Get with the times.
Photo by Michelle Tresemer on Unsplash
Part of a designer’s role is crafting intuitive, user-friendly experiences. You’ll hear the word “delight” thrown around a lot. We want to “delight” the user in every experience we create, using our design superpowers to influence customer behavior (like, you know, buying stuff!).
So, where has all the delight gone within UX?
In addition to the increasing number of design professionals contemplating their career path, it seems that design partnerships, hiring, and the way design skills are assessed have become more ambiguous than ever. Why?
Design has always been abstract, but lately, ambiguity has loomed larger than ever. For every article I read or question I see, finding clear guidance on anything related to product design feels increasingly rare. I continue running into the exact design conversations: “How to…” or “What to do when…”—questions from designers at every experience level.
When I started thinking about designers’ frustration with company hiring practices, I immediately pointed fingers at the companies creating those processes. There are various approaches to hiring, so each company designs its process and rubric for assessing design talent. Then I realized there’s no widely adopted standard for determining design skill/talent/success at any point in the process, including performance reviews.
Can we blame non-designers for being equally, if not more, confused if we’re confused?
Transitioning or Transforming?
There’s a growing trend in design — confusion.
Product partners are confused about how to utilize their design partners, designers are confused about how to make an impact outside of pixels, and founders / CEOs are confused about why they should invest in design.
McKinsey report: “Are you asking enough of your design leaders?”, states:
The metrics are damning: Only one-third of CEOs could detail what their CDO oversaw at the company. In other words, 66% of CEOs couldn’t say what their CDO actually did, or how that success should be measured. No wonder only 10% of CEOs reported that a senior designer played a meaningful role in the company’s strategy. And only 17% of design leaders thought they were in the right position to give a company their full value. McKinsey concludes that 90% of companies aren’t using design talent to their full potential.
While the confusion I’m describing doesn’t apply to everyone or every company, the problem persists and amplifies as article after article floods my LinkedIn timeline, claiming UX is a dead industry.
Sensationalism drives clicks, but the reality of “UX being a dead industry” is a far cry; companies will always need to understand their users and build experiences around what they aim to help customers achieve/purchase/do/etc. Whether through research conducted by a living, breathing human or an AI tool assisted by a living, breathing human is up for debate, but the point still stands.
UX has gone through countless transitions over time. As design titles have evolved alongside tech, starting with ‘graphic designer’ and ‘human-computer interaction specialist’ in the 80s, moving to user interface and user experience designers by the late 90s and early 2000s, and eventually becoming ‘product designers’ in the 2010s as roles began to blend UI, UX, and business strategy, we’ve understandably lost a few folks along the way.
Looking back, the hiccups and misunderstandings in design from those earlier times make a lot more sense in hindsight. But looking ahead, today’s ongoing conversations about the disconnect in design — paired with rising layoffs and dwindling hiring — make the future much more challenging to wrap your head around.
It’s easy to blame the companies that are laying off design teams and shifting their focus to marketing, sales, or engineering for damaging the perception of design’s ROI on business. Some folks have assumed that companies have cracked the code on how to succeed without design—handing off more responsibilities to product managers and letting AI handle the rest.
If I were to put on my research hat, I’d guess that companies began cutting design teams (aside from the overhiring spree of 2020) to stretch their runway—basically, saving cash by slashing costs in areas they consider less critical, a.k.a. not business critical.
Digging a bit deeper, those business-critical roles are the ones that drive tangible outcomes and move the needle. They don’t need much hand-holding or time to make a noticeable impact.
Now, let’s go back to the 4th paragraph of the article. ⬇️
“..Finding clear guidance on anything related to product design feels increasingly rare. I continue running into the same design conversations: “How to…” or “What to do when…” — questions from designers at every experience level.”
And then back to the 5th paragraph under correlation or causation ⬇️
“UX has gone through countless transitions over time.”
So, is UX dying, transitioning, or transforming?
“I’m sorry, but the old Design can’t come to the phone right now. Why? Oh, ’cause she’s dead.” — Taylor Swift
Or something like that.
An identity crisis
The design industry has come a long way since the early days of tech, but design itself has stayed so… abstract. It’s one of the most — if not the most — vulnerable roles in a tech company because, let’s face it, everyone’s a critic. Our work is visual, displayed on a canvas for all to see and critique.
