Great Companies Need Irreplaceable People

Companies choosing ‘replaceability’ over talent are actually choosing slow death over growth. This hit home recently when my boss started pushing for processes that optimize for replaceability during our team expansion. While advocating for “easy onboarding” sounds reasonable, the underlying message was clear: make everyone replaceable.

In the span of one week, our project - which had finally found its stride after a year of challenges - suddenly faced new mandates: strict technology choices, rigid coding conventions, mandatory daily standups, and an obsession with making everything accessible to entry-level developers. The justification? “We need to ensure anyone can pick up tasks and be productive immediately in case of emergencies.”

Process isn’t the enemy. Code conventions and maintainable codebases are crucial. But when every innovative idea, every modern technology choice, every attempt to improve is met with “not everyone will understand this” - we’re optimizing for the lowest common denominator. We’re building a system where developers are interchangeable parts rather than craftspeople who create great products.

This approach fundamentally misunderstands what drives great companies. If I’m leading a team, I should have unique insights and future plans that others don’t. I should strive for excellence and demand the same from my team. If my absence isn’t felt when I leave, what value was I really adding? If anyone can replace me without impact, was I really leading?

Look at the companies that changed the world. Apple needed Steve Jobs’s vision. The United States needed its founding fathers. Yes, they established processes, but these processes were designed to amplify exceptional talent, not replace it. These organizations built frameworks that have lasted centuries because they were built by irreplaceable people with extraordinary vision. People who chose to leave no stone unturned, there is a reason why people rave about Linear’s UX and it’s not just process, in fact they don’t even have a typical design system. Consider Apple post-Jobs or the United States today. While Tim Cook runs an incredibly stable company, Apple’s revolutionary innovations have slowed. Similarly, the US system, designed to be robust and self-perpetuating, now struggles with debt and stagnation. Process alone, no matter how well-designed, cannot replace vision and exceptional talent. Systems designed for stability often sacrifice the very things that enable dramatic growth. It’s a paradox: the more you optimize for replaceability, the more you guarantee mediocrity.

What many companies today are doing - mine included - isn’t growing; they’re merely surviving. They’re building average products with interchangeable parts, aiming for stability over excellence. But here’s the harsh truth: these companies likely won’t exist in a decade, let alone a century. True longevity requires amazing people at every level - people you trust to have opinions, make decisions, experiment, and deliver exceptional value.

This “anyone can do it” mindset carries hidden costs. When you optimize for replaceability, you signal to your best talent that excellence isn’t valued. Innovation becomes a liability. Creative solutions are seen as risks. You end up creating an environment that repels the very people who could take your company to the next level. Great developers don’t want to work in systems designed for mediocrity.

The irony is that optimizing for replaceability often costs more in the long run. Sure, onboarding might be faster, but you’ll spend more time managing turnover, dealing with technical debt, and trying to compete with outdated approaches. Companies end up trading long-term innovation potential for short-term operational convenience.

Instead of building processes that make everyone replaceable, build processes that enable exceptional people to do their best work. Document not just how things are done, but why decisions were made. Create systems that elevate talent rather than constrain it. Focus on hiring and retaining the best people, then give them the freedom to excel. It should be felt when a developer departs, it should be seen as a faliure to retain a talented asset. These are types of companies I want to work for

Are we building processes to help exceptional people succeed, or are we building processes to avoid needing exceptional people at all? The answer to this question may determine whether your company becomes a footnote or a future.