They Didn't Quit the Software
By Zuzanna Ławrynowicz | Smart People | SAP SuccessFactors & LATAM HR Tech
In the 1980s, American manufacturing companies set up operations along the US-Mexico border, as was fashionable. They brought their processes, their quality standards, and their confusion. Workers weren't hitting targets. Consultants were hired. Studies were conducted. Eventually someone thought to ask how many hours a day the workers were actually working — across all their jobs, because most of them had two — and the answer was somewhere between twelve and sixteen.
The study concluded there were cultural barriers to productivity.
This is, broadly, the tradition you are continuing when you implement SuccessFactors in Latin America.
The thing about enterprise HR software is that it is built on a very specific assumption: that the organization it's describing exists. That the process documented in the workshop is the process. That the org chart is structural. That when someone says "approvals go through the regional manager," the regional manager is, in fact, the person approvals go through.
In practice, approvals go through whoever has been making things work for the last decade. That person has a title. The title is not person who makes things work. The system doesn't have a field for what they actually do.
You implement the system anyway. It maps beautifully to the org chart.
The org chart is decorative.
What You Are Actually Replacing
Here is the experience of someone who has spent years inside a LATAM HR function, described without exaggeration.
You understand this company in ways that are not written anywhere. You know the rhythm of it — when to push, when to wait, when to route something differently because the official route is technically correct and practically a dead end. You have spent years building this knowledge. You consider it your job. In many ways it is the entire content of your job.
The new system arrives. It has been designed, it is explained to you, to make your job easier. It does not make your job easier. It makes the documented version of your job faster. The documented version of your job was the part you could have done in your second week.
Your actual job — the reading of situations, the management of invisible variables, the institutional memory that keeps the whole thing from seizing up like an engine with no oil — has been reclassified as inefficiency.
You attend three mandatory trainings. You receive a certificate of completion. You look at the workflow.
Why would you stay.
Nobody says this out loud in the post-mortem. The post-mortem talks about change management, user adoption rates, training coverage. These are real things that are also not the point. The point is that you took someone's expertise and replaced it with a sequence of approvals, and the expertise was better, and they knew it, and now they're gone.
The Question Nobody Asks First
The implementations that survive this asked an earlier question.
Before the first workshop: what is the actual work? Not the official work. The work.
It is a slightly uncomfortable question. It implies the org chart is approximate. It implies the documented process is a loose interpretation of events. It implies that years of organizational existence have produced a gap between the system on paper and the system in practice that no one officially acknowledges.
All of this is true. The discomfort is the point.
You can run the workshops without asking the uncomfortable question. The workshops will go well. Go-live will happen on a slide. And sometime in the following year you will lose the people who knew where the bodies were buried — not metaphorically; extremely metaphorically — and the system will keep running, and the system will be quietly worse, and the report will not say that.
The Infrastructure Is Old and Load-Bearing
Latin America did not invent the gap between official process and actual process. But it has centuries of practice with institutions that couldn't be trusted, laws that were selectively applied, and hierarchies that were navigated rather than obeyed. The informal infrastructure is old and load-bearing and it was built by competent people solving real problems that the formal structure was not solving.
You can replace it. Sometimes you should.
But you should at least know what you're replacing, and whether the new version is actually better or just more legible to someone who doesn't work there.
Around 1880, a Scottish shipbuilder named William Denny introduced one of the earliest recorded suggestion schemes — a formal system for workers to submit ideas for improvement. He collected the suggestions, reviewed them, and ignored most of them for the better part of two decades.
His workers kept submitting them anyway. Apparently humans will fill out forms even when they know perfectly well what happens to the forms. Some organizational dynamics are very old.
Let's Talk
If you are navigating a SuccessFactors implementation in Latin America — or trying to understand why the last one didn't land — reach out.
It's a conversation, not a pitch.
Write to Me








