cost of peace: or why the best engineers seem “too expensive”
in IT organizations, as in homes, you don’t choose between cheap and expensive. you choose between “cheap — but with cognitive load” and “expensive — but with autonomy.”
the best engineers aren’t a resource. they’re infrastructure.
and if you’re not investing in them as infrastructure, you’re not firing an employee. you’re destroying your own resilience.
read the manifesto for a mature it professional — with references to cognitive psychology, systems thinking, complexity theory and psychological safety (amy edmondson), deep work (cal newport) and system responsibility (donella meadows). it’s not an accusation — it’s enlightening. and that’s why it works. and it’s not burnout.
when you choose a flat or a car, you don’t just buy an object. you buy a support system. you pay not only for square meters or the engine, but for reliability, predictability, and emotional reduction of cognitive load. an upscale neighborhood isn’t status — it’s lower frequency of stress factors: cleaning, repairs, security, emergency response — all delegated to professionals. you’re paying for autonomy. For not having to think.
exactly the same is true when a it company manager decides to “save” on processes, infrastructure, training or team support — he doesn’t cut costs. he shifts the cost.
he transfers cognitive load onto his employees. he replaces system reliability with individual endurance. he creates a heroism-dependent system, not a process-driven one. and deploying even the simplest virtual machine with monitoring — isn’t that a process with stages, tickets, stakeholder involvement, knowledge sharing and documentation updates? why do you seem to have gotten used to thinking that this work is done behind closed eyes or just by clicking a button? even if it does?
and here tragedy begins.
you as a consumer love quality products: phones that don’t lag; cars that don’t break down; apps that work without glitches. but when you’re a manager, you start treating your employees’ work as ‘natural’ — as though code writes itself, infrastructure maintains itself, incidents resolve themselves with no intervention. you fail to notice that your best engineer is the one who fixes servers at night, who writes documentation, who implements monitoring, who says “no” to hacks. and you don’t see that his emotional resilience, deep engagement and commitment to quality aren’t ‘intrinsic motivation’ — they’re a result of conscious choice and system support. and when he starts standing out — you don’t admire. you’re puzzled: why does he do so much unnecessary? why doesn’t he compromise?
that’s the cognitive bias: you don’t understand that high performance doesn’t come from nowhere. it’s a consequence of high psychological safety, clear boundaries, and system support. and when one person compensates for systemic failures — they become indispensable but not valuable in the system. they become victims of their own efficiency.
because in toxic culture where “it’s working” means “everything’s fine”, and “it works poorly” means “we need to work harder”, — the best employees start absorbing all the unpleasant work. they become system decopensators. they take on what the system can’t support:
— technical debt,
— lack of processes,
— chaos in priorities,
— team burnout.
and then after six months, a year — you notice: “this employee is too expensive”.
but you don’t ask yourself question: ‘who made him expensive?’