|
|
Issue 036Trojan horse, or hammer? |
|
Designers are often at the forefront of advocating for human and planet-centric outcomes in business.
We're not the only ones passionate about these issues, but our community frequently emphasises the environmental and social dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line. This is something I deeply value in our discipline's culture.
However, the reality is that many designers find themselves within organisations where senior leadership might prioritise these principles differently.
So, how can we begin to shift this dynamic?
I frequently reflect on this challenge, questioning whether my subtle strategies are the most impactful. A recent video by Peter Merholz on LinkedIn rejuvenated my belief that my preferred method remains relevant for many business contexts.
Design as a Trojan Horse
Peter illustrates the "Trojan Horse" approach. This analogy, which I've seen outlined before (and advocated to teams myself in the past), suggests that effective design leadership can become a channel through which we establish trust and influence.
By building this design-centric impact, we can then begin to subtly introduce more humanistic principles into organisations that may be lacking in this area.
|
|
Canva AI's interpretation of the Trojan Horse vs Hammer approach to organisational influence |
The Trojan horse of design can adopt various forms, but lately, linking design and business strategy has proven effective for me. Over time, I anticipate designers emerging as trusted voices, advocating for sustainable business models with heightened strategic confidence.
The Hammer
An alternative to this covert approach is the "hammer" method, where designers overtly push for human and planet-centric perspectives.
This approach can swiftly draw attention to the issues, provide a clear stance, and generate quick results.It can inspire immediate dialogue and action, potentially mobilising support from allies within the organisation and accelerating the pace of change.
Furthermore, its direct nature often brings greater transparency, ensuring everyone knows where the design team stands.
|
|
"What they think they are getting are people drawing rectangles, and with good leadership, what we can bring them is a whole host of ways of thinking, of ways of thinking, that they didn't understand they were missing"
Peter Merholz
Design Executive and Organisational Consultant
|
|
The Pitfalls
While the hammer mindset can create urgency and clarity, its direct and assertive nature can be met with resistance, especially among senior stakeholders unaccustomed or uncomfortable with abrupt challenges to established norms. I've seen this resistance slow down or even halt the desired changes.
The overt nature of the hammer approach might inadvertently polarise teams within the organisation, creating an "us versus them" dynamic. This division can hinder collaboration and reduce the effectiveness of cross-functional teams.
The Trojan horse approach, by its very nature, is stealthy and gradual. This means changes can take a long time to materialise, frustrating for those who desire immediate action.
In trying to effect change subtly, designers might find themselves making compromises, accepting projects, or endorsing decisions that don't entirely align with their values, leading to internal moral conflicts.
The subtle approach can sometimes be misinterpreted by others in the organisation. Colleagues might view the designer's actions as needing more conviction or being more transparent about their true intentions.
While both the hammer and the Trojan horse have advantages, their challenges highlight the importance of a nuanced understanding of the organisation's dynamics, the personalities involved, and the desired outcomes' urgency.
I'm intrigued to know about your experiences. Have you encountered challenges with these methods? Or have you navigated a different path altogether?
I'd love to share some of your stories in a future newsletter.
|
|
|
|
