. Highlight how one person’s delivery enables others to succeed. Relatedness grows when people see themselves as part of a chain, not a silo.
5. Balance structure with freedom. Be clear about outcomes and timing, but flexible on methods. Too much rigidity kills ownership; too much looseness erodes accountability.
Three leadership reflections
• Do I frame deadlines as external demands, or as agreements people can own?
• Where could I build autonomy, mastery, or connection into how we set and meet deadlines?
• Do I connect tasks back to purpose often enough for people to feel their work truly matters?
Beyond behavioural science: The stewardship perspective
Behavioural science shows us why deadlines slip and how to design against human biases. The planning fallacy clouds judgment, vague intentions weaken follow-through, hidden risks derail progress, and motivation falters when psychological needs go unmet. Each principle gives leaders sharper tools and practical ways to design against predictable pitfalls. Yet science, for all its clarity, is not the whole answer. It explains how to prevent failure, but it does not ask why accountability matters or what kind of culture we want to build around it.
This is where stewardship becomes vital. Stewardship is the stance that accountability is not a mechanism imposed from above but a choice people make with and for one another. It reframes leadership as the act of creating the conditions where people willingly take responsibility, not because they are watched, but because they care about what is at stake. It is the move from control to partnership, from compliance to ownership.
Seen through this lens, deadlines are no longer just levers of efficiency or discipline. They become expressions of trust, the agreements we make in service of a purpose larger than ourselves. To lead as a steward is to replace the question, “How do I enforce delivery?” with the more generative, “How do we co-create commitments worth keeping?”
How stewardship reframes the six insights
• Planning fallacy reminds us that realism is not a solo act but a shared discipline. Stewardship deepens this by treating time as a common resource we manage together.
• Implementation intentions show that clarity grows stronger when spoken and shared. Stewardship adds that these plans are not just commitments to tasks but promises made to a community.
• Feedback loops highlight that accountability thrives in dialogue. Stewardship reframes these as not just updates but ways of staying connected and sustaining trust.
• Social accountability demonstrates that ownership grows when it is shared among peers. Stewardship strengthens this by shifting accountability from “reporting up” to “showing up for each other.”
• Psychological safety teaches us that truth must be speakable if deadlines are to hold. Stewardship recognises candour as a gift to the group, more valuable than the comfort of silence.
• Self-Determination Theory shows that lasting commitment comes from autonomy, mastery, and belonging. Stewardship extends this by framing deadlines as acts of service, to each other, to our shared purpose, and to the wider community we support.
Reflective questions for leaders
• Am I designing systems that enforce compliance, or spaces that invite ownership?
• Do our deadlines feel like obligations from above, or agreements we have chosen together?
• What would change if I saw my role less as “enforcer of delivery” and more as “steward of commitments”?
Ultimately, stewardship reframes accountability. It is less about reminders, monitoring, or compliance, and more about creating spaces where people choose to be accountable to one another, to the work, and to the possibility of something greater than themselves. Deadlines stop being sources of pressure and become markers of trust.
References
Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (eds.) (2007) Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Buehler, R., Griffin, D. and Ross, M. (1994) ‘Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), pp. 366–381.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1982) ‘Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology’, Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), pp. 111–135.
Cialdini, R.B. and Goldstein, N.J. (2004) ‘Social influence: Compliance and conformity’, Annual Review of Psychology, 55, pp. 591–621.
Clark, T.R. (2020) The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp. 227–268.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1999) ‘A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation’, Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), pp. 627–668.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383.
Edmondson, A.C. (2019) The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gollwitzer, P.M. and Sheeran, P. (2006) ‘Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, pp. 69–119.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research, 77(1), pp. 81–112.
Hellwig, T., Rook, C., Florent-Treacy, E. and Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2017) ‘An early warning system for your team’s stress level’, Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2017/04/an-early-warning-system-for-your-teams-stress-level (Accessed: 4 September 2025).
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) ‘Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures’, in Makridakis, S. and Wheelwright, S.C. (eds.) Studies in the Management Sciences: Forecasting. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 313–327.
Kruchten, P., Nord, R.L. and Ozkaya, I. (2012) ‘Technical debt: From metaphor to theory and practice’, IEEE Software, 29(6), pp. 18–21.
Project Management Institute (PMI) (2018) Pulse of the Profession 2018: Success in Disruptive Times. Newtown Square, PA: PMI. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2018 (Accessed: 4 September 2025).
Rozovsky, J. (2015) ‘The five keys to a successful Google team’, re:Work by Google. Available at: https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team/ (Accessed: 4 September 2025).
Leave A Comment