The Two Worlds of Expenditure
My thumb nail caught the edge of the fifth page, the glossy, uselessly thick requisition form for the ergonomic monitor stand.
Seventy-one dollars. That’s what it cost. I had already spent 41 minutes just hunting down the correct budget code for “Minor Capital Expenditure – Employee Comfort and Retention (MCE-ECR) 2021/Q4/B-1,” a code that probably hasn’t been used since 2001, and that’s before the system even kicked back the automatic rejection for exceeding the $51 OpEx limit for non-essential desk accessories, forcing me into the CapEx procedure anyway.
This is the reality of modern organizational logic, and if you work anywhere larger than a bakery, you live it. You are required to jump through 61 bureaucratic hoops to acquire something that genuinely improves your daily efficiency by 11%, yet the organizational pipeline is frictionless, smooth, and immediate when you propose spending $150,001 on a consultant who will produce a 101-slide deck telling us what we already knew last year.
Friction: EXTREME (41 min)
Friction: NEAR ZERO (41 hours)
It feels like a contradiction. It looks like a paradox. Why is the friction inversely proportional to the cost? The prevailing, cynical theory is incompetence, or malice. But that’s too simple. The truth is much more depressing: the system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as it