I often say that one of the differences between a good software engineer and a great one is in how they handle bug fixes. A good engineer will fix a bug, but they won't go that extra mile:The scenario above applies whenever there is a problem to be resolved. I once led a great team responsible for resolving operational problems at a bank. The "great ones" on that team always performed analogs of all of the things Bryan mentions above. They always got to a very precise problem statement and recipe to reproduce and (sometimes painfully) a really exhaustive explication of impacts (what Bryan calls "widening the bug") as well as understanding of the relation between the current problem and any others that may have been related.
- They won't narrow the reproduction script to the minimal case
- They won't invest the time to clearly and crisply state the code flaw
- They won't widen the bug, looking for other symptoms that the bug might have caused, and other code paths that might arrive at the problematic code
- They won't search the problem database, looking for bug reports with different symptoms, but the same underlying cause.
I have seen this separation of talent in lots of business domains - operations, engineering, finance, marketing - even business strategy and development. The great ones don't stop until they have a really satisfying understanding of exactly what an anomaly is telling them. The not-so-great are happy just seeing it go away.
The difference is not really "dedication" or "diligence" per se - i.e., its not just that the great ones "do all the work" while the not-so-great are lazier. The great ones are driven by the desire to understand and to avoid needless rework later. They tend to be less "interrupt-driven" and may actually appear to be less responsive or "dedicated" in some cases. They solve problems all the way because they can't stop thinking about them until they have really mastered them. I always look for this quality when I am hiring people.