Our New Software Fixed One Thing and Broke Everything Else
The cursor blinks. It’s the only thing moving on a dashboard that cost more than my house. Everything is green. Project Velocity: Green. Team Engagement: Green. Budget Adherence: A particularly nauseating shade of kelly green. My mouse hovers over a chart showing a 15% reduction in ‘Process Friction,’ a metric we invented 75 days ago and still can’t properly define. It feels like I’m looking at the instrument panel of a plane that’s currently in a nosedive, but all the lights insist the flight is smooth.
Down in the second monitor, in a stark Google Sheet shared between five of us, the real status is tracked in angry red and cautious yellow. That’s where the actual work lives. The spreadsheet is our organizational dark matter-invisible to the executives, but the only thing holding the project galaxy together. The $2,000,575 platform is a theater for management, and we are the unwilling stagehands, spending hours arranging the props so the play looks convincing from the balcony.
The Multi-Million Dollar Admission of Cowardice
This isn’t a critique of the software. I’ve come to understand that the software is almost irrelevant. It could be the most elegant, intuitive system ever coded, and we’d still be here, drowning in supplementary spreadsheets. The problem is the purchase order itself. It’s a multi-million-dollar admission of cowardice. It is the physical manifestation of an organization trying to buy its way out of a series of conversations it is too terrified to have.
“It’s a multi-million-dollar admission of cowardice.”
“
Conversations about what, exactly? About why Sarah in marketing has to re-format her reports 5 times because the inputs from sales are a mess. About why the engineering team’s definition of ‘done’ is a universe away from the product team’s. About why accountability is a hot potato nobody wants to hold. Instead of hashing that out, we buy a ‘Solution.’ A big, shiny, expensive tool with integrated workflows and mandatory fields, designed to force a process on people who have never actually agreed on one. The tool becomes the battlefield, the scapegoat, and the babysitter all at once.
The Editor-Turned-Janitor: Charlie’s Story
I’m thinking of Charlie F., a friend who edits podcast transcripts. His small company spent a fortune on an AI-driven ‘Content Operations Hub.’ On paper, it was perfect. It transcribed audio, let editors collaborate, and tracked version history, all in one place. The sales demo was flawless. The reality is that Charlie now spends 45 minutes every morning correcting the AI’s persistent inability to distinguish between the words ‘affect’ and ‘effect,’ and then another 25 minutes tagging speaker names and timestamps in a specific format the machine requires to generate its ‘Productivity Reports.’
Gets it right
To fix 5% errors
He told me the AI gets it right 95% of the time. But fixing that last 5%-the subtle errors, the misattributed quotes, the garbled proper nouns-takes up 35% of his day. He’s no longer an editor; he’s a data janitor for a fussy algorithm. The company didn’t buy a tool to make Charlie’s job easier. They bought a system that turned a skilled editor into a low-level data-entry clerk, and the worst part is, the dashboard shows his ‘task throughput’ has increased by 25%. All green.
“He’s no longer an editor; he’s a data janitor for a fussy algorithm.”
“
My Own Failure: The Coffee Table Lesson
I’ll admit, I’ve been the person championing these systems. Years ago, I pushed my department to adopt a project management suite that I was certain would solve all our communication problems. I made the presentations. I touted the features. I configured the automated reports. And I watched as my team quietly rebelled, reverting to email chains and shared documents because the system I’d forced on them was too rigid. It was a monument to my own desire to avoid difficult, person-to-person management. I wanted the software to be the bad guy so I didn’t have to be. It was a failure of leadership, disguised as a technological upgrade.
“It was a failure of leadership, disguised as a technological upgrade.”
“
It reminds me of the coffee table in my living room. I stubbed my toe on it this morning, for the thousandth time. It’s just a little too big for the space. My first, ridiculous thought was, ‘Maybe there’s a smart table that retracts, or an app that warns me when I’m close.’ It’s the same flawed thinking. The problem isn’t the table; it’s the layout of the room. The solution isn’t more complexity; it’s to move the damned table. We’ve become so allergic to simple, physical solutions that we’d rather invent a convoluted, technical workaround. It’s why there’s something so satisfying about a tool that has one job and does it without asking to overhaul your entire life’s philosophy. You run a single cable to a poe camera, and it shows you the server room. It doesn’t demand you first define a ‘Comprehensive Observability Strategy.’ It just works. We’ve lost our appreciation for the simple elegance of ‘just works.’
Three Insidious New Problems
This obsession with buying a solution creates three insidious new problems that are far worse than the inefficiency we were trying to fix.
1 The Expert-Turned-Janitor
First is the one Charlie embodies: The Expert-Turned-Janitor. We take our most skilled people, the ones with nuance and intuition, and we saddle them with the soul-crushing task of feeding the machine. Their job stops being about exercising their craft and starts being about appeasing the software’s data requirements. Their unique human insight, the very thing that makes them valuable, is slowly ground down by the repetitive friction of conforming to the system. Their expertise is laundered into a data point.
“We are creating a generation of professional box-checkers.”
“
2 The Illusion of Objective Truth
Second, we create The Illusion of Objective Truth. The dashboards, with their clean lines and cheerful colors, present a sanitized version of reality. Because the data comes from a trusted, expensive system, it’s treated as gospel. A manager looks at the green light for ‘Team Morale’-a metric calculated from the number of tasks closed per day-and thinks everything is fine. They stop walking the floor, they stop having one-on-ones, they stop sensing the actual human vibe of their team. The tool that was meant to provide clarity actually creates a dangerous blindness, replacing messy, human reality with a clean, confident, and utterly false computer-generated one.
“The tool that was meant to provide clarity actually creates a dangerous blindness…”
“
3 The Atrophy of Collaborative Muscle
Finally, and most destructively, is The Atrophy of Collaborative Muscle. Before the ‘Solution,’ when there was a workflow problem, people had to talk. They had to negotiate, compromise, and figure it out. It was often inefficient and sometimes tense, but it was a muscle that got exercised. When we install a rigid, process-driven system, we amputate that function. The new answer to every process question becomes, ‘How do we do it in the system?’ The tool dictates the workflow. Instead of solving a problem together, the team files a feature request and waits for the next software update. Collaboration becomes a technical, not a human, process. And like any unused muscle, it withers.
“Collaboration becomes a technical, not a human, process.”
“
Disconnected