Collaborative Design Leadership

Great decision-making is where efficiency meets inclusion. When I work with clients, I emphasize that true leadership goes beyond simply making decisions—it’s about making the right decisions in the right way. This requires a delicate balance between inclusion and efficiency, two forces that, when harmonized, create a powerful synergy. I’ve captured this in the matrix, which I use as a tool to help leaders reflect on their approach: 1️⃣ The Soloist This is a leader who operates in isolation, relying heavily on their own judgment. While this can sometimes lead to quick decisions, it often misses the mark because it lacks the richness of input that diverse perspectives provide. The Soloist may find themselves struggling with blind spots or overlooking critical factors that others might have caught. 2️⃣ The Commander Such leaders focus on efficiency, sometimes to the detriment of inclusion. This leader makes swift, decisive moves, which can be effective in certain situations but often leads to disengagement within the team. Without a sense of ownership or shared vision, the decisions of a Commander might falter in execution or lead to resistance. 3️⃣ The Consensus-Seeker It represents a leadership style that values inclusion, perhaps to the point of over-collaboration. While this approach ensures that all voices are heard, it can lead to decision paralysis, where the quest for consensus slows down the process and results in diluted outcomes. The challenge for the Consensus-Seeker is to find a way to be inclusive without sacrificing decisiveness. 4️⃣ The Collaborative Leader It is the gold standard—someone who excels at both including diverse perspectives and driving efficient, effective decisions. This leader knows that inclusion is not a box to be ticked, but a dynamic process that fuels creativity and innovation. By creating psychological safety and encouraging diverse viewpoints, the Collaborative Leader harnesses the full potential of their team, leading to decisions that are not only sound but also have strong buy-in and are well-executed. 🔎 Why does this matter? Because the success of a leader is not just measured by the decisions they make, but by HOW those decisions are made and implemented. A leader who can navigate the complex terrain of inclusion and efficiency will not only achieve better outcomes but will also cultivate a more engaged, innovative, and resilient team. 👉 👩💻 If you’re ready to explore how you can enhance your decision-making approach in your company and move towards a more inclusive and efficient leadership, let’s connect. Together, we can unlock the full potential of your leadership journey.

Had a conversation with a client recently that shifted how I think about co-design leadership. They were stuck trying to convince their team to do more co-design. The team wasn't interested, and didn't have a learning mindset. I realised: when you're trying to persuade people into co-design, you've already lost. There's a crucial difference between leadership of co-design (facilitating a co-design process) and leadership for co-design (creating the conditions that make it possible in the first place). When your team isn't ready or willing, you can't jump straight to collaborative facilitation. You need to work slowly and strategically to shift culture. Build foundational capabilities. Create small experiences that demonstrate value. Make it safe to not know everything. Sometimes the work isn't doing co-design. It's making co-design doable. I've written more about this distinction and what it means in practice, including some recommendations from this client for anyone in a similar boat: https://lnkd.in/gSkmFRzK What's your experience of getting teams ready for co-design? How do you create the conditions for collaboration when they don't yet exist?

Cross-disciplinary science teams are being asked to solve increasingly complex problems—but many of our leadership habits are still built for a simpler world. I’ve been re-reading Dr. Gemma Jiang’s 2023 paper on collaborative leadership in team science, which frames these teams as complex adaptive systems and then asks a practical question: how do we actually lead when outcomes are emergent, not predictable? The article highlights three recurring pitfalls: 1. Perpetual sensemaking with no real decisions or actions 2. Decisions made by a small inner circle without inclusive sensemaking, undermining both quality and buy‑in. 3. Rigid adherence to initial plans even as context shifts, treating the project plan as “the bible.” To move beyond these traps, Gemma brings together three conceptual frameworks that, in effect, act as lightweight operating systems for collaborative leadership: >> Theory U – Encourages teams to go “down the left side of the U” into deep, inclusive sensemaking before committing to action, linking the depth of inquiry to the quality of outcomes. >> Divergence–Convergence Double Diamond – Makes visible the oscillation between divergence and convergence in both sensemaking and action, including the inevitable “groan zone” where integrating diverse perspectives feels hard but is essential for innovation. >> Strategic Doing – Replaces long, hierarchical planning cycles with fast iterations and “pathfinder projects,” integrating thinkers and doers in short loops of sensemaking, deciding, and acting. What I find especially useful is how these frameworks shift leadership from a person to a process: distributed leadership becomes the disciplined practice of structuring conversations so that coherence, decision making, and actions continually inform one another. For those working in large, multi-institutional projects—or building innovation platforms and ecosystems—this paper offers a practical way to design the rules of engagement so that adaptive behavior can emerge without generating chaos or reverting to the rigidities of command‑and‑control practices.

