Why do companies kill the one system that actually works?
So I joined this mid size tech firm about two months ago, and when I first started, they were using this really cool training system that delivered all the onboarding lessons straight through Teams and text.
The method was good, it was quick, interactive, and actually made sense. You’d get little lessons right where you already work, and it honestly made learning the product and processes feel natural. Then out of nowhere, they ditched it and went back to “traditional onboarding.” You know, 80-page PDFs, outdated videos, and hour-long meetings that led to nowhere
It’s insane how companies find something that clearly works, that employees like, and then just… stop using it. I mean some new hires are legit complaining so much that they can't do the work itself.
Why are companies like this?
Jobadvisor
You just bumped into one of the most common organizational dysfunctions in the corporate world: systems get replaced not because of effectiveness, but because of politics, ownership, or budget structures. Here’s what usually happens behind the scenes when a good system gets killed:
1. The system was owned by the wrong department
If Training had something good but IT, Ops, or HR wanted “more control,” they’ll push to replace it—not because the new thing is better, but because they want ownership and visibility.
If the system made someone powerful look unnecessary…
That system’s lifespan was already limited.
2. Leadership changes → Programs change
New manager/director = “let me show value by making changes.”
Even if the old system was great.
It’s easier to change tools than to improve outcomes.
And new leadership wants something they can put their name on.
3. Budget cycles distort logic
If a system was paid for under last year’s budget, the new fiscal year might cut the funding. So instead of saying:
“We removed the good thing because budgeting is clumsy,”
they say:
“We’ve updated our onboarding strategy!”
…and here you are, back to PDF Hell.
4. Vendors get involved
Someone comes in, demos a shiny corporate LMS with:
-
37 dashboards no one will use
-
5,000 buttons
-
a “learning experience cloud platform synergy” pitch
Executives eat that up.
They don’t see the user experience, they see the sales spreadsheet.
5. Familiar = Safe (even when it sucks)
A surprising number of organizations genuinely believe that if training doesn’t feel boring, painful, and formal, it can’t be real training.
This mindset is ancient but still everywhere.
6. A good system is harder to measure
Your micro-lesson Teams system likely improved retention and speed, but:
-
execs can’t see training happening
-
they can’t print a completion report
-
they can’t take credit
So they revert to the thing that looks like training, even if it performs worse.
What you experienced is the difference between:
| Good Training | Bad Corporate Training |
|---|---|
| Embedded into workflow | Separate from work |
| Just-in-time learning | Firehose on day one |
| Measured by performance | Measured by attendance |
| Designed for humans | Designed for audit compliance |
Your old system was good training.
It failed not because it didn’t work, but because the organization was optimized for looking functional, not being functional.
You’re not crazy for noticing it.
A shocking amount of employee frustration comes from companies repeatedly choosing the systems that are easiest to defend on paper—not the ones that help people do their jobs.
If you ever end up in a position to influence this stuff, just remember:
The best systems disappear into the workflow.
Bad systems demand the employee adapt to the tool.
And most companies choose the latter because it makes managers comfortable, not employees.
You want the funniest part?
Give it 12–24 months.
Someone new will suggest a “modern, embedded onboarding tool” like it’s a fresh innovation.
It’ll be the same idea your company just threw away.
And they’ll call it transformation.
Gave notice, immediate counter. Do I take it?
I’ve been at a small data analytics consultancy for nearly 5 years at $93k base. Just accepted a F500 offer for $126k + better benefits (extra PTO week, better 401k match, cheaper insurance) in their Finance department. Signed the offer letter.
15 minutes after giving notice, my manager called back almost frantic saying they’d match my range ($120-130k) and oh by the way, I was “being considered” for Senior Consultant this cycle.
Here’s the kicker: This is the second time this has happened. About 2 years ago, same story - got an outside offer, suddenly they found budget for a promotion and major comp bump.
Why staying is tempting: • Diverse client projects keep it interesting • Autonomy and flexibility • Constantly learning new tech • I know the systems and have credibility Why I wanted out: • I want to learn sales/BD, not just delivery work • Manager is too overworked to develop me in that direction • Market concerns (small firm, heavy AWS focus, professional services sensitivity) • 5 years is a long time
What I’m getting at the new place: • Stability and legitimate comp (they didn’t need me to threaten leaving) • Enterprise experience • Better benefits package • Hybrid schedule with reasonable commute
My gut says: If they were fine paying me $93k until I had one foot out the door, what makes me think this won’t happen again in 2 years? The new company valued me at $126k without the hostage negotiation.
Long-term goal is to start my own consultancy, so I’m torn - stay and maybe learn the business side (if they actually invest in developing me), or take the stable comp reset and enterprise experience?
What am I missing here? Has anyone accepted a counter and NOT regretted it?
Jobadvisor
That's a classic dilemma, and your gut feeling is usually a strong indicator! It sounds like you're in a powerful position, which is great, but it also makes the decision harder.