Let’s make design matter and solve the biggest and most wicked problem of them all.
My friends call me “overly optimistic” but that’s because I believe that the design process can solve many if not all the problems in the world. If we believe in the value of design thinking, then we can believe that design can solve some very complex problems, and it has. However, nothing is as complicated as the divide that exists in our culture and society now. How can design help?
My background in strategic design and project management have given me the opportunity to work on branding communication and engagement systems. I have designed and operationalized the research, creative and production of strategies that have become branded packaging, messaging, and sales enablement. Systems design is being implemented for consumer messaging and engagement, but I have also seen design conversations within healthcare and law. So, the burning question is, why can’t we look at how we engage in a similar dialog with our country? The design process is scalable and when I see what’s going on in the world, I keep coming back to the same question, how can we design a system to bring people together? I know it’s the most wicked of the wicked problems, but if we don’t think ambitiously, then we’re doomed to continue down this uncomfortable path.
By definition, design is the purpose or planning the creation of a product, a service, or a system with the intention of improving the human experience with respect to a specified problem by modifying people’s behavior. When we look at the world today and strip the problems down to the core, the key to our issues is changing behaviors around learning, understanding, and context.
Problems are solved and systems are created by connecting dots together and this one is no different. Although we live in complicated times, we’re living solidly within an industrial revolution and the rapid changes in our culture and technology are aligned with past industrial revolutions. So, what can we learn from history? However, a different conversation arises as we look at how technology has changed the way we learn, engage, and behave. I have read many books and articles that have inspired connection points and curiosity towards these thoughts. Books such as Steven Johnson’s, How We Got to Here, Cass Sunstein and Reed Hastie’s book on groupthinking, Wiser, Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products, by Nir Eyal, and a countless Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan Business Management articles. Quiet, by Susan Cain and Adam Grant’s Originals, stand out because they discuss ways to engage and work with people that are not part of the expected norm. How to connect and engage different personality type is the key here.
I recently read an article that Adam Grant shared on LinkedIn titled, The Positive Power of Negative Thinking. Here he discusses two types of behavioral characteristics, strategic optimists, and defensive pessimists. This was enlightening because it connects some behavioral points and ideas together. Scientists and psychologists are beginning to look at the differences in how liberals and conservatives behave based on levels of personality, psychology, and physiology and genetics. The discussion around how to connect these points to the differences between Fox News and MSNBC or the way and liberals and conservatives learn and feel is critical in creating relevant engagement. It’s important to understand strategic optimists and defensive pessimists, negative bias and how groupthink and media effects people. How we view change, and how we connect to the fight or flight anxiety that is caused by today’s news media and social media. If you mix in education, economic levels, generational specifics and state and local governance, we can see the complexity of how we have arrived at where we are.
Connecting this understanding could potentially reveal an understanding of how to develop relevant communication to bring greater awareness of the issues that divide us. How can we better engage strategic optimists and defensive pessimists?
We need to take a deeper look at what behaviors we need to effect and change and how education, media, technology, business, and government can create the appropriate engagement system. Additional psychology, anthropology, and ethnography research would be necessary as well. Can the divide be closed if we engage with each group differently? We expect personalized experiences and how we learn the context of our world is no different. In the age of convergence, we need a system to create and effect changes in the way we learn, communicate, and come together. Otherwise, the fake news and Russian bots have won.
If we truly believe that design can create relevant, human-centered experiences for organizations to promote their brands and make money, then we need to apply these same practices to creating a better world. Designers armed with research and data, creativity, and a connection to innovation and strategy needs to be a catalyst for change.
I live in a small village, but I’m doing what I can at the local level. I am implementing a design strategy on sustainability. Grassroots movements are a step in the right direction, but it would be inspiring to see the design process scaled up to create a plan to help our country.
Is this a call to action or a cry for help? Maybe it’s a little bit of both. Most media and news organizations or the government are not supporting or promoting any strategy towards engaging the specific behavioral needs. We are seeing organizations and corporations creating purpose-driven infinitives, engagement points, and business models, but these are not linked together towards a broader designed system. Without a comprehensive top-down and bottom-up approach, the messages will eventually get lost or ignored and our groupthink failures continue to gain traction.
So, I’m asking you, the reader to think about this and to learn about design thinking and strategy and to see how a system can bring us all together to fix this wicked big problem.