Sculpting Teams: Additive and Reductive Techniques for Design Organizations

Joseph Meersman at UXDX USA. Video: https://youtu.be/uNxxGmgIkSU

Readable transcript: edited from the recording's captions for readability (fillers and false starts removed, punctuation and section headings added). Wording is the speaker's own. Timestamps are positions in the video. Names marked [?] could not be verified against the audio.

Introduction and the story that starts it

[00:00:00] Hi everybody, how's it going? Are we getting a good glare off the top of my forehead here? Awesome. Well, welcome everybody. I'm really excited to be here, and it's kind of a tough act to follow as far as Kevin goes. We're going to have a little bit of an overlap in terms of the content that we're speaking to today, but before I get started here I just wanted to extend a hearty thank you to Rory and Catherine, who run the conference, as well as the staff in the back making all the things happen.

[00:00:45] All right, it's a little bit of a mouthful: additive and reductive techniques for design organizations. Let's go ahead and jump right in. Hi, my name is Joe Meersman. I have over 20 years of experience that spans research, design and a little bit of leadership. Like many of us, I've been part of many different organizations and been privy to being shaped, as well as been in a position to shape the orgs. And for what it's worth, I don't always put my back to the audience, but when I do, I promise it's when I have something important to say.

[00:01:28] I've been in many positions over the years. This is just a high-level snapshot of 2002 to 2003 [?]. What you'll see is organizations small, medium and large, as well as a little bit of in-house design org work and some outside consulting. I did want to take a moment to say that I'm fortunate to have led all the people that you see on this slide. They've been part of some of the lessons that I've learned over time, and they've contributed to the knowledge that I'm here to share with you all today.

[00:02:05] Just as an FYI, it's going to move pretty quick. I have about 35 slides, and I'm up here for about 22 minutes and 46, 45, 44 seconds, so bear with me as I move through things. As far as what I'm going to cover, there are really four chapters. We are right now in the opening salvo, the story time. From there I'm going to transition into the shaping with purpose segment, where I'm going to talk a little bit about what my definition of shaping is, and I'll provide a little bit of advisement. From that point forward, I'm going to go into what I'm referring to as reductive addition. I know it kind of sounds like... but again, stick with me, it's worth it. Then at the end I'm going to try to disproportionately spend a little bit more time in the thoughts and tips. I kind of peeked around the corner and saw the show of hands as far as who's been laid off and what position we're all in. So I'm more or less right on time here.

[00:03:19] As far as stories go, I'd like to take you back to a day that was pre-pandemic. January 7th was that first Monday coming off of a holiday break, where everyone's relatively plugged in, or maybe a little cranky. It was a cold day in Austin, which means it was maybe 55 degrees Fahrenheit. It was a fairly typical day: park the car, get in the elevator, get off the elevator, drop my stuff off at my desk. And I got pulled immediately into a conference room with two vice presidents that told me, "Hey, the results of that management consulting group that's been here for the last couple of months are not looking good for design. Things are going to go one of two ways, neither of which are particularly good, but we're rooting for you."

[00:04:20] I kind of didn't know what to make of that. I asked them, "Okay, about how much time do I have?" And they said, "Well, there's likely to be a resource action or a RIF coming in," anywhere from two weeks to two months, which was great. I did have a little bit of a dilemma, and I started to think about time span as well as what I was going to do. And then on January 8th, that first official Tuesday of the year, the two VPs were walked out of the building and they lost their jobs.

Shaping with purpose

[00:04:58] That put me in an odd spot, and I'm going to return back to that story at the end of the presentation. What I had to do was start shaping with purpose. I didn't know what my time span was. I didn't know exactly what I was going to do. I was running a modest-size team of about 20 designers across three countries and a whole bunch of time zones. I know many of us have been in that position. When I'm talking about shaping with purpose, I'm really talking about these four items up on screen.

[00:05:30] When I'm referencing jobs to be done, it's going to be a little bit different than what y'all likely associate with Jobs to be Done. To me it's really about understanding what the role of design is and what the KPIs of the business happen to be. It's easy to get focused on delivery and the day-to-day shipping of the pixel, but sometimes that big picture can get away from us. We want to clearly identify the goals of the business, so that not only can we deliver, but we also understand the why behind that goal, and so that if we can't hit all of those lofty goals, we have a reason and a rationale for why that's not the case.

