A Million Things to Do

Yeoman, Colorado

The CEO didn’t waste any time: “How come we are not completing our projects on time?”

It wasn’t the first time this question had been raised. In fact, every few years, this same issue surfaced in the organization: projects stacking up like a game of Jenga until the whole structure started to wobble. Deadlines slipped. Budgets stretched. Outcomes fell short of expectations. And here we were again, with the tower swaying.

At that time, I was leading a team of global project leaders, and this had landed squarely on my desk. The assignment: figure out why so many projects were failing to deliver on time.

No pressure.

Taking Stock of the Chaos

We decided to keep the investigation simple and grounded. First, we collected data on every active project across the company worldwide. This was no small feat—remember, we’re talking about a large global organization—but because the directive came straight from the CEO, people were willing to lean in and contribute.

To make sense of the chaos, we categorized projects using a simple approach:

• Small projects run by one person.

• Departmental projects with two or three people involved.

• Cross-functional projects involving multiple departments.

• Enterprise-wide, CEO-sponsored initiatives.

For each project, we asked basic but essential questions:

• What’s the business case?

• What’s the expected outcome?

• How long should it take?

• Who’s on the team?

Simple questions, but—believe it or not—this was the first time such a comprehensive inventory had been pulled together across the entire company.

The Truth We Didn’t Want to See

When we finally had everything mapped out, the picture was sobering.

The biggest takeaway? We were trying to do seven times more than we actually had the resources to deliver.

That wasn’t just a gap—it was a canyon.

Resources here meant people. We weren’t short on ideas or ambition. We were short on human capacity. The organization was taking on far more than it could possibly handle. Looking at the data, it hit me—no wonder people were exhausted. We were asking them to deliver the impossible.

The consequences were predictable: global projects, which were already massive in scope, were draining entire teams. Meanwhile, hundreds of “pet projects” (those individual endeavors) kept piling up, creating noise and distraction. But the real strain came from the cross-functional initiatives. These demanded heavy coordination, yet we didn’t have the capacity.

Worse still, the same handful of high performers were being tapped again and again. Many were juggling six or more projects at once, when realistically they could only give their best to two or three. These were our most capable people—but instead of letting them shine, we were stretching them so thin they couldn’t succeed anywhere.

Why Quick Fixes Never Stick

Now, this wasn’t the first time leadership had recognized the overload. In the past, the solution was simple: cut 20% of the projects.

And it worked… for about five minutes.

Here’s why: the projects were technically “stopped,” but no one adjusted the incentives tied to them. Many employees still had those projects listed on their personal scorecards, tied directly to their bonus structures. And as anyone who has worked in a corporate environment knows, if your bonus depends on it, you’re not really stopping.

So instead of solving the problem, we just created more frustration. People were being told to stop projects—but also told they’d be compensated for completing them. Classic corporate mixed signals.

This Time Was Different

The data was too clear to ignore, and to his credit, the CEO owned the problem. He and his senior leadership team made a bold move: they didn’t just cut projects, they realigned incentives and compensation to match the new priorities.

That was the breakthrough.

By doing so, they sent a message: “We’re serious. Fewer projects, more focus, and rewards tied to what matters most.”

The Bigger Lesson

Stepping back from the spreadsheets, this whole experience drove home one truth:

Leaders and organizations will always have a million things to do. The real question is: which ones matter most?

Every organization faces the temptation to take on more. More projects, more initiatives, more stretch goals. Ambition is a wonderful thing—but unchecked, it can break the system.

Disciplined leaders resist that urge. They set clear priorities. They hold themselves and their teams accountable to those priorities. They protect their people from “project creep.” And, most importantly, they understand the true capacity of their teams—not just what’s theoretically possible, but what’s realistically sustainable.

This doesn’t mean leaders shouldn’t push their teams. Growth comes from challenge. But piling on project after project isn’t challenge—it’s sabotage.

And here’s the kicker: what’s true for organizations is equally true for individuals.

A Question for You

So here’s the reflection I’ll leave you with: As a leader, are you setting yourself—and your team—up for success or for consistent failure?

We all have a million things to do. The art of leadership isn’t doing everything—it’s having the discipline to do what matters most.

See you soon,

Brent, your Rivr Guide