0:01

Your relationships are just

0:03

as important as your ideas

0:06

because your ideas can't go

0:08

anywhere Without the medium of

0:10

the relationship of engineers and

0:12

finances and project managers without

0:15

them You'll be a frustrated

0:17

designer with good ideas that don't

0:19

go anywhere As designers we sometimes

0:21

get caught up in our egos

0:23

I'm the creative one on the

0:25

team. I'm the one who should

0:27

have the final say on these

0:29

designs and I'm misunderstood and I

0:31

feel like I'm always having to

0:33

teach people a new language. You

0:35

ever said that to yourself? I

0:37

know I have. Author Scott Berkin

0:39

has a new book called Why

0:41

Design is Hard, which dives into

0:43

why this ego trap limits designers

0:45

effectiveness in their roles. We welcome

0:47

him back on the show to

0:49

discuss this new book and also

0:52

to discuss how designers can learn

0:54

to navigate organizational power structures and

0:56

gain more influence over decisions that

0:59

affect their work, how the myth

1:01

of the design hero shapes young

1:03

designers entering the field, and why

1:06

design schools often fail to prepare

1:08

students for the real-world dynamics of

1:10

organizational culture and power. This is

1:13

design better. where we explore creativity

1:15

at the intersection of design and

1:17

technology. I'm Aaron Walter. You can

1:20

get ad-free episodes, bonus content,

1:22

discounts on our workshops, and

1:24

access to our monthly AMAs

1:26

with really cool people in

1:28

the design and tech industry

1:30

by becoming a Design Better

1:32

premium subscriber. It's also the

1:34

best way to support the

1:36

show. Visit Design Better podcast.com/subscribe

1:38

to learn more. We'll

1:46

return to the

1:48

conversation

1:51

after this quick

1:54

break. And now,

1:56

back to the show.

2:03

Scott Berkin, welcome back to Design Better.

2:05

It is a pleasure to be back,

2:07

thanks guys. When we last left our

2:10

heroes, you had a book out about

2:12

the power of design, how design makes

2:14

the world work. But now you're looking

2:17

at the opposite side of this topic,

2:19

which is why design is so hard.

2:21

I have to agree with both perspectives,

2:23

but tell us why this book and

2:26

why now? Why is this an important

2:28

thing to cover? Well, when I wrote

2:30

how design makes the world, the goal

2:32

for that book was to take on

2:35

the burden of explaining all of these

2:37

things that annoy us as designers that

2:39

people don't understand. I try to explain

2:42

good design to business people or engineers.

2:44

I wanted to write a book that

2:46

could be considered in the same category

2:48

as design of everyday things by Don

2:51

Norman or don't make me think by

2:53

Steve Krug, like an explainer book that

2:55

could work for anybody. And in writing

2:57

that book, I had to write for

3:00

everybody. the widest possible audience possible. And

3:02

while doing that, I knew at the

3:04

same time, someday, I'd want to write

3:06

a book where I could just talk

3:09

directly to designers and say, like, hey

3:11

guys, hey folks, like, we got some

3:13

problems. Let's have a conversation that's in-house

3:16

talk. We can speak frankly with each

3:18

other and share some perspective. And so

3:20

that's what this book is. It's basically

3:22

a sequel, but one that's written for

3:25

the design and UX community. One of

3:27

the key themes in your book is

3:29

this. ego trap and I think as

3:31

designers and even you know more generally

3:34

creative people I certainly find myself there

3:36

we often find ourselves in the situation

3:38

where hey you know I'm the creative

3:41

one I'm special I got these kind

3:43

of creative superpowers why are people paying

3:45

attention to me so talk about that

3:47

a why does that happen and then

3:50

maybe why does that limit our effectiveness

3:52

as designers it's a better way to

3:54

frame what goes on in some of

3:56

the research for the book I've been

3:59

doing for a while about asking designers

4:01

what their biggest frustrations are, what their

4:03

biggest complaints are. And the same kind

4:06

of things come up, especially for UX

4:08

folks, about, they don't get it, like

4:10

the executive teams, like they don't get

4:12

it, and I get ignored, and I've

4:14

never invited a meeting, like why, why,

4:16

why. And those frustrations are valid, and

4:18

they do express things that should be

4:20

better. But there's a framing in

4:23

these complaints that's very self-centered.

4:25

Why don't they do something other than

4:27

what they are doing? And it puts

4:29

the blame elsewhere. And there's a kind

4:31

of learned helplessness that is implied

4:33

in that, that I can't do my

4:36

job until all these other people who

4:38

actually have very good reasons for doing

4:40

what they are currently doing. They're

4:42

paid very well and successful companies

4:45

doing what they are doing until

4:47

they change. So it's called a

4:49

trap because it's something that prevents

4:51

you from actually achieving what you

4:53

want. It's a trap. It doesn't

4:55

allow you to progress or grow

4:57

because you feel validated and just

5:00

calling out a problem. The thrust of

5:02

the book is that these complaints

5:04

are true. Yes, we have reasons

5:06

to be upset or feel disenfranchised,

5:08

but complaining to the sky

5:10

doesn't change anything. And as designers who

5:12

are creative and do have superpowers,

5:14

we have special skills that can

5:17

solve a lot of different kinds

5:19

of problems. We have to get

5:21

better at framing our frustrations. to be

5:23

things that we can take action on.

5:25

And instead of walking into

5:27

organizations, expecting them to understand

5:30

design, expecting them not to

5:32

be dysfunctional, expecting them not

5:34

to have political infighting, which

5:36

is a ridiculous set of

5:38

expectations given our understanding of

5:40

the working world, we should

5:42

flip it around and say, let's train

5:44

ourselves to expect some of these

5:46

situations. Let's design our skill set

5:48

and our attitude to expect these

5:50

situations. And then at least we're

5:52

not taken surprised by them. And

5:54

we can maybe cultivate more of

5:56

a culture of wanting to divide up

5:59

these problems. so we can attack

6:01

them. So that's the ego trap.

6:03

The book also talks about how

6:05

valuable ego is. We need our

6:07

egos. We need them to motivate

6:09

ourselves. Ego is important, but beyond

6:11

a certain limit, it becomes destructive.

6:13

And it becomes a source of

6:15

resentment and bitterness and depression when

6:17

there's a way to use that

6:19

ego to take agency and to

6:21

have more agency in these situations.

6:23

One thing I notice over and

6:25

over again is designers often seem

6:27

to be kind of on the

6:29

low end of the spectrum of

6:31

maturity of understanding power structures, political

6:34

structures inside of organizations, and that

6:36

lack of knowledge or lack of

6:38

interest holds them back. I'm curious,

6:40

what is it that designers need

6:42

to know more of to have

6:44

more influence in their organizations? Yeah,

6:46

I'm smiling because of the statement

6:48

you just said, because sometimes when

6:50

I say that I get in

6:52

trouble, so I'm glad that does

6:54

the hope. Well, I'll raise my

6:56

hand. That's been me, you know,

6:58

that has been me at times.

