We used to check a dashboard every morning.

It tracked two metrics that mattered for the quarter: pipeline coverage and conversion rate. Simple numbers, updated overnight, glowing green or amber or red depending on how close we were to plan. Then one morning I didn't check it. Nothing felt different. The world continued. By the end of the week the habit was gone. No one noticed, including me. The dashboard still existed. The numbers still updated. They just stopped being looked at.

It wasn't a decision. There was no meeting where someone announced we'd stop caring about pipeline coverage. What happened was quieter: a Thursday where something more urgent came up, a Friday where I told myself I'd catch up Monday, a Monday where I forgot entirely. The floor dropped an inch. Then another. Then it became the new floor.

Entropy in systems doesn't feel catastrophic. It feels reasonable. One exception becomes two, becomes the new baseline, and by the time anyone thinks to ask what happened, the asking itself feels pointless. We're already here.

Organizations recalibrate to "good enough" the way people do: gradually, without noticing, with excellent justifications at every step. The first shortcut is an exception. The second is a pattern. By the third, it's just how things work now.

I think of it as the minimum viable excuse. There's always a reason to skip the thing. The deadline is tight. The meeting ran long. Someone else was supposed to handle it. Each reason, defensible in isolation, forms a slope. The line you sweep under the rug eventually defines the rug's new edge.

Complexity makes decay polite. In simple systems, failure announces itself. Something breaks, someone notices, the problem gets fixed. In complex systems, failure distributes itself across a thousand small compromises. The dashboard no one checks. The process everyone routes around. The standard that exists in documentation but not in practice. None of these feel like problems on their own. Individually harmless, or close to it, they hollow out the thing they were supposed to protect.

What I've come to believe is this: the goal isn't rigor for its own sake. Perfectionism is its own kind of decay, burning energy on everything until nothing gets attention. The goal is something smaller. A single non-negotiable. The one thing that, if kept, prevents everything else from collapsing.

In systems, it might be checking one metric every morning, even when nothing else gets updated. The metric doesn't need to be the most important one. It just needs to be the one you actually maintain. Something observable, verifiable, that tells you the floor is still where you left it. Elaborate standards give decay more surface area. A simple one is binary: you either checked or you didn't. No room for the minimum viable excuse.

In writing, it might be finishing one honest paragraph instead of chasing a perfect draft. In relationships, one small gesture that keeps the connection alive. Small enough to be sustainable. Consistent enough to hold.

Standards aren't moral abstractions. They're survival infrastructure. They're not about being good. They're about staying oriented, keeping one coordinate fixed so everything else can move around it.

Keeping something alive isn’t dramatic. It's maintenance. Checking the metric. Writing the paragraph. Sending the text. None of it feels important in the moment. None of it generates stories you'd tell at a party. But it's the work that keeps the floor from dropping another inch.

I wrote once about tending a tree that doesn't belong where I planted it. Wrong soil, wrong light, wrong climate. Some years it grows. Some years it barely survives. But I check it anyway, trimming dead branches, watching for early signs of life. Patience alone isn't enough. Patience without vigilance is just slow neglect. You have to keep watching even when nothing seems to be happening.

The discipline isn't in raising the bar. It's in refusing to lower it, even quietly, even when the lowering would go unnoticed.

I've watched teams lose the thread. It happens faster than you'd think. A meeting where "we'll fix it later" becomes the default. A dashboard that's never quite accurate, yet somehow still drives decisions. A process no one believes in but everyone follows because no one wants to admit it's broken.

When collective standards vanish, what replaces them is a kind of polite fiction. A gap no one names, but everyone walks around as if the floor still holds beneath it. Everyone pretends the floor is still there. Everyone steps carefully around the spot where the collapse happened. The fiction holds until someone puts weight on it. Then the whole thing gives way, and people ask how it got so bad. The answer is always the same: one compromise at a time, each one reasonable, none of them challenged.

Rebuilding means defining one true line again. Something observable, lived. You can't resurrect all the standards that slipped away. You can pick one. The one you'll actually maintain.

The process feels humbling because it admits prior neglect. That humility is the reset. Start small, get one variable right, expand outward. Small fidelity scales better than grand ambition. Grand ambition announces itself. Small fidelity just shows up, again and again, until the floor is solid enough to stand on.

The dashboard I stopped checking eventually got retired. No one asked why. By then, the question seemed irrelevant. We'd moved on to other metrics, other priorities. Maybe some were better. Maybe they weren't. The point is that no one checked.

I think about that sometimes when I lace my shoes for a run, or water the tree that shouldn't be growing where I planted it, or set one line in a spreadsheet I'll verify tomorrow. Small confirmations that the floor is still where I left it. Maintenance as reaffirmation. The quiet work of keeping one thing steady so the rest can move around it.

Hold one thing steady, and the rest can find its place.

Like this? Subscribe via email here.