Skip to main content

IT's Motivation Crisis Is Really a Process Crisis

Phil Christianson
Xurrent

If your best engineers spend their days sorting tickets and resetting access, you are wasting talent.

New global data shows that employees in the IT sector rank among the least motivated across industries. They're under a lot of pressure from many angles. Pressure to upskill and uncertainty around what agentic AI means for job security is creating anxiety. Meanwhile, these roles often function like an on-call job and require many repetitive tasks.

When things fall apart, the work can be exhausting, but it's often empowering because there is a clear purpose. Employees are fixing something and working toward a goal. The flip side is that when nothing is actively breaking, the day fills up with routine requests, recurring issues and operational housekeeping. This is when exhaustion can set in.

When IT service teams spend too much time on repetitive tasks, motivation drains. Yet, routine tasks like ticket triage, onboarding and provisioning could be dramatically reduced through automation.

The Busywork Burden Is a Strategic Risk

The busywork burden is the repeatable work that keeps services running but rarely needs deep engineering judgment. Think ticket sorting, password resets, account unlocks, onboarding, access provisioning and constant context gathering across multiple tools.

IT has historically been built on frameworks like ITIL, with clear rules and processes. The benefit of this structure is consistency, but the drawback is that it creates repetition. The most common requests are things like, "I'm locked out of my machine, can you help me log back in?"

Modern stacks that contain monitoring and observability tools generate alerts based on thresholds and log messages. Since this information lacks context, teams often chase signals that never turn into incidents. Over time, this can create alert fatigue and divided attention while real issues hide until users report outages.

The issue is compounded by the fact that around 80% of incidents are repeats. Even when teams restore service, the root causes are often unaddressed because work that could actually improve the process gets pushed down the priority list.

This cycle creates what's called an innovation tax, and it shows up in things like delayed product launches, slower digital transformation or continually delayed modernization work.

Automation Can Improve Morale + Retention

If you're doing the same repetitive tasks every week and you're already annoyed knowing you'll have to do it again next week, you need a solution to improve morale. Automation can provide relief.

When routine work is automated, engineers get time back to spend on more meaningful problems like improving reliability, cutting down on repeat incidents or modernizing infrastructure. If people spend more of their day on work they actually care about, frustration drops and engagement rises.

The complication is that a lot of IT professionals are anxious about AI right now, and for understandable reasons. Agentic AI is being discussed constantly, and the messaging is often vague or alarmist. That quickly leads people to ask, "Is this going to take my job?"

Some of that fear comes from how AI is being described. When marketing language hints at sweeping automation without explaining what it actually means, people fill in the blanks with worst-case scenarios.

The first step in addressing this is to define what agentic AI actually means. While it automates structured workflows, it doesn't replace human judgment. Once people understand that, the conversation shifts from "Will this replace me?" to "How can I use this?", and upskilling starts to feel like an opportunity rather than a warning sign.

Practical AI Use Cases in IT Operations

Some of the most practical AI use cases in IT operations are service management and incident response.

In service management, large language models (LLMs) help resolve requests faster by organizing the information engineers need to act. Rather than reading through long ticket threads, engineers get a concise summary, key details pulled from the request and suggested routing based on similar historical tickets.

Onboarding and provisioning workflows benefit even more from automation because the steps are structured and repeatable. Generative AI drafts summaries and recommends next steps. Agentic AI builds on that by connecting LLMs to APIs. This turns approved requests into controlled sequences of provisioning actions, cuts manual handoffs and speeds up the process.

On the incident management side, AI helps teams to focus on high-priority items. Monitoring tools generate a high volume of alerts, many of which are duplicates or symptoms of the same underlying issue. AI groups related alerts, filters out noise and surfaces clusters that likely point to a single problem. This makes triage faster and more accurate.

Across these workflows, human operators still determine whether there is a real incident, decide how to resolve it and who owns the remediation. What changes is how much time teams spend gathering context and sorting through noise. With the mechanical work removed, engineers are freed up to focus on diagnosis, resolution and improvement.

AI handles the noise so engineers can focus on the work that engages them and requires their judgment. That is not a threat to the team, but rather what makes the job worth doing again.

Phil Christianson is Chief Product Officer at Xurrent

The Latest

As AI adoption accelerates, operational complexity — not model intelligence — is becoming the primary barrier to reliable AI at scale, according to the State of AI Engineering 2026 from Datadog ... The report highlights a compounding complexity challenge as AI systems scale ... Around 5% of AI model requests fail in production, with nearly 60% of those failures caused by capacity limits ...

For years, production operations teams have treated alert fatigue as a quality-of-life problem: something that makes on-call rotations miserable but isn't considered a direct contributor to outages. That framing doesn't capture how these systems fail, and we now have data to show why. More importantly, it's now clear alert fatigue is a symptom of a deeper issue: production systems have outgrown the current operational approaches ...

