When incentives reward visibility over impact

Company HQ rolled out a tool intended to automate an existing manual process.

On paper, the process was common across markets.
In reality, distribution structures, complexity, and required levels of detail varied.

Adopting the tool required more than training.
It required changes to ways of working, system adjustments, and coordination across multiple functions.

Two transformation leads took different approaches. The first prioritised speed and visibility.

Demonstrations were conducted.
Adoption was mandated.
Markets were instructed to use the tool as delivered.

To comply, markets force-fit their existing processes into the system.

Manual steps increased.
Workarounds multiplied.
Additional reconciliation was required to correct mismatches created by the forced fit.

Productivity declined.
Data quality issues surfaced.

Despite this, adoption metrics were met — quickly.

The second lead moved more slowly.

He engaged markets to understand how work actually flowed.
He coordinated alignment across functions.
He pushed through changes to ways of working and supporting systems.

That coordination depended on influence, enabled by direct access to local market CFOs and General Managers.

Both approaches produced visible adoption. Only one reduced manual work.

By the time the consequences of the first approach became visible, the lead responsible had already been promoted.

The costs — increased workload, degraded data, and remediation effort — were borne by local markets and the remaining transformation teams.

There were no repercussions for the decision path that created the damage.

This was not a failure of effort.
And it was not a failure of intent.

It was incentive misalignment.

When speed and visibility are rewarded without accountability for downstream consequences, systems learn to optimise for optics rather than deliver real work.