There’s a dangerous myth in the industrial world: that having a few “irreplaceable” techs is a sign of strength. But when everything lives in just two heads—the PLC code, the server infrastructure, the network architecture—it’s not brilliance. It’s dependency. And it’s a ticking time bomb.
The Trap of Corporate Dependency
At one plant I know, two long-term techs essentially built and now operate the entire automation and network infrastructure. No proper documentation. No written procedures. No back up plan if something happened to them and someone with lesser knowledge had to take over. If either of them walked out tomorrow, the plant would grind to a halt.
And here’s the kicker: management let it happen.
Why? Because it was easier that way. No pressure to learn. No need to lead. No accountability for actually managing the system they’re supposed to oversee.
This is what Dr. Ramani Durvasula calls a passive-collapse structure—it appears stable, until one single failure makes all the hidden cracks show.
It’s not leadership. It’s avoidance. And avoidance is not a management strategy; it’s a liability.
How Toxic Systems Hide Behind “Key People”
In many workplaces the “key tech” becomes the only tech. Why? Because the rest of the crew gets to coast. The superstar tech is flattered, held up as indispensable, and allowed to become the system. The rest of the organization shrugs and sit back and relaxes with a cup of coffee.
This dynamic isn’t always malicious—but it is toxic.
- These “indispensable” techs might not even want to be the only ones—they may just be the ones who stayed long enough, did the work, and filled gaps.
- Management uses them like safety nets, pretending the system is safe because “We’ve got the guy who runs it.”
- When things go south, the blame lands on those techs: “You blew it.” Not on the folks who set up the dependency in the first place. That’s typical in blame-culture systems.
The Double Danger
The system is fragile. One resignation, one medical emergency, or one serious mistake can freeze an entire plant. All that supposed “stability” disappears the moment one person can’t show up. That’s not resilience—it’s gambling with the clock ticking.
Then there’s the other side: the techs themselves. By not sharing knowledge, documenting procedures, or training backups, they end up protecting the dysfunction. Maybe they think they’re helping. And in the short term, they are—the place keeps running.
But over time, they become the bottleneck. When the inevitable breakdown comes, they’ll be blamed for not having a succession plan, even though that responsibility never belonged to them. This isn’t expertise. It’s entrapment.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just one plant. Across industries, companies accept and normalize fragile systems because it’s easier. Easier to flatter one or two “heroes” than build resilient teams. Easier to hide behind “we rely on our top techs” than face the cost of training, documentation, and systematic work.
But here’s the truth: a workplace that depends on two heads isn’t strong—it’s already broken. It’s only a matter of time.
Your Turn
- Has your workplace ever made itself dependent on one or two people?
- Did it feel like strength—or just quiet panic waiting to happen?
I go into more depth about the words and ideas that trap people into becoming “the one person the company depends on” in my free eBook Corporate Language by Design.
