Why Projects Become More Honest Just Before Christmas

And Why Project and Program Managers Need Deliberate Kill Lists If They Are Serious

Shortly before Christmas, something changes in projects.

Not loudly. Not officially. Not documented in status reports — but unmistakably.

Suddenly, statements appear that are rarely voiced during the rest of the year:

that resources are missing,

that risks are real,

that certain initiatives simply do not make sense under the given conditions.

Projects do not perform better in the classical sense during this phase.

They do not become faster, more structured, or more efficient.

But they do become more honest.

This observation is neither anecdotal nor a matter of seasonal mood.

Experienced project and program managers recognize this pattern immediately.

The relevant question is therefore not whether it exists, but why it exists —

and why this honesty disappears so reliably once spring arrives.

Honesty Is Not a Soft Skill — It Is a Structural Issue

In many organizations, a lack of honesty in projects is explained by culture, mindset, or communication skills.

That explanation is insufficient.

Honesty rarely fails because individuals lack courage.

It fails because structures reward dishonesty.

As long as projects operate under the assumptions that

everything is important,

everything remains possible,

decisions can always be postponed,

and commitments carry no consequences,

honesty is not a desired behavior — it is a risk.

December does not reveal better people.

It reveals different conditions.

Budgets are decided.

Resources can no longer be creatively reallocated.

Timelines can no longer be optimized.

Escalations no longer provide short-term advantages.

What remains is reality — not because it is suddenly welcome, but because ignoring it becomes more expensive than accepting it.

The Real Problem Is Not December

If projects can be planned more realistically, prioritized more clearly, and managed more openly in December,

then the problem is not a lack of methods or tools.

The problem is that organizations actively suppress this reality again during the year.

In spring, familiar patterns return:

plans become more ambitious than feasible,

risks are articulated but not decided,

priorities multiply instead of being reduced,

status reports emphasize activity rather than outcomes.

Not because of incompetence, but because of systemic logic.

December is not an exception.

It is a mirror.

The Most Underrated Lever: Making Conscious Non-Decisions Visible

One of the most significant differences between December projects and March projects is not planning accuracy.

It is omission.

Shortly before Christmas, it is implicitly accepted that not everything is possible.

During the rest of the year, this acceptance is actively avoided.

This is where one of the most powerful — and uncomfortable — levers in project and program management emerges:

the deliberate, visible decision not to do certain things.

Not implicitly.

Not quietly.

Not through operational overload.

But explicitly.

The Kill List: Not a Provocation, but a Steering Instrument

A kill list is not a cynical management gimmick.

It is not a symbol of toughness.

And it is certainly not a backlog under a different name.

A kill list answers exactly one question:

What are we consciously not doing — and why?

And it does so in a way that is

traceable,

documented,

owned,

and relevant for steering.

What an Effective Kill List Actually Looks Like

1. The Kill List Is Official — Or It Does Not Exist

A kill list that exists only in the minds of individual project leaders is ineffective.

It must be

documented,

visible to management and teams,

and hold the same formal status as scope, roadmap, or backlog.

Appropriate formats include:

a dedicated section in the project charter or program mandate,

a separate board next to the backlog,

or a fixed agenda item in steering committee meetings.

What is removed must not disappear.

It must die visibly.

2. Every Entry Requires a Decision, Not an Excuse

Kill list entries are not collections of justifications.

Statements such as

“no capacity,”

“not prioritized at the moment,”

or “maybe later”

are not decisions — they are deferrals.

An effective kill list entry contains:

the explicitly removed scope,

the reason for the decision,

the decision context,

and, most importantly, the decision owner.

Project teams do not decide which objectives are abandoned.

Project managers do not decide this either.

The decision belongs to the role that carries the consequences.

3. A Kill List Does Not Mean “Gone Forever”

A kill list is not a graveyard.

It is an archive of conscious decisions.

Conditions may change.

Priorities may shift.

Strategies may be adjusted.

The critical point is this:

once something has been deliberately removed, it does not return automatically.

Reinstatement requires

a new decision,

under new conditions,

with renewed ownership.

Silent re-entry destroys the credibility of the instrument.

4. Kill Lists Protect Delivery Teams

One of the most underestimated effects of a well-maintained kill list is its protective function.

Without a kill list, the following often happens:

topics remain officially relevant,

are operationally ignored,

and later return as implicit blame.

With a kill list, it is clear:

the topic exists,

it is known,

it is decided.

This clarity significantly reduces hidden pressure and compensatory behavior at the operational level.

Common Kill List Failure Modes

Kill lists as intimidation tools

When used primarily to apply pressure, they lose their steering function.

Kill lists as disposal containers

When everything inconvenient is placed there without decision, relevance disappears.

Decisions without consequences

If removed topics later reappear anyway, the instrument is burned.

A kill list lives on consistency, not toughness.

The Role of Project and Program Managers

Introducing a kill list is not a tooling decision.

It is a leadership decision.

Project and program managers do not merely create transparency about scope.

They expose the organization’s actual ability to steer reality.

December proves every year:

organizations are fundamentally capable of realistic planning, honest prioritization, and open risk handling.

They simply do so only when the alternative becomes more expensive than the truth.

Professional Project Management Means Making Reality Steerable

Honesty does not emerge from appeals.

Not from methods.

Not from frameworks.

It emerges from structures

in which reality is not negotiable.

December shows what projects look like

when wishful thinking is no longer an option.

Professional project and program management begins

where these conditions are no longer left to the calendar.

Conclusion

December is not an exception.

It is a mirror.

It shows what project work looks like

when decisions have consequences

and omission is permitted.

True professionalism does not lie in romanticizing this phase,

but in understanding its mechanisms

and deliberately applying them earlier in the year.

Not louder.

Not harder.

But more honest.