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.

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. All call it progress.

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. No one watches it happen. PR teams reframe narratives and move on before the next cycle hits. Governments rename wars and national programs, scrubbing them of their original intentions.

Few would call this lying. It’s procedure, 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.

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. 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.

There is also a more ordinary reason: people 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.

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.

Weeks after that migration, a colleague raised a sharp question about the numbers. We looked again, hesitated, and moved on. Bigger fish to fry. Though none of us could have named the fish.

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 called Rdio worked out of the same building. They had thousands of users. I was one of them. When they admitted defeat to Spotify 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. Writing the context, keeping the record, and naming what failed are quiet acts that prevent the past from being continuously overwritten by whatever story feels more convenient.

Because today’s convenience becomes tomorrow’s forgetting.

Like this? Subscribe via email here.