Member-only story
AI Won’t Lower Your Engineering Bar. Poor Adoption Will.
What nine recent studies reveal about code quality, delivery stability, and leadership accountability when engineering teams adopt AI coding tools.
A few months back I was in a retrospective where an engineering lead walked through the last sprint’s SLA misses. The deployment window had slipped. Two incidents had hit production. A planned release had been rolled back within hours. When we got to root cause, I heard something I’ve been thinking about since: “The team was relying too heavily on AI-generated code and didn’t catch the issues in time.”
The room went quiet. A few heads nodded. And just like that, the tool got the blame, and the team got an implicit pass.
I’ve been in engineering leadership long enough to recognize what that moment actually was. Not an honest postmortem. A deflection dressed up as one.
When leadership asks engineering teams to adopt AI coding tools, the message often gets received as: move faster, write less, do more with less effort. That reading is almost always wrong, and leaders who allow it to persist are setting their teams up for exactly the kind of failures that then get pinned on the technology.
When the ask is a serious one, it’s to be more of an engineer. To own architecture, judgment, tradeoffs, and quality…
