The projector fan is a low, rhythmic hum, a mechanical heartbeat that feels more honest than the man standing in front of it. I am sitting in the third row, the seat precisely 41 centimeters from the person to my left, who is already vibrating with a suppressed sort of rage. I know that vibration. I feel it in my own jaw, a residual tension from this morning when I lost an argument in Department 21. I was right, of course. The nuance of the defendant’s testimony hinged on a specific dialectal shift-a subtle difference between ‘should’ and ‘must’-but the judge, in his 61 years of perceived wisdom, decided that my interpretation was ‘overly technical.’ Being right and being overruled is a specific kind of poison. It sits in your stomach like a cold stone, and it makes you particularly sensitive to the smell of bullshit.
Currently, the bullshit smells like pepperoni and cheap cardboard. There are 11 boxes of pizza stacked on a folding table at the back of the room, a culinary bribe meant to soften the blow of what is about to happen. A consultant named Marcus, wearing a tie that costs at least $301, is clicking through a slide deck titled ‘Embracing the New Synergy.’ He is using words like ‘pivot,’ ‘adoption,’ and ‘transformation’ as if they were holy relics. He is 11 minutes into a presentation that is scheduled for 81 minutes, and he has already used the word ‘paradigm’ 31 times. Behind him, on the screen, a graphic shows a group of diverse, smiling professionals jumping into a chasm labeled ‘The Unknown.’
I watch the veteran operators in the back row. These are the people who have been with the firm for 31 years, the ones who know exactly where the bodies are buried and why the current database crashes every time someone tries to generate a report on a Tuesday. They are not smiling. They are cataloging. They are mentally listing the 101 ways this new software rollout is going to fail, not because they are ‘resistant to change,’ but because they possess the logic of the lived experience. They know that the ‘new system’ requires 11 more clicks to perform a simple search than the old one did. They know that the interface was designed by someone who has never actually had to answer a phone while navigating a sub-menu.
AHA MOMENT: The Fundamental Lie
This is the insult. Change management, in its most performative corporate form, is a discipline built on the assumption that employees are obstacles to be managed rather than assets to be consulted. It treats the workforce like a group of recalcitrant children who just need the right flavor of lollipop-or pizza-to accept a painful medical procedure. It assumes that resistance is an emotional or irrational response, a ‘fear of the new,’ rather than a rational reaction to a demonstrably worse tool. We are told we are ‘fearful’ when, in reality, we are simply observant.
Context Over Compliance
I find myself digressing into a memory of a trial 11 months ago. I was interpreting for a witness who was describing a complex mechanical failure at a factory. The prosecution wanted a simple answer, a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a question that contained a 51-word premise. The witness kept trying to explain the ‘why,’ the context of the grease and the heat and the 1-millimeter gap that caused the explosion. The court didn’t want the context; it wanted the ‘alignment.’ We often treat the truth as a nuisance that gets in the way of a clean verdict. Corporate change management does the same. It treats the ‘why’ of our daily struggles as a noise to be filtered out.
“
The architecture of a lie is usually painted in bright, primary colors.
– The Cost of Simplification
In my line of work, precision is everything. If I misinterpret a single phrase, a life can be altered by 21 years of incarceration. In the corporate world, the stakes are different, but the disrespect for precision is identical. When Marcus says this transition will be ‘seamless,’ he is lying. He knows it. We know it. The 41-page manual on our desks knows it. But the ‘change management’ script dictates that he must maintain the illusion of seamlessness. To admit that the system is flawed would be to admit that the decision-makers made a mistake, and in the hierarchy of power, a mistake is a hole that no amount of pizza can fill.
Buy-in as Compliance
There is a fundamental dishonesty in the way we talk about ‘buy-in.’ Buy-in implies a choice. It implies that we have looked at the data, weighed the benefits, and decided to invest our effort. But in these meetings, ‘buy-in’ is a euphemism for ‘compliance.’ We aren’t being asked to buy anything; we are being told what we will own. If you question the logic, you are labeled a ‘laggard.’ If you point out a bug, you are ‘not a team player.’ I once saw a woman with 41 years of seniority get sidelined because she pointed out that the new digital filing system didn’t comply with state privacy laws. She was right, but she was ‘resisting the culture.’
I actually ate a slice of the pizza. It was cold. I criticized the bribery in my head, yet I reached for the grease. That is the internal contradiction of being an employee-you hate the game, but you’re still hungry.
The True Cost of Mismanaged Efficiency
If the software were actually good, Marcus wouldn’t be here. We visualize the labor gap created by ineffective tools.
