At CDO School, one of the fundamental steps in our Playbook is making bets on where to position Design to win and with whom, not as a zero-sum game, but in how design can successfully bring the most value to customers, the company, teams, and individuals.
When you lead Design people, teams, and the organization, the most significant shift is knowing that most of your colleagues don't think about design as a craft or practice. They think about it as a group of people with specific skills and capabilities with a budget… essentially a big pile of "features". Yes, they want to know how these "features" help customers, but they really want to know how those "features" also help them.
If you've ever read "Crossing the Chasm" by Geoffrey Moore, one of the basic theories that Moore shares in the book is that there is a gap between early adopters of a product and the larger, more skeptical mainstream market. When you lead Design, it's basically the same thing.
Innovate with Sidekicks and Sell to Champions
There will be early adopters of Design, but most colleagues are skeptical. It's the job of the executive leader and their team to place bets on which partners are early adopters and intentionally build out business cases and arguments with them to win over the skeptics. We call those early adopters Sidekicks.
We separate skeptics into two categories; Champions and Challengers. Champions are part of the early majority of adopters. They're influential leaders who want evidence that something works before scaling it. But once they're convinced, hot damn, that's some exciting stuff because they'll advocate for Design as well with not just words but time and money too.
Here’s a video describing this concept.
In my experience, design leaders spend most of their time and energy trying to convince Challengers that Design is real, necessary, and good. Time and time again, I see this approach fail. Why? Challengers aren't early adopters. They show little demonstratable evidence that they want to change. Instead, Challengers are late adopters and tend to fall in line once Champions start getting the benefits of Design. Design Systems, for example, are perfect for Challengers. They get value, customers get value, and design leaders can prioritize bigger bets for change in other areas. Win-Win.
This work is all Sales, Positioning, Marketing, Relationship Building, Communication, making good arguments, etc. If you want to become a Director or VP or CDO, this stuff is part of the gig and it's completely learnable. And you can do it without giving up your moral values or ethics. In fact, learning it and practicing it before becoming the exec is the best way how to keep your morals and ethics.
TLDR; When you lead Design, Design is the product. Great leaders make bets on where to position Design to win and with whom, not as a zero-sum game, but in how design can successfully bring the most value to customers, the company, teams, and individuals.
Why Good Design Isn't Enough
In my time creating and leading in-house teams, the honest truth is success has been mixed. After working with other product and design leaders, I’ve noticed they’ve had similar results. A mixed bag of wins and losses, but predominantly, outcomes that didn’t move the needle much either way.
For a long time, I’ve been examining the difference between design teams that have become crucial to their company’s success and teams that are thought of as “nice-to-have” but not necessary. There are countless factors at play (business models, industries, markets, regions, public vs. private, stage of company, etc.) that come into play. It would be difficult for any economist or academic to pull together these factors in a way that shows causal reasons. Still, I see something happening that separates these teams.
While this is entirely anecdotal, there is a pattern I see:
- The design teams that executives believe are crucial to the company’s success intentionally and consistently calculate (and recalculate) how and where design fits within the company. They repeatedly deliver new value to customers and the business again and again.
- The design teams that are considered to be “optional” wait for the company to tell them where design fits within the company. They repeatedly deliver, but not in a way that creates new value.
It’s a pattern I’ve thought about for a long time, and it’s taken me almost as long to explain what separates these teams. Here’s a framework I’ve developed to explain how design teams calculate (and recalculate) how and where design fits within the company. If you’re a design org leader, this framework may significantly change how how you lead your team.
When Design gets stuck
Imagine you're playing a video game where you keep falling into the same trap over and over again. Every time you try to get out, you fall back in, and it feels like you're never going to make progress. That's what a "doom loop" is like.
The term "doom loop" was made popular by Jim Collins, in his book "Good to Great." In it, he talks about how some companies get stuck in a doom loop. As Collins writes, a doom loop happens when people make decisions to fix problems fast, but those solutions don’t address the real issues, so the problems keep coming back again and again. A doom loop is this cycle where every fix leads to more problems, and it feels like you can't break out of it.
In my experience, the teams that stagnate are stuck in doom loops. They have likely made some progress in delivering value early on, but that progress has stalled. As a result, they’re under more and more pressure to provide more value, they’re faced with more skepticism about their judgment, and worse, they turn inwards and question their ability to get the team unstuck.
In my experience, I see three ways design teams consistently try to solve this problem:
- Advocate for “better” design
- Advocate for more resources
- Advocate for DesignOps and Design Systems
These are all critical to raising the maturity level design at a company, but none address the elephant in the room: effectively changing the minds of those with the power and influence to make business decisions.