The great thing about art is that it’s open to interpretation. The not-so-great part? Trying to translate that into a professional role, where everyone around you applies their lens: “How does this design apply to ME and MY project goals?
The irony is that despite the evolution of our titles — from web designer to product designer, and my favorite, design strategist — a stubborn, reductive view of design as just execution still hangs around. This mindset downplays the strategic and dynamic contributions designers bring, like roadmap planning and problem-solving
To be misunderstood is to be undervalued and underutilized.
How many of you reading this have felt underutilized at some point in your career, only to be handed a “meets expectations” rating during performance reviews? And how often have you received that rating knowing you went above and beyond but were judged on criteria that didn’t really reflect your role?
When design is misunderstood, we’re often measured by the volume of work implemented rather than our impact on decisions that drive positive outcomes. But implementation isn’t always in our control — especially when engineering resources are tight, and projects get de-prioritized. I’m sure many of you have experienced the frustration of pouring your heart into a project only to get shelved or scrapped.
Sometimes, design’s presence and influence in a company hinge entirely on whether the CEO/founder(s) genuinely get it and advocate for it, creating top-down alignment rather than a constant bottoms-up battle.
“Why is Design a CEO matter?”, Tim Brown from IDEO wrote:
So, it’s clear that a design mindset is important, but does it ladder up to the CEO level? It does. And that’s because the organization itself is a design project. CEOs are charged with setting up a design-friendly culture in which the very metabolism of the organization runs faster. That means giving all levels of the company, from interns to managers to VPs, empowerment and autonomy — the permission to shift when they can see farther than you can. It means creating a safe environment in which they can fail without fear. It means telling them a compelling story about the purpose of your company and getting them invested in that story.
The absence of a standardized design assessment tool, combined with ever-changing titles, levels of seniority, and responsibilities, has left a massive gap in how companies approach hiring, evaluating, and promoting design talent.
Assessment examples from other departments:
Engineers are assessed on technical skills, problem-solving ability, and coding proficiency. Most companies assess them through “code assessments.” They are so common, that engineers “leet-code” to attract companies or prepare for interviews. Check out Phong Lam’s article “The Software Engineering Interview — to Leetcode or not to Leetcode.”Marketing roles are typically measured on analytical skills, creativity, and strategic thinking. Companies seek proficiency in data analysis, campaign management, and content creation. Ref: LinkedIn marketing manager hiring criteria.Sales roles are typically measured on communication, negotiation, lead generation, and their ability to “close”. Ref: Workable’s sales skills assessment
Unlike the more quantifiable roles, design lacks a universally agreed-upon standard for what makes a designer “good.”
In addition, we lack industry-wide benchmarks with no standardized tests or widely adopted frameworks like those in engineering (e.g., coding tests) or marketing (e.g., analytics certifications). Evaluations often rely on subjective portfolio reviews, which can be inconsistent.
Even though some companies have design ladders or internal tools to measure talent and performance (like Figma’s career levels matrix), they address the symptoms of our widespread confusion, not the root of it.
Since design encompasses a wide range of roles (e.g., UI, UX, product design, visual design), each can be evaluated on completely different skill sets. One company’s values (e.g., prototyping skills) may not matter as much to another (e.g., storytelling or research).
Design titles
Product DesignerUser Experience DesignerContent DesignerInteraction DesignerVisual DesignerDesign ManagerInformation ArchitectsService DesignersContent StrategistsUX ResearchersAnd more
There are so many potential titles that articles exist to demystify and clarify them. Here’s one from DesignMap, “What’s in a Title? Design Roles Explained.”
Ref this screenshot from my Google search of “all the available design titles”
With all the confusion in the industry, it’s no wonder every organization has its own definition of design impact, value, and role expectations. This lack of clarity trickles down to hiring — designers are often assessed by people who may not fully understand what they’re looking for.
Rejection without reason furthers our confusion about what companies may expect and how we might meet those expectations. Without clarity on how others perceive meaningful design ownership, we’re not able to communicate that value effectively. Or worse, we second-guess our own value and worth.
We’ve entered a full identity crisis.
Misunderstandings are woven throughout the field, but that doesn’t rely only on our product partners, the abstract “company,” or the broader industry ™️.
Design isn’t just about the users
For so long, we’ve championed user needs. When product management presents business requirements, we must work together to align on a solution tailored to customers’ needs while moving us closer to our company goals. Many designers feel frustrated by their partnerships with product managers, which can sometimes feel more like a power struggle than a true collaboration. It’s often us, the “user champions,” against a wall of business demands.