7:00

And there's definitely a school of

7:02

hard knocks in trying to figure

7:04

that stuff out. Yes, I do

7:06

agree. I do think to be

7:08

generous to designers, I think most

7:10

people have the same complaints. Most

7:12

people don't want to deal with

7:15

power and politics. It's not fun

7:17

for most people. Design is the

7:19

community that we're in. So I

7:21

witness it and see that pattern

7:23

here. But it's a universal thing.

7:25

I think if I were to

7:27

poke at the type of culture,

7:29

the kinds of people that are

7:31

drawn to design, I do think

7:33

there are some things that make

7:35

it harder for us. I think

7:37

that... people who are drawn to

7:39

design or people who like a

7:41

certain kind of work. They like

7:43

work where they have control, they

7:45

like creative work, they like time

7:47

working on their own. So you

7:49

take a person who's developed a

7:51

craft and a skill set where

7:54

you are working in Figma or

7:56

Photoshop or on a sketch pad.

7:58

It's a solitary creative experience. It

8:00

makes sense that people who are good

8:02

at those things would tend not to

8:04

want to be in lots of meetings

8:06

and debating things and dealing with a

8:08

persuading roomful of people that do something

8:10

different. It makes sense that there's more

8:12

of a tendency towards a certain kind

8:14

of introversion that makes sense to me.

8:17

When I've given some of the advice

8:19

in the book about taking more agency

8:21

to some designers, they'll say, why should I

8:23

have to do that? Why should I have

8:26

to go and convince people of my

8:28

ideas? And my answer to them is

8:30

you don't. If you're okay with your

8:32

ideas not having as much impact as

8:34

you want, you don't have to convince

8:36

anyone. But to assume that you have

8:38

some kind of idea privilege that

8:40

people should just follow what you

8:43

suggest because you suggested it,

8:45

that's a kind of ego trap. Nobody

8:47

gets that kind of privilege in

8:49

most word places, unless they have

8:51

power. That's the secret way out

8:53

of not having to do that.

8:55

But to have power, and this explains one

8:58

of the things in the book of our

9:00

obsession with talent, and we like to think

9:02

that talent will solve everything. If we

9:04

have the right skills and the right

9:06

ideas, we can persuade anybody. But

9:08

in our workplace, there's a lot of

9:10

the complaints that we have, is the

9:12

CEO or the executive who knows

9:14

nothing about design. We know they know nothing

9:16

about design. Yet despite their lack of

9:19

ability or knowledge, they get to make

9:21

the decisions. So... If we had 10

9:23

times more talent than we do, unless we

9:25

have more power influence, it doesn't have an

9:27

effect on things. That's supported by the

9:29

fact that people who have a lot

9:31

of power and influence, but low skill

9:33

gets to make lots of decisions.

9:36

There's a recognition about the

9:38

practicalities of how people work in

9:40

organizations that we just don't want

9:42

to fully accept. Yeah. Let's take

9:44

a devil's advocate approach to this.

9:46

You said that nobody gets that

9:48

treatment where their idea gets listened

9:50

to. without them having to make

9:52

a fair case or a business

9:54

case for what they're doing. The

9:56

exception I see there is engineers.

9:59

Engineers often like... Hey, you don't know

10:01

what the hell I'm doing, but you

10:03

believe that I'm super talented and I'm

10:05

super valuable. So therefore, I don't have

10:07

to present or spend too much time

10:10

presenting these ideas to you. And people

10:12

do sort of been to the whims

10:14

of engineers. I think that's part of

10:16

the source of frustration with designers is

10:19

that there's so much hand waving to

10:21

just be seen and understood. And engineers

10:23

just don't have to do any of

10:25

that. People are just like, yes, we're

10:27

so happy you're here. I have two

10:30

answers to that. One, there's definitely some

10:32

truth to that. In tech cultures, engineering

10:34

cultures are often where the founders come

10:36

from. So the whole culture is seeped

10:39

in a respect and a deference to

10:41

the engineering perspective on things. They're seen

10:43

as the primary intellectual work horses for

10:45

the organization. So some of that is

10:47

definitely true. But the second answer is,

10:50

if you spend more time talking to

10:52

engineers, they have their complaints too. Like,

10:54

they have their complaints about the decisions

10:56

being made that favor the business over

10:59

engineering quality. Engineers often have a lot

11:01

of the same complaints. Obviously, they're not

11:03

as deep as the compliance designers usually

11:05

have because engineers tend to have a

11:07

lot more organizational power. But they have

11:10

their complaints too about the things that

11:12

they're not allowed to do or the

11:14

expectations for how much work they're supposed

11:16

to get done. One of the bits

11:19

of advice in the book is the

11:21

recognition of if there are people who

11:23

are in the room who seem to

11:25

have that privilege and you don't have

11:27

it, then the tactic to take is

11:30

to figure out how can you make

11:32

them an ally? How can you use

11:34

their power and their value in the

11:36

organization as an asset instead of a

11:39

frustration? I'm not saying that's easy to

11:41

do. I'm not saying that's always possible

11:43

to do, but in the landscape of

11:45

how organizations work, how people work, you

11:47

want to look around at the system

11:50

around you and say, who has access

11:52

to influence that I don't, how can

11:54

I learn how to influence them? How

11:56

can I find out? which person on

11:59

the engineering team is actually the most

12:01

invested in improving the design of the

12:03

product. Who is that person? Now, they

12:05

may all not be that invested, but

12:08

of the 10 engineers, there will be

12:10

one who is the most interested in

12:12

learning more about UX design. Who is

12:14

that person? That's the task that anyone

12:16

can do. And that's where you can

12:19

invest energy. Even in the most engineering

12:21

centered culture, there's still someone there who's

12:23

the most receptive. And if you can.

12:25

build that relationship, then their power becomes

12:28

an advantage rather than a source of

12:30

frustration. I want to take another twist

12:32

at this question and I think for

12:34

some of us it can be easy

12:36

to take a little bit of a

12:39

more cynical view toward corporate hierarchy and

12:41

you both might be familiar with that

12:43

very simple. corporate hierarchy could be pyramid

12:45

where it's sociopaths at the top and

12:48

then clueless and then losing its bottom

12:50

is like I think a lot of

12:52

us have been in those situations where

12:54

that's how we feel. But that aside

12:56

if we want to take a more

12:59

epithetic view or if we are leading

13:01

a team and we are an sociopath

13:03

how might we think about it kind

13:05

of empowering folks that are a little

13:08

lower on the totem pole to help

13:10

give input into these more strategic decisions

13:12

that we might be making. I think

13:14

that something a manager would always want

13:16

to do of figuring out what are

13:19

the ways to engage the people on

13:21

your team to do their best work.

