For most people in IT, change is constant.
New platforms arrive. Old tools fade. Processes are reworked. Skills must evolve.
In that sense, disruption has long been part of the job description.
Software developers create new and improved tools. They streamline workflows. They automate tasks that once required entire teams. Over time, they have reshaped and disrupted how work gets done across nearly every industry.
This pattern has been in place for decades.
For software developers, something different is happening now.
With the arrival of AI-assisted development tools, including systems like Anthropic’s Claude Code, disruption has begun to turn inward. These tools are reshaping how developers approach their own work.
For many in the profession, this feels unfamiliar.
Software development continues, but the definition and details of the role are shifting. Tasks that once required sustained manual effort can now be generated, refactored, tested, and explained with remarkable speed.
A developer who once spent an afternoon writing API integration code might now spend fifteen minutes directing an AI to produce it, followed by an hour reviewing edge cases and security implications. The center of gravity moves toward judgment and direction rather than execution and production.
When job roles experience disruption, responses tend to follow predictable patterns. Some people dismiss the change as temporary or overhyped. Others push back, trying to protect familiar and comfortable ways of working. Still others approach the change with curiosity and engagement, interested in how new capabilities can expand what’s possible.
Intent Makes the Difference
An important distinction often gets overlooked when discussing pushbacks.
Some resistance grows from denial. It spends energy cataloging flaws, defending established workflows, or hoping new tools disappear. That approach drains effort without shaping new outcomes. It preserves little and teaches even less.
Other forms of resistance grow from professional judgment.
Experienced developers often notice risks that early enthusiasm misses. Fragile abstractions, security gaps, maintenance burdens, and failures that appear only at scale become visible through lived experience. When developers raise concerns in the service of quality, safety, and long-term viability, their input strengthens the eventual solution. This kind of resistance shapes progress rather than attempting to stop it.
The most effective developers recognize this shift and respond deliberately. They move away from opposing new tools and toward advocating for their effective use. They ask better questions. They redesign workflows. They establish guardrails. They apply experience where judgment continues to matter.
In doing so, they follow the same guidance developers have offered others for years.
Embrace new tools.
Continually re-engineer how work gets done.
Move upstream toward problem framing, system design, and decision-making.
Greater Emphasis on Judgment
AI generates code with increasing competence. Decisions about what should be built, which tradeoffs make sense, and how systems must evolve over time still require human judgment. As automation accelerates, these responsibilities grow more visible and more critical.
This opportunity in front of developers calls for leadership.
Developers who work fluently with these tools, guide their thoughtful adoption, and help their teams and organizations navigate the transition become trusted guides through change. Their leadership shows up in practical ways:
-pairing new capabilities with healthy skepticism
-putting review processes in place to catch subtle errors
-mentoring junior developers in how to evaluate results rather than simply generating them
-exercising judgment to prioritize tasks that benefit most from automation
Disruption has always been part of the work.
The open question is whether we meet disruption as participants, or step forward as guides.
Grandpa Bob Encouraging Leadership 
You must be logged in to post a comment.