Support newbie figured out how to avoid all-nighters, and his colleagues hated him for it
A new analyst at an IBM mainframe support team in the 1990s eliminated recurring overnight call-outs by automating a routine data-formatting fix. Although this improved the batch-processing workflow and let him sleep uninterrupted, a colleague objected because the reduced incidents meant less paid overtime.
The analyst, referred to as “Lionel”, was supporting overnight COBOL batch jobs and was called out every night during his first week to correct input data with a file editor. Frustrated by slow dial-in access and the impact on his young family, he designed, tested and deployed a pre-processing program in the overnight flow, then continued seeking permanent solutions to other problems.
In short
- Analyst automated overnight fixes and avoided repeated call-outs.
- A colleague resented losing regular overtime pay.
- The story highlights conflicting incentives in support work.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Technical professionals should automate repetitive work—that is their core responsibility and value to an organisation. Lionel identified a genuine operational problem and solved it efficiently, motivated by legitimate concerns about family time and sleep deprivation affecting his wellbeing. His solution benefited the team and company. The colleague's objection stemmed solely from losing paid overtime, not from any valid operational or professional concern. Progress should not be hindered because someone has grown accustomed to benefiting from inefficiency.
The case against
Lionel's automation directly reduced a colleague's earning potential without consultation or consideration for their financial position. In the 1990s context, overtime compensation could represent meaningful income for support staff. Whilst the technical solution was sound, the human cost—someone else losing paid opportunities—deserves acknowledgement rather than dismissal as mere self-interest. There is a legitimate tension between organisational efficiency and workers' actual compensation, and implementing improvements with awareness of their impact on colleagues is itself a professional responsibility.
Explained simply
In the 1990s, large computer systems called mainframes processed vital business data through automated overnight runs. Support staff like Lionel were on call during these off-hours shifts, called away from home when something went wrong, which meant interrupted sleep and disruption to family life.
When Lionel started at his role on IBM's support team, he was being called out repeatedly at night to manually fix data errors before the overnight processing could continue. Frustrated by the constant disruptions to his young family, he designed and deployed a program that automatically corrected these errors before the main system ran, eliminating most of the overnight call-outs.
The automation improved the workflow, but created tension within the team. Some colleagues depended on the overtime payments from handling these frequent nighttime problems, and they objected to the reduction in incidents.