In these uncertain times, businesses are discovering that old strategies don’t work as well anymore. The world changes rapidly — every week feels like a historical event (seriously, can we stop now?). As our world continues to change, people continue to adapt, and their needs continue to evolve.
Relying solely on what users say they need/want is risky because those needs change rapidly. It’s about finding that sweet spot between serving both the company and the user while being flexible where necessary.
The rise of new technologies has shortened our attention spans. TikTok has made YouTube feel lengthy, and the rising costs of living have made us less willing to spend money on non-essential products and frivolous memberships. Even basic amenities like internet access have become a modern luxury.
But what’s that got to do with any of this?
Example: Meta doesn’t have a physical product, like Apple’s iPhone, so most of their revenue comes from advertisers.
“For tech companies who don’t sell physical products, problems can arise from advertisers pulling back. When consumer facing companies revenue drops or they experience increased costs, reducing their marketing spend is often one of the first go to options.” — “Which Companies Are The Biggest Inflation Winners And Losers?” By Q.ai on Forbes
When inflation reached record highs in 2022, consumers responded by spending less. Digital advertisers noted this decline and pumped the breaks on ad spending, contributing to a massive tumble in Meta’s stock.
Facebook parent Meta saw its stock tumble Thursday following Meta’s earnings announcement Wednesday afternoon. By market close, Meta had plunged 24.6% in a single session and was selling under $98. The stock hasn’t traded this low since 2016. So far this year, Meta’s stock has plummeted over 71%. — “What Meta’s Disappointing Earnings Mean For Tech Investors”, by Q.ai on Forbes
The lens
You’re a designer focused solely on user wants/needs.
The scenario:
You’re a designer at Meta, focusing on optimizing consumer engagement with in-product ads.
A key challenge in your role is determining how design decisions can guide and influence user interactions with digital advertisements — whether increasing clicks, improving visibility, or encouraging more engagement since these ads are a core revenue driver for Meta.
However, in 2022, Meta experienced a significant revenue slowdown due to inflation. Many digital advertisers, faced with tightening budgets, pulled back on their advertising spending, directly impacting Meta’s core revenue stream. Despite ads traditionally performing well and driving consistent income, the economic downturn changed user behavior and market dynamics in unprecedented ways.
While interviewing users, you utilize the same approach to the problems you’re familiar with regarding ad optimization. During your calls, you inquire further about:
What the user may like or dislike about the ad experience.Which factors play into users clicking those adsWhich factors play into users purchasing from those ads
You might notice from the questions above that your script is leading. The format of these questions isn’t uncommon in user interviews when the focus is fixated on improving perceived problems from user behavior as it relates only to the design you’re looking at — the pixels.
Imagine if you continued to focus solely on user feedback that indicated a preference for more engaging or visually appealing ads.
While optimizing ads might seemingly keep them engaged, this approach could overlook the bigger picture: advertisers were cutting back because their own customers were spending less. This shift wasn’t about users disliking ads but about broader financial constraints and changing spending habits.
If designers only advocate for user needs, like making ads more engaging or less intrusive, without understanding these broader business dynamics, they risk misinterpreting the root cause of declining engagement and revenue. This disconnect could lead to misplaced design efforts that don’t address the real issue.
By collaborating with product managers and cross-functional stakeholders, designers can gain deeper insights into the business landscape, such as why ad revenue is falling or how economic factors are influencing advertiser behavior. This expanded understanding allows designers to pivot from solely optimizing for user feedback to creating solutions that align user needs with business realities, such as exploring new ad formats, diversifying revenue models, or shifting focus to high-value customer segments.
Ultimately, this business-level impact goes beyond just fulfilling user desires — it strategically addresses the complex interplay of market forces, economic conditions, and company objectives, ensuring that design decisions are user-friendly and business-savvy.
Key takeaway: Designers need to understand the business.
Hear me out, design veterans. I understand this isn’t news to you, but it is new to thousands (or more) of designers who joined the profession within the last ten years.
Veteran wisdom; voices before mine
“Mind the gap — when business and design don’t understand each other” by Ana-Maria Ghinita“Business and Design” by Arin Bhowmick“Designing for Business Value: How Understanding Strategy Unlocks Success” by the Pragmatic Editorial Team“7 Things Every Designer Should Know About Business” by Alen Faljic“Business Design: Why Is It Important to Know About Business?” by Felipe Guimaraes and Aela Team
Business leaders are confused about design; design is confused about business.
