How do I deal with a spat between coworkers that impacts me?

Question

So, I work at a smallish company as a full-stack web developer with several other people.

The guy who has worked here the longest ("Mark") has been here for six or eight years, and developed the initial database and system to maintain information related to advertising sales and the companies who advertise with us.

Another guy has worked here for about three years ("Jim"), and was put in charge of developing a database and system to manage subscribers to our company's publications.

Over time, Jim's system has kind of grown out of control and exceeded its scope. It has gotten to the point where it is partially duplicating data from Mark's system. Jim's system is the source of data for several different applications, and is growing more and more difficult to work with. It is affecting several people's ability to work on these "satellite" applications.

I work on a few of these applications. At a recent meeting, it was suggested that some of these applications should rely on Mark's database rather than Jim's, despite them currently working . I agree that logically, these applications should rely on Mark's database.

Unfortunately, our company has a very flat structure, where everyone works right under the president. There are no projects managers and no one has any authority to tell one another what to do. Thus, we're in a constant stalemate and it feels like tensions are rising between Mark and Jim. It doesn't help that Mark has grown to despise Jim for years because of Jim's project's encroachment on his system.

Again, I agree that many of these applications which rely on Jim's system should instead rely on Mark's, but that involves a coordinated effort of several people to switch over. I spent the last two months overhauling one of the applications, and now I may have to do it all over again.

While I agree with Mark in theory, he's getting kind of crazy in practice. He started secretly recording meetings so he could prove that the boss actually suggested the switch-over. He's telling me to start looking into switching over, despite him having no role power over me or the other people who would have to coordinate. He takes every opportunity to complain about Jim, and complains about even the nice things he does. Jim says hello to Mark in the mornings, and Mark ignores him and complains about it. It's getting personal and pathological. While he may be right, he's still losing it and getting emotional.

All in all, we have problems and I don't know what to do. This is not good for the company or us who work here. Jim's scope creep is, without a doubt, causing problems and making life harder for everyone. Mark's reaction will, at least in the short term, create more work, more headaches, possibly cause more tension, be unnecessary, and make several months worth of work moot.

Our boss, the president of the company, is essentially the manager of ~40 employees, and cannot possibly stay on top of all of this. I don't want to be in the middle of this. I'm currently working under contract, but they've extended me an offer to come aboard full-time. It's a great place to work, but you can see there are problems.

So, what do I do? Do I tell the boss about the tension between my coworkers? Should I suggest different roles, so we could actually have project managers? Do I just switch over to Mark's system? Do I confront Mark and Jim and make them sort it out? I feel trapped in a big pissing match.

Thank you for any advice you can give me.

Answer 1

Your company is wasting money.

Firstly, refuse to come on board permanently until this particular issue is handled.

Secondly, discuss your position with the owner. With over forty people in the company, a flat organization will not work. He needs to elect a director or two in general, and certainly an IT Director is required. His first job (it may be you doing it) is to move forward on a consolidated system. Ignore the two developers, and talk to the company stakeholders - the people who actually USE these two systems, and find out what is important to them. Quickly develop a new system to accommodate the needs of the user, not the ego of the developers; you may need to use outside resource to do this.

You should also recommend to the owner that a review is done on the two developers - because after the system is built, only one developer (if that) will be needed. From your notes, I can see which one I'd pick (clue; who do the users work best with?)

The problem, in essence, is not one of a computer system. It's a problem of the owner abdicating all responsibility for his employees. THAT'S the issue which needs to be addressed, because otherwise it will be a festering pustule in the company for a long time to come.

Answer 2

All in all, we have problems and I don't know what to do.

I don't want to be in the middle of this.

I'm currently working under contract, but they've extended me an offer to come aboard full-time. It's a great place to work, but you can see there are problems.

So, what do I do?

Your basic choices are - come aboard full-time, or reject their offer and move on to a more under-control company. Nobody can actually tell you what you should do in that regard - that is solely a choice you must make on your own.

If you do choose to stick around, you should do whatever your boss tells you to do. That means ignore the Mark/Jim drama.

You are not in charge here. You don't supervise Mark. You don't supervise Jim. From your description, it sounds like your boss (the president) needs to do a better job of supervision, or delegate it.

You said that you don't want to be in the middle of this. So don't. There is absolutely no need to make this your problem - just do your job and let your boss do his. Or decide that your boss is hopeless and move on to a company that knows how to manage such a team.

Answer 3

I faced an almost identical situation years earlier. I worked, as a contractor, at a company with two other developers. One was a young kid, absolutely brilliant, but with the political skills of a dead carp. The other was a little older than I, very politically astute, but with the coding skills of a dead carp.

Needless to say, their architectures were of opposing views: Innovative vs. anachronistic.

All of us reported directly to the President. In the end, it fell apart, as the young kid and I worked on newer approaches that worked well, while we were politically sabotaged by the other. The company ended up having to rebuild their development department from scratch. It was expensive, but they survived.

Also, the secret recording is an issue. If you are in the US, it varies from state to state whether that is legal or not. I'd be very surprised if your president didn't fire Mark if that were discovered.

TL;DR

Your president needs to pick a leader, and back him, or he will end up with a dead carp.

[Edit] It seems I was less than clear. My apologies. You need to tell your president to pick a leader. You can't fix it. You don't have the authority. He can. You need to tell him (president) to fix it. Both approaches are valid (isolating concerns versus all-encompassing database). What you have now is what I refer to as the "Competing authority anti-pattern." (If someone knows the "real" name for this, I'd like to know.) Two systems hold the same information, but neither is guaranteed to be current because they are being maintained separately.

However, I would shy away from backing Mark, as it seems he's on a self-destructive path. At least he was smart enough to know the law on recording conversations, though.