Surrounded by Brilliance in a Broken System
Jul 7, 2025
I used to think the problem was the work.
Like, maybe...if we just sharpened process, doubled-up on research, nailed the presentation, we’d earn our seat at the table. The right work would speak for itself. The system would catch up. Right?!?
But over time — and much reflection — I realized:
The work wasn’t broken.
The designers weren't broken.
The system was.
As I heard Don King say in a mixtape once "It was an epiphanous form of religilosity"
I’ve seen great designers do forgettable work in bad systems. I’ve seen average designers do fantastic work in good systems. And I’ve seen too many design orgs organize themselves in ways that are totally divorced from the way products actually evolve — then wonder why nothing strategic ships.
This isn’t a diss track. This is an attempt and a call for collaboration.
Here’s a loose framework I’ve arrived at — to diagnose what’s wrong in a design org, and what might actually work better.
1. It’s Not the Designers — It’s the System
When designers get feedback like “be more strategic” or “push the product forward,” but they’re structurally placed like six steps away from the people making decisions, something’s off.
Design isn’t underperforming — it’s not rightly positioned.
Very lowkey, organizational structure is the most powerful product design tool. But depending on the industry you're in, traditional structures haven't realized this.
You can’t expect systemic outcomes from a misaligned system. That includes your org chart.
2. Common Symptoms of a Broken Structure
Here are some songs you might be familiar with:
Design is always reacting. Work starts elsewhere; design frantically scrambles to keep up.
Teams ship, but don’t evolve. Lots of tickets closed, little insight generated.
Design “leads” have no leverage. They manage calendars, not strategy.
Feedback is performative. Approvals over insight. Opinions over evidence.
Designers are miscast. Senior ICs doing production work. Juniors..shoot, where are the Juniors?!
These aren’t individual performance issues. These are structural design issues — in the organization.
3. Structure Shapes Behavior.
Every org structure comes with its own incentives. Incentives create behaviors. And behaviors become the default culture, whether you like it or not.
So if you want better product outcomes, better collaboration, more “strategic design”?
You don’t start by asking designers to “step up.”
You start by reworking the system they’re stepping into. Progress and growth requires the accommodation of progressive environments.
4. A Framework for Rebuilding the Org Around the Work
This isn’t a rigid model. It’s a series of prompts. A lens. A test to run your current system through.
Step 1: Map Actual Decision Ownership
Forget the org chart. Who actually gets to decide?
Who owns what, really?
Who has veto power?
What happens to the good ideas that go ignored?
Map it. If decisions aren't clear or distributed by personality instead of product logic, design will never move upstream.
Step 2: Redraw Around Product Flow, Not Function
Design, engineering, and product aren’t meant to be siloed functions. They’re roles in a shared system.
Realign teams around:
Customer journeys
Product loops
Outcomes instead of feature sets
Instead of:
“This is the design team. That’s engineering.”
Think:
“This is the checkout experience team. This is the onboarding lifecycle team.”
Design should live inside the loop, not orbit around it.
Step 3: Define Altitudes of Design — and Staff Accordingly
Not all design is created equal. Not all designers should be doing the same kind of work.
Three altitudes to clarify:
Strategic Design
Product vision
System architecture
Cross-team pattern design
Usually a Principal+ or Design Director zone
Applied Design
UX flows
Prototypes
Micro-interactions
Staff and Senior ICs thrive here
Support Design
Internal docs, enablement, handoff prep
Best staffed by design ops or junior designers with mentorship
When design teams lack altitude clarity, you get either:
Seniors doing junior work and burning out. No, big time burnout.
Juniors doing senior work and developing bad habits.
Get the mix right. Name the altitude. Staff to match.
Step 4: Set Feedback Loops that Reflect Reality
Stakeholder review ≠ feedback. Approval ≠ insight.
Good systems:
Set regular, purpose-built design critiques
Loop in only relevant voices (not everyone with a title). Save the company some $$$.
Include eng + PMs as equal contributors
Separate exploratory critique from production review
If feedback always comes too late, from too many, and is too vague — that’s the system’s fault.
Step 5: Evolution Should be Baked into the System
Design systems aren’t just for UI components. You need systemic time carved out for:
Research synthesis
Refactoring work that wasn’t “done”
Cleaning up the mess born from speed
Build in the habit of maintaining the system. Otherwise, you’re just wiping melted ice cream off of a running toddler on a sugar rush.
5. Org Design Facilitates Optimal Design
Real talk, restructuring is gonna ruffle some feathers.
It’s political. Mad political. It reveals who's name is in lights (if any). Who gets looped in early. Who gets visibility, credit, and support.
Restructuring design orgs is not just about optimizing flow.
It’s about prioritizing the work and positioning resources appropriately.
Have that come-to-Jesus moment. Otherwise, you’re just installing expensive rims on a 92 Tercel that's been in the front yard undriven for years—and it's filled with freaking bees.
6. A Better System Means Better Work
Designers by nature want to do their best work. Most are capable of much more than their current context allows.
So the goal isn’t just better collaboration. It’s structural freedom:
Freedom to think earlier.
Freedom to solve the right problem.
Freedom to stay close to impact.
You don’t get that by telling designers to “own more.”
You get that by designing a system that lets them.
Inclusivity within an organization breeds trust, and the goodwill required to extract the best effort.