A Model for UX Career Growth
by Leah BuleyOver on the UX Leadership Journal, Will Evans recently shared a really nice model for career growth in the UX field. [UPDATE: Will's model builds on one originally developed by David Sherwin and Justin Maguire of frog design.] It looks sort of like this. (I added a few details.)
(Slightly larger version here. [Note that model has been updated to include attribution to David Sherwin and Justin Maguire.)
Increasingly, our clients are asking us for tips on how to setup a UX practice in an organization. Historically, the UX field has treated this as an education problem, but it’s also a staffing challenge.
Making sure that you have someone on staff who can do tactical UX will only get you so far if you don’t also have people on staff who cover the other layers. They don’t necessarily have to be dedicated roles, but there should certainly be somebody advocating for UX at each level of leadership in Will’s model.
Will is putting a fine point (irresistible triangle pun) on the difference between being good at your craft, and being a leader. They’re not the same thing. In fact, they can be distinctly incompatible. Effective individual contributors are self-motivated, autonomous, and perfectionist in their attention to detail. Effective leaders are team-oriented, big picture in their thinking, and focused above all on communication. (I know that I’ve retreated too far into the comfy dark cave of the individual contributor when I feel irked because someone interrupts me to talk about what I’m working on. The leader in me knows that that’s an opportunity to spread awareness and empower others.)
Anyway, it’s fascinating stuff, and a bit of a kick in the ass for me personally. Thanks, Will. See Will’s whole presentation on design leadership here.
Entries (RSS)
June 11th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
What i think is missing is at the tip-top of the pyramid, when the design leader transcends the design function to lead the overall organization. Organizational leaders come through financial, operations, marketing, and other business functions, then at some point they take off that IT hat or that marketing hat and become an overall business leader.
Designers for some reason often avoid or never make that leap. It’s worth mapping it out just so some will see it as an opportunity and try it.
June 11th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I’m with Brandon.
In addition to having a depth in design, leaders need to have business acumen and need to know what the impact of their design decisions can be on many different levels. It’s no longer designing as a task, it’s understand what it takes to create the design, implement and execute the design and what the other touch points might be, and if they might be affected.
I’m also not sold that “Design Leader” is the be-all, end-all of the pyramid. Let’s look at the career of Christina Wodtke–she’s been an IA and went up the ladder… to Product Manager and now General Manager. And she’s a designer–I think the field is too young to know where the heck we’re going to end up yet. I certainly hope we find our seat at the CEO table, but there are a lot of layers yet to uncover.
There’s also understanding the course–the ripple affect–of the actions of a leader. I’d like to see beyond the pyramid and see details as to how someone fills these roles; it’s not about 2a phone calls. It’s about being aware of the needs of the followers, as well, and understanding how to motivate them and balancing that with how to please those who are actually funding the design.
Beyond that, it’s actually having performed those various roles to some degree of success–or at least completion–that would put someone in the position to be a design leader, as well as to guide/coach/mentor others into becoming a design leader.
June 12th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Like most pyramids, this needs to be flipped on its head. So many times people try to lead who have no competence in what they are trying to lead. This very quickly leads to failures for projects and work they lead. By flipping the pyramid a lack of a solid foundation at the point quickly makes it clear there will be relationship to the crumbling and disasters that follow. I think we all have seen many many examples of this blowing up in spectacular fashion.
I also think the titles and wishes for accuracy in the right hand labels are off. The labels are too low for what is needed in most organizations. For example, associate directors usually are in on strategy and have some experience as a senior manager.
June 12th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Suggest the trap is one can get wrapped up in the job titles instead of focusing on the soft skills required to become a leader (independent of job title and level). What attributes do you need?
Suggest the role of the leader becomes easier when you all have a common goal to hold onto and you march towards it.
Sometimes its intangible – its when, for example, high performing sporting teams are self propelled to succeed repeatedly at top levels on their own, with limited guidance here and there from senior coaching staff.
Note – Playing team sports teaches you a lot about leadership.
June 13th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Daniel, I agree titles and focusing on them is extremely problematic, as they rarely translate across any pairing of organization. What is important is the building of essential skills and competencies with a focus on detail and depth of understanding along with the person understanding the how and why as they progress.
But, there is also not really anything new in this model other than how it is displayed. When you change UX to pure design, it aligns with the many discussions of design leadership progressions that have taken place the last many decades.
The skills listed in the pyramid are good, well the ones that can be read (as the font is really poor for readability and a poor design choice).
One of the things really troubling with this is the connection to the UX Leadership presentation, which has many things in it that conflict and really are not optimal to follow for leadership. But, none is more egregious and grossly negligent than slide #65 with the statement of “let other people worry about the details”. There is no quicker way for leadership to create a poor environment and inhibit success than following that statement. Anybody putting this forth or believing it in the design community is often booted from where they put this idea forward. At some point this viewpoint will bite them and their teams they are leading, often it bites them really quickly. Nobody who has successfully lead any design efforts could ever make this statement or even think it would be valuable to float this idea. This is a very damaging statement, not only for an organization, but for any broader community.
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:08 am
Thanks for starting up an interesting discussion. In true co-creation spirit, I added a few details in a new model as I believe there are “more ways to Rome” for us UX proffessionals.