Heroes are great, they work overtime, they give it their all, tackle every crisis and sign up for every seemingly impossible task (do this 20 hour job in 2 hours). According to one manager, "these are the people that advance in a company."

This might come as a surprise, but in reality, what might seem like a good thing is actually bad for projects, bad for the company and bad for the team (the so called heroes and everybody else).

Heroics harbor bad practices

Every project management book I know of that has anything to say about heroics declares that it is a bad practice, a classic mistake. 

Projects frequently run the risk of becoming dependant upon heroics when heroics are the norm.  Yet, heroics seem to be the one aspect of a team that leaders and managers revere.  When a project fails, blame is often shifted to those that didn't give it their all or the heroes who simply couldn't run faster than a speeding train.

Truth be told, heroics exists because of poor project management or poor leadership.

According to Steve McConnell,

"...emphasizing heroics in any form usually does more harm than good. In the case study, mid-level management placed a higher premium on can-do attitudes than on steady and consistent progress and meaningful progress reporting. The result was a pattern of scheduling brinkmanship in which impending schedule slips weren't detected, acknowledged, or reported"¹

Heroics harbor several bad practices. Here are only a few, I'm sure there are many more: 

• Heroics to meet deadlines only guarantee future tight deadlines
• Heroics burns people out, rendering them ineffective
• Heroics leads to inaccurate and unrealistic schedules and estimates
• Heroics minimize the efforts of those who actually plan and are realistic about schedules and work effort
• Heroics promote the neglect of sustainable and dependable processes

A Culture of Heroics

I have worked for several companies that elevate the "can do attitude" to the extreme. In these environments, people tend to get distinguished for "going the extra mile".  A can-do-attitude is often equated with loyalty and commitment.  Don't get me wrong, there is some truth to that last statement. I'm all about overtime, dealing with crises head on, giving more when necessary and advantageous. It is when these practices are 1) revered and 2) normative (the way business gets done), I say that the company is dangerously immature and unstable.

The SEI Capability Maturity Model defines the lowest level of maturity for a software company (Level 1) as,

 "ad hoc, and the organization usually does not provide a stable environment. Success in these organizations depends on the competence and heroics of the people in the organization, and not on the use of proven processes"²

At CMM Level 3, a company is implementing an "effective project management system". Implied here is that individual heroics are not what makes projects succeed, but rather that the company operates according to a proven set of standard processes. Essentially, the capability of a company is organization itself, not the talents and the superior capabilities of a few people.  

The bad side to heroics

In battle, the hero is often the one who risks or even gives his life. They are the ones who run into a foxhole with two grenades to take it out during an ambush.  Eventually, the foxhole is taken, the hero may be dead as well as members of his team.

Could the team have avoided the ambush if there was proper training, preparation and planning for the mission? Could the team have benefited by having considered all potential risks - areas that an ambush was likely? Could the battle have been won had leadership laid out a well-planned battle strategy?  

It would be worthwhile to consider where your organization stands regarding heroics.  I would be interested in other drawbacks to heroics, comments?

¹ http://stevemcconnell.com/rdenum.htm

² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model#Level_1_-_Initial