The Design Leadership Crisis

By nearly every measurable and anecdotal standard, design leadership—and, by extension, the strategic positioning of design within business—is in crisis. The year 2023 marked a turning point: Johnson & Johnson shut down its cutting-edge design office, IDEO laid off 32% of its staff, IBM and Expedia eliminated executive design roles, and design teams across industries lost access to top leadership, often being reassigned as service arms to Marketing or Product Development. Even more alarming is data highlighted in a compelling Fast Company article, “Is Design Dead?” by Mark Wilson :

“In analyzing hundreds of Fortune 500 companies… 39% had cut the top one to two levels of their design organization, downgrading the level or title of heads of design. Nine percent had eliminated half of their design team in the last year. And in 84% of all cases, design reported not to the CEO, but to a specific function (like marketing) or functional executives…”

While part of this trend stems from broader economic pressures—such as layoffs and shifting budgets toward technology investment—some responsibility lies squarely with design leadership itself. Acknowledging this gives the design community agency to reframe the narrative and take meaningful action.

The Illusion of Design-Centric Adoption

Let’s be honest: the C-suite’s initial adoption of a design-centric mindset was driven more by infatuation than a clear understanding of what design could tangibly deliver. Business leaders, perennially drawn to the next shiny object, embraced design (just as they’re now doing with AI) without establishing the organizational structures, metrics, or cultural integration needed to realize its value.

This lack of follow-through meant that design thinking became a corporate buzzword rather than a genuine transformation. Companies like IBM helped bring legitimacy, and institutions like Stanford’s d.school gave design a veneer of innovation. However few businesses defined clear mandates or success metrics to guide design’s role. Without this foundation, many failed to hire design leaders who could operationalize design in a way that clearly impacted the bottom line.

A Leadership Gap

This was a missed opportunity. Design leaders were in a prime position to bridge this gap—yet many failed to do so. Wilson’s article references insights from the “The Future Of” conference, where it became painfully clear that many design leaders still struggle to articulate design’s business value in quantifiable terms. Too often, the conversation defaults to subjective measures of “quality,” an argument that falls flat in boardrooms driven by ROI.

Let’s be blunt: in business, quality matters only when it can be tied to profit. It’s frankly astounding that some design leaders still rely primarily on quality as the rationale for investment in their teams.

A New Mandate for Design Leadership

To remain relevant, design leaders must present a compelling, business-oriented value proposition. Specifically, they need to demonstrate:

1. Cost efficiency – That design teams can reduce costs by improving productivity and delivering better outcomes than alternative resources.

2. Revenue impact – That the work design produces contributes measurably to increased profits or sales.

However, neither of these can be proven without a robust operational foundation. Design leaders who fail to invest in internal infrastructure or partner effectively with Marketing to access performance analytics will find themselves increasingly irrelevant—or worse, viewed as a cost center.

This doesn’t mean abandoning creativity or turning designers into analysts. But it does mean understanding P&L statements, engaging with creative operations experts, and building teams capable of measuring and communicating their business impact. It means stepping into a true leadership role—one that speaks the language of the C-suite while advocating for design excellence.

Adopting a “Center of Excellence” model can help reframe design teams not just as creators of artifacts, but as strategic advisors capable of driving innovation and profitability.

Industry Context Matters

It’s also important to recognize that not all design roles are created equal. Design’s function, influence, and measurable impact vary significantly across industries—from consumer goods to healthcare to enterprise tech. A one-size-fits-all approach will fail. Understanding the unique business objectives and cultural nuances of each sector is critical for tailoring design leadership appropriately.

Rebuilding the Design Ecosystem

If the “The Future Of” conference was a wake-up call, the next step is action. The design community must recommit to supporting existing nonprofit organizations like AIGA and DMI. These groups have established, if currently underutilized, infrastructure that can be leveraged to break down silos, advocate for design at scale, and provide a unified voice in business forums.

At the same time, for-profit consultancies and firms specializing in the business of design can provide operational and strategic support. Design leaders should not be afraid to seek their guidance.

In Conclusion

If design leaders fail to evolve—failing to embrace operational discipline, cross-functional collaboration, and business fluency—they risk being sidelined permanently. The consequences won’t just affect individuals, but the entire design profession. The time to course-correct is now. The opportunity still exists—but only if the design community takes decisive action before it’s too late.