[00:06:22] This is platitude city, right? Anytime somebody talks about KPIs or OKRs and all the TLAs, it kind of gets lost. But what I'm really advocating for is going back to your partners in the business and in development to make sure that we understand, so that we can keep our eye on the ball when maybe we have to start reshaping, downsizing, call it what you will. Outside of that, when it comes to the configuration of a design organization, it's easy to see this on a slide, but it's so much more difficult to achieve. At the senior level, what you want, given my experience, are good player-coaches that want to mentor. At the junior level, what you really want to do is bring in people that are not going to be intimidated by complexity or a difficult operating environment. We want to achieve a balance, but it is Goldilocks. If it was easy to do, we'd all be doing it very naturally.

[00:07:30] As far as asymmetry is concerned, I just want to slow things down here a little bit, because when I talk about experience, I don't mean years of experience. When you're thinking about hiring, or potentially having to address a resource action, I try to take into account the fact that not only do I want a balance of junior and senior, but that junior people can actually have a good amount of experience. A good example is for any of us that work in a CRM or a platform environment: multiple different facets of that experience can live inside of that product. If someone's only had one job or one position, but they were there for two or three years, they're going to have a good amount of depth, but they may not have a ton of breadth. And if I want to hire somebody from an agency, they're going to have that higher level of breadth, and they're going to come at things from a different angle.

[00:08:27] As far as attitude goes, nobody wants to work with Eeyore. We all have difficult days, but the last thing you want to do is bring somebody into an org that's a stick in the mud. Or if you have a stick in the mud, you do want to take the time out of your day, either as a leader or as a peer, to check in on that person and understand what's going on. When it comes to the shaping of an org, you might think about whether or not that person's a really good long-term fit. And when it comes to aptitude, I do hire on aptitude. I don't know about many of y'all here, but if a person is scrappy and really wants to get at it, that's somebody I'm going to want to do everything to keep inside of the organization, regardless of where they went to school.

[00:09:18] I could easily spend the remainder of my 15 minutes and 40, 39, 38 seconds here talking about divergence, convergence and diversity, but essentially your users are not monolithic, so your team shouldn't be. What we want to do is carefully balance the types of individuals that we bring into the org, because they're going to have a different frame of reference and they're going to solve problems differently. When I'm talking about diversity, I mean demographics, psychographics, location-based; I'm talking hard skills, soft skills. It comes down to that balance of the org and what you want to achieve.

Reductive techniques

[00:10:05] Reductive addition. I came to this phrase because, as someone with an industrial design background who enjoys sculpting part-time with my daughter, there are two essential techniques that we want to keep in mind when we're trying to build something: it's either additive or reductive. Since it's all about the outcomes to me, I did want to elaborate a little bit on what I meant by each of these items. We're in a constant organic state of expanding and contracting, just by nature of business and by nature of the organizations that we work inside of.

[00:10:48] I'm going to start at the low point and talk a little bit about some reductive techniques. This is something that I want everyone to consider: there is a value exchange that takes place between us and the places that we work. We're not just there to pay the bills. Of course we're there to pay the bills, but not solely for that purpose. As designers, as developers, as product managers, we're building a book, we're building a portfolio. Sometimes that manifests in pixels; other times that manifests in our body of experience and how we address certain scenarios that we get into. We do loan out our time. It is a gift of our time and resources, and we do benefit from that. But when it's off, it is off, and I think we've all probably been in environments or organizations where that's the case.

[00:11:48] Now, regrettable losses and non-regrettable losses sound really cold in terms of terminology, but essentially, if someone isn't a good fit for the org, that is a non-regrettable loss. We want to let them go, but we want to be happy for them. We want them to find a space where they're going to be happier, where they're going to be productive. That's the difficult conversation. The fun conversation is actually the regrettable loss. I had somebody leave an org last year that came in as part of a startup, with all the subject matter expertise you could imagine. They knew the product better than the product managers in many cases.

