So would they rather have you quit? If not they should be willing to give you whatever title, pay bump, time off, etc. is necessary to keep you long enough for a replacement solution to be found. Otherwise if you just quit they’re stuck negotiating from a position of weakness to hire you back as a much higher paid contractor, or if you decide to take an extended vacation or work somewhere else they are left high and dry.

If you are truly “indispensable”, that makes you the one with all of the leverage. If they can jerk you around without pushback, then “indispensable” sounds more like a rhetorical device / excuse.

I know that many folks here work in elite organizations, so maybe it's hard to fathom, but THE NORM for big companies is to be dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to organizational stuff and technical operations.

Talented people who are intrinsically cross-functional, curious, and who always to do what it takes to "help the team" often get hammered flat from years of the daily grind-stone and then just quit, like the OP.

In most places no one is even thinking about "retaining talent" until it's far too late.

If your bosses are saying “retention” out loud you are probably already fucked, even if your division seems to be doing okay.

For large enough companies the 'company' is not a single unit making unified decisions. I might be "indispensable" to my boss, perhaps his boss, the project, and my department. However they don't have the power to give me a pay rise or extra time off outside the normal bounds set by their bosses. Me, my boss or even my department however aren't indispensable to the whole global multinational company we all work for.

If I quit and the project fails, then my boss and several people on that project might lose their jobs, and the remnants of that department might end up folded into some other department. My bosses boss might not get a nice bonus that year due to the fact that the project he was overseeing was a massive failure. However "The Company" and it's tens of thousands of other employees all around the world will keep on trucking as if nothing had happened.

“I was hired by the Director to solve $x problem. I led the project. I put processes in place. I led training for the team and they went public a year later. I met my former director for lunch a year later and most of my processes are still there in a slightly evolved form.”

About the same as above from my job after that. But change “Director” to “CTO” and change “went public” to “got acquired for 10x revenue”.

(Yes I can draw a direct line from the architectural changes that let them pivot to selling access to micro services to their value proposition when acquired)

Maybe. But - maybe they just follow the path of least resistance, which is to lean on you rather than go up to their bosses and say "John Smith is quitting, and when he does, this project will crash and burn. We must stop this or the company will lose $$$."

Some of that is wishful thinking on their part. They can’t acknowledge that the riffraff keep the wheels on and may swing the other way as a form of denial. They probably treat waiters like shit too.

It’s kind of the same game landlords play. I always find it somewhat amusing when a landlord forces a business out of a storefront and then the storefront sits empty for six months or a year. How long is it going to take you to break even on that?

Toy is just a euphemism. It could be a service, it could be just showing up their friend jimmy that they made more money this year. IT could be to win a bet. IT could be the tenant scratched their Bently. It could be that somebody they don't like frequents the establishment.

In that case, it's beneficial to the landlord to have some scam shop in because even if they're not being paid rent, the money they're saving from an occupied storefront easily outweighs every other alternative.

Indispensability (true or perceived) hurts not only person but organization as a whole. It creates tension between them, which might break at any point for any reason (a bus, reaching point of no return, dragging organization down) and create difficult to fill void once that happens.

I think it should, however, be considered from the true indispensability and not the perceived one. Perceived one is bullying employees, accidentally or on purpose. Sometimes it's bullying ourselves by creating overly controlled environment that solidified over years.

In perfect life scenario utilizing leverage would work as following: The Indispensable ask for a minor raise (1-5%) -> Company agrees, because The Indispensable is truly indispensable -> 1 month passes -> Repeat

After couple iterations there would be a break point because company will start to weight options and might decide to compensate instead of waiting for next month and another raise request. In this scenario The Indispensable stops being one, so their quality of work improves (less stress) and they get additional income. Company retains The Indispensable since they signaled and through adequate pressure achieved the goal. Fragile process with single point of failure is resolved with more stable solution.

Unfortunately it doesn't work in real life often. Some companies simply can't afford matching expectations, no matter how warranted they are. Indispensability there is simply a tax imposed on worker. Some people aren't confident and courageous enough to bring issues out and try to act on them (as business can be intimidating). Last and not least - true indispensability isn't black or white. There's a mixture of politics, perceived indispensability, true indispensability and controlling behavior by The Indispensable one.

Option A) You truly are indispensable and critical to the project, and soon you're going to be their best-paid employee.

Option B) They will now find ways to make you dispensable. And then you'll qualify for that promotion.

I started my second job in 1999 it was for a bill processing/printing company. Companies would send us data files via ftp, we would merge the files and create files in a format used by industrial printers and mail them out. Later on we were one of the early integrators with CheckFree that was the backend for most online bill payment services.

I wrote mostly processing programs in VB6, Perl and C++. I did some GUI programming with C++/MFC/COM (ask your parents).

Fast forward to 2008, the world had moved on. But I was still using VB6 (discontinued in 2001) and C++/MFC. My compensation was only $7K more in 2008 than it was in 2000. There were other people doing the new shiny while I maintained the old systems.

I learned my lesson. Over the next 10 years, I changed jobs 5 times and doubled my income - nothing to brag about. It was still about what entry level developers get as return offers in BigTech. I was laser focused on keeping my skillset in sync with the market.

By 2017 though, I realized my market value as an enterprise dev was going to plateau in 3 years and my youngest was graduating from college. I started pivoting to “cloud” and got into “application modernization” consulting - basically a fancy term for cloud app development and deployments.

I got my current job in consulting in about two years ago.

I work at the one company that pays decently well for AWS + enterprise dev + consulting. It’s not hard to guess which one it is..

I've been there a lot, not on purpose but in some organisations it's either that you get your hands dirty or you spend 10x as much time watching the buck being passed. It's definitely one of those things as a developer where you need to learn some management skills or end up burned out of the job.

I happen to be one of the people who can (and has!) quit a job on principle. But it's very much a luxury good that I work hard to afford. And it's easier for me: no kids, no parents to care for, no mortgage to worry about. I would rather more people quit their jobs on principle (or risked it through efforts like unionization). But I mostly don't blame them if they feel like they can't.

There’s a thread right now in r/experiencedDevs about a guy who is trying to buy a house while his employer is cratering around him. Stuff like that happens and tends to stick with you forever.

Scenario: There is a project your boss is wholly responsible for. You, from a technical perspective, are absolutely indispensable to the success of said project. Maybe it's a small team, or everyone is overloaded, but you can draw a direct line between you quitting (or doing a bad job) and your boss getting called out or potentially fired.

Your boss, however, is not indispensable to their boss, nor is this project indispensable to the larger department. You ask for your raise because of your leverage. Your boss might be worried and try to get it for you. Their boss, not caring about this project that much in the broader context of their work, laughs and says no.

You can absolutely be critical to the success of a project, and even important to your boss's future, but have no real leverage over your situation. That's absolutely a reason to leave but it doesn't mean you'll be able to squeeze any more money out of the place before you do.

However instead of getting angry I get that I may be important to direct boss or one level above. But as far as company goes they are all in cloud, next generation and what not. So my criticality is inconsequential in larger context.