Don’t become the butthead
Let’s talk about working with difficult people, or as I like to call them, “big ‘ol buttheads” (or “B’OBs,” TM pending). We’re surrounded by them; people who can’t see the bigger picture. They refuse to move towards the greater good. They don’t have vision. They’re reactive, shortsighted, and maybe a little incompetent? Instead of building a bigger, better future, they choose only themselves and the tiny thing in front of them. They’re uncollaborative fools so bent on their own goals they’ll destroy everything else in their wake.
This is a problem.
I have had people like that in my work environment. And what makes me incredibly angry is when those people are in charge. A B’OB’s shortsightedness infects their entire organization. And while some may prefer a butt to an actual head, those under their authority are worse for the wear.
And because of that, we need to stop them! Right?!?
You know what feels really, really good? Slamming someone with a really strong, compelling argument! The endorphins! The rush!!! Dang dude… You made them look like an idiot in front of everyone. That felt great, huh?!
But you know what all that arguing didn’t do? It didn’t change your B’OB’s mind. It didn’t disrupt the combative culture your B’OB is creating. It didn’t move your vision forward.
And do you know what the worst part is?
Your masterful argumentations and mighty slammings may have turned you yourself into a big ‘ol butt head!!!
Don’t worry. If you’ve fallen to the dark side, you’re not alone. Luke Skywalker faced his own B’OB in Return of the Jedi. When tempted by the emperor to use violence to solve his problems and strike the emperor down, Luke gave in. In that very strike, blocked by Darth Vader himself, our hero became that which he hated. Luckily for him, his failure was short lived, and eventually, he was able to redeem his father, defeat the emperor, and party with a bunch of teddy bears.
How we win
If we’re not trying to change the culture of our work environment, if we’re not trying to see the best in our coworkers and teach and equip them to be better, then we’re not doing what we should be doing.
We win by teaching, equipping, and redeeming the difficult people around us. Destruction and division may work in the short term, but eventually it will overtake and destroy us.
We need to be patient. Creating real culture change is slow and it is very, very hard. So, what do we do instead? How do we keep from confronting our B’OBs and assaulting them with their own weapons?
My struggles
I lead a design systems team. We’re a shared services team, and it’s out goal to make designer’s and engineer’s lives easier. We are here to help. We’re here to build shared tools and guidelines. Our priorities are consistency and efficiency. And the things we create allow designers to kick all the ass in their everyday work.
But I have worked with people in the past who don’t view it that way.
They don’t understand the value of a consistent design system. Instead of being a set of tools and standards, the design system is a catalogue of what feature designers have built. It has no relationship to the UI toolkits that engineers are using and can always be added to. And performing any form of due diligence or user research to validate a given component is a complete waste of time. It delays their “real work” of product feature delivery that needs to happen.
I have literally been in meetings with design leaders who have thrown fits at the mere suggestion of performing user research to validate a given component’s behavior patterns.
In situations where I’m trying to support design leaders who don’t understand the value of the design system and don’t have similar values that I have a designer, I have a pretty hard time.
And, I can get very, very frustrated.
I’m currently dealing with one of those situations. Our design system team serves a large organization with multiple design leaders. But there is one leader that I’ve recently been struggling with. This person moves fast, and executes faster. But because of that speed of execution, their organization’s work tends to be inconsistent and out of alignment with our design system. Several recent features have been blocked, because designs were handed to engineering that did not contain components in our toolkits. My team was only included after engineering blocked the work. And we suggested alternatives solutions, leveraging things that were already in our libraries.
Unfortunately, the escalation of these issues has led to a tremendous amount of drama…
Running from the Fixed Mindset
I just finished “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success” by Carol Dweck. Throughout the book, Dweck is exploring two ways of seeing the world. There is a Fixed Mindset, in which all ability, talent, and intelligence are viewed as fixed traits, inherent to your character. If your ability and performance is tied to your innate being, than effort is pointless, and the success or even critical feedback of others is a threat. God forbid you fail at something, because it demonstrates that you’re not good enough. You should stay as far away as possible from any opportunity where you might fail.
Then there is what Dweck calls a “Growth Mindset.” This is one that ties your abilities to effort and learning. You understand that you need to put in effort to improve, even it it means failing for a while. Any critical feedback you get is helpful, because it can lead to your improvement. It views learning as growing, and therefore helps you persist through difficulties and setbacks.
As I was reading this book, it struck me that the primary characteristic of a B’OB is having a fixed mindset. It’s the inability to be wrong, the unwillingness to learn, and the arrogance to refuse to change. Dweck has several examples of Fixed Mindset leaders who were too arrogant and fragile to build healthy cultures within their organizations.
One of those examples is Ken Lay, CEO and Chairman of Enron from 1985–2002.
Lay created a culture where appearing to be the smartest guy in the room was more important than growing skills. Instead of seeking honest feedback and making adjustments, they hid failures and manipulated financial reports to maintain an illusion of success. Lay surrounded himself with like-minded executives who reinforced his beliefs, rather than leaders who might have challenged him or brought in new perspectives. Employees feared admitting mistakes because the culture punished failure instead of treating it as a learning opportunity.