If a tool truly makes your life easier, you don’t need a consultant to teach you how to ’embrace’ it. You don’t need ‘synergy workshops.’ You just use it. You use it because it solves a problem that was making your head ache at 5:01 PM. When a change is a genuine improvement, the ‘management’ part of the equation becomes almost invisible. It becomes an invitation, not a mandate.
This is why I find the approach of Sis Automations so intriguing. They seem to understand that the best way to manage change is to make the change something that people actually want. By focusing on user-centric systems that automate the drudgery rather than adding to it, they bypass the need for the patronizing theatricality of ‘behavioral shifts.’ They treat the user as the expert. It is a radical notion: that the person doing the work might know how the work should be done.
Instead of spending $101,001 on a consultant to convince people to use a broken system, imagine spending that money on a system that actually works. Imagine a world where the ‘veteran operators’ in the back row are the first people consulted during the design phase, not the last people lectured during the rollout. We treat the front-line worker as a data point, a variable in an equation, but they are actually the only ones who see the 1-percent margin of error where the real profit-or the real disaster-lives.
The Carpenter’s 1/16th Rule
I remember an argument I lost with my father 31 years ago. He was a carpenter, a man who measured things in 1/16ths of an inch. I tried to tell him that a certain type of pre-fab cabinet was ‘just as good’ because the brochure said so. He didn’t argue with the brochure; he just pointed to the hinge. ‘Look at the metal,’ he said. ‘It’s too thin. It’ll sag in 11 months.’ He was right. The ‘change’ the industry wanted was for him to work faster with cheaper materials. They called it ‘innovation.’ He called it ‘junk.’
We are currently being asked to celebrate junk. Marcus is now talking about ‘feedback loops.’ He says our ‘input is valued,’ yet there is no space on the 31 slides for questions. There is only a QR code at the end that leads to a survey with 11 pre-selected answers. This is the illusion of participation. It is the corporate equivalent of a judge telling me my interpretation is ‘overly technical’ while the defendant’s life hangs in the balance. It is a dismissal disguised as a process.
The Resentment of Compliance
I look at the 41 people in this room. Most of them are staring at their phones, checking emails, or perhaps looking for other jobs. They have checked out. They will go through the motions. They will attend the mandatory 61-minute training sessions. They will use the new system, but they will use it with a quiet, simmering resentment that will cost the company 101 times more in lost productivity than the software was supposed to save.
“
Efficiency is the ghost of a dead relationship.
– The Silence of Acceptance
When we stop trusting the people who do the work, we stop being a functional organization. We become a collection of silos, each one trying to protect itself from the ‘innovations’ being handed down from above. We create a culture of workarounds. I know for a fact that the team in accounting has already developed 11 separate spreadsheets to track the data that the new system is supposed to handle, simply because they don’t trust the new system’s math. They are doing double the work to protect themselves from the ‘efficiency.’
The Data of Disconnect
Spreadsheets Developed
Productivity Loss Multiplier
People Who Stayed Silent
As the meeting ends, Marcus asks if there are any final thoughts. The silence is heavy, weighing approximately 201 tons. No one speaks. Not because we have no thoughts, but because we know that any thought we express will be ‘managed’ until it is unrecognizable. We pack up our laptops. I take a final sip of my 1-hour-old coffee, which tastes like burnt beans and lost arguments.
The Aftermath: Erosion of Trust
We walk out past the 11 empty pizza boxes. The change has been ‘managed.’ The ‘buy-in’ has been recorded. The ‘paradigm’ has shifted. And tomorrow-well, not tomorrow, but in the coming 11 days-the reality of the failure will begin to set in. It won’t be a loud failure. It will be a slow, quiet erosion of trust, one click at a time, until the next ‘transformation’ is announced with 21 new boxes of pizza.
There is a specific kind of silence that follows a lie. It’s the silence I hear in court after a witness knows they’ve been trapped. It’s the silence in this hallway now. We aren’t being stubborn. We aren’t being difficult. We are just waiting for someone to treat us like we have a brain. Until then, we will keep our 11 spreadsheets, our 31 workarounds, and our 101 reasons for staying quiet.
I wonder if Marcus knows that we can see through the tie. I wonder if the people who hired him realize that the most expensive thing you can do is insult the intelligence of the people who keep your business alive. Probably not. They are already planning the next meeting for 11:01 AM on Friday.
The Choice: Compliance vs. Competence
Consultant Lectures
Systems that Work