Why does UX design often feel like an afterthought in some organizations, even when everyone agrees it’s valuable?
Designers are naturally positioned to substantially impact the products they work on and, by extension, the business, shaping what gets built, how it’s built, and why. However, many of the most important decisions happen upstream, with design often treated as an afterthought or not considered relevant at this stage. This scenario isn’t necessarily intentional.
It’s about power structures.
Not in a cynical or conspiratorial sense, but in how all systems behave: they settle. Over time, roles, rituals, and reporting lines harden. They become self-reinforcing, often without anyone noticing. Once those structures are in place, it becomes very difficult to shift influence, even when the intent is there.
As a result, these self-reinforcing structures create the same recurring challenges for designers, keeping them stuck in tactical roles rather than strategic ones.
Many organizations still see designers as people who create screens and are good at using a tool (Figma), rather than valuable problem-solvers who shape what to build and how to build it. Even though screens are an output of the problem-solving process, not the main feature, much like a photo is the outcome of a photographer’s creative judgment and perspective, not just their camera skills.
The high cost of sidelining design
This isn’t just frustrating for designers: it’s a huge value loss for businesses, which pay for top talent but only tap into a fraction of their potential.
In the worst cases, this lack of utilization leads organizations to question the value of design altogether, reinforcing the misconception that designers aren’t effective or strategic, without ever giving the design practice a real chance.
Designers are often the last to be included in problem definition, if they’re included at all. Despite being some of the most knowledgeable people in the room about the user, the business, and the product, they’re frequently brought in only after the strategy is set and the roadmap is locked. This leads to a range of familiar frustrations.
Frustrations include being treated as decorators or screen creators, asked to “make it look good” after the core decisions have already been made, and reducing design to a final layer of polish. They’re brought in too late to share early insights about user behavior and pain points, missing the chance to shape the problem before solutions are locked in.
Critical decisions about priorities, trade-offs, and product direction are often made without their input, leading to missed opportunities and a poorer product experience.
Other common frustrations include being handed fully formed ideas with little room for creative exploration, leading to rushed, reactive work. When design is measured primarily by visual appeal or speed, it misses the chance to impact user outcomes and business goals.
This isn’t just frustrating for designers. It’s a structural problem that prevents organizations from reaping the full benefits of design.
As a relatively new discipline in the corporate world, design is often grafted onto systems that were never built to include it at the center. So, despite all the talk about “user-centricity,” designers usually find themselves downstream from real decisions.
It’s not necessarily personal. It’s structural. And that’s exactly why it’s so persistent. For organizations to be truly successful, they need to address this issue at its root.
It’s not just about individual roles or communication styles. It’s about the deeper, often invisible dynamics that shape decisions—how power structures form, settle, and reinforce themselves over time. Once in place, these structures quietly but powerfully dictate who has influence, who gets heard, and who is left out.
Here are six of the most persistent structural challenges that keep design on the sidelines:
1 / Power structures settle and self-reinforce
Organizations don’t just wake up one day and decide where power will reside. Structures emerge slowly, shaped by leadership, urgency, habit, and early decisions made under pressure. Over time, these structures settle. And once they do, they tend to stay put.
Systems don’t just behave this way; they settle into this.
What begins as a practical shortcut, like shipping fast without design input, becomes the norm. PMs and engineers are hired early, build the foundations, and define how decisions are made. Many key dynamics, team shape, road mapping cadence, and success metrics are locked in when design shows up.
That’s why having design leadership at the top from the start matters. When there’s no senior design voice at the table early on, the function lacks the visibility and leverage to shape the organization's growth. Design becomes a layer added onto a structure that was never built to include it as a core driver. And once that structure is in place, design is often asked to adapt to it, not vice versa.
So even when a company says it wants to elevate design, the system it’s built on doesn’t naturally allow for it. And when that system treats design as a service layer instead of a strategic partner, change is slow and uneven.
But it’s not just about where power lands, it’s also about how those early decisions create a path that’s hard to deviate from, even when better options emerge later. This is what systems thinkers call path dependence.
2 / Path dependence: the system is already set
In systems theory and economics, there’s a concept called path dependence. It explains how early decisions, often made quickly, out of necessity, can shape a system’s long-term direction. Once a path is taken, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse, even if better options appear later.
In tech and product teams, that path is often set early: hire engineers, then PMs, then maybe a designer, if there’s budget left. Who’s in the room during those formative moments becomes the default core team. Their tools, rituals, priorities, and ways of working solidify over time.
