We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine.

The Community Of Over 640,000

Home ›› Personal and Professional Development ›› The Leadership Leverage Points In A Design And Innovation System

The Leadership Leverage Points In A Design And Innovation System

by Rich Nadworny
4 min read
Share this post on


The insights on how leadership can make or break innovation and design projects.

I predict that a large number of design and innovation projects will start in 2023. And that a large percentage of them will not lead to significant change or any change at all. Just like it was in 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019 etc.

I predict people will point fingers: Design thinking is dead! Innovation is overrated! Understanding and empathy are frivolous luxuries!

[YAWN] Same as always. I would like to see something different in 2023, and beyond, and it has nothing to do with the design thinking process or customer-centricity or innovation. It has everything to do with the specific place of leadership in the process.

The design thinking process has some critical weak points — in most cases of failed initiatives it is these weak points that lead to project failure. But it is not in the design thinking process itself but rather at its transition points.

Here’s a simplified picture of the design process:

Stages of the design process

The first weak point in the system is, as expected, in the beginning, before any design happens. Why is that? One thing that stands out in many, if not most, design and innovation projects that I’ve been involved in, is that the staff doing the design work is not completely convinced that top leadership has their backs. They probably have heard lots of words about the need for innovation and seen a number of inspirational talks, from leaders and consultants, about the need to innovate. What they typically have not seen is leadership put their money, that is their leadership credibility, where their mouths are. They have not experienced that leadership has skin in the game to convince them that they should put their own skin in the game. How could leadership show that they are serious about the innovation and design process to convince others to follow?

For one, leaders need to create a compelling repeatable story about innovation and how it relates to the future success of the organization. An innovation or design vision. Once they’ve created and shared that story, leaders need to make sure that the next two to three levels of leadership below them can share and repeat the same story. You might call this a new oral history of the future of the organization. It must be a good story; people must see themselves as part of the story; and like all oral histories it must be easy for other people to re-tell. Let’s face it, this type of strategic storytelling mostly happens in great organizations, not in the 80% of the rest of us. Not committing to this, in my mind, is proof of lazy leadership.

For another, leaders need to be somewhat (or very) clear about the consequences of NOT buying into the story. Because people need to know that participation isn’t optional. This isn’t to say that everything needs to be heavy-handed and hierarchical — people need to figure out how they fit into this story. But if they find out that they don’t fit, or don’t want to fit, that’s okay too. Great organizations try to make sure that every employee is in their right place, even if that’s in another organization. It’s also a good way to check to make sure the future story is relevant — if everyone is opting out then there is probably a deeper problem brewing in the organization.

So, the beginning is a leadership leverage point in an innovation system: people need to know it’s worth their while to dare to design and innovate.

The next leverage point is the interface between the initial innovation and design work as it integrates into a real project, usually with a new team who was probably not very involved in the earlier work. What we see, again and again, is a resistance to implementing something new and different originating from another part of the organization. Managers and employees will act as friction to slow down or even eliminate these new initiatives if leadership doesn’t get involved and spends some political capital. At this leverage point key leaders need to be active in the interface between the two processes. Particularly leaders need to stress that the active backlog isn’t used as a sledgehammer to kneecap innovation and design projects. They need to repeat their vision but also remind people of the need for innovation and consequences of ignoring it.

This leverage point might deliver the greatest results, based on feedback we’ve received over the years. And yet it’s a place where most leaders seldom show up — they defer to the managers who often have little incentive to push forward.

So, the second leverage point is in-between the innovation and design leverage point and integrating it into production.

The last leverage point is at the end, when the new initiative has met it’s target stakeholder group as part of the organization’s services or products. Leaders need to have a realistic measurement system in place to see how well the initiative has succeeded or if it has failed. Leaders also need to implement ongoing post-mortem assessments to amplify successful practices and to change faulty ones. And then they need to share these assessments with the whole organization — to celebrate successes and failures as well as tying these back to the future vision story. They also need to act upon the results to help the people in their organizations succeed more and more, rather than simply ignore or punish people who didn’t live up to the vision.

Leadership leverage points in the innovation and design system may mean more to the success or failure of new initiatives than the brilliant insights and ideas created by energized employees. Because nothing kills energy and passion like passive or innovation-washing leaders.

In 2023, let’s help leaders succeed more by helping them to maximize the key leverage points in their innovation and design initiatives.

post authorRich Nadworny

Rich Nadworny,

Rich is an Innovation Lead at Hello Future in Sweden. Previously he was design drector and co-founder of Savvy Design Collaborative. At present, Rich works with large Swedish institutions to help build and foster cultures of design-driven innovation and human-centered ways of working.

Between 2015-2018 Rich was the Director of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Dartmouth College’s Dickey Center. He trained African entrepreneurs in the YALI program through his course Design Driven Entrepreneurship.

He has a background in digital marketing and service design through his firm Digalicious and as partner, digital strategist and creative director at the brand agency Kelliher Samets Volk.

Rich teaches human-centered design at the Royal School of Technology (KTH) in Sweden.

He was a commentator on Vermont’s National Public Radio station (VPR) between 2009-2018 and blogged at Huffington Post. He has a B.A. from Dartmouth, an M.S. from Boston University and studied design/innovation at the California College of Arts.

Ideas In Brief
  • According to the author, ,weaknesses in the design thinking process can often be traced back to leadership’s failure to support the project.
  • Leaders can maximize their impact on innovation and design by creating a compelling story, being clear about the consequences of not buying in, and implementing ongoing assessments to amplify successful practices.

Related Articles

Visualising 10 types of bias in 10 visuals.

10 Types of Cognitive Bias To Watch Out For In UX Research & Design
  • The article covers how crucial it is to address cognitive biases for navigating daily life as well as UX research and design. Our judgment and thought processes become biased, which might distort reality in accordance with our preconceived notions.
  • The author illustrates 10 examples of real-life cognitive biases and their reflection in UX research.
Share:10 Types of Cognitive Bias To Watch Out For In UX Research & Design
5 min read

More autonomy and less dependency can improve our toxic relationship with digital technologies and benefit all of us, says Alexander Steinhart.

Designers And Developers Pay More Attention To Human Autonomy
  • The majority of tech companies concentrate on attracting active users and increasing consumption. Additionally, their economic incentives conflict with our own values and aspirations as users. 
  • According to the author, we should adhere to the rules of responsible, ethical, and humane design referred to as Design for Human Autonomy.
  • There are 3 conditions to design for human autonomy:
    • The user and their interactions with others should be prioritized over their use of the digital service;
    • In the end, consumers are encouraged to navigate mainly without the software itself;
    • The app’s values are transparent, and it respects the users’ values and objectives.
Share:Designers And Developers Pay More Attention To Human Autonomy
5 min read

What if we designed anything with relationships in mind?

The Rise of Relational Design
  • The author believes that putting relationships first should be a common practice in every part of human activity.
  • The author sees a relational design as something we can anticipate in the nearest future. It can be applied in many cases – from designing cities to building any type of organization or system.
  • Relational design isn’t new in any way – the fact they are old makes them this powerful. With relationships in mind, we can start designing a new future.
Share:The Rise of Relational Design
3 min read

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and