[00:12:32] When they left, we felt the loss, but we did celebrate it. I was really happy for this individual, because they moved up in their career. They moved out of a space that they were probably getting a little bit bored in. And the bottom point here is really important, in that we are more than our jobs. And as designers, it is a small community, so we want to make sure to treat each other with the respect that we deserve.

[00:13:02] The fun part of shaping is what I'll refer to as the grayscale radar. I don't really like rules. I'm not someone that asks for permission or forgiveness; that's just who I am. But it is really good to know what the rules are before you start to bend them. I think as designers there are some of us that want to paint within the lines, and those that are more comfortable thinking outside the box. Listen, people, it's all a gang of mixed metaphors here, but what I'm trying to tell you is you should take advantage of the situations that you're placed in, and you owe it to people that are going to experience a loss of a position to give them a running start.

[00:13:53] Yeah, record skips. If you're not sure whether or not you should type something into Slack, don't. That's a phone call. If you're worried about whether or not you should email that, don't. It's a phone call. And if you're worried about whether or not you should even place a phone call, go reach out to somebody who's a lawyer, or someone that's legal-adjacent, before you shop anything back to HR. But when I'm talking about giving people a head start, I mean pulling somebody aside, having a conversation with them, being up front. Not telling them, "Hey, it's coming tomorrow," but, "As a reminder, the economy is kind of shambly, everything's a little wobbly," or, "Hey, as you know, Boston Consulting Group is down the hall. Let's try to read the tea leaves."

Additive techniques

[00:14:42] With all those unpleasantries out of the way, I think now we can talk about the additive techniques for shaping a design organization. To me there are three scenarios. One of which is you're coming in as a leader and you're inheriting a team. My advisement there is: keep in mind it's the team, it's not my team, and you are of the team, which means you really don't want to force-fit your version of culture onto them.

[00:15:12] As far as a takeover is concerned, sometimes that just happens to us in a leadership and management position, where you'll get an email or a Slack or whatever: "Hey, congrats, you not only run product design but also the marketing design team. What's that? You don't know anything about marketing? That's cool, because it has the word design in it. Enjoy." And then of course we have these Britney Spears situations where every nine to 18 months a reorg comes around, and we just shrug our shoulders and make the best of it.

[00:15:48] Outside of that, my strong advisement around having a vision for an organization is: dear God, don't come in and flip tables and reorg tomorrow, because that creates an environment of fear. For anybody that's had a table-flipper leader, it is a fearful moment, because you don't know where you fall in that org, much less whether or not you had something to say about it. Outside of that, when it comes to the midterm, running an audit and getting to know the people is really, really important. And when it comes to that long-term vision, always be bold and optimistic, because if you ask for 12 headcount, you're more likely to get eight. So if you actually only need eight to get the job done, I might suggest asking for 14 and seeing what happens. It's all in negotiation.

[00:16:37] As far as recruitment goes, real estate has a term known as a pocket listing. That means nothing ever goes onto the MLS, the official listings. It's a whisper, it's a handshake, it's a nod. That's actually how you want to be able to bring in people that you've worked with in the past. As far as the network spike, that's a megaphone. You're going to get a larger audience and you're going to get mixed results. But per the bottom bullet point here, mind the macro and micro environment, and keep in mind that if there's a referral from someone that you work with, regardless of who they are, that is someone you call up. That's somebody you hop on a Zoom with, even if they're woefully unqualified, because you never know when you might need a favor from the person that referred them.

Thoughts and tips: do, do not, try

[00:17:28] I have a few parting thoughts here, and hopefully we can hop into some Q&A. The structure for thoughts and tips is pretty simple: do, do not, and try. The do and do not are pretty basic. As far as the try goes, this is where it's really difficult for us to practice what we preach when it comes to iterative design. But I would recommend giving a few of these things a shot, especially if you've considered them from afar but you end up painted into a corner.

[00:18:03] As far as the things that you're going to want to do when shaping an organization, regardless of whether you're adding headcount or reducing headcount: always stay humble and don't get too far ahead of yourself. We all have different management styles. I tend to run a little bit more transparently than others, but I would tell you that it is advisable to run in the open as much as you can. Focusing on outcomes is something that we should always keep in mind, and by outcomes I mean make sure to take into account, or otherwise celebrate, every little win you can, especially when the times are rough. And when the times are great, it makes it that much better.