I was on a customer call last fall when an enterprise architect said something I haven't been able to shake. Her team had just spent four months trying to swap one AI vendor for another. The original plan said three weeks. "We didn't switch vendors," she told me. "We rebuilt half our integrations and discovered what we'd actually been depending on." Most enterprise leaders don't expect that to be the experience ...

Ask any senior SRE or platform engineer what keeps them up at night, and the answer probably isn't the monitoring tool — it's the data feeding it. The proliferation of APM, observability, and AIOps platforms has created a telemetry sprawl problem that most teams manage reactively rather than architect proactively. Metrics are going to one platform. Traces routed somewhere else. Logs duplicated across multiple backends because nobody wants to be caught without them when something breaks. Every redundant stream costs money ...

80% of respondents agree that the IT role is shifting from operators to orchestrators, according to the 2026 IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous IT from SolarWinds ...

40% of organizations deploying AI will implement dedicated AI observability tools by 2028 to monitor model performance, bias and outputs, according to Gartner ...

Until AI-powered engineering tools have live visibility of how code behaves at runtime, they cannot be trusted to autonomously ensure reliable systems, according to the State of AI-Powered Engineering Report 2026 report from Lightrun. The report reveals that a major volume of manual work is required when AI-generated code is deployed: 43% of AI-generated code requires manual debugging in production, even after passing QA or staging tests. Furthermore, an average of three manual redeploy cycles are required to verify a single AI-suggested code fix in production ...

Many organizations describe AI as strategic, but they do not manage it strategically. When AI plans are disconnected from strategy, detached from organizational learning, and protected from serious assumptions testing, the problem is no longer technical immaturity; it is a failure of management discipline ... Executives too often tell organizations to "use AI" before they define what AI is supposed to change. The problem deepens in organizations where strategy isn't well articulated in the first place ...

Across the enterprise technology landscape, a quiet crisis is playing out. Organizations have run hundreds, sometimes thousands, of generative AI pilots. Leadership has celebrated the proof of concept (POCs) ... Industry experience points to a sobering reality: only 5-10% of AI POCs that progress to the pilot stage successfully reach scaled production. The remaining 90% fail because the enterprise environment around them was never ready to absorb them, not the AI models ...

Today's modern systems are not what they once were. Organizations now rely on distributed systems, event-driven workflows, hybrid and multi-cloud environments and continuous delivery pipelines. While each adds flexibility, it also introduces new, often invisible failures. Development speed is no longer the primary bottleneck of innovation. Reliability is ...

IT's Motivation Crisis Is Really a Process Crisis

Phil Christianson
Xurrent

If your best engineers spend their days sorting tickets and resetting access, you are wasting talent.

New global data shows that employees in the IT sector rank among the least motivated across industries. They're under a lot of pressure from many angles. Pressure to upskill and uncertainty around what agentic AI means for job security is creating anxiety. Meanwhile, these roles often function like an on-call job and require many repetitive tasks.

When things fall apart, the work can be exhausting, but it's often empowering because there is a clear purpose. Employees are fixing something and working toward a goal. The flip side is that when nothing is actively breaking, the day fills up with routine requests, recurring issues and operational housekeeping. This is when exhaustion can set in.

When IT service teams spend too much time on repetitive tasks, motivation drains. Yet, routine tasks like ticket triage, onboarding and provisioning could be dramatically reduced through automation.

The Busywork Burden Is a Strategic Risk

The busywork burden is the repeatable work that keeps services running but rarely needs deep engineering judgment. Think ticket sorting, password resets, account unlocks, onboarding, access provisioning and constant context gathering across multiple tools.

IT has historically been built on frameworks like ITIL, with clear rules and processes. The benefit of this structure is consistency, but the drawback is that it creates repetition. The most common requests are things like, "I'm locked out of my machine, can you help me log back in?"

Modern stacks that contain monitoring and observability tools generate alerts based on thresholds and log messages. Since this information lacks context, teams often chase signals that never turn into incidents. Over time, this can create alert fatigue and divided attention while real issues hide until users report outages.

The issue is compounded by the fact that around 80% of incidents are repeats. Even when teams restore service, the root causes are often unaddressed because work that could actually improve the process gets pushed down the priority list.

This cycle creates what's called an innovation tax, and it shows up in things like delayed product launches, slower digital transformation or continually delayed modernization work.

Automation Can Improve Morale + Retention

If you're doing the same repetitive tasks every week and you're already annoyed knowing you'll have to do it again next week, you need a solution to improve morale. Automation can provide relief.

When routine work is automated, engineers get time back to spend on more meaningful problems like improving reliability, cutting down on repeat incidents or modernizing infrastructure. If people spend more of their day on work they actually care about, frustration drops and engagement rises.

The complication is that a lot of IT professionals are anxious about AI right now, and for understandable reasons. Agentic AI is being discussed constantly, and the messaging is often vague or alarmist. That quickly leads people to ask, "Is this going to take my job?"

