Cameron Compton

Spreading the word! If you work in a design or product org with codified quality standards, would love to see how they are defined (and perhaps more importantly, the approach that was taken to define them in the first place!)

1

A design review should end with a decision, not a longer list of opinions. Early in a project, broad exploration is valuable, stakeholders need space to spot ambiguity, gaps, and risks. But once the team shifts to choosing a direction, passive reactions like “looks good” or “I’m not sure” waste time. You must explicitly state the decision required, the trade-offs at stake, and the action items that follow. For an JR stepping into leadership, that means framing the exact question before the meeting, not just presenting the screens. For a manager, it means establishing the decision owner before the room fills up. Effective reviews create momentum because everyone leaves knowing the call, the trade-off, and the next step.

3

I saw a post recently where a recruiter was frustrated that senior design leaders are being asked if they still have "hands-on IC skills." The question isn’t whether design leaders should still be “hands-on.” It’s whether they’re still close enough to the craft to see where it’s heading. Hands-on leadership isn’t about sitting in Figma. It’s about staying connected; to the tools, the process, and the people who use them. AI is transforming design. It’s changing how we work: our tools, processes, and creative flow. And it’s changing what we work on: the very experiences we create. This isn’t just a new toolset. It’s a new medium. Like the shift from print to digital. Or web to mobile. Only now, the medium itself thinks, generates, and adapts. So when someone asks if a design leader is still “hands-on,” I don’t hear “Can you push pixels?” I hear: “Do you understand where the craft is evolving? Can you lead through that change?” Because using AI as a designer is not the same as using it as a manager. Designers are exploring what this new medium can do. Managers are using it to write, plan, and refine. Both matter. But only one keeps you close to the real transformation. Being hands-on today isn’t about production. It’s about perspective. The best design leaders will stay curious, stay close, and lead from that understanding. How are you staying close to the craft while leading through AI’s impact?

21

2 Comments

Most designers say they want impact. What they really want is proof. At scale, I had to formalize proof. I once built a quarterly UX strategy using Jared Spool's Persuasive Metrics to connect design decisions to revenue. A 2% reduction in onboarding friction translated into six figures in retained revenue. That was the language the room spoke. Dashboards. Quarterly reviews. Attribution models. Impact had to be quantified before it was believed. Now I’m at a tiny startup. Last week, a customer Slacked: “Magemetrics saves me days on campaign reports.” Following the rebrand, a prospect opened the site and said: “Okay. This feels serious.” These calls felt different: less explaining, fewer objections, more trust. No attribution model. No presentation. Just behavior changing in real time. Here’s what’s different: In enterprise, proof arrives as numbers. In startups, proof shows up as decisions. Enterprise feedback arrives filtered and quarterly; startup impact is immediate. Doubt slows deals. Confidence speeds them up. Immediacy forces clarity. You take fewer performative bets. You stop optimizing for presentations. You design to remove doubt. Because you’re not defending slides — you’re shaping what happens next.

12

12 Comments