All talks
Campaign Monitor Dev Camp • 2026

The Modern Development Burnout Machine

A talk about burnout in modern software development, given to Campaign Monitor's engineers at the company's 2026 Dev Camp. Engineering has never been more capable, yet people have less usable thinking time than ever. The talk argues that overload is structural, so the fix is better system design, not more personal grit.

More tools, less thinking

Every new tool, service and workflow adds capability, and adds something else to hold in your head. The talk opens on that trade: the industry has increased what teams can do, and increased their cognitive load faster.

The cognitive stack

Developers carry a stack of systems in their heads, plus the social map of who owns what and the tacit knowledge that never made it into docs. Working memory is limited, and every role on a team feels it, not just engineers.

Context switching is not a virtue

Each interruption or handoff has a reload cost: rebuilding the mental model you just dropped. Being good at context switching is treated as a skill, but it's a cost everyone pays, likened in the talk to rerunning npm install on your brain every time someone asks if you've got a minute.

The problem or the environment?

Much of the complexity people fight comes from the environment around the problem rather than the problem itself. That makes overload a structural issue to design away, not a habit for individuals to fix. The same goes for the expectation that everyone should be full stack, which the talk calls a trap whose answer is usually better system and boundary design.

AI: relief, or a faster treadmill?

AI tools can help, but time they save tends to become the new baseline. The talk warns against automating the work that benefits from human taste and empathy while leaving people with the busywork, and frames which one gets automated as a value choice.

What teams can do

The talk closes with practical moves for treating attention as a resource:

  • Audit the reload cost: before adding a tool or process, ask who pays for it. There is no neutral.
  • Reclaim "fail fast" as learn fast, fail small, with time to reflect built in.
  • Know who holds what, and find the single points of cognitive failure, such as the one person who can fix a system at 2 AM.
  • Time a small change end to end to expose the complexity tax.
  • Budget attention like infrastructure: protect deep work and track the longest uninterrupted block each person gets in a week.
  • Flip the automation: point AI at drudgery, not at judgement.
  • Scope for excellence: check that each role can realistically be excellent at its core work.
  • Build in recovery, because sprints without cooldowns aren't sustainable.

Constraints make better design

Good software design starts with constraints, and the brain's limits are some of them. Tools and workflows should fit human cognition instead of demanding people stretch to fit them.

If you ignore constraints long enough, reality files a bug report. In production.

An internal talk. The write-up on AI Dreams follows it closely, though not word for word.

Read the full transcript on AI Dreams