[00:18:49] As far as things that are more strategic in nature to do, it's always important to build bridges. By that I mean not only with our good old chums in PM and development, but also in the HR org. It's good to owe somebody a favor, or look at a portfolio here and there now and again. And as far as semantics go, you do want to spend time with your HR people to understand what the right terms are to address both the hiring and the firing. You don't want to use the wrong word at the wrong moment, because then it'll make it seem like you might be privy to unfortunate times.

[00:19:36] As far as things not to do: if you're just coming into an organization as a leader and it's Monday, maybe wait until Friday to loudly proclaim that you're hiring. You want to make sure that the turf is good and that the environment is fertile ground to bring in people. I would also say that focusing on effort as opposed to outcomes is very dangerous. I don't know about anybody else in here, but I am an absolute process junkie. I love looking through portfolios. How It's Made is probably one of my favorite television programs. I can't overshare that exuberance with somebody from product management or development that just needs to get something shipped. And I also mentioned table flipping is just bad form. I don't think I need to overplay that point.

[00:20:38] As far as things to avoid doing: I've worked in enterprise software. I have been part of organizations that are growing just because they can, because design should be at a certain ratio, because of all these different reasons. But as a leader, if you can't navel-gaze and say, "We need to grow because we need to scale quality, or we need to achieve a better outcome," then maybe you should hold back and think about other areas of growth, or where other headcount can be allocated.

[00:21:11] As far as chameleoning, what I mean to say there is you want to follow corporate culture, but you don't want to contribute to negative corporate culture or the water cooler, which is really weird because we don't typically go into offices anymore. As far as oversharing is concerned, I have worked for design directors that, when they're (bless you) painted into a corner, will say, "Oh well, I'm having problems with that designer," or, "I just can't get the outcomes out of that individual." That's an awful way to lead people, and other leaders pick up on it when they do that on their own teams. So just never be a part of that, and always shrug your shoulders and say, "Yeah, we have areas to improve," because who doesn't?

[00:22:05] As far as things to try: before going on a hiring blitz, you might want to bring in a few freelancers to see whether that was just a spike in need, whether it's an acute need or a chronic need from the side of the business. You always want to source opinions, but not source solutions, as far as how you're going to build or where you need to firm up. I'm not a big fan of baby steps, so I put toddler steps in there, but essentially, when hiring or dealing with the reduction of a team, you don't want to go all in right away. You want to think about what the right next steps are going to be.

[00:22:51] As far as things you should try: if you can look at your team and say, "Wow, we're really over-indexed on UX," maybe you want to pick up a visual designer. If you don't have a researcher on your team, it's probably about time to hire one. Outside of that, I would recommend being as transparent as possible with the team in terms of resourcing. I have had many opportunities during a team meeting to say, "Okay, we're going to get headcount. Where should we allocate it?"

Back to the cliffhanger

[00:23:24] So, bringing it back tip to tail, the cliffhanger. The two VPs were walked out of the building pretty soon after the seventh, and I was in a position where I had to size up all these different scenarios. I had to think about the size of the RIF that was coming. Was it small, was it medium, was it large? What is the minimum viable design team? Just an awful term, but I had to go through those paces, because I really wasn't sure what was around the corner, and my two confidants had been exited.

[00:23:58] So I did something that exploited that gray space. Five hours a week, the design team reviewed each other's portfolios. They reviewed each other's resumes. And when they asked me why I set up those meetings, I said, "Because it's a good idea," because inarguably it is something that we want to do for each other as peers and as leaders in any capacity. But also because the economy was starting to wobble, and I wanted to make sure everybody's books were in good shape. I didn't know who was going to stay and who was going to go, which was really pertinent information.

[00:24:33] What I was able to do was truly redefine what success meant, and think about how we were going to keep delivering value, but also I owed a debt to the people that I was fortunate enough to be in a leadership position with. And it was interesting, in that I helped out everyone that I could, and that was a really good thing, because after the resource reduction, everyone found a job within a month. One person found a job by the end of the week. Not only did it feel good, but then, I was the captain of the ship, and yeah, I lost my job about two weeks after I had unfortunately had to lay off a good portion of the team. But that's a story for another time. Thank you for the gift of your time.

