In recent years, a narrative has emerged around what some call the “Lazy Developer” — a stereotype that unfairly characterizes developers as careless and overconfident, with a disregard for security protocols and thorough testing. This portrayal ignores the systemic pressures and unrealistic expectations that developers face in today’s fast-paced tech environment.

A recent survey of 500 full-time U.S.-based developers highlights a concerning trend: 75% admit to bypassing security measures such as MFA or using unstable VPNs to complete tasks, with 39% doing so routinely. Additionally, the pressure to deliver quickly has led to 61% of developers pushing untested AI-generated code into production, and 26% doing this regularly. These behaviors are symptomatic of deeper, structural issues within the tech industry.

Step 1 of 7

14%

Which of the following best describes how you currently monitor and manage systems across your hybrid cloud environment?(Required)

Multiple separate tools for different environments

Multiple separate tools for different monitoring and management functions

Single consolidated dashboard

Custom built monitoring and management solution

No full monitoring and management solution

Don’t know

How valuable would it be for your monitoring and management solution to incorporate predictive analytics to help you identify and address system issues that are critical and not waste time or effort working through all the data and “noise” that is not critical?(Required)

Extremely valuable

Moderately valuable

Somewhat valuable

Slightly valuable

Not valuable

How do you most typically address potential system issues BEFORE they impact your operations?(Required)

Automated workflows and playbooks to remediate potential issues as soon as they are detected

An orchestrated response process that leverages automation, AI, and human expertise to rapidly respond to potential issues

Advanced monitoring tools such as predictive analytics and anomaly detection to proactively identify and address potential issues

Respond to issues as they arise, using manual processes and troubleshooting techniques

A combination of automated remediation, orchestrated response, and/or proactive monitoring to address potential system issues

Don’t know

Other

What methods does your organization use to control and monitor cloud/IT spending?(Required)

Centralized procurement processes

Pre-approved budget thresholds

Automated cost monitoring tools

Department-level spending controls

Regular cost audits and reviews

Cloud cost optimization platform

Approval workflows for resource provisioning

Native financial operations tools provided by the cloud provider

No formal controls in place

Don’t know

Other

Please specify:

Which methods do you rely on most to detect security vulnerabilities in your systems?(Required)

Automated scanning tools

Manual assessments

Vendor notifications

Threat modeling (for early detection)

None of these

Don’t know

Other

Please specify:

What are the TWO most common ways you prioritize vulnerabilities to address within your environment?(Required)

Based on potential impact

Based on exploitability

Regulatory compliance requirements

Based on CVSS scores

Risk-based analysis of multiple factors

First-in-first-out approach

No formal prioritization process

Don’t know

How do you typically handle system updates and security patches?(Required)

Automated updates and patches

Manually review and apply updates and patches on a regular schedule

A combination of automation and manual review

Apply updates and patches on an as-needed basis.

Outsourced update and patch management

No defined process

Don’t know

Other

Δ

The Shift-Left Movement

The roots of these problems can be traced back to the pervasive “move fast and break things” mantra that has dominated tech culture since the early 2000s. This approach, coupled with the “shift left” movement, which loads more testing and quality control responsibilities onto developers and is intended to cut costs and speed development, has compromised software reliability and forced developers to cut corners to meet deadlines.

The rise of AI as a tool for speeding up development only sharpens this double-edged sword. Without proper guidelines, AI tools become part of a recipe for what might be termed “Institutionalized Lazy Development,” where the rush to incorporate AI can amplify existing operational issues instead of solving them.

In a world with AI development tools, shift left becomes functionally dead, leaving developers unable to handle the workload and produce quality code.

The Iron Triangle and its Impact on Development

The Iron Triangle, or the Project Management Triangle — “Fast, good, cheap; pick two” — is a useful framework to understand the constraints on developers. If one constraint is adjusted, it creates a ripple effect on the others, emphasizing the need for effective project management and decision-making. This is why managers must work with leadership in setting up proper guardrails and structures from the top down.

Leadership within the company involves establishing strategy, with managers serving as lieutenants who delineate the necessary product and IT requirements for attaining the company’s objectives. Managers cannot cut short-term costs at the expense of the company’s long-term health.

Improve Developer Experience

To counter these trends, tech leadership must invest in improving the developer experience and making security processes more user-friendly. AI can be a powerful tool for identifying and fixing errors more efficiently. However, it must be integrated thoughtfully to ensure it aligns with organizational goals and does not bypass necessary quality checks.

Moreover, companies must resist the urge to cut quality assurance (QA) teams in favor of loading more responsibilities onto developers. In the past few years, QA expectations have increased while salaries decreased or offshored. However, QA is essential in ensuring that products meet requirements, function as intended, and are free of defects.

These values shouldn’t just exist in the software development cycle but are ingrained in the company culture. By setting up a strategy and outlining product and IT requirements, developers need not take shortcuts and security risks.

If developers are taking risks and leaning on AI irresponsibly, leaders must set clearer expectations and goals and refine processes from the ground up. This way, we can achieve our desired outcomes without sacrificing quality or safety.

Cultivating a Responsible Development Culture

Fostering a responsible development culture involves setting clear expectations and refining processes. By establishing a strategy that prioritizes product quality and developer well-being, tech companies can mitigate risks and achieve their objectives without compromising quality or safety.

This shift requires a collective reevaluation of the values that drive our technology development cycles, with a commitment to embedding these values not only in software practices but across the entire organizational culture.