13:23

I think because we're talking about designers

13:25

and I mentioned this more introverted attitude

13:28

about work is things like making sure

13:30

there's multiple ways for people to participate

13:32

in suggesting ideas. Like this is classic.

13:34

preference to verbalization and brainstory meetings, you

13:36

know, whoever's loudest and speaks the fastest

13:39

usually gets heard the most. And there's

13:41

little things like brain writing where you

13:43

make the process for coming up with

13:45

ideas, it's something that's written down. It's

13:48

less based on who's loud. So there's

13:50

things like that you can do to

13:52

help diversify the process by which ideas

13:54

are even heard. That comes to mind.

13:56

But you have me intrigued by that

13:59

hierarchy, you know, that cynical hierarchy, which

14:01

I was laughing at, which it was

14:03

sociopath idiots. What was the bottom layer?

14:05

Losers. Losers. Losers. Losers. It's humid the

14:08

cloud. And I don't think he meant

14:10

losers, sort of, you know, the social

14:12

sense. It's more like they're losing out

14:14

on the arrangement here. Yeah, that made

14:16

me think of an important thing in

14:19

the book, in the book, designing your

14:21

life. And in that book, they talk

14:23

about gravity problems. They talk about how

14:25

there are all these things that are

14:28

unavoidably frustrating and that the healthy outlook

14:30

as a designer but as a person

14:32

is not to get hung up on

14:34

the things that you really have no

14:36

control over. That's a platitude you hear

14:39

all over the place. The Stoics talk

14:41

about it. You know, it's a very

14:43

old idea, but I think it's an

14:45

idea very relevant to us in that

14:48

if you do work for a place

14:50

that's run by social path and middle

14:52

management. are a bunch of largely incompetent

14:54

people, nothing you do in design presentation

14:56

is going to fix that. Like there's

14:59

no idea that you are going to

15:01

have that's going to transform the culture

15:03

of your company. It's just not going

15:05

to happen. And it's not a limitation

15:08

on your abilities as a designer or

15:10

a creative person. The sum amount of

15:12

acceptance to have about your limited ability

15:14

to change some of these fundamental things.

15:16

And the more time and energy you

15:19

allow yourself to spend complaining about them,

15:21

some of that is therapeutic. For sure,

15:23

and it's venting and it's getting validation,

15:25

but finding ways to be creative about

15:28

how, again, of the idiots in the

15:30

middle, who is the least idiotic? How

15:32

do you get on that team? Who's

15:34

the person who seems really good in

15:36

your organization at persuading the sociopath at

15:39

the top to do good things? How

15:41

do you learn their techniques for doing

15:43

that? There's always a way with our

15:45

creative abilities, there's always a way to

15:48

ask these kinds of questions and become

15:50

curious. and become investigators of the way

15:52

things really get done. And then there's

15:54

some agency, even if it's such a

15:56

tiny bit of agency, tiny bit, that

15:59

leads... to what we want, which is

16:01

more influence and better products and better

16:03

services and less terrible stuff in the

16:05

world. And that's why the core message

16:08

of the book is finding healthier ways

16:10

to deal with what are unavoidable

16:12

challenges of being a creative designer

16:14

at tech and large organizations. There's

16:16

fundamental things and we have to be better

16:18

at admitting that this is going to be

16:21

the common case. I'm going to shift

16:23

us into a different gear away

16:25

from cynicism and sociopathy. You write

16:28

about some design heroes in your

16:30

book, folks that we really love,

16:32

Polisher, as a former guest on

16:35

the show, Dieter Rams. And you

16:37

talk about how they often faced

16:39

significant challenges beyond their iconic work.

16:42

How do you think the myth

16:44

of the design hero influences young

16:46

designers entering the field today?

16:49

There's some really destructive things about

16:51

it. Now, I caution that and want

16:53

to couch that by saying we need

16:55

heroes. There's a romantic thing. We all

16:58

need to inspire us to want to

17:00

pursue this kind of work and to

17:02

get into fields and romantic stories and

17:05

mythological stories have a valuable

17:07

role to play. They do. The destructive

17:09

part is when we try to emulate

17:11

a fantasy in our actual working life.

17:13

The story that you're referencing, Dieter Rams,

17:16

I found a story about him that

17:18

I thought. is really important that doesn't

17:20

get told very much. Dieter Rams, one

17:22

of our most well-known designers in the

17:25

world, heavily influenced the direction of Apple

17:27

and there, Jonathan Ives, all their

17:29

product design. Because he's such a hero, most

17:31

of the images you ever see of him as

17:33

him standing alone. Often in front

17:35

of the finished products that he has

17:38

worked on that are in museums now. It's

17:40

one person standing alone. And we all know

17:42

any of those products, you know, there's like

17:44

a razor and a radio. That radio probably

17:46

had dozens of people working on

17:48

it. Engineers, marketers, people who ran

17:51

the business plan, project managers, people

17:53

who did the manufacturing plan, dozens

17:55

of people. But he's the one person

17:57

we see. There's no mention of anybody

17:59

else. You think the collective number

18:01

of people represented by all those

18:03

things that he's standing in front

18:06

of? Hundreds of people, but we

18:08

see one person. So we're presented

18:10

with the notion, which is a fantasy,

18:12

that Dieter Ram showed up at Braun,

18:14

and then a team of minions said, we'll

18:16

go build that for you. And Dieter Ram's

18:18

won a vacation for a year, and

18:21

came back to take the photo, and

18:23

then goes on vacation again. That's really

18:25

this fantasy we have of the designer,

18:27

is just the hero, and they're alone.

18:29

Dieter Rams is telling a story in an

18:31

interview with the New York Times about his

18:34

early career and he tells a story about

18:36

seeing the engineering team and the design team

18:38

not getting along. And rather than doing what

18:40

most of us would do, what I have

18:42

done, like who wants to get involved in

18:44

like a cross-discipline tension? Like no one

18:47

wants to get in the middle of that.

18:49

It's not fun. It's certainly not something a

18:51

designer normally feels obligated to do, but he's

18:53

like, look, I can see there's tension here.

18:56

I know the engineering team likes brandy. So

18:58

I'm going to get a nice bottle of brandy

19:00

and I'm going to share it with the

19:02

engineering team. A designer is going to go

19:04

and share it with the engineering team. And

19:06

his quote, it's almost verbatim quote, is basically,

19:09

to be a good designer, you have to be half

19:11

psychologists. And he means half thinking

19:13

about relationships with people. This is the story

19:15

early in his career. This is what led him

19:17

to become the person who then gets their

19:20

picture taken in front of all this work.