Many leaders think they need to be the hero of every story. The one with all the answers. The decision-maker. The person everyone turns to. But when leaders hoard control and visibility: → Innovation slows because ideas need approval → People wait for direction instead of taking initiative → Talented people leave because they feel underutilized. I have seen that multiple times in my corporate job. The best leaders flip this completely. They create systems where: → Multiple people can solve problems → Expertise is distributed across the team → Decision-making happens at every level Here's what sets collaborative leaders apart: it's in the questions they ask: ❌ Instead of: "What should we do about this?" ✅ They ask: "What options do you see, and which one excites you most?" ❌ Instead of: "Let me handle this client meeting." ✅ They ask: "Who on the team has the best relationship with this client?" ❌ Instead of: "I need to be in every decision." ✅ They ask: "What decisions can you make without me, and what support do you need?" The goal isn't to be invisible. It's to be multiplied. When your team succeeds without you in the room, you haven't lost control. You've created something that can scale beyond you. Collaborative leaders don't disappear. They amplify. They build a team so strong that no one can point the leader. What would become possible if your team didn't need you in every decision? 🔗 Join 8,500+ leaders that get weekly visual frameworks that turn complex ideas into leadership medicine. Subscribe here: https://lnkd.in/eZ9jUrKk 🖊️ Share this with your network if it resonated. Follow Maria for creative thinking strategies and leadership frameworks

One of the most challenging transitions organizations face is the journey from inspiring vision to practical execution. As strategic direction evolves, many organizations respond with complete restructuring and radical prioritization—creating separate teams for thinking and doing. Design thinking offers a different path forward. This approach recognizes that successful execution doesn't require organizational upheaval, but rather thoughtful practices that maintain continuity throughout the entire process. Human-centered design creates bridges between visionary thinking and practical execution through practices like: Design research that uncovers not just user needs but organizational dynamics that will impact implementation. Understanding stakeholder motivations and informal power structures provides crucial context for execution planning. Collaborative prototyping that brings together visionaries and implementers early. When technical teams participate in concept development, they become stewards of the vision rather than simply executing requirements. Journey mapping the implementation process itself to surface potential barriers before they become roadblocks, helping teams anticipate decision points and organizational challenges. Yet even with these practices, something crucial often goes missing in the handoff between strategy and execution. Two roles prove particularly valuable: The organizational navigator who understands how to secure timely decisions, align with broader goals, and navigate political realities. They know not just the formal processes, but the invisible paths through which work actually gets done. The continuity keeper who holds the thread of design intent from vision through execution. As technical constraints arise, they ensure the core purpose remains intact, continuously asking: "How does this decision impact our fundamental goals?" and "Are we still solving the problem we set out to address?" When these roles disappear midway—whether through reorganization or project handoffs—the vision's essence often gets lost. Technical decisions reshape the concept without reference to its original intent. Organizations that successfully bridge vision and execution typically employ several practices: Documented design principles that articulate the non-negotiable elements in terms both strategists and implementers understand. Regular reconnection rituals that bring teams back to the fundamental purpose driving the work. Embedded design advocates within technical teams who maintain the voice of the original intent. Visual artifacts that make the vision tangible throughout execution. The transition from vision to execution isn't a handoff but a continuous journey. By applying human-centered practices and ensuring key roles maintain continuity, organizations can bring transformative concepts to life without losing their essence.

