The other thing that I have always found both curiously interesting, and at the same time, somewhat disturbing is the fact that there are always other people in these organizations that I would personally consider better overall performers, yet none of these people are ever viewed with the same admiration and esteem that is bestowed upon Jack. When I started to throw out a few names to the night ops folks who were extolling the virtues of Jack's abilities, there were more than one that these people couldn't even put a face to or had ever even heard of. Their code never crashed at oh-dark-thirty in the morning, and so the night ops staff didn't even know who they were. Similarly, you can't find any customers with stories of daring rescues from major malfunctions by any of these folks, because their systems just didn't have those kinds of problems.

There is, of course, a perfectly reasonable explanation for that, though. The systems for which Jack is responsible are notoriously older, considerably more complex, built on outdated and difficult to maintain technology, and are extremely brittle. It is only because of Jack that these systems are still operational. Of course that statement is as much a testimonial as the line that I was taught to use when giving out a reference for a known slacker without being overtly negative: "You would be very fortunate if you were to get Mr. Smith to work for you." Some things you just have to think about for a minute.

The trouble is not just with Jack
There is no question that Jack is a major contributor to the circumstances in which he finds himself; however, Jack never works alone in creating such an unacceptable arrangement. Organizational policies, compensation plans, management practices, customer staff, and fellow employees can all work in collusion with Jack to establish his condition. For example, wage and salary plans that limit pay for technical skills but provide lucrative incentives for overtime and callback activities may serve to inadvertently encourage developers to be less than thorough when they test their software before placing it into production operation.

Whenever you consider adopting a new compensation plan, you always need to ask, "What are the potential unanticipated consequences of adopting this strategy?" You may just be encouraging exactly the opposite behavior of which you actually desire.

Jack's coworkers may also unintentionally contribute to Jack's situation by arbitrarily yielding to his expertise and opinion, even when an equally capable resource could potentially resolve problems or meet new customer requirements nearly as effectively as Jack himself. Since Jack is always there and always willing, it can become all too easy to just say, "That's Jack's area," and stay safely uninvolved. Although you can make a case that such an attitude is ultimately a cultural, and therefore, a management problem, individual staffers who consistently allow Jack to take full and complete responsibility for one particular area do contribute to the overall problem.