Repeatedly delivering value requires more than just doing "better" design
When design teams are stuck in this cycle, the usual response I see is to push for more adherence to the design process. But if this were the best solution, why do designs created by that process fail to resonate with customers and deliver better outcomes to the company?
The flaw in the "use the design process" approach is that it can trap experienced teams in a doom loop. Teams that rely heavily on standard processes to get unstuck unwittingly limit their ability to create something new. And the longer they stay in this cycle, the more they lose credibility with their cross-functional partners and leaders.
The cycle looks like this:
This cycle typically goes like this:
- Step 1: Designers push for a design process.
- Step 2: The cross-functional team tries the new process.
- Step 3: The team feels excited because the process is new.
- Step 4: The solution has limited effect, the excitement passes, and the team is right back where they started.
- (Repeat): The cycle restarts, but over time faith in the designers goes down.
In terms of a growth curve, it looks similar to this:
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good process, but processes are overly relied upon as universal remedies. If you have strong thoughts about SAFe or Lean, you know what I mean. I’ve also witnessed many instances where teams used a design process well, but in the end, it didn’t translate to change. Perhaps you’ve observed this, too.
I believe a fresh perspective is required to break free from this loop.
It’s more than having more resources
Another common approach is to increase the number of people on the team. Simply boosting numbers doesn't translate to delivering new value. Increasing numbers often helps deliver value that’s already known.
The problem with the "more designers" mantra is its vagueness. If I ask ten designers from a team about their definition of great design, I get ten different answers. Such variance muddles the perception of design for leadership. Adding more designers could be costly and risky without clear value addition. Teams that are delivering more value are not doing so by multiplying voices. They harmonize the voices they have.
It’s more than Design Systems and DesignOps
This is a bit nit-picky, I’ll admit. I love me a good Design System and DesignOps teams are freaking magic. While both are vital components inside some design organizations, they aren't cure-alls for every company. Design Systems and DesignOps teams help Design Orgs multiply the value of design, but inherently, they don’t create value on their own.
Again, I firmly believe in both, and the people that do this work are incredibly important, but neither don’t get teams out of doom loops.
Introducing the Four Fits for Design Org Value
Another concept Jim Collins introduced was “the flywheel effect.” This concept describes how success is achieved when a consistent effort is placed in a series of small, connected actions that accumulate over time. When I spend time with design teams that are repeatedly creating new value, they are doing this exact thing.
These design teams are making bets on where to position Design to win and with whom, not as a zero-sum game, but in how design can successfully bring the most value to customers, the company, teams, and individuals. It’s a flywheel approach to running a design team.
The goal of this flywheel is to help the leaders who run design organizations consistently examine how the Design Org fits within the Company across four critical dimensions.
- Model ↔ Practice Fit
- Practice ↔ Partnerships Fit
- Partnerships ↔ Positioning Fit
- Positioning ↔ Model Fit
Here’s a visualization of the Four Fits of Design Org Value:
Model ↔ Practice Fit
A Design Team is a solution to a company problem, and that problem is often based on the business model and strategy. If you know the concept of product-market fit, this is how we examine how the design practice fits the business model and strategy.
Practice ↔ Partnerships Fit
The second fit is how Design Practices are built to fit with cross-functional and stakeholder partnerships. It’s not enough that we are advocates for customers. Our work has to help our partners as well. The degree to which we support our partners varies depending on the focus of our practice.
Partnerships ↔ Positioning Fit
In Marketing, Positioning refers to the place a brand occupies in the customers' minds and how it is distinguished from the competitors' products. Using this same concept, positioning refers to the place that Design occupies in the minds of our peers, colleagues, and stakeholders and how design is distinguished from other skills/teams at the company. Here, we continuously examine how the power dynamics work inside our companies so we can move peers and stakeholders from skeptics to adopters.
Positioning ↔ Model Fit
Lastly, the business model and strategy influence how design should be positioned inside the company. Here, we want to validate our positioning by gathering evidence that it’s working.
The four fits are essential to maturing Design, thus elevating Design's business relevance and value. These fits are interconnected; changing one affects the others. As the fits evolve, a holistic review and adjustment of your playbook is necessary. I will dedicate a post to each of these fits and how you can use our playbook to mature these four fits.
There are three extremely important points I want to hammer home throughout these posts:
- You need to find four fits to grow the value of a design org inside your company.
- Each of these fits influences each other, so you can’t think about them in isolation.
- The fits are constantly evolving/changing/breaking, so you have to revisit and potentially change them all. This is the purpose of the CDO School playbook.
I will show you examples of the framework through my failures and successes. The series will roughly go in this order:
- Model ↔ Practice Fit
- Practice ↔ Partnerships Fit
- Partnerships ↔ Positioning Fit
- Positioning ↔ Model Fit
- How The Four Fits Work Together