When added later, design tends to be positioned as a support function, brought in to help execute, refine, or polish. By that point, the system is already shaped. The roadmap is owned elsewhere. Decisions are made without design input. The idea of looping in UX “earlier” sounds good, but rarely sticks.
Once that structure is in place, it’s incredibly difficult to shift without deliberate rethinking at the organizational level. This is not because people are resistant, but because the system is simply doing what it was built to do.
This is the quiet challenge of design maturity: not proving that design matters, but trying to influence a system that wasn’t built with design in mind.
3 / Institutional inertia: Organizations resist change
Change doesn’t come easily, even when people agree that design should be more involved. That’s because organizations, like all systems, tend to preserve what already exists.
Over time, rituals take hold, how roadmaps are made, who signs off on what, which meetings matter, and which don’t. Policies form, reporting lines solidify, and unspoken norms emerge. All of this subtly reinforces the original power dynamic.
So when someone says, “We want to lead with design,” they may genuinely mean it. However, the structure often makes that promise hard to fulfill. Designers might be invited to a meeting here or there, but they’re not included where the actual decisions happen, upstream, before options are locked in.
This isn’t necessarily about bad actors. It’s about inertia.
The organization keeps moving in the direction it already knows, even if that path quietly sidelines UX. Without a structural shift, design remains peripheral, not by choice, but by the inertia of the system.
4 / Statements vs. reality: the user-centric paradox
You’ve probably heard it before:
“We’re user-centric.”
It sounds great. It’s often printed in onboarding decks, company values, and product briefs. But then the roadmap gets locked before research begins. Major decisions are made in rooms where no designers are present. The user shows up in the slide deck, but not in the strategy.
This is the paradox: design is praised in principle, but sidelined in practice.
And again, it’s not because people are hostile to UX. It’s structural. A company can say all the right things about design, but if the system still routes power through product and engineering, nothing really changes.
That’s the tension many designers feel daily: valued but not empowered, trusted but not consulted, and design having a seat but not a voice. Over time, that gap between language and action becomes a source of quiet disillusionment.
Being “user-centric” isn’t about intention. It’s about structure. And unless that structure shifts, the language is just branding.
5 / Legitimacy and who defines value
Power influences what gets done and determines what counts.
In most organizations, the groups that hold power also define success metrics. If the dominant lens is product or engineering, success is often framed in terms of velocity, throughput, and revenue. Those are legitimate forms of value that get reported, celebrated, and resourced.
Design might influence all those things, but rarely in a straight line. Its impact is often indirect: improved comprehension, lower support tickets, stronger trust, smoother adoption. All of these are valuable, but they don’t always fit neatly into the success language shaped by others.
So even when design delivers results, those results are filtered through someone else’s framework. A simplified onboarding flow might reduce churn, but unless the system recognizes that as meaningful, the design team stays invisible.
Legitimacy is power. And until design helps redefine what value means inside the system, its contributions will always feel a little out of sync with the conversation.
6 / The uphill push designers feel
Designers often feel like they’re constantly advocating, explaining, and justifying, trying to prove their value in rooms that weren’t built for them. Even when they succeed, the recognition can feel partial or misaligned. The work is framed as “nice to have,” even when critical to the outcome.
If you feel like you’re pushing uphill, it’s because you are.
That’s because the system wasn’t designed with design in mind. The levers of influence, timelines, metrics, and authority are still calibrated for other disciplines. So design operates with a kind of structural friction: always valuable, but never quite fully aligned with how the organization moves.
This scenario is frustrating and disempowering, especially if you don’t realize what you’re up against. The push makes more sense once you understand you’re working within a settled system. And more importantly, it becomes easier to see where change might begin.
What can be done
If the challenge is structural, the solution has to be structural too.
It’s not just about advocating for design as a function but also embedding it as a strategic driver that shapes how organizations make decisions.
Start by framing design work in strategic terms. Understand what the business values. Connect design outcomes to metrics that matter, like retention, adoption, conversion, and operational efficiency. Show not just what you made, but the impact it had. Only then can design become a truly integrated part of the organization’s structure.
Build alliances with those in power, partner with product leaders, engineers, and marketers, and help them win with design, not just by helping with visuals and prototypes but also by framing problems, testing ideas, and shaping solutions that drive real outcomes.
Most importantly, help redefine what your organization sees as valuable. That might mean pushing for new success metrics, creating visibility for work that improves quality, not just speed, and making the case for a design leader with real decision-making authority.
