Worth noting you published a continuation of the ideas!
Like this framing:
The Fixed Mindset: Phrases like “That’s how we’ve always done things” are entrenched in any culture, from business to politics. They embody an uncomfortable behaviour that incites troubling problems: path fixation .
And this one is great… reminds me of the Twilight Zone!
That’s a much better and concise way of framing it 
And yes, a toolbox – choose the tools you need and update or upgrade when needed.
System of habits – James Clear, Atomic Habits – another great book.
Thanks for sharing my latest article – really appreciated!
I’m not trying to hypnotise anyone with the spiral, honest!
I like the thinking around mindset. It reminds me of a blog post I wrote awhile ago on growth mindsets:
Great design depends on a growth mindset.
It requires the willingness to learn, question assumptions, and accept that what worked yesterday might not work tomorrow. It all starts to breaks down when teams start protect their current way of thinking (let’s call it a design process) instead of staying open to change.
Path fixation is what happens when that growth mindset goes away.
Path fixation is a behaviour driven by emotion and rigid logic. It places individuals and organisations on a seemingly correct path while defying reality. This tendency thrives in environments that reward predictability and view deviation as risky, even as the chosen path itself decays.
I think this is why AI technologies are causing so many issues for teams. It’s turned all the rituals upside down, and those who get it see the problems of using it and not using it.
Nice article!
As most designers know, the more creative and forward-thinking the vision, the greater the chances of failing along the way. Thus, the really great designers not only accept, but celebrate failure as an essential part of the design process.
These lines really resonate. Embracing failure – and the uncomfortable – shifts us from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset.
I totally agree that great design depends on a growth mindset. It’s not about winning – it’s about learning and adapting. If we choose to focus only on what worked yesterday and what fits with our current way of thinking, we’re going to fall into the path fixation trap.
Individuals with a growth mindset tend to achieve more than those with a more fixed mindset because they worry less about looking smart and they put more energy into learning. They thrive on challenge and see failure as an opportunity for learning and stretching existing abilities, rather than evidence of unintelligence.
Absolutely this! That’s why research matters. We want to learn more about the environment in which our business and customers operate and how the conditions constantly change. I think this is where the term “validation” often misleads teams: it’s often treated as a checkbox exercise and even as a means to prove a pre-existing hypothesis or belief.
“We’ve tested with 5 users, job done. That will make Jakob happy. Awesome! Move on.”
“Outcomes X, Y, and Z validate our hypothesis, but let’s not review A, B, and C (because we don’t want to deviate from our current thinking).”
What we need to focus more on is invalidation, or a term that often sticks: falsification. Here, we don’t aim to verify hypotheses, but constantly seek evidence to prove a claim or idea wrong. And that happens by continuously exploring the terrain to find problems, which we can then turn into opportunities.
I think this is why AI technologies are causing so many issues for teams. It’s turned all the rituals upside down, and those who get it see the problems of using it and not using it.
Yep, we’re seeing lots of teams fall into AI-path fixation traps. When progress feels so good, they become too complacent in their abilities, and that’s when they forget, ignore, or overlook the opportunities to pause. In other words, vibe coding – vibe anything – needs some kind of pit stops.
Absolutely. This is exactly why we created the Glare assessment, to understand which levers are actually operating inside the business. Even with an evidence-based approach, if the organization is not set up to work this way, you will run straight into headwinds.
We’ve identified five areas that shape how a business creates design impact:
Assessments are really useful as a reality check. It helps confirm an individual or team’s hunch that something’s off with current optimisation methods. It also serves as a “boundary object” for collaboration.
What your dashboard demonstrates is that an external overview can give teams something different to think about – I really like that. And judging by what I see, “Path Forward” provides guidance on how to adjust course. The traffic light metrics tell you what’s happening; the Path Forward explains how to deal with them. Insightful and actionable. Nice.
These also serve as an opportunity for benchmarking. Even when teams begin to hit the greens, they need to maintain and even better, those standards. Or, even upgrade the meaning of standards as conditions change.
Loved the article @ian_batterbee! Apple is a great example here, especially with their iPhone. I don’t remember the last time a new version brought any kind of update I was truly interested in (even as a long time Apple consumer myself).
As a design agency, I’d like to think our team is pretty good at avoiding path fixation, at least in our designs, but we see it from clients all the time who don’t want to push the envelope. We try to always include at least one ‘reach’ variant in each of our design deliveries, which funny enough usually tests better than the others, but we rarely see clients actually pull the trigger on implementing these fresh new ideas.
Thanks for reading it, @MoData
I feel like I’m being a bit harsh on Apple. I’m a long-time consumer myself – I’m literally surrounded and covered by Apple kit. They’re definitely innovating, but they’ve fallen into an optimisation trap of squeezing every last bit out of their products, which may be creating more problems than solving. Take Liquid Glass. Looks nice, but full of accessibility issues.
Yeah, I get that. Clients either want to double down on a preconceived idea or play it safe by making the same tweaks. I’m all for making small adjustments. But it doesn’t matter how much you improve a product; if you’re working on the wrong problem, you’re wasting your time.
I think this demonstrates viewing the landscape not as a single path but as multiple routes. Looking through a systems lens always helps see things as a map – not just a single road that loops round.
I’m not suggesting we abandon a path entirely, but exploring problems more deeply and experimenting with other possibilities gives us a chance to pursue new growth and build resilience.
Cheers again.
Interesting analysis of Tesla’s recent earnings report. It’s difficult to comprehend these risks because the product offerings are incredibly complex. Discontinuing Model S and X to start production on robots.
Great watch! Very interesting.
Absolutely! Tom makes a key point: discomfort is growth. Tesla is more than a car brand – much more. They’re early in the robotics market, and as Tom mentioned, they’re using automobiles as a springboard for the next S-curve. It’s not that they’re going to drop automobiles entirely; they’re just scaling and branching out. But will they stretch too thin…
I think Tom downplayed energy slightly because that is the most valuable resource on the planet right now. With surging demand for AI, we’re going to need more batteries – especially in the UK as it doubles down on renewables.
Back to robotics, though, Tom made an interesting point: robots are the infrastructure, and software is the real value proposition. Let’s think about that. Printers don’t make money; ink does. Same with game consoles. Games make money and keep players invested.
Interesting point about Musk not caring too much about bad sales quarters. He’s all for the long-term. What “bad” numbers don’t tell us on the surface is what’s really happening beneath. R&D, experimentation, pursuing new paths…
And that overlaps nicely with another pattern I’m seeing. When we fixate on numbers too much, we overlook what really matters.
Do you think this is how we get companies like Huawei and Mitsubishi? They’re often made fun of for being all over the place with their product offerings, but they’re both large players across multiple industries. Seems like Tesla is headed a similar direction.
Lol, truly a great callout here @MoData!
Great question @MoData
I’m sure this will cross many people’s minds when we talk about diversifying possibilities.
Regardless of how we perceive these brands – including Tesla and Apple – it’s important to bear in mind that they’re focusing on their own strategies, short- and long-term.
Generally speaking, we have brands optimising existing technologies – following the same paths – and those working on new concepts in the background. The latter are the ones early on the diffusion curve, figuring out new market needs and gaps.
Diversifying possibilities still carries risk, but it presents new learning opportunities that can help shape the future.