You can’t simplify your way out of complexity. Simplifying helps, but real progress comes from guiding teams through complexity, aligning people, tools, processes, and systems around clear goals. In my Glaringly Obvious conversation with Dave Gray, he explains how simple visual patterns can make messy, abstract situations something people can see, talk about, and work on together. Every problem is new, but our minds reach for metaphors and models to make sense of it. By externalizing these models, we can think more clearly and collaborate more effectively. Watch our conversation: https://lnkd.in/gjJ-SRBE It got me thinking about our recent work. We recently simplified navigation in a project, thinking it’d make things clearer. It didn’t. Users just lost their way faster. We thought we were being clever, but it turns out we just made confusion look cleaner. The real fix came when we mapped how people thought about their problems with clearer explanations. The best ideas often sit just outside what’s currently understood. You find them by moving between divergent and convergent thinking, exploring freely, then narrowing with focus. In our Helio Glare Assessment, the most common struggle I see across organizations is managing complexity. Leaders often try to simplify by cutting things out, but that can backfire. The best leaders don’t erase complexity. They make it make sense. That’s what earns real trust and influence  (If you’re a product or design leader interested in learning about your own organization, here’s the assessment: https://lnkd.in/gJKywGSp). It’s scary to stay open when the business wants speed, certainty, and results, yet openness is what brings clarity. The best product and design leads find a way to fight through the uncertainty and move people to converge on ideas that may initially be out of reach. Collecting UX metrics along the way helps you see patterns and measure progress. It turns broad exploration into focused insight, and keeps decisions grounded in real signals, not assumptions. You can’t simplify your way out of complexity, but you can lead through it. 👉 We’re building a community of product and design leaders through Helio Glare. If you care about how design creates real value, join us: https://lnkd.in/ggHXcVQZ

Most design leaders are one or the other: → Strategic thinkers who don't want to 'do the work' → Execution wizards who can't see the big picture After Microsoft, founding Dupla Studios, and working with companies like Amazon and Google, I learned: You need both. Strategy without execution is just ideas and pretty slides.  Execution without strategy is just feature factory. In my experience, the companies that win have design leaders who can: → Set the vision (strategy) → Ship the pixels (execution) → Bridge engineering and product (collaboration) 👉 Here's what people miss: The leaders who can also do the work are the ones staying current. They're not theorizing from a distance — they're in the trenches, understanding constraints and opportunities. That hands-on knowledge makes their strategy better. That's what fractional design leadership should be. Product teams — Have you worked with design leaders that could do both? How did that impact your outcomes? #DesignLeadership #ProductDesign #UXStrategy #FractionalExecutive

It’s common to think that when designers move into leadership, they stop designing. They’re no longer “on the tools.” No longer doing the “real work.” But something else is happening. They’re still designing, just with different materials. Instead of pixels, fabric or timber, they’re shaping constraints, capabilities and capacity. They’re designing how teams work, how decisions get made, what gets prioritised. Richard Buchanan’s Four Orders of Design helps make sense of this shift. By the time you reach the third and fourth order, you’re no longer focused on things. You’re working across interactions, systems and organisations. And most design leaders end up oscillating between those two. For some, the shift feels natural. For many, it’s disorienting. Because the approaches that made them strong in orders one and two don’t always cleanly transfer. Honing craft, creating artefacts, even designing services works to sharpen a particular skillset. But working in complex systems demands a different approach. That gap is where many design leaders come unstuck. And most organisations respond as if it’s a capability issue, not a systems problem. Which means the fix is often aimed at the wrong place. #DesignLeadership #StrategicDesign #SystemsDesign