19:22

It's through human relations, through earning trust. And

19:24

of course buying gifts is just a very

19:26

shallow way to build a relationship, but

19:28

it can be the start of one. It's

19:30

an offering of something to another person and

19:33

the beginning of a connection. And I

19:35

had never seen that story told anywhere

19:37

before. And I thought it's exactly the kind

19:39

of story that we need to be

19:41

better at telling to designers that your

19:43

relationships are just as important as

19:45

your ideas. Because your ideas can't

19:47

go anywhere without the medium of

19:50

the relationship. of engineers and finances

19:52

and project managers, you have to

19:54

have those relationships. Without them, you'll be

19:56

a frustrated designer with good ideas

19:58

that don't go anywhere. We'll return

20:00

to the conversation after this

20:03

quick break. Design Better is

20:05

supported by Dewar. Eli and

20:07

I are very busy people.

20:09

When we're not in the studio

20:12

producing the podcast and publishing new

20:14

articles, we're often doing something active

20:16

and creative. We're building, we're cooking,

20:19

or on an adventure with family.

20:21

Work and life blend together. Doer

20:23

makes clothing for people like us.

20:26

Doer creates performance denim and lifestyle

20:28

apparel that is made for doing.

20:30

And their new stretch canvas pants

20:33

are perfect for work in the

20:35

office, the kitchen, or the workshop.

20:37

The stretch canvas pants have stretch

20:40

fibers for comfort and ease of

20:42

movement. They've got this special treatment

20:44

for weather protection and back and

20:47

thigh pockets for extra utility storage.

20:49

They're super practical and they just

20:51

move with your body. I've been

20:54

wearing the performance denim jeans, the

20:56

slim versions like skinny jeans and

20:58

they're just so flexible and stretchy

21:01

and they feel great to wear.

21:03

Eli, what have you been wearing

21:05

from Dour? Yeah, I got one

21:08

of their Tech Fleece denim jackets

21:10

in black color and it's really

21:12

nice. It's soft, it's comfortable, it's

21:15

warm enough for those fall days

21:17

that are just kind of creeping

21:19

into the lower digits and yeah,

21:22

I really love it. Check out

21:24

Dewar's flagship stores in LA or

21:26

Denver or order now at shopduer.com/Design

21:29

Better. When you use our exclusive

21:31

URL, you'll get 20% off your

21:33

first purchase. Just go to shop,

21:36

D-U-U-E-E-R-R. that's shopdoer.com/design better to save

21:38

20%. Design Better is supported by

21:40

master class. We're lifelong learners here

21:43

at Design Better. Eli and I

21:45

were always reading and expanding our

21:47

skills and pursuing new interests. And

21:50

I have a hunch as a

21:52

design better listener that you're probably

21:54

the same. The best way to

21:57

expand your knowledge. is with Masterclass,

21:59

which lets you learn from the

22:01

best to become your best. Masterclass

22:04

is the only streaming platform where

22:06

you can learn from over 200

22:08

of the world's best and brightest.

22:11

And when I say best and

22:13

brightest, I'm talking about people like

22:15

learning writing from David Sideris, learning

22:18

about the stoics and philosophy from

22:20

Ryan Holliday, learning about fashion and

22:22

design from Anawentour, and learning about

22:25

creative leadership with Shonda Rimes or

22:27

Martin Scorsese. Or learning about ecology

22:29

from Jane Goodall. I mean, these

22:32

are amazing people. I learned a

22:34

ton about business strategy from Bob

22:36

Igers Masterclass and Eli is a

22:39

huge fan of Neil Gaiman's masterclass

22:41

on storytelling. Where in the world

22:43

can you learn from this many

22:46

brilliant people? With a masterclass subscription

22:48

you get access to all of

22:50

these brilliant teachers and many more

22:53

who cover a vast array of

22:55

topics that will help you professionally

22:57

and personally. Plus you can access

23:00

Masterclass on your phone, your computer,

23:02

your smart TV, or even in

23:04

audio mode, so it's just so

23:07

easy to learn. Right now, Design

23:09

Better listeners get an additional 15%

23:11

off an annual membership at masterclass.com/Design

23:14

Better. That's 15% off masterclass.com/Design Better.

23:16

Visit masterclass.com/Design Better to sign up

23:18

for one of our favorite learning

23:21

platforms around. Design Better is supported

23:23

by strawberry.me. Building a career, maintaining

23:25

healthy relationships, and just navigating the

23:28

trials of life are challenging. But

23:30

you don't have to brave it

23:32

alone. Strawberry.me can connect to you

23:35

with a certified coach who can

23:37

help you get clarity and create

23:39

a plan for progress. If you

23:42

feel like your priorities are scattered

23:44

or you're unsure about the goals

23:46

to focus on, a coach will

23:49

help you clarify what truly matters

23:51

to you. Next. Together you'll set

23:53

goals. Once you have that clarity,

23:56

your coach will guide you in

23:58

setting specific actionable goals that move

24:00

you closer to the life that

24:03

you envision. And you'll create a plan.

24:05

Your coach will help you create a

24:07

structured, realistic plan so you can bridge

24:09

the gap between where you are right

24:11

now and where you want to be.

24:14

Your coach will provide support,

24:16

accountability, and encouragement, all important

24:18

things, helping you stay engaged and

24:20

make steady progress. I've worked with

24:22

a strawberry.me coach myself and I

24:25

found it helped me look at

24:27

some of the challenges in my

24:29

life with fresh eyes and it

24:31

helped me create a really solid

24:33

plan for progress that I'm

24:36

excited about. Visit strawberry.me slash

24:38

design better to take a

24:40

quick quiz and get matched

24:42

with your ideal coach. Plus

24:44

enjoy 20% off your first

24:46

month's membership. That's strawberry.e.e

24:49

slash design better. And

24:51

now, back to the show.

24:53

Let's talk another story about

24:55

a design hero in the

24:57

book. This is Paula Shire

24:59

and her famous story of

25:02

the $1.5 million nap and

25:04

sketch. She actually came on

25:06

the show and talked about

25:09

it. We'll link over to

25:11

that as well. And she

25:13

had a slight correction to

25:15

the record there, but the

25:17

gist of the story is

25:19

true. And I'm curious. That sketch

25:21

was done on a napkin, very loose,

25:23

and famously the decision was made to

25:25

run with that concept or something very

25:28

similar. In our current age, it's very

25:30

easy to go, for instance, like a

25:32

sketch to something very high fidelity. And

25:34

we've been saying this, we've been running

25:36

these workshops that are about AI plus design

25:38

thinking and part of the workshop, you come

25:41

up with some. ideas and then have

25:43

AI help you make some generative solutions

25:45

to it and its tendency is to

25:47

leap into something very high fidelity whether

25:49

that's like a product rendering app screens

25:51

and I'm just curious what do you think is

25:54

lost in that right now or what are

25:56

the sort of cautionary things that you might

25:58

talk to designers about given our now to

26:00

just almost instantly create something high fidelity.

