Practice productive idealism

Turn complaints into actions you can take

Designers have the power of skepticism: we are gifted with the ability to find flaws in almost everything. A more positive way to look at the same ability is by labeling it as idealism. We are positive that everything can be improved—a powerful belief fueling the way we look at the world. We sometimes forget that no sane person hires a designer, or becomes one, with the goal of keeping everything exactly the same (although sadly that sometimes happens anyway). The risk, however, is that idealism can lead us into self-limiting arguments that work against progress and frustrate everyone. 

The warning sign that idealism has gone too far is the use of the word should. This is a dangerous word because it presumes a convenient, superpowerful authority is waiting around to agree with us, and all we have to do is reference them to get our way. Classic examples include statements like, “Design should have a seat at the table,” or “UX should be involved earlier in the process.” The statements are popular because they feel good to say (and because they might be true in our belief system). The problem is that should statements are fallacies and have little effect on other people.

The reason they’re fallacies is that every powerful person in your organization has their own shoulds. Their shoulds are behind all the decisions they make, including the ones that frustrate you. Since these other roles have more power than you, their shoulds will always “out-should” yours. That’s how power works. If you don’t have enough power to decide, then you must use your influence to change their minds and should arguments just aren’t persuasive. Changing people’s minds, as challenging as it is, must therefore be a skill any person serious about their ideas needs to learn.

The question then is: why do we hear so many should arguments? One reason is that if a person is influential, a should argument earns attention from others out of respect and trust, even if it goes nowhere. Another is that should arguments are emotional, and in the bland landscape of prioritized action items and endless message threads, people sharing actual feelings get attention regardless of the merit of the argument.

But the more common answer is that should statements rally support from other frustrated people who share your preferences. It’s preaching to the choir. For people who are afraid to speak up, it’s empowering to hear someone else say what they are thinking. Design books, conferences, and events often have many convenient arguments about how the world should be (i.e., the ego trap). They get applause, but anyone who has good counterarguments isn’t likely to be reading these books or attending these events.

The better approach is to admit that should statements rarely change minds because they don’t explain why your should is better than their should. To be persuasive, you have to express why your should is better for them than their current position.

For example, these are unproductive, idealistic statements:

• I should be allowed to <insert thing you are not allowed to do>

• They should never do <thing they are rewarded for doing>

• Why should I have to <insert thing you don’t like>

These can be easily converted into productive, persuasive arguments, but you have to do the homework. For example:

I should be in this meeting because I know good decisions are important to you and I am good at facilitating them. I know you need to keep the meeting small, but as a designer, I can quickly sketch ideas to help us understand their value before we make decisions, which will make the meetings shorter for everyone.  

This gives the powerful person a comparison they can consider. Important, busy people love comparisons (and who doesn’t want shorter meetings?). You do need to do the homework though (i.e., are you perceived as facilitating good decisions?). The payoff for the homework is that by arguing in their self-interest, their ego and goals become an asset to you—at least part of them wants to argue your side. And even if they don’t agree, you set yourself up to politely ask, “Thanks for considering this. What can I do to prove enough value in the future to be included?” If they say anything useful, you can come back in a week or month with that proof and ask again. Should statements alone have none of these advantages. 

Productive idealism suggests that instead of saying “they should” or “they don’t get it,” we are responsible for asking better questions of ourselves or the people we’re trying to persuade:

• Who exactly should know better? 

• How are they rewarded currently for not “getting it”?

• What incentives would motivate people to change? 

• Who controls those incentives? Why would they change them?

• Who “gets it” the most? How can we enlist their help?

• How can we make our expectations more realistic? 

• What is the first, smallest, easiest thing to convince them to try?