A Better Opposite to Irreplaceability

I awoke from an afternoon nap this weekend, and I immediately started to think about irreplaceability. That which comes from a professional, commonly a very technical one (let's call him Frank), who produces value in such a way that the maintenance or longevity of that value relies on the maintenance and longevity of that individual's employment. The tools in his toolbox are convolution, knowledge hoarding, and condescension.

In a hypothetical software company, Frank designs the delivery method for the software. It's got all of the bells and whistles, but he's the only one who knows how to use or make changes to it. Other developers have looked at the code, sure, but it's written in a way that feels intentionally deceptive. He used non-standard libraries, implemented a personal naming standard, put the source in some far-off branch (possibly even under a different source control solution), and didn't comment a thing. It even looks like his code is missing a piece, and when prompted, it turns out it was sitting in a directory on his workstation.

"Hey, Frank, could you show me how your IDeliverStuff implementation works?" you ask, but you already know that Frank is too busy to help. He's got a mile-long list of tasks which mainly consist of maintaining his other projects that no one else knows how to use. He's isolated himself within a bubble of propriety, and you wonder if his documentation ever existed in any form.

You ask anyways, though, as you want to know. Frank responds by making you feel like you're wasting his time. He never makes eye contact, he postures away from you, and he changes the subject to a personal project.

If Frank were a machine part, he'd be a completely non-standard, expensive, over-engineered whatchamacallit, that takes 16-18 weeks to fly in express from Baden-Württemberg. He is irreplaceable. He makes well over six figs, though, so he must be doing something right, right?

I conject that, for all the bleeding-edge solutions that Frank has put in place over the years, Frank is doing more harm than good. I suppose that this is not a very difficult opinion to gain support for, but what is the alternative? Replaceability? That hardly sounds good. Frank was way too selfish, but does that mean I should invite the possibility of overlooking me for a promotion? Should I welcome the opportunity to downsize me?

A better opposite to Frank is embodied by someone whom is replaceable, but also essential, and infuential. Frank's replacement, so to speak, builds up those around him. His documentation is thorough. Everyone knows the state and course of his projects. He is the shining gear at the heart of the machine. Every machine needs one.  He seems to make the rest of the machine work cleaner and with less wear.

What's stopping the management from taking that Shining Gear and removing it from the machine? Nothing. When it's time to start a new machine, or revive a machine that's breaking down, Shining Gear is the first they turn to.

Irreplaceability is a cliff. It's built solidly, but falling down is a shattering experience for everyone involved. Past that point is replaceability, which instincts tell us is a bad place to be. Somewhere even further is the state where Shining Gear lives: Interchangeability.

Possibly not the best opposite to irreplaceability, but definitely better.

Adam Krieger