26:02

Yeah I have a similar opinion on

26:05

this that I'm guessing that you do

26:07

which is you lose a lot but

26:09

I do recognize I'm old like I'm

26:11

52 so there is an element I

26:13

see in it of like cranky old

26:16

guy well when I was a designer

26:18

I had a you know by the

26:20

car of the whiteboard out of stone

26:22

and you know I do sense in

26:25

myself a little bit of that but

26:27

I do think that Whenever you move

26:29

up in fidelity, you are now changing

26:31

the kinds of feedback you're going to

26:33

get, you're now more attached to things

26:36

because they feel more complete. And it's

26:38

easier to go astray. I'm a big

26:40

believer in trying to keep things fluid.

26:42

And the more you're comfortable tearing things

26:44

down and revisiting them, you're going to

26:47

get better ideas. You're going to get

26:49

more thoughtful and deeper ideas. So there's

26:51

something very dangerous about the allure of

26:53

fidelity. We've all felt this when we've

26:56

presented stuff to executives who don't really

26:58

understand design very well, that once you

27:00

show like a highly rendered screen, like

27:02

the attachment to the details of that

27:04

now become things you can't undo. And

27:07

that's why it's so preferable to try

27:09

to stay in low fidelity for as

27:11

long as you can. It gives you

27:13

so much more room to focus on

27:16

the problem and the solution. You mentioned

27:18

in the book that design education, it

27:20

often fails to prepare designers for... real

27:22

world dynamics, organizational culture, power dynamics that

27:24

we talked about. What changes, if you

27:27

had a magic wand, would you recommend

27:29

to design schools to better equip students

27:31

for realities of working in a complex

27:33

organization? Yeah, thank you for asking this

27:36

question. I want a caveat that I

27:38

am a critical design education in the

27:40

book. I also recognize that being design

27:42

educator is really hard. Oh, it's hard.

27:44

Thank you. And also, it's so easy

27:47

for people like me to write a

27:49

book or have a tweet and say,

27:51

this school of education should include X,

27:53

but I am not thinking about what

27:55

would have to get dropped. from the

27:58

curriculum to include the thing that I'm

28:00

asking for. It's kind of an unfair

28:02

critique. So I admit that. What I

28:04

am arguing for is that if we

28:07

know that most designers will enter the

28:09

workforce and spend most of their time

28:11

working with non-designers, normal people, that has

28:13

to be something we are prepping them

28:15

for. And that could be prepped through...

28:18

part of a senior project is to

28:20

work with actual engineers in the engineering

28:22

school. That could be prepped through a

28:24

workshop on how to explain your work

28:27

to people you meet on the bus.

28:29

That's a two-day workshop of just preparing

28:31

you for the reality that when you

28:33

leave design school, this is probably the

28:35

last time you will be around 95%

28:38

of designers all day every day. Unless

28:40

you work at a design agency, there

28:42

are some exceptions. But even then, when

28:44

you go to visit your client. You're

28:46

in the normal world where design is

28:49

not understood, you are a minority, no

28:51

one knows what you do. That will

28:53

be your everyday experience for the rest

28:55

of your life as a professional. There

28:58

has to be some accounting for that

29:00

as part of a design education. And

29:02

I know people already told me that

29:04

their programs and their classes, they do

29:06

some of this, and that's great. I

29:09

still think the critique is valid, that

29:11

by and large, that is not the

29:13

case. And that's what I'm arguing for.

29:15

This book is an attempt to do

29:18

it. This book can be read in

29:20

like three hours. I think the book

29:22

does a good job at framing this

29:24

problem and giving tools to solve it.

29:26

There are other books like it. Taking

29:29

responsibility for that I think is something

29:31

we have to do for young designers.

29:33

Prepare them for the reality of being

29:35

a designer as a person in the

29:37

world. I think it's a very valid

29:40

critique and something that we're always trying

29:42

to address with the class that we

29:44

teach, which is a project-based, team-based class.

29:46

But the students are largely collaborating with

29:49

their own peers and they're not cross

29:51

connecting necessarily over to the engineering department.

29:53

That happens sometimes organically, but in many

29:55

of these institutions, there's almost a sort

29:57

of beer crash. allergic reaction to bringing

30:00

different departments together. And, you know, to

30:02

give a concrete example, when I was

30:04

in the product science program at Stanford,

30:06

there was a very tight connection to

30:09

the art department, largely through one faculty

30:11

member named Matt Kahn. And it was

30:13

great. It was like, you got this

30:15

great art education, and you got this

30:17

great, you know, more engineering technical design

30:20

education, and it was a great blend,

30:22

for a number of reasons that broke

30:24

down. And I think the students are,

30:26

we're software for it. important thing to

30:29

ideally bring into a program. You also

30:31

mentioned negotiation as a design skill, which

30:33

I also think isn't really taught, at

30:35

least at our program so much, we

30:37

don't have emphasize it. Why is that

30:40

important? And what do you think folks

30:42

who might be in the workforce lacking

30:44

what they could do to resolve that?

30:46

My background was... a weird combination of

30:48

computer science and user experience stuff when

30:51

I graduated. My first job was as

30:53

a user researcher at Microsoft. And then

30:55

I switched to be what was called

30:57

a program manager, but it was the

31:00

role that did the most interaction design

31:02

work. And also I had to be

31:04

a project manager. And also I had

31:06

to be a project manager. So I

31:08

did a lot of design work there.

31:11

My job title did, I don't have

31:13

the word design in it, but I

31:15

did the prototyping and the sketching and

31:17

the, a lot of it anyway. And

31:20

I remember a lot of it anyway.

