Thinking about the fact that coda wouldn’t be the same if a coworker didn’t join, which implies a level of irreplaceability. Being irreplaceable means your value is infinite in our world of supply and demand, as long as the demand is there for what you provide. But the simple fact of being irreplaceable doesn’t always coincide with what is needed in the moment or for the long-term. Being irreplaceable has a wide range of meaning. It can mean that someone was the difference between a very bad outcome and a very good one. It can also reference a crutch that people use to stick to old traditions (thinking of how COBOL is still in demand despite how old and outdated it is because of how many large institutions need them to maintain their systems). In the latter, being irreplaceable can be an excuse to avoid the new and the rush of change. It’s a crutch to stay relevant and give the old a lifeline to co-exist along the new. At what point do you need to force a replacement? How do you get old to consider the new, and how can the new learn from the old to avoid past mistakes?

This is the 55th installment in my experiment of publishing raw, lightly edited mini-essays every day towards achieving 100 public pieces. Check out the rationale and the full list here.