This all lead to horrific fraud and financial collapse. A leader with a fixed mindset may create short-term gains that eventually result in long-term failure.
In relation to my issues with this difficult, fixed mindset leader; it would be easy to be self righteous, to view this person as an enemy to be defeated. I disagree with how they’re operating and see it as shortsighted and potentially destructive to our design culture. I could lean into my arguments, put up roadblocks, and make work difficult for them. It might make me feel good.
But it wouldn’t make things better.
It wouldn’t improve our work. I wouldn’t be learning. I wouldn’t be growing as a leader. I wouldn’t be doing my job, which is to serve the rest of the design organization. So, instead of an enemy to be defeated, I’m going to lean into my growth mindset. We’re both on the same side, and if this person isn’t as helpful an ally as I’d like, then I’m going to do my best to teach them.
Here’s what I’m trying to do
Focus on what I can control.
Working with fixed mindset leaders is hard.
Over the last few weeks, drama around this leader has been very difficult. Decisions have been made that I am very frustrated by, and am afraid will severely impact the work that I’m trying to build. Mental arguments, advocating for what I believe is right have consumed far too much of my mind’s time.
I need to focus on the things that I can control, and let go of the things I can’t. And I need to do that without becoming overly anxious and angry.
In this situation I’m going to model a growth mindset by focusing on learning and improving rather than getting frustrated by the events that are happening. I’m going to control what I can control, and deliver quality results there, even if what’s happening is not what I believe to be the best for the business.
Frame suggestions in terms of results without threatening ego.
Dweck points out that fixed mindset leaders value outcomes and status. They often resist feedback, because it feels like critcism. When it comes to suggesting solutions, I’m going to frame them in terms of what this leader believes will generate their desired outcomes. I need to do that without threatening their competence. Instead of pointing out their problems, and misunderstandings, I need to shift the conversation to problem solving.
Lead with empathy.
I’m doing my best to understand that this person is under a lot of pressure. They lead a large organization, and need to deliver results. Because of that, any blocker (even if it’s due diligence and user research) is a potential threat.
And threats need to be destroyed.
I believe that if I can empathize and understand where this person is coming from, I can speak to their fears and show them a better way forward. If I’m going to win this person over, then I need to show how our design system and the work that we do will lead, not only to faster delivery, but better overall results. When we come into conflict, I’ll continue to pivot focus to faster, more effective delivery due to the value of our design system.
Be inquisitive.
Just because I disagree with some of the things this person says, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. If I want to maintain a growth mindset, then I need to view criticism as an opportunity for growth. For me, that means actively listening and trying to identify opportunities to improve.
I’ve had multiple sessions with this person’s leaders and have been asking a lot of questions. I really, really want to understand how our design system team can better serve them and their needs.
After asking a lot of questions, here are some of the things that I’m hearing:
- The design system team is viewed as a blocker. Decisions are made slowly and often proposals for change are rejected. This leads to frustration and avoidance
- Feature designers operate as messengers, bringing decisions made by product managers. Being told “no”, or “did you try this other solution” when they’re just a messenger is frustrating.
- Designers are not clear on the design system team’s priorities.
Take action.
Based off these insights, I think a major problem that has happened is that our design system team is not included early enough. Once a need for a new component, or component enhancement is identified, we need to be in the loop.
There’s two ways we can approach this:
- Approach it from the feature design side. Designers can be better educated on the importance of the design system and understand that what we’re trying to do on the design system team is create alignment between our Figma component libraries and our engineer’s UI toolkits. Designing components inconsistent with our UI toolkits means more development time, and potential accessibility and scalability issues in the future. With a better understanding of the importance of component alignment, designers will be better equipped to explore solutions and include my team when they know an update is necessary.
- Approach it from the product management side. Our product managers do not understand our design system and it’s relationship with engineering tools. Oftentimes, PMs are making the final decision on features. Without user research, designers are disempowered to take ownership. When a design has been approved by PM and they come with a system request to my team, they’re operating as messengers. Pushback from my team may be the right thing to do design system-wise, but feature designers don’t feel empowered to do anything. And moving back and forth between PM and the design system team is really frustrating. Moving forward, I’m including myself in PM design reviews. This will give me some insight into what’s being shared with PM. And I’ll be able to use it as an opportunity to educate PMs on the importance of the design system and how we can use it to create better work.
Let’s build a better design culture
We need to lead by example. We need to model a growth mindset and demonstrated how it leads to improved performance. We need to celebrate learning momentums and highlight how adjustments and feedback lead to better outcomes. We need to be empathetic, and inquisitive, even when it feels like we’re being unfairly treated. If we want to see our culture change, it needs to start with us.
Hey y’all! I’m Trip Carroll, a design leader at Cisco and aspiring cartoonist.
I write and publish a new article on design, leadership, and software development every other Monday. You can see more of my work on my website, check out my drawings on Instagram, or subscribe to my newsletter on Substack.
Let’s make work great!