31:22

And they would just say no. And

31:24

I'd be really angry. I'd be like,

31:26

you know, in my head, I'm thinking

31:28

like, this is great. Like, and I

31:31

didn't have the tools or the confidence

31:33

to figure out how to negotiate, which

31:35

negotiation is like, well, like, you're selling,

31:37

but you're also trying to understand better

31:39

the other point of view. Why? Like,

31:42

why? And then you can now have

31:44

a conversation about the actual design. Like,

31:46

the actual design is not what's in

31:48

the designer's head or in the prototype

31:51

or in the prototype. or in figma,

31:53

the design is what happens when the

31:55

ideas meet the person who's going to

31:57

do the work. And now it's going

31:59

to be interpreted and there's going to

32:02

be tradeoffs made. That's actually the design

32:04

for what's going to get built. And

32:06

the recognition of that means that the

32:08

negotiation is essential. part of that, because

32:11

if you don't know how to negotiate,

32:13

you end up feeling like you are

32:15

throwing your design over a wall, and

32:17

good luck at what comes out the

32:19

other end, because you don't know how

32:22

to influence those decisions. I think negotiation

32:24

is actually a natural skill that designers

32:26

have. I think we do it internally

32:28

with ourselves. We're trying to decide how

32:31

to design something. We recognize in ourselves

32:33

tension between should it be this way

32:35

or that way should it be this

32:37

color scheme or that color scheme should

32:39

the hierarchy go this way or we

32:42

do it in our brains with ourselves

32:44

all the time we come up with

32:46

different versions of things and then we

32:48

negotiate with ourselves for how to decide

32:50

between those. So to me negotiation is

32:53

sharing that kind of process with other

32:55

people who have different preferences and knowledge.

32:57

I think we're capable of doing it.

32:59

We just have to learn how to...

33:02

externalize and share that process. And then

33:04

design becomes fun because then engineers and

33:06

marketers are now engaged in this dialogue

33:08

around the best possible ideas for all

33:10

the constraints instead of just the constraints

33:13

that we as designers would prefer. So

33:15

I do, I think it's essential. I

33:17

think that helps explain designers who, like

33:19

again, Dieter Ramps, there was a kind

33:22

of negotiation move to wanna butter up

33:24

the engineering team with like, you know,

33:26

a nice liquor, you know, that does

33:28

give you a little bit of extra

33:30

room that you've had coffee or lunch

33:33

or you play golf with your coworkers.

33:35

Negotiation sounds like a confrontational skill and

33:37

I don't think it has to be.

33:39

I think it's a sharing of the

33:41

process and an awareness of. the unavoidability

33:44

of making tradeoffs. Let's double click into

33:46

this a little bit more because I

33:48

think the relationship building thing is like

33:50

the key skill to learn to be

33:53

a very successful designer or anybody working

33:55

in a large scale organization because it

33:57

all resolves back to people problems one

33:59

way or another. You alluded to some

34:01

kind of straightforward relationship building techniques, but

34:04

let's... Pretend that you're new, you're starting

34:06

your career, you've just joined a major

34:08

organization. What would you do to get

34:10

started building relationships that would help you

34:13

be a more successful designer and also

34:15

just like happier doing your job? I

34:17

acknowledge that some of this stuff is

34:19

hard, especially if you're younger. This is

34:21

really hard. to figure out how to

34:24

build relationships with people you don't know

34:26

who are older than you and more

34:28

experienced than you and more powerful. It's

34:30

intimidating. And there's nothing in the book

34:32

that says, you have to do this

34:35

for that, it's easy. The book just

34:37

observes that power and decision-making is a

34:39

social process. So the less social you

34:41

are, it's probably going to be the

34:44

simplest thing I know of. Leah Boulier

34:46

in her book, UX Team of One,

34:48

which is a great book, she talks

34:50

about doing a walking tour. There's other

34:52

terms for this, but basically, you don't

34:55

know anything, you don't know anybody. Nothing

34:57

prevents you from making a list of

34:59

the five or ten people in your

35:01

project that you think you might need

35:04

to work with, and ask them if

35:06

you can meet with them for 15

35:08

minutes to learn more about what they

35:10

do. People like people who are curious

35:12

about them. And this is where the

35:15

investigative ability that designers have to be

35:17

curious and to investigate and to try

35:19

to learn to go to these people

35:21

with no agenda. You're not trying to

35:24

sell design. Selling design is usually a

35:26

terrible mistake. You don't want to show

35:28

up as a salesperson. Show up being

35:30

genuinely curious. Ask them what's interesting about

35:32

their job. Ask them what their favorite

35:35

part of it is. Ask them what

35:37

their least favorite part. And just listen

35:39

and learn. And you're now building some

35:41

trust and respect with these people. and

35:43

your curiosity will be sparked. You'll hear

35:46

things you didn't know, they'll show you

35:48

things. And then when you're thinking about

35:50

what you need or what your goals

35:52

are, it's now infused by your understanding

35:55

of your coworkers, just by walking around

35:57

having listened to them. That's not going

35:59

to be... a magic trick, it's not

36:01

going to mean that your next design

36:03

idea is going to get supported,

36:06

but you are building a relationship.

36:08

You're learning more about their perspective,

36:10

they're learning a little bit more

36:13

about yours, and then you figure

36:15

out the people who are friendlier, or

36:17

the people who seem more receptive,

36:19

maybe asking the coffee or have

36:21

a follow-up with them. But it's about

36:23

being curious. Focus on curiosity, and

36:25

a friend of ours. Her book,

36:27

UX Team of One, is often

36:29

cited on the show. It's a

36:31

great book. So as a designer, many

36:34

of us, especially earlier in

36:36

our career and potentially later too,

36:38

might have misconceptions about

36:40

how decisions are made. And

36:42

that may especially be the case

36:44

if we're going back to our

36:47

pyramid scheme of how organizations are

36:49

set up. If you find yourself

36:51

in that situation, and if you

36:53

have a good leader, they're going

36:55

to be more transparent likely about

36:57

what the organization's vision is and what

36:59

the goals are, but if you don't and

37:01

if you're kind of mystified, what misconceptions

37:04

might you have and how might you

37:06

rectify those? It's hard. I mean, whenever

37:08

I think of these sorts of questions

37:11

or situations, I'm always thinking about

37:13

the people. A thing I often

37:15

hear from designers is that they feel

37:17

left out, they feel they don't have agency,

37:19

How do I become more central in the

37:21

process? And my brain flips into

37:23

just, okay, that makes sense, it's a

37:26

good question, but I flip into people.

37:28

Who is the person that is the

37:30

most central in the process? Because

37:32

I bet that most people in

37:34

that room also feel a bit

37:36

disenfranchised. There's way more of this

37:38

feeling pervasive in organizations than designers

37:41

often realize. We are not alone

37:43

in feeling this way. Most people wish

37:45

they had more power. Most people wish

37:47

they had more influence. So the question then

37:49

becomes, who is the person who feels, yeah,

37:51

I got enough power? I feel good. That's

37:54

the person who's probably driving so

37:56

much of what's happening. Can you

37:58

get access to that person? Probably

38:00

not because they're powerful and everyone wants

38:02

access to them. So then I'm thinking,

38:05

okay, if it's not the most powerful person, who

38:07

is the person who is most influential to

38:09

them? Maybe it's the engineering lead.

