I came across a post by Mengxi (Kara) Wang on LinkedIn that was a thought-provoking look at how corporate culture influences hiring practices and business transformation.
The first candidate spoke fluently in job description language:
“I’ve built scalable design systems in Figma, collaborated cross-functionally in agile sprints, and led end-to-end usability testing.”
It sounded impressive and perfectly aligned with the posting.
The second one explained things in plain English:
“I created a shared library that helped engineers ship faster and simplified the onboarding flow so new users stopped dropping off.”
No jargon. Just results.
When it comes to design having a seat at the table and organizational transformation, this kind of ‘hiring for the silo’ that excludes designers who express an interest in the business problem seems like an obvious symptom.
Curious what others think about hiring and symptoms of the problem?
Huh. This is super interesting. I think from an applicant standpoint, a lot of companies are using AI to sift through the loads of applications coming in, and those who tailor their resume with those buzzwords get further in the applicant process.
AND I’m surprised to hear that the buzzwords are more impactful than the results of output. I’d argue in a heartbeat the proof of results >> beats all else.
Its one of those “you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk” type bets that seems avoidable.
What’s fascinating is that this person is correct in terms of talking to executives, but these designers aren’t being hired by executives. There are levels of communication that are required, and we have to know our audience.
It’s very possible the good designer is too good for that corporate environment.
Yes! Figuring out how to map design problems is a skill that will increase the value of any design work. This goes beyond hiring and changes the focus of the discussions.
Honestly, I think the strongest teams usually need both types of candidates (if resources allow) and then it’s on us to match people with the right kinds of problems and communication contexts. In my experience, how someone talks in an interview mostly reflects how they prepared and how good they are at interviewing (not the full picture of their craft), so I put much more weight on behavioral questions, case work and collaboration signals, because you can usually teach someone to “speak business”, but it’s much harder to teach structured thinking, judgment and the ability to work well with others.
@Hanna thanks for weighing in! I agree that defining which attributes can be taught, and which we want to validate are in place up front are super important. “Speak business” is definitely something that can be taught.
Agreed @Hanna. This is where a leader can set the tone. When you build a culture that values structured thinking, it becomes much easier for people to practice the daily habits that help them learn these skills.
