Well put. I also think designers in leadership positions have failed the discipline by NOT advocating about the value of design strongly enough at a budgetary level. I’ve witnessed this first hand (having members of my teams cut without consulting me) and I think it’s a dereliction of duty for those in positions of power. It's disappointing to see it continue at its current level and the impact it's had on so many designers.
It seems natural designers and most people without MBAs would assume budget meetings are boring, but organizationally, to your point, that is often where the real prioritization is happening or at least ratified.
Sharing one option in response to *What good is more design skill if it’s ignored? Maybe there are other skills we need to improve first? Ones that chip away at the real roadblocks we face?*
May be an option to explore the benefits of having those in the Chief of Staff role learn more about design to then be real advocates of good design, lend support and collaborate in the buy-in process to reduce and/or eliminate roadblocks. RACI charts and risk registers openly discussed with the Chief of Staff (as they exist).
Thanks for this thought. I agree that roles like COS (Chief of Staff) are at the intersection of all kinds of decisions. Having them be 10% more design aware can have more impact than hiring 5 good designers but who have little influence by default.
Or put another way: having the COS of a VP tell someone "you need to get design involved early" can be far more impactful than a VP of design saying "my team needs to be involved early." Third party credibility often has more influence.
Well put. I also think designers in leadership positions have failed the discipline by NOT advocating about the value of design strongly enough at a budgetary level. I’ve witnessed this first hand (having members of my teams cut without consulting me) and I think it’s a dereliction of duty for those in positions of power. It's disappointing to see it continue at its current level and the impact it's had on so many designers.
It seems natural designers and most people without MBAs would assume budget meetings are boring, but organizationally, to your point, that is often where the real prioritization is happening or at least ratified.
Sharing one option in response to *What good is more design skill if it’s ignored? Maybe there are other skills we need to improve first? Ones that chip away at the real roadblocks we face?*
May be an option to explore the benefits of having those in the Chief of Staff role learn more about design to then be real advocates of good design, lend support and collaborate in the buy-in process to reduce and/or eliminate roadblocks. RACI charts and risk registers openly discussed with the Chief of Staff (as they exist).
Thanks for this thought. I agree that roles like COS (Chief of Staff) are at the intersection of all kinds of decisions. Having them be 10% more design aware can have more impact than hiring 5 good designers but who have little influence by default.
Or put another way: having the COS of a VP tell someone "you need to get design involved early" can be far more impactful than a VP of design saying "my team needs to be involved early." Third party credibility often has more influence.
This is sou fucking good. I feel design has been too much narcissistic and has lost focus on what it is for society. Looking forward for the book!