38:11

Maybe it's the market. Someone is a little

38:14

more accessible who probably has

38:16

the best ability to persuade them

38:18

and understand what's going on. Can I

38:20

get access to them? Is that someone that

38:22

I did a walking tour with three months

38:24

ago? And I had a lovely conversation with

38:26

them about their work. And now I know

38:28

them well enough, I could send them a

38:30

private DM message and say, hey, I'm

38:32

a little confused. What just happened in

38:34

that meeting? Having people you can

38:37

ask that question to is like gold.

38:39

If they trust you enough and you know them

38:41

well enough, you can ask that question.

38:43

What just happened? I was there. I

38:45

don't know what happened. That's a six-word

38:48

question. Anyone can ask it. And that

38:50

will lead you to people who understand

38:52

that you're curious about what's going

38:54

on. You want to be engaged,

38:56

you're not blaming anybody, you're not

38:59

saying why didn't I have a

39:01

seat at the table, you're not

39:03

saying design should be more involved,

39:05

you're saying help me understand what

39:07

happened. And they'll tell you, they'll tell you

39:09

that Scott, you know, is a jerk and

39:11

he's having a bad day. So you didn't

39:13

do anything wrong, like Scott's just not the

39:16

best manager and he was having a bad

39:18

day. And you go, oh, I thought my

39:20

presentation or I didn't do their ROIs or

39:22

getting that what's really going on. is gold

39:24

and you only get that from people. You

39:27

can't get that from some methodology or

39:29

some, you know, book of tactics. It's that

39:31

you know people well enough, you can have

39:33

that conversation. And then you get that conversation

39:36

and now you're learning more about what to

39:38

do next time and what the insight is,

39:40

what the real story for what's happening

39:42

is. There's so much subtext in

39:44

big organizations of what's going on with

39:47

individuals. I'm glad you point that you

39:49

point that out. Let's talk about it maybe

39:51

from... the flip side here. So far

39:54

we've been talking about what designers can

39:56

do to sort of think more broadly,

39:58

plug into the organization better. One thing

40:00

that I observe is that

40:02

large scale companies, especially, but

40:05

probably mid-sized companies as well,

40:07

just move closer and closer

40:10

to a work environment that

40:12

is just not conducive

40:14

to creative work. And creative

40:17

work, if you're a designer, creative

40:19

work, if you're an engineer,

40:21

if you're in sales, etc.

40:24

What advice would you have

40:26

for organizations to... make more space

40:28

and honor the creative work that's

40:31

required for innovation. Yeah, it

40:33

is kind of an unfair dynamic.

40:35

There's so much talk about innovation

40:38

and wanting ideas in a lot

40:40

of companies and then so little

40:42

in practice supports it. It

40:44

almost works against it, which creates

40:46

burnout. I think that an easy

40:49

one or at least a simple

40:51

one is the recognition of

40:53

the difference between the output.

40:55

and the time that goes into it.

40:57

We still have a lot of work

40:59

cultures that are based on like nine

41:01

to five working hours and that you're

41:03

supposed to put in hours of work.

41:05

The input of time is not really

41:07

the value. The value is the output.

41:09

And so it can take a creative

41:12

person a weekend of thinking about an

41:14

idea in the back of their mind

41:16

before they show up on Monday and

41:18

they figured it out. Now are they getting

41:20

paid for that time? No. But sometimes they're

41:23

treated at work as if the only thing

41:25

that matters is how much time they put

41:27

into it. So it's a common thing about

41:29

designers being told, you know, why does it

41:31

take so long? And an attitude to the work

41:33

that reflects a production mind that it's

41:36

like making widgets in a factor or

41:38

something. And X units of hours will

41:40

guarantee you Y units of output. And

41:43

we know it's well documented. Creative work

41:45

doesn't work that way. If you're expecting

41:47

all this high-minded talk of innovation and

41:49

new ideas and changing things, that's not

41:52

going to come about that way. And a recognition

41:54

of that means people should be managed

41:56

differently. There should be more autonomy for people

41:58

to decide their working. practices. Remote work

42:00

for me is a factor in that

42:03

too of giving professionals the ability

42:05

to choose for themselves the environments that

42:07

will make the most productive

42:09

and judge them on their output rather than

42:11

the methods by which they're doing it. I

42:13

wrote a book a long time ago called

42:15

The Myth of Innovation and a lot of

42:17

that book was based on researching how did

42:20

successful R&D labs do what they did and

42:22

most of the successful ones including like

42:24

Xerox Park had cultures of a high

42:26

autonomy. Now there was high expectations. but there

42:28

was high autonomy and people could choose to

42:30

work how they wanted. That became the

42:33

model for a lot of like startup culture,

42:35

early startup culture where people could decide

42:37

their hours, it didn't matter just as long

42:39

as I got their work done. And I

42:41

think restoring that in larger organizations is

42:43

entirely possible. It just requires someone

42:46

who's a director level or an

42:48

executive level who recognizes that they

42:50

have to take on the responsibility of showing

42:52

results to their peers and to the CEO,

42:54

but they're going to manage their team

42:56

and create a culture. that's a trusted

42:59

culture where people are rewarded for

43:01

their output and evaluated for their

43:03

output rather than for the tools they

43:05

use or the methods they use because

43:07

that's really not going to be the

43:09

determining factor. And not to pick on any

43:12

company by name but I will. Used to

43:14

be that Google had this idea of 20%

43:16

time where you could take 20% of your

43:18

time and work on something that interested you.

43:21

it had to be related to what the

43:23

company was doing. And the great stuff came

43:25

out of that, things like Gmail. But now

43:27

it's I think internally known more as 20%

43:29

extra time. Like these ones are an extra

43:32

20% time. Yeah, 120%. So yeah, 120%. So

43:34

yeah, it'd be probably nice for folks working

43:36

there to bring back that kind of mindset.

43:38

But let's talk about superpowers for a second.

43:41

And if designers want to have influence,

43:43

it's probably helpful for them to

43:45

lean on things that they're already

43:47

really good at. visual explanation and

43:49

you have some nice little

43:51

illustrations in the book that show this.

43:54

So first maybe elaborate on one or two

43:56

of the superpowers and then how can designers

43:58

lean on those to how more influence

44:00

within a company. The book

44:02

calls out four or five superpowers and

44:04

one of them is our ability to

44:06

explain. I mean that's really what we

44:09

do for users. We built this great

44:11

skill set of explaining. We take

44:13

these concepts and technologies and we

44:15

force the team to try to

44:17

have better language and metaphors and

44:20

then we build these systems for

44:22

users, ordinary people, for them

44:24

to understand. We're great explainers.

