Alert fatigue is often blamed on tooling.

Too many alerts. Bad thresholds. Noisy systems.

Those things matter, but they are symptoms.

Alert fatigue is an organizational problem.

Alerts Reflect What the Org Cares About

Every alert encodes a value judgment.

This matters. This is urgent. Someone should wake up.

When everything is urgent, nothing is.

Organizations that cannot agree on priorities produce alert storms. The system is only reflecting that confusion.

Alerts are not neutral. Someone decided that this metric crossing this threshold warrants interrupting a human. That decision reveals what the organization values and how well it understands its systems.

In healthy organizations, there is alignment on what constitutes a real problem. Customer-facing failures matter. Data loss matters. Security breaches matter. Internal tooling being slow at 3 a.m. probably does not.

In dysfunctional organizations, every team has different priorities and no one wants to be blamed for missing something. So alerts proliferate. Better to page someone unnecessarily than to risk being the person who did not alert when something went wrong.

This creates a tragedy of the commons. Each individual alert seems reasonable in isolation. But collectively, they overwhelm the people on call. No single alert is obviously wrong, so no one feels empowered to remove any of them.

The result is alert storms where dozens of alerts fire for a single underlying issue. Or constant low-level noise where alerts fire daily but rarely indicate real problems. Engineers learn to ignore alerts, which defeats the entire purpose of monitoring.

Alerts Accumulate Like Permissions

Alerts are easy to add. Hard to remove.

A temporary alert becomes permanent. A one-time issue gets a lasting page. No one owns cleanup.

Over time, signal turns into noise.

Adding an alert takes one line of configuration. Removing an alert requires understanding whether anyone depends on it, whether it has ever caught a real issue, and whether removing it will cause a problem no one anticipated.

So alerts stay. An alert added during a specific incident six months ago still fires even though the underlying issue was fixed. An alert created to monitor a new feature still pages even though the feature is now stable and well understood.

No one feels ownership over the collective set of alerts. Each team owns their service, and they manage alerts for their service. But no one steps back and asks whether the overall alerting strategy makes sense.

Cleanup requires saying “this alert is not worth waking someone up for” and accepting the risk that you might be wrong. That is a hard decision to make, especially in organizations where blame is common and trust is low.

People Learn to Ignore Pain

Alert fatigue does not happen instantly.

It happens when:

  • alerts do not correlate to user impact
  • pages are not actionable
  • the same issues repeat without fixes
  • ownership is unclear

People adapt by tuning out. That is a rational response.

When alerts fire frequently but nothing bad happens, people stop treating them as urgent. An alert that fires three times a week and always resolves itself trains engineers to ignore it.

When alerts are not actionable, people feel helpless. An alert fires. The person on call investigates. There is nothing they can do. The issue resolves on its own or requires escalation to a team that is not on call. This teaches people that responding to alerts is often a waste of time.

When the same issues repeat, people lose faith in the system. If the alert has fired 50 times and the root cause has never been addressed, why should the 51st page be treated differently? The alert becomes background noise.

When ownership is unclear, alerts become someone else’s problem. An alert fires for a shared dependency. Multiple teams get paged. No one knows who should respond. Everyone waits for someone else to take the lead. The issue either resolves itself or escalates into a full incident.

All of these dynamics train people to tune out alerts. Ignoring pain is a survival mechanism. If responding to every alert leads to stress, wasted effort, and no meaningful improvement, people rationally choose to stop responding.

Reducing Alerts Requires Saying No

The biggest improvement we made was not technical.

It was deciding:

  • what truly warrants a page
  • what can wait until business hours
  • what is informational only

That required alignment, not configuration.

We ran an exercise where we listed every alert and categorized it. Does this require immediate action? Does it indicate user impact? Can it wait until tomorrow?

Most alerts fell into the “informational” category. They were useful for debugging or trend analysis, but they did not require waking someone up. We turned those into dashboard metrics or low-priority tickets.

Some alerts were important but not urgent. A batch job failure at 2 a.m. might matter, but it does not need to page someone immediately. We configured those alerts to fire during business hours or create tickets instead of pages.

Only a small percentage of alerts truly warranted immediate attention. Those were the ones tied to customer-facing failures, data integrity issues, or security incidents.

This required organizational agreement. We had to align on what “urgent” means. We had to accept that some things can wait. We had to trust that non-urgent issues would still get addressed through normal work processes instead of through pages.

That alignment was harder than the technical work. But it was the only thing that actually reduced alert fatigue.

Fewer Alerts, Better Responses

Once alerts were meaningful:

  • response time improved
  • stress dropped
  • trust increased
  • accountability returned

Less noise made humans more reliable.

When every alert is important, people respond faster. They do not have to second-guess whether this page is real. They know it is.

Stress drops because pages are rare and purposeful. Engineers are not constantly interrupted. Sleep is not regularly disrupted. On-call rotations become manageable instead of dreaded.

Trust increases because alerts correlate to real problems. When an alert fires, people take it seriously. They investigate thoroughly. They do not assume it is a false positive.

Accountability returns because ownership is clear. If an alert fires, it is for a specific service with a specific owner. The person on call knows what to check and who to involve. There is no diffusion of responsibility.

Less noise also makes trends visible. When alerts are rare, patterns become obvious. If a service that never pages suddenly pages twice in one week, that signals a real change worth investigating.

Final Thought

Alert fatigue is not a monitoring failure.

It is a leadership and prioritization failure.

Fixing it starts with deciding what actually matters.

Related reading: