Thread by @johncutlefish

having observed "design advocacy" in many orgs, I've noticed some patterns:

1/n: the very things that get design the "seat at the table" become the limiters for further advocacy. So much effort to create a box ... and then you forever get put in it

2/n: @ryanrumsey talks about this eloquently, but you often see a complete resistance to making a cogent "business case" for why people should care.

Part of this is pride -- which is understandable -- but it becomes "design advocacy" vs. "design as a catalyst for X advocacy"

3/n: Instead of partnering to re-imagine a design-outcomes-friendly flow of product development, the focus is on advocating for how design should "fit in with" or "integrate with" X (whatever the engineering team is doing).

This further reinforces a sense of other-ness

4/n: Efforts to carve out influence are often laced with pretty demeaning characterizations of developers. The overtones:

We do the big thinky work ... and they "build it right"
We are d e s i g n e r s ... they are constructors

5/end ... I realize this is hard work, and you've got to make progress where you can make progress. But the number of orgs where TONS of political capital is invested to "elevate design" only to create a walled garden that becomes its own undoing is ... sad. Watch for it.