Q&A

[00:25:37] Host: Awesome, and thank you so much, Joe. I think one of the things that you said about building teams that reflect your users is so important. When we're thinking about designing and building products for our users out there, we want to remember that we are not solely our user. So, questions for Joe? Right there. Can you raise your hand?

[00:26:08] Joseph: Oh my God, just shout it out. Yeah, I'll repeat it back.

[00:26:46] Audience: I have a lot of friends who say that this community can be kind of siloed. [The rest of the question is inaudible.]

[00:26:58] Joseph: Sure. The question had to do with, correct me if I'm wrong here, the dynamic between the pocket listing and the network spike. Those are two tactics associated with hiring. What I mean by the pocket listing is: if you've worked with somebody in the past, and you've had a good time working with them, and you feel like the environment's right and you want to work with them again, that's when you reach out in your network. I'll say that's for a fairly specific role, or if you're not the hiring manager but you want to refer somebody. That's what I'm talking about there.

[00:27:35] The balance with the network spike is more along the lines of: if you only do one or the other, you're going to miss the boat. I wouldn't know that you're looking for work, or you're looking for work, or you up there. So to me it's a balance. And with the network spike, you don't know what you're going to get. If you work at a very small company and there isn't a lot of HR to prop you up, the network spike is going to give you a high amount of volume that's going to result in you having to do a lot of legwork to go through all the qualified candidates. Is that helpful? Let's definitely connect after I'm off the stage. I'd love to get some feedback.

[00:28:28] Host: Anyone else? Really? I have a question for you. You talked a little bit about transparency and openness. I wonder how you balance that with the other aspect of it, which could be fear generation. How do you approach that?

[00:28:49] Joseph: You mean being too open?

[00:28:52] Host: Yeah, exactly.

[00:28:55] Joseph: For me, I try to be as transparent as I can be. There are definitely times where, as a leader, we want to be more of a filter, and other times we'll be more of a sieve. I try to balance that openness with a little bit of, "Hey, I don't really know any better than anyone else as to where the macroeconomic climate is going." But I'll tell you, how can I put this: I trust in the people that have management roles that I get to work with, as far as, "When do you think we should disclose this information?" or, "Do you think it's appropriate to talk openly about X, Y and Z?" I do a little bit of sourcing there, put little feelers out. It helps me make easier-to-understand mistakes, as opposed to the big ones that leave me fumbling.

[00:30:05] Host: Yeah, I think it stays true to who you are and your own empathy for your team as well.

[00:30:08] Joseph: For better or worse, yeah, for sure.

[00:30:10] Host: Love that. Anyone else? Right here.

[00:30:21] Audience: You mentioned the portfolio reviews, which sounds like a really kind thing to do: leveraging the team's brain power to help with a potential hiring situation. But how do you introduce something like that? You mentioned saying the macroeconomic climate, et cetera, but by introducing the team reviewing each other's portfolios, aren't you telegraphing organizationally where it's potentially going, that there might be layoffs? To the point of fear generation, how do you find that balance?

[00:30:50] Joseph: Sure, it's a great question. I erred on the side of making a mistake in, how can I put this... It's been my experience that people are a bit smarter than we give them credit for. When things are starting to wobble, what I try to do is make sure that we're giving each other the gift of time, or that we're getting some of that value exchange back from the organization. The thought of people having the opportunity to put their books together during a slow time is something that we should all do.

[00:31:35] There's nothing worse than the scramble, trademark, patent pending, of "I just lost my job, I don't know how much longer I'm going to have access to the files that I've worked on." Come on, we've all dealt with that. It takes a tremendous amount of rigor to keep up with having that Google Drive that you're not supposed to have that has your work in it. Come on. Let's be honest, that is our body of work. So I want to celebrate any opportunity I can give people to do that.

[00:32:15] Host: I love that. Well, thank you so much, Joe. Another round of applause.

[00:32:20] Joseph: Thanks, everybody.