Design leadership: Aftermath

This article is a reflection on “What I’m Seeing in UX Leadership Right Now” by Marina Krutchinsky. Her piece is direct, sharp, and intentionally uncomfortable. It names something many of us in design leadership roles have been feeling but not always saying out loud. What follows is not a response or a rebuttal, but a reflection shaped by my own experience, conversations with peers, and what I have been observing inside product organizations over the last few years.

The shift Marina describes does feel real. It is also quieter than most industry narratives suggest.

The question that changed

A few years ago, design leaders spent a lot of time explaining why UX mattered. We talked about user needs, usability, and long-term value. Those conversations were sometimes frustrating, but at least the premise was clear. Design was an investment that needed justification.

Lately, the question sounds different.

Instead of asking whether to invest in UX, many organizations are asking how little UX they can operate with and still move forward. That shift changes the tone of every conversation that follows. It turns design from a strategic choice into a resource problem.

When that happens, the work does not disappear, but the ground under it becomes less stable. The conversation is no longer about outcomes or quality. It is about coverage, efficiency, and cost.

And with this, design leaders' skills or actions are expected to follow exactly what a situation requires, regardless of whether they are ideal or glamorous.

This is not just about budgets. It is about who gets to shape decisions and who is expected to adapt to them.

When craft stops being the deciding factor

One of the harder ideas in Marina’s article is that craft does not protect you when teams shrink. That can feel unfair, especially for people who have spent years building their skills and standards.

What I have seen, though, is not a rejection of craft. It is something more subtle. Craft has become expected. It is assumed. In many teams, the baseline level of quality is already high enough that it no longer separates one leader from another.

When choices are hard and resources are limited, leaders look for something else. They look for clarity, judgment, and the ability to make tradeoffs visible. They look for people who reduce uncertainty rather than add to it.

In that context, excellent design work is necessary, but it is not always the reason someone stays or goes.

AI as a narrative, not the main cause

The article also challenges the idea that AI is the main reason UX roles are disappearing. That matches what I have seen. AI tools have changed how some tasks are done, especially early or repetitive work. But the larger impact has been psychological and political.

AI provides a story that makes certain decisions easier to explain. It gives leaders a way to talk about efficiency and speed, even when the underlying goal is cost reduction.

At the same time, AI highlights a divide that already existed. Tasks that focus on assembly, basic analysis, or surface-level execution are easier to automate. Work that involves judgment, context, and influence is not.

This does not mean everyone needs to become a strategist. It does mean that the parts of the job that cannot be automated are now more visible, and more important.

What organisations deserve

One of the strongest themes in Marina’s piece is the idea that the people who are staying are not better designers, but better translators. That has been true in my experience as well.

Much of senior design work today happens in conversations, not files. It happens when someone explains why a decision matters, what risk it reduces, or what tradeoff it creates. It happens when design input is framed in terms that other leaders already care about.

This kind of work can feel uncomfortable. It often feels less creative and less rewarding than making something tangible. It also tends to be invisible, especially to other designers.

But it is often the work that makes everything else possible.

Reporting lines and Power

Another point worth reflecting on is the shift in where design teams report. More teams now sit under product leadership rather than design leadership. On paper, this can look like a simple org change. In practice, it often signals a shift in power.

When design reports into product, priorities are set differently. Success is measured differently. Design leaders have less room to define what good looks like on their own terms.

Some people thrive in this environment. Others find it limiting. Either way, it requires a different kind of leadership. Influence becomes more important than authority, and alignment matters more than ownership.

From outputs to decisions

One practical idea in the article that resonates with me is the move away from tracking deliverables and toward tracking decisions. Not as a personal marketing exercise, but as a way to understand impact more clearly.

It is easy to list what we shipped. It is harder to explain what changed because of our work. The second question is usually the one leaders care about most, even if they do not ask it directly.

Over time, I have found it useful to pay attention to things like:

• which decisions were influenced by research or design input

• which risks were avoided because a concern was raised early

• which priorities shifted after a design conversation

These moments rarely show up in portfolios, but they often shape outcomes in lasting ways.

The rise of the new design leadership

Marina’s article is not comfortable to read, and it is not meant to be. It points to a version of design leadership that is less about visibility and more about usefulness. Less about craft as identity, and more about judgment as value.

I do not think this means design no longer matters. I do think it means the way design leadership shows up has changed.

For those of us who have been in the field long enough, this is not the first shift we have seen. It may not be the last. The question is not whether we agree with it, but whether we are willing to name it and respond honestly.

For me, this reflection is about understanding the game being played, even if we did not choose it. And then deciding, with open eyes, how we want to lead within it.