New designers face a difficult challenge.
The influx of designers flooding the industry in recent years, thanks to boot camps and online programs, has only widened the disconnect in designer expectations. This isn’t a dig at new designers — it’s a critique of the predatory boot camps that promise you’ll be ready for a product design role at a FAANG company after just three months of part-time online content.
These boot camp grads are often disappointed when reality doesn’t match the hype, and companies that take a chance on them usually can’t provide the guidance or support needed to nurture them into senior roles.
Designers can’t form crucial partnerships when they aren’t taught the best ways to collaborate with product partners. When those partnerships don’t happen, the rest of the organization observes these disjointed dynamics and forms its own, often skewed, perception of what designers do (or don’t do). These observations go unchallenged, and design isn’t coached on how to increase its impact and visibility. Meanwhile, business goes on as usual.
Design is now an output function.
When that company scales and adds senior or staff-level designers, you’ll often find confusion among legacy team members who are used to one way of working. Now, you’ve set up the “new kid” with the impossible task of trying to influence a massive change in how the team operates.
Confusion persists as UX grows
According to the Nielsen Norman Group:
1983 to 2017: the UX profession grew from about 1,000 people to about 1 million people. A growth factor of 1,000.2017 to 2050: the UX profession is expected to grow from the current about 1 million people to about 100 million people. A growth factor of 100.Source: Nieslen Norman GroupDesigners themselves have been partly to blame in the past: they have not always embraced design metrics or actively shown management how their designs tie to meeting business goals. — McKinsey’s quarterly report, “The business value of design”
How will our industry educate and prepare incoming designers for success in their roles in such an ambiguous cycle?
Business leaders don’t understand either
Have you noticed that most design courses today focus on making design work for a specific role, influencing product partners, or communicating design’s value? You don’t see similar content aimed at other product roles.
Imagine content like: “How to Influence Your Designer,” “How to Get a Seat at the Table with Design,” or “How to Communicate the Value of Product Management to x.”
Lol.
Still, designers are continually working to refine their craft and expand their skills, aiming to educate their teams and organizations about their value beyond pixels.
Even when designers have gone through impressive course programs or DO understand the importance of tying business to design, they are not enabled. In many businesses, design leaders say they are treated as second-class citizens.
In 2018, McKinsey released a quarterly report on “The Business Value of Design.” Over a five-year period, they tracked the design practices of 300 publicly listed companies in multiple countries and industries. Their team collected over two million financial data and recorded more than 100,000 design actions.
Over 40 percent of the companies surveyed still do not talk to their end users during development.Just over 50 percent admitted that they have no objective way to assess or set targets for the output of their design teams.Less than 5 percent of those surveyed reported that their leaders could make objective design decisions (for example, to develop new products or enter new sectors).Only around 50 percent of the companies surveyed conducted user research before generating their first design ideas or specifications.
When a business doesn’t understand design + designer is not equipped to inform the business on design ROI … = feeling a lot like this:
Credit to the amazing Reddit user u/McWooky who restored this image to HD
So, when companies started leaning out and cutting the roles deemed non-essential to business, whether it was the designer who lacked clarity on that expectation or the business who lacked clarity on design ROI on their business, the content centered on the death of UX began to explode.
Change Is Scary
This shift feels different from what we’ve seen before. It’s not just another evolution — like the gradual change from ‘user experience’ to ‘product design’ titles, where expectations around frameworks, strategy, and involvement slowly evolved.
Today’s change is fundamental; it’s altering how design creates impact within organizations. Companies are finding ways to cut costs and resources, aiming to operate leaner in today’s climate. We’re not just shifting expectations around ownership and execution — we’re moving into uncharted territory.
The territory otherwise known as business acumen. 👻
As the role of design evolves within our organizations, it can be both a curse and a blessing. Change can be daunting, but it also empowers us to have more influence, increase our impact, and amplify our voices.
If there’s one lesson from my nine years in product design, it’s this: we achieve greater success as a community when we work together.
We can’t control how companies structure their hiring processes or the past events that have shaped our field, but we can control how we prepare ourselves to embrace transformation and tackle the challenges ahead.
As the great prophet Heidi Klum once (or twice) said, “One day you’re in, and the next, you’re out.”
UX design isn’t dead, you’re just confused was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
