I feel its a valid concern, but the way companies generally respond to the concern is what is invalid. Teams should lift everyone up, not push superstars down.
E.g. How much active knowledge sharing on the superstar's domain of expertise, and even process, is happening? A luncheon once a month? Its not enough. How much time is the superstar allowed to spend documenting? Is the rest of the team actually reading it? Is active mentorship happening on the team?
Versus: Create a top-down process, make everyone follow the process, invent hypotheticals as to why the process matters, product factory, etc.
Yes, as I posted further down I am really intrigued by what makes it possible to lift other people up. Because the potential is there. Not in everyone but surely someone who would step up as the new lead if someone disappears.
Documentation is good but sometimes i feel like there is a need for something more.
Maybe the previous guy needs to move out of the way. Maybe his way of doing code reviews is discouraging - how important is it really to do everything like it was wired in his brain? Or just let go of the idea of how the code is structured?
I take mentoring seriously since this is my way of adding force multiplication without having to become a manager.
E.g. How much active knowledge sharing on the superstar's domain of expertise, and even process, is happening? A luncheon once a month? Its not enough. How much time is the superstar allowed to spend documenting? Is the rest of the team actually reading it? Is active mentorship happening on the team?
Versus: Create a top-down process, make everyone follow the process, invent hypotheticals as to why the process matters, product factory, etc.