Some of that fear comes from how AI is being described. When marketing language hints at sweeping automation without explaining what it actually means, people fill in the blanks with worst-case scenarios.

The first step in addressing this is to define what agentic AI actually means. While it automates structured workflows, it doesn't replace human judgment. Once people understand that, the conversation shifts from "Will this replace me?" to "How can I use this?", and upskilling starts to feel like an opportunity rather than a warning sign.

Practical AI Use Cases in IT Operations

Some of the most practical AI use cases in IT operations are service management and incident response.

In service management, large language models (LLMs) help resolve requests faster by organizing the information engineers need to act. Rather than reading through long ticket threads, engineers get a concise summary, key details pulled from the request and suggested routing based on similar historical tickets.

Onboarding and provisioning workflows benefit even more from automation because the steps are structured and repeatable. Generative AI drafts summaries and recommends next steps. Agentic AI builds on that by connecting LLMs to APIs. This turns approved requests into controlled sequences of provisioning actions, cuts manual handoffs and speeds up the process.

On the incident management side, AI helps teams to focus on high-priority items. Monitoring tools generate a high volume of alerts, many of which are duplicates or symptoms of the same underlying issue. AI groups related alerts, filters out noise and surfaces clusters that likely point to a single problem. This makes triage faster and more accurate.

Across these workflows, human operators still determine whether there is a real incident, decide how to resolve it and who owns the remediation. What changes is how much time teams spend gathering context and sorting through noise. With the mechanical work removed, engineers are freed up to focus on diagnosis, resolution and improvement.

AI handles the noise so engineers can focus on the work that engages them and requires their judgment. That is not a threat to the team, but rather what makes the job worth doing again.

Phil Christianson is Chief Product Officer at Xurrent

The Latest

As AI adoption accelerates, operational complexity — not model intelligence — is becoming the primary barrier to reliable AI at scale, according to the State of AI Engineering 2026 from Datadog ... The report highlights a compounding complexity challenge as AI systems scale ... Around 5% of AI model requests fail in production, with nearly 60% of those failures caused by capacity limits ...

For years, production operations teams have treated alert fatigue as a quality-of-life problem: something that makes on-call rotations miserable but isn't considered a direct contributor to outages. That framing doesn't capture how these systems fail, and we now have data to show why. More importantly, it's now clear alert fatigue is a symptom of a deeper issue: production systems have outgrown the current operational approaches ...

I was on a customer call last fall when an enterprise architect said something I haven't been able to shake. Her team had just spent four months trying to swap one AI vendor for another. The original plan said three weeks. "We didn't switch vendors," she told me. "We rebuilt half our integrations and discovered what we'd actually been depending on." Most enterprise leaders don't expect that to be the experience ...

Ask any senior SRE or platform engineer what keeps them up at night, and the answer probably isn't the monitoring tool — it's the data feeding it. The proliferation of APM, observability, and AIOps platforms has created a telemetry sprawl problem that most teams manage reactively rather than architect proactively. Metrics are going to one platform. Traces routed somewhere else. Logs duplicated across multiple backends because nobody wants to be caught without them when something breaks. Every redundant stream costs money ...

80% of respondents agree that the IT role is shifting from operators to orchestrators, according to the 2026 IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous IT from SolarWinds ...

40% of organizations deploying AI will implement dedicated AI observability tools by 2028 to monitor model performance, bias and outputs, according to Gartner ...

Until AI-powered engineering tools have live visibility of how code behaves at runtime, they cannot be trusted to autonomously ensure reliable systems, according to the State of AI-Powered Engineering Report 2026 report from Lightrun. The report reveals that a major volume of manual work is required when AI-generated code is deployed: 43% of AI-generated code requires manual debugging in production, even after passing QA or staging tests. Furthermore, an average of three manual redeploy cycles are required to verify a single AI-suggested code fix in production ...

Many organizations describe AI as strategic, but they do not manage it strategically. When AI plans are disconnected from strategy, detached from organizational learning, and protected from serious assumptions testing, the problem is no longer technical immaturity; it is a failure of management discipline ... Executives too often tell organizations to "use AI" before they define what AI is supposed to change. The problem deepens in organizations where strategy isn't well articulated in the first place ...

Across the enterprise technology landscape, a quiet crisis is playing out. Organizations have run hundreds, sometimes thousands, of generative AI pilots. Leadership has celebrated the proof of concept (POCs) ... Industry experience points to a sobering reality: only 5-10% of AI POCs that progress to the pilot stage successfully reach scaled production. The remaining 90% fail because the enterprise environment around them was never ready to absorb them, not the AI models ...

Today's modern systems are not what they once were. Organizations now rely on distributed systems, event-driven workflows, hybrid and multi-cloud environments and continuous delivery pipelines. While each adds flexibility, it also introduces new, often invisible failures. Development speed is no longer the primary bottleneck of innovation. Reliability is ...