Key Takeaways

- Automating repetitive overnight fixes can eliminate callouts but may upset colleagues who depend on overtime pay
- Pre-process data validation prevents batch job failures before they happen
- Process improvements require social awareness alongside technical skill
A support engineer hired to work overnight shifts at an IBM data center in the 1990s solved his nightly callout problem by automating the fix. His reward? A furious colleague who relied on overtime pay told him exactly how unhappy he was.
The story, shared by The Register in its weekly On Call column, highlights a tension IT leaders still navigate: efficiency improvements don't always land well when they disrupt established compensation structures.
What happened with the overnight batch jobs
The engineer, pseudonymously called "Lionel" by The Register, joined a team running overnight COBOL batch processing jobs at large IBM computer centers. His role combined analysis work with a support roster that required him to oversee batch processes and correct errors, particularly in input data sent from various sources.
His first week was rough. "I was called out nightly," Lionel told The Register. Every call was the same problem: input data needed reformatting. He could dial in remotely to make repairs, but the connection was slow, the hours were terrible, and his young family was suffering.
Lionel did what any competent engineer would do. He analyzed the recurring problem, wrote a pre-process program to validate and reformat input data before the batch job ran, tested it, and deployed it into the overnight workflow. No more callouts. Problem solved.
Why fixing the problem caused a new one
Lionel expected appreciation. Instead, a colleague confronted him. That colleague depended on regular overtime payments from those nightly callouts. By eliminating the problem, Lionel had eliminated income.
The story doesn't end with reconciliation. "I continued to seek permanent solutions to other overnight issues," Lionel told The Register. He chose system reliability over social harmony.
This dynamic persists in IT organizations today. Automation reduces toil but also reduces hours. Engineers who streamline operations may find themselves politically isolated, especially in environments where overtime is an unspoken part of compensation.
The management lesson buried in this anecdote
For CIOs and IT managers, this story points to a structural problem. When overtime becomes a de facto bonus system, engineers have perverse incentives to tolerate inefficiency. The colleague who confronted Lionel wasn't being irrational. He was responding to incentives that rewarded presence over problem-solving.
Organizations that want engineers to automate themselves out of tedious work need to reward that behavior explicitly. That might mean bonuses for measurable efficiency gains, clear paths to higher-value work after automation, or simply acknowledging that eliminating callouts is a contribution worth celebrating.
Explores how automation is reshaping support roles and compensation structures
What modern teams can learn from 1990s batch processing
The technical lesson from Lionel's story remains relevant. Recurring errors with predictable causes should be fixed upstream, not patched manually every time they appear. A pre-process validation step, whether for COBOL batch jobs or modern data pipelines, catches bad input before it breaks downstream processes.
Tools like n8n or Zapier let teams build similar validation workflows without writing custom code. The principle is the same: detect and handle errors before they require human intervention at 3 AM.
Disclosure
Some links in this post are affiliate links — Logicity earns a commission if you sign up, at no extra cost to you. We only link products we have used or actively recommend.
The social lesson is harder to implement. Engineers optimize systems. They don't always optimize relationships. Lionel's colleague had a legitimate grievance, even if Lionel's solution was technically correct. A manager who wanted both outcomes might have found a way to redirect that colleague's time toward higher-value work rather than letting resentment fester.
Discusses organizational strategies for managing technology-driven change
Logicity's Take
This story from 30 years ago surfaces a problem that hasn't gone away: compensation structures that reward inefficiency. Every IT leader should ask whether their on-call rotation has become an informal income stream. If it has, the best engineers may quietly tolerate preventable outages, and the ones who don't may find themselves politically punished. The fix isn't technical. It's organizational. Reward engineers for eliminating problems, not just for being present when problems occur.
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is overnight batch processing in IT?
Batch processing runs large-scale data jobs during off-peak hours, typically overnight. These jobs process transactions, generate reports, or update databases without competing for system resources during business hours.
Why do IT support teams have overnight on-call rotations?
Critical systems run 24/7, and batch jobs often execute overnight when usage is low. On-call engineers monitor these processes and fix issues before business hours resume.
How can teams reduce overnight callouts?
Implement pre-process validation to catch input errors before batch jobs run. Use monitoring and alerting to identify patterns. Automate common fixes where possible.
Should companies pay engineers for on-call availability?
Most organizations compensate on-call time through overtime pay, shift differentials, or flat stipends. The structure matters: systems that only reward callouts may incentivize engineers to tolerate preventable issues.
Need Help Implementing This?
Struggling with on-call burnout or inefficient support processes? Reach out to Logicity for guidance on building automation workflows and restructuring incentives for IT operations teams.
Source: www.theregister.com
Manaal Khan
Tech & Innovation Writer
Produced with AI assistance and reviewed by the Logicity editorial team. Learn more in our Editorial Policy.






