When Expectations Die: How the Five Stages of Grief Appear in Project Work

We’ve all been there: a project needs a delivery date or an initial estimate, and deep down, we already sense that time is tight. Yet, stakeholders—often under intense pressure themselves—insist the work can be completed sooner. In my experience as an Agile Coach, guiding teams and organizations through challenging projects, I’ve repeatedly observed emotional patterns that closely resemble the five stages of grief defined by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross.

Phase 1: Denial

“It can’t possibly take that long! It’s just a small interface, a minor feature, or a few tiny tweaks!”

At this stage, any realistic estimate is quickly questioned or minimized. Project participants or stakeholders cannot—or will not—believe how extensive the work is. This denial acts as a buffer against the shock of recognizing that budgets may need adjusting, timelines may have to be extended, or priorities revisited.

From the team’s perspective, it’s vital to remain patient and clarify the complexities—whether they involve dependencies on legacy systems, intricate testing, or multiple integration points. Even seemingly minor parts can have hidden layers that affect the project scope.

Phase 2: Anger

“How could it possibly take so long?! That makes no sense!”

Once denial starts to fall apart, anger follows. Stakeholders might project their own frustration or the pressure they feel from higher-ups onto the team. At times, it comes out as: “You must be exaggerating!” or “This shouldn’t be so complicated!”

While this anger can be unsettling, it reflects anxiety about meeting deadlines or hitting key business targets. For the team, clear, fact-based communication can help. Reinforcing how estimates were arrived at and discussing technical specifics diffuses tension, moving people from anger to a more constructive mindset.

Phase 3: Bargaining

“All right, what if we drop Feature X? Can we deliver faster?”

Here, stakeholders try to regain control through compromise: cutting certain features, limiting the scope, or adjusting requirements in hopes of returning to the original timeline.

Bargaining can be useful if it leads to sharper prioritization—focusing on the critical elements of the project. However, if this phase drags on with endless back-and-forth, it can drain energy and create uncertainty. Maintaining transparency about trade-offs and clarifying which features are must-haves versus nice-to-haves can prevent this from spiraling into confusion.

Phase 4: Depression (Resignation)

“We’re never going to finish on time… what’s the point?”

When bargaining fails to bring about the desired relief, a sense of resignation or helplessness can take hold. Teams may feel overwhelmed, and stakeholders might worry crucial milestones or strategic goals are no longer attainable.

At this point, it’s important to create safe spaces—through retrospectives, one-on-one conversations, or team coaching—to talk about where this frustration and doubt come from. Acknowledging these emotions allows people to process them, setting the stage for moving forward productively.

Phase 5: Acceptance

“All right, let’s be realistic about what we can do and work together on that.”

In this final stage, everyone gains clarity on the true scope and resource requirements. Acceptance means embracing a more realistic plan—possibly adjusting timelines, scaling back the scope, or increasing the budget if necessary.

Crucially, acceptance is not the same as giving up. Rather, it represents a constructive shift in perspective. By aligning on what is doable and important, stakeholders and teams can unite around a feasible strategy. This renewed focus leads to better collaboration and a solid outcome.

The Power of the Analogy

While these five stages were originally defined in the context of personal loss, the emotional trajectory in projects can mirror many of the same feelings. It’s human nature to deny uncomfortable facts or become upset when our hopes are dashed—even in a professional setting. Recognizing these patterns can help teams and stakeholders name their emotions, rather than letting them fester.

Once we understand how denial, anger, bargaining, and resignation manifest, we can address them head-on. Real conversations emerge: “Where do we stand? What’s possible? What do we need to let go?” This openness paves the way for acceptance—a stage where the work can happen. When we lay unrealistic expectations to rest, we create space for strategies that genuinely serve the project’s goals.

Conclusion

Projects or even companies stall or fail because those involved remain stuck in the early “grief” phases of unrealistic expectations. Yet by identifying and openly discussing these emotional responses, teams and stakeholders can move toward acceptance and begin to chart a path that is attainable.

Through transparent communication, clear prioritization, and a willingness to confront discomfort, you transform stress and disappointment into meaningful progress. In the end, letting go of what’s impossible clears the way for what’s achievable—leading to healthier project environments, more resilient teams, and outcomes everyone can proudly stand behind.