Reframe the mission
The goal isn’t just to raise awareness of design, it’s to evolve the system so that design becomes part of making better decisions by default.
When design is structurally embedded, it changes how organizations think, decide, and serve their users. It shifts the focus from outputs to outcomes.
That kind of change doesn’t happen overnight. It requires patience, persistence, and a clear-eyed view of the system you’re working within. It means recognizing that the path forward isn’t just about individual influence, but evolving the environment.
Design at the core: what it takes
A truly design-led organization integrates design as a strategic function. This means embedding design into the very fabric of decision-making, rather than treating it as an add-on. Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Design is structurally embedded
- Design has a voice at the highest levels, shaping strategy and decisions.
- Design is a core function, with dedicated resources, budget, and authority.
- User insights guide both strategy and execution, not just surface tweaks.
Collaboration is built into the process
- Designers, PMs, and engineers initially align on goals and priorities.
- Prototyping, testing, and iteration are core practices, not final steps.
- Design is included in problem definition and decision-making.
Design is part of the culture
- Design’s value is reinforced through hiring, promotions, and internal storytelling.
- Design outcomes are framed in business terms, creating shared understanding.
- Design is a competitive advantage, directly linked to customer loyalty and long-term success.
By aiming for this model, organizations make design more influential and create a more robust, human-centered decision-making process that ultimately leads to better business outcomes and higher user satisfaction.
The benefits of building a design-inclusive organization
Some of the world’s most successful companies have fully integrated design into their strategy and operations. Apple’s high design standards and focus on intuitive, beautiful products have set industry standards and created a devoted customer base. Airbnb credits design as a core driver of its success, embedding design thinking into everything from digital interfaces to host tools. Stripe has built its brand around beautifully designed developer tools, making complex financial processes more accessible. Even Netflix, known for its data-driven approach, relies heavily on design to create personalized, engaging user experiences.
These companies don’t use design as just for aesthetic value; they leverage it as a strategic advantage, creating great product experiences that set them apart and improve the bottom line.
When used properly, design is a strategic advantage that drives better outcomes across the entire business. By integrating design into every stage of decision-making, companies see benefits that extend far beyond the product itself.
Here’s why a design-inclusive approach pays off
Better products and experiences
- Align products more closely with real user needs, reducing costly pivots.
- Identify root causes faster and innovate more effectively.
- Create more intuitive, enjoyable, and trusted products.
- Deliver solutions that solve real problems and resonate with real users.
Stronger teams and collaboration
- Reduce friction and drive shared goals through cross-functional alignment.
- Increase designer satisfaction, reducing burnout and turnover.
- Build resilient teams that adapt quickly to change and uncertainty.
- Foster collaboration, curiosity, and empathy throughout the organization.
Better business outcomes
- Outperform competitors on revenue, market share, and CLV.
- Build brand equity and loyalty by treating design as a competitive advantage.
- Focus on meaningful problems, not just tactical execution.
- Improve efficiency, reduce costs, and strengthen brand value.
Greater innovation and agility
- Continuous innovation through rapid prototyping and iterative improvement.
- Respond to changing markets and uncover new opportunities faster.
- Reduce risk and time-to-market via early testing and user feedback.
Inclusive collaboration models
Ultimately, creating a design-led organization depends on how teams collaborate and who’s included in the conversation at the beginning. Here are some ways of working that can make design a core part of decision-making.
Early involvement
- Align PMs, design, and tech leads on problems and outcomes from the start.
- Co-create roadmaps that balance potential solutions with technical constraints and strategic priorities.
- Share research responsibilities early to define critical questions and guide discovery.
Co-creation and participatory design
- Involve stakeholders directly in the design process.
- Run cross-functional workshops to gather insights and generate ideas collaboratively.
- Leverage collective intelligence to ground solutions in real needs.
Continuous collaboration
- Frame problems around user needs to uncover deeper insights.
- Include design in prioritization, decision-making, and ongoing alignment.
- Use cross-functional critiques to keep teams aligned and informed.
Bring design to the center
If the problem is structural, the solution has to be, too. It’s not just about inviting design to more meetings, but rethinking how decisions are made, where influence sits, and what success looks like.
This means moving beyond outputs to focus on outcomes, embedding design as a core function, not just a support role, and building cultures where design isn’t just consulted but integrated into the organization’s foundation.
This kind of change is slow, often uncomfortable, and sometimes invisible. But it’s the kind of work that makes everything else better.
