3 concepts of how to (s)elect your future design leader
Martin Groschwald
Car Designs most connected person // Headhunting // Training & Development // Strategic and Executive Consulting for Car Design Departments // CEO at Konzepthaus
With a month that saw some top-level moves in both Ford and Jaguar/Land-Rover, some interesting observations around leadership has resulted (link here). How it is perceived? What are the results when all the dust settles?
As consultants to senior design management and above, we are often discussing leadership in various capacities. I wanted to share some of these ideas with you and start to discuss how leadership and direction within design organisations could be arranged, selected and carried out in the future. These ideas don’t necessarily have to have the intention to be implemented any time soon but should keep us thinking about the role of design leaders, what we expect from them and of course how we can all influence the importance of design within a company culture.
Concept #1 – Design Leadership in the Style of a US Presidency
As we all know, Design is often an authoritarian system which is not necessarily bad. However, this could lead to a lack of new ideas or become stale over time, if only one person is driving them. This is where the idea of a US presidency system comes in. A position that is limited to 2 continuous terms. If we would combine this thought with Chris Bangles’ Design revolution + evolution concept, we could make sure an individual leading a creative department can have a profound impact for a set amount of time. They would then also have a clear strategy to evolve for the next generation. This would also mean that risks would be easier to take by the individual as there can be a clear plan to be followed once the leader has been selected. By limiting the time in the top position, one can make sure the focus lies on the product rather than on protecting their position.
Concept #2 – Rotating Leadership and a Board of Design
The idea of a fixed leader of design has prevailed over time. But what could it look like if we let go of that idea? In many companies, there already exists a Board of Design, even though it may not be expressly named as such. Within car design we generally have a Chief Exterior, Interior, CMF, UX and Design Operations. Is a Head of Design on top of this necessary? Or could there be a system implemented that allows for a rotating leadership or spokesperson of design to represent the Board? Such a board could select their leader on a 2-year basis and then rotate. Rules of re-election could apply so that there is a guarantee for diversity. This would take away the idea of “one leader” and move to a more democratic environment with the board making the decisions.
Concept #3 – Electing Design Leadership Democratically
So now for my most radical idea. Let’s combine Concept #1 and #2: a democratically elected Design Leader. The mandate could look like Concept #1 with a term of 5 years for each team, but we would combine it with the Board of Design thought. The staff elects its department leaders. A voice for high-level non-design management can of course be included but should not be able to overrule alone. This would put a strong emphasis on not only creativity but also leadership, as well as pay attention to the input of each team member. No matter if you are a junior or a team leader, each has the same voice within the election.
I am fully aware that some of these concepts are radical and probably within current structures not possible to implement. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t challenge and generate new ideas – no matter how radical they might seem.
What do you think about each concept? Do you have other ideas you can share that can potentially lead to new leadership models within design?
We can do !
3 年Martin, for me its all about making the right decisions, raising the right questions and promoting the right teams. Democacy, monarchy all these systems have their time. In our ambiguous / complex world it gets harder and harder to find one person which is capable of all. For a creative team a autocratic leader is a desaster but for a department a strong leader could bring stability, continuity and trustworth relationships. An election to a leadership position for a certain period of time is as well very stringent system and leads in all political system to overall promises and less fulfillment. I don′t think that in our networking times the future can be directed by boards and leadership. I rather see that all people in design have to contribute, make their proposals and get a fair chance of promotion. Creativity and networking belongs to each other. We should build a system were creative design is a x-functional approach with a kind of conscious sponsorship behind. A board of directors which delivers and lives the strategic background, the brand idea, which can decide the projects, budgets and the organization necessary. They are urged to balance diversity and continuity wisely but are not bound to an hierarchical system. On the other hand you need to deliver the production programs. In time, cost and quality with annual reduced resources and budgets. Here you need a person with experience, continuity, robust x-functional contacts, backbone, who leads a stabil organization. I believe if today we re-think the car we should′t think car solely.
Professor, Dean of Transportation Design Institute
3 年Interesting thoughts here. Strong synergies between design, marketing and sales makes good sense to me. Although I may be biased, design should lead the vision;)
Design Director Ford of Europe | Design Executive | Board Member | Conceptual Thinker | Strategist | Visionair | Car-enthusiast | F1 Fan
3 年Good thoughts Martin! In my view, 1 leader is a bit of old fashion idea; especially in Global compagnies. Your link to US presidency is interesting and to built upon that further: the circumstances have changed dramatically and the leadership role in design has been expanded greatly with more emphasis on Interior Design 15-20 years ago, more concentration on Digital Design 10-15 years ago and the last 5-10 years more based Experience Design. Basically, the knowledge and skill set demand has been tripled in 20 years. My proposal would be a President and a Vice President with complementary skill sets: Strategy vs Incremental, Advanced vs Production, Exterior vs Interior, Object vs Experience, Hardware vs Software, extrovert vs introvert, diplomat vs aristocrate, traveler vs stability, politicians vs doers, male vs female etc. 1 step further is to give these 2 functions equal status to truly create a powerhouse of design. Which CEO, board of directors or Product Development leader is going to take the first bold step?
CAS modeller and product designer
3 年Nice article Martin :-) Concept 2 is nice but there is still the owner of company direction and vision. So, concept 3 has no sustainability, I think. If there is a clear and strong direction from the talented and experienced leader it is better for departments and people's work atmosphere and their motivation for best results - Concept 1(for the sureness of conservative employees). But, we know, there are still people with authority problems :-) From my point of view, Hollywood Model is still very usefull, especially in this crazy times.
Chief Designer
3 年How about a Baseball system. 3 strikes and you're out. Homeruns and winning seasons equal continued employment.