44:26

And that is a superpower in

44:28

a workplace. There's so much

44:31

factionalization workplaces and siloing and

44:33

tension between different subcultures that

44:35

use different language. There's a

44:37

great opportunity for a designer

44:39

to step into that and

44:41

solve problems, functional problems on

44:43

teams. Whenever there's a situation

44:45

where there's a concept that

44:47

people are trying to explain with

44:50

paragraphs of text, for us to come in

44:52

and just sketch a diagram, we can do

44:54

it quickly, easily, that. Do you mean this

44:56

and to show that to a room full

44:58

of like busy executives? That could be a

45:00

transcending moment for a culture and a

45:03

team to look at an image and

45:05

realize it represents the thing they've been

45:07

fighting about and struggling to explain for

45:09

weeks. That's a powerful thing. But designers

45:12

are often reticent to use those

45:14

skills where I feel a little uncomfortable.

45:16

I've had this conversation many

45:18

times with designers that designers don't

45:21

want to race to the whiteboard to

45:23

sketch something out. because they're afraid their

45:25

sketch isn't going to look good enough.

45:27

I've heard this a million times, and

45:29

maybe it's less true now with younger

45:31

designers, because maybe there's less sketching on

45:34

whiteboards altogether. But my response as a

45:36

manager to this was always, you're a

45:38

designer, like your quick sketch would be

45:40

better than the next hundred people in

45:42

this building, because this is what you know how

45:45

to do. You should never be afraid to do that.

45:47

So there's a thing in here too that

45:49

harkens back to the earlier question about what

45:51

you do as a young designer. There's a

45:53

certain amount of confidence required to step

45:55

into some of these confusions and

45:58

mistranslations. But that's what I'm saying.

46:00

suggesting, do you mean this and show

46:02

something? Is something we are very powerful

46:04

at doing? It's a simple question.

46:06

There's very low stakes. Even make

46:08

like a two by two chart. Do

46:10

you mean this or that? Like, just

46:13

to simplify, make visual a discussion,

46:15

something that I think is a

46:17

natural toolkit for us. And we don't

46:19

often get invited at first to do

46:22

it because it's like the Dunning

46:24

Kruger effect. Non-designers don't

46:26

know that we can do this for them.

46:28

They don't know to ask. But once we

46:30

show it and it has that effect on

46:32

the conversation, people will feel it.

46:34

Then they'll start to say, hey, can you

46:36

come to this meeting? Because it's going

46:38

to be difficult. And I want you there

46:41

to help explain things visually. Like that's something

46:43

we all want to hear. But no one

46:45

can know to ask us that unless we

46:47

show it first and we have to show

46:49

it. Scott, one thing I admire about you

46:52

is you go into these book projects with

46:54

a thesis. but with a lot of

46:56

questions. And so presumably working on this

46:58

book, you went in with a lot

47:00

of questions and curiosity. What did you

47:03

learn from that process? What do you

47:05

know today that you didn't know before

47:07

you started this book? Well, so the

47:09

book started as kind of a manifesto kind

47:11

of thing. And I'd always wanted to

47:13

write a manifesto. I did a bunch

47:15

of research on manifesto. I read a

47:17

bunch of them. And I thought I

47:19

was going to write this manifesto. There

47:21

just to be like, you know. Manifestos

47:24

are meant to be like provocative and

47:26

opinionated, not back anything up and just

47:28

kind of stir the pot a bit. That's

47:30

what the plan was at first for this book.

47:32

And then a little by little on working

47:34

on that, it was feedback on the manifesto

47:36

draft. Everyone kind of hated this. It was

47:39

just, it wasn't very good, it was just

47:41

too cranky. And then I had to revisit

47:43

how to try to explain the stuff. The

47:45

superpower thing was something that only surfaced midway

47:47

through the project. of how do you

47:50

make this less of a depressing critical

47:52

book and make it something that was

47:54

actually uplifting that had a way to

47:56

give agency. That's really what I

47:58

wanted to do in this. agency. So

48:00

that stuff was a discovery midway through to

48:02

try to frame this in a way where

48:05

you know what we are good at solving

48:07

some of these problems. We just haven't connected

48:10

the dots completely between our skill

48:12

set that we love to use and these

48:14

problems that frustrate us so much. And

48:16

if I can do anything to make

48:18

more designers feel comfortable using our

48:20

skill sets that we love to

48:22

solve the stuff that frustrates us,

48:24

that seems like a great victory.

48:26

better design in the world, happier designers,

48:29

you know, less terrible stuff that we're

48:31

forced to use, better systems of government

48:33

and public transportation, you know, that's really

48:35

what I get excited about trying to

48:37

help that. So to free up that amount of

48:39

talent and make it move from a feeling

48:41

like you're underutilized to be having more

48:43

agency, I think wasn't something I fully

48:46

understood I cared so much about until

48:48

I was midway through this book. Scott, what

48:50

are you reading or watching listening to

48:52

right now that's inspiring you? It doesn't

48:54

have to be within the realm of

48:56

design. Could be anything. I just finished,

48:58

I've always been a philosophy person

49:00

and I'm thinking of writing more

49:03

philosophy stuffs. I just finished reading

49:05

a biography about the French philosopher

49:07

Montaine. He's, you guys may know, but

49:09

he's the person who invented the word

49:11

essay basically. It meant the idea of

49:13

writing short personal things. So I

49:15

just finished reading his biography and

49:18

as a writer. and I think I do get a

49:20

lot of mileage out of reading, what

49:22

were these people's lives actually like? I

49:24

like to get past the hero part.

49:27

And I understand who this person who I

49:29

admire so much, what was their day like?

49:31

Were they like a good neighbor? Like, would

49:33

you want to go for a walk with

49:36

them? Like in reality, you know? We like

49:38

to think all these people were perfect

49:40

and wonderful. And so I just

49:42

finished reading it, and I'm still

49:45

thinking about it. this new book and all

49:47

of your other books and what you're working

49:49

on. You just wait is Design is hard.com.

49:51

All the information about this book is there

49:53

and it's on my website with all the

49:56

other stuff too. Scott Birken, thanks so

49:58

much for being on the show. Thanks. have

50:00

me. This episode was produced

50:02

by Eli Woolery and me

50:04

Aaron Walter with engineering and

50:06

production support from Brian Pake

50:09

of Pacific Audio. If you

50:11

found this episode useful we

50:13

hope that you'll leave us

50:15

a review on Apple podcast

50:18

Spotify or wherever you listen

50:20

to finer shows or simply

50:22

drop a link to the

50:24

show in your team Slack

50:26

channel. Design better podcast. It

50:29

will really help others discover

50:31

the show. Until next time.