I once worked at a company migrating two key database tables containing millions of rows of internal data that underpinned much of our daily work. The process ran overnight. By morning the checks were glowing green except for one tiny red cell. Someone squinted at it (me), shrugged, and said ‘close enough,’ like a mechanic kicking a wheel. Others agreed. Everyone looked like they’d already worked tomorrow. The alternative was rolling back, re-running the migration, explaining the delay. Probably nothing was lost, but “probably” has a way of staying in the room.

That migration showed how forgetting often works inside organizations: decay disguised as order. I remember feeling a twinge of relief as we moved on, and a quiet gratitude that no one asked to reopen it. That’s how systems work best: by training us to mistake relief for virtue.

Institutional forgetting is built into maintenance. It comes with a task ID and a due date. Every company practices its own selective amnesia: closing tickets (“won’t fix, working as intended”), archiving threads, marking initiatives complete. An emoji that communicates done-ish without a single word. Forgetting makes room for new attention and for the illusion of control.

Once you see it, you see it everywhere. After an investigation ends, a government seals its files. After a scandal, a company rebrands. A university links to a new statement of values while quietly deleting the archives that contradict it. Once in a while, though, someone rescues the archives instead, uploads the files to a personal drive, keeps a copy of the old site. The record survives in exile, passed quietly between people who still think it matters.

Software firms codify forgetting through right-to-be-forgotten clauses and data-retention policies that run on automated schedules. Every night at two in the morning, logs older than ninety days disappear. The deletion happens automatically, by design. PR teams reframe narratives and move on before the next cycle hits. Governments rename wars and national programs, scrubbing them of their original intentions.

Call it lying or procedure: either way, it's a system of plausible deniability that scales, and everyone participates. It does its work by design and runs quietly until questioning feels impossible. This ongoing process is not a failure of memory but a triumph of process design.

Inside these systems, the logic of forgetting spreads. Tickets close before they are resolved, often with a cheerful update like ‘circling back next quarter.’ Which is a lie, and we know it. Initiatives are marked complete when they are simply abandoned. New employees inherit habits no one remembers creating. The system trains everyone well.

The promise of a clean slate runs deep. Forgetting offers relief: personal, corporate, political. A fresh start, a rebrand, a reconciliation that requires no reckoning. To begin again without burden is always tempting. For individuals the burden is memory; for institutions it’s the record. Both seek relief from the weight of what came before. The burden feels physical, an archive room thick with dust and the hum of unfinished messages waiting to be answered.

Institutional memory is fragile because consensus on what deserves forgetting never lasts for long. Memory is not optional for people, yet institutions try to systematize it, and in doing so they make accountability disappear. But some information never really disappears. Even after deletion, traces remain, ghost fragments waiting to be overwritten, like tree rings that cover scars or coral building on its bones. I think about that sometimes: how memory survives longer than policy intends.

Still, most forgetting is less dramatic. People simply focus on the problems of the day. Earlier in my career I kept notes on where decisions came from and which version of truth we agreed to. The habit faded. I stopped updating them. The same questions returned, and we rebuilt the answers from scratch and called it iteration. Somewhere in the drive, an old file called ‘Team Decision Log’ still waits, last modified three reorganizations ago. The past must fade a little for the future to come into view, but only a little. Every so often, a new hire finds that log and thanks whoever left it behind. The document still works, just not how we imagined.

Remembering the useful parts of previous work requires the same attention as deciding what to do next. It’s maintenance work, active, unglamorous, and vital. Sustained thinking keeps truth from being overridden by convenience.

Without that work, we repaint the past rather than repair it and rename what we cannot bear to reckon with. History keeps looking new even when nothing underneath has changed.

Momentum becomes an accomplice. Once something is marked complete, the current of work carries it forward. Forgetting becomes a form of efficiency. It feels like progress until the bill arrives.

Six months later we learned we had been underreporting a key metric. Nothing critical, but embarrassing. We could not prove it tied back to the migration, but the timing matched. By then the old database was gone and overwritten. We adjusted going forward and filed it under “lessons learned,” which is corporate speak for ‘let’s never discuss this again.’ The lesson, it turned out, was that 0.3 percent matters. We learned it thoroughly, then archived it with the rest of our institutional wisdom.

Around the same time as our migration, a music-streaming company worked out of the same building. They had thousands of users, and I was one of them. When they eventually admitted defeat to a larger competitor and shut down, they gave us three weeks to export our playlists. I never did.

Someone else moved in and painted over their logo. The same fluorescent light, the same quiet hum, the same building that would later house our forgotten database. Only the logo changed. You would never know what was there before, or that thousands of hours of curation disappeared because everyone assumed it would still be there tomorrow.

The building participates in its own forgetting. It keeps no record of who came before. It just offers clean walls to the next company, ready to be marked, ready to be painted over.

Most forgetting works that way. It's not instant deletion but slow cover-up, a new coat of paint on a cleaner story. We don't forget because we're careless; we forget because systems make forgetting easier than remembering.

Writing the context, keeping the record, naming what failed: quiet acts, unglamorous and often thankless. They're also the only acts that work well enough to keep some truth in circulation when the next person asks the same question. Someone usually does ask eventually. They notice the gap, check the numbers again, pull up the old email thread. Sometimes that's enough to keep the memory alive a little longer. Sometimes it just starts the cycle over.

Because today's convenience becomes tomorrow's forgetting.

Like this? Subscribe via email here.