DtG #2: Stop throwing the C-word around so recklessly

In this week’s issue of DtG, I’m going to discuss the C-word. It’s very taboo, but it’s becoming more and more common in the lexicon of design leaders and recruiters the world over. That’s right, I’m talking about craft.

As design has taken on a larger, higher-profile role in product and business strategy, the concept of "high craft" has become a common talking point. It's often positioned as a key differentiator in hiring, performance reviews, and how design is valued within organizations. But there’s a problem: not everyone agrees on what "craft" actually means.

The misalignment of craft

Design hiring managers, recruiters, and C-suite leaders often have different interpretations of craft. In many cases, it’s used interchangeably with "taste"—referring primarily to the visual layer of design. A well-polished UI, a beautifully composed layout, a slick animation—these are often held up as examples of high craft.

True design craft isn’t just about making things look good—it’s about clarity, usability, hierarchy, and accessibility.

What craft really is (or at least should be)

Let me be clear: the visual layer absolutely matters. But a well-designed interface should not only be beautiful; it should also communicate effectively, and function seamlessly, within a broader system.

So whenever I think of “high craft,” I think about how designers are:

• Making informed decisions – Backing design choices with data, user insights, and business context.

• Aligning to user needs – Ensuring that every design decision serves the people using the product, not just internal preferences.

• Following design principles – Applying foundational principles to create consistency, usability, and clarity.

• Connecting the dots – Thinking beyond individual screens or moments to create a seamless end-to-end experience.

• Designing system-wide – Understanding how components, patterns, and interactions scale across a product ecosystem.

• Ensuring strong visual execution – Composition, hierarchy, and accessibility are not just aesthetic choices but key elements of great design craft.

What craft isn’t

• Just about visuals – A strong aesthetic sense is valuable, but craft isn’t just about surface-level polish; it’s about intent and execution.

• A solo pursuit – Great craft comes from collaboration, critique, and iteration, not individual genius.

• Vague and subjective – Craft isn’t an undefinable, gut-feeling quality; it’s measurable through impact, usability, and strategic alignment.

The craft delta

This gap between what craft is and what craft isn't creates challenges in hiring, evaluating talent, and how design is perceived at higher levels of an organization. If design leaders only define craft as "things that look good," they miss the deeper layers of skill that make design valuable beyond aesthetics.

Similarly, if recruiters and hiring managers prioritize portfolios filled with slick-looking screens, they risk hiring designers who may not be equipped to tackle complex design problems. A designer from Apple, for example, might have a great-looking portfolio due to the brand's exceptional design language, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they themselves excel at problem-solving beyond the surface layer.

This is why, as a hiring manager, I firmly believe that a good portfolio is as much about storytelling as it is about showcasing the output. The visuals alone might get you the interview, but be prepared to talk, a lot, about how you arrived at that end result.

Tips for identifying, measuring, and coaching craft

While “craft” can often feel subjective, there are ways, guiding principles if you like, to define, measure, and coach it effectively:

• Establish and leverage clear design principles – A shared set of principles helps align expectations across teams and ensures consistency in decision-making.

• Develop a comprehensive design language – A well-documented system of foundations, components, patterns, and guidelines provides a strong foundation for scalable, high-quality design.

• Set core competencies and expectations – I feel strongly that every design org should have a robust and well-communicated job family framework. These should define what "good craft" looks like at different levels (e.g., junior vs. senior designers) and ensure evaluations reflect these competencies.

• Use structured critique and feedback loops – Regular design reviews with a focus on decision-making, execution, and alignment with design principles help reinforce craft.

• Tie craft to impact – Measure how well-crafted designs improve usability, business outcomes, and overall user satisfaction, rather than just their visual polish.

  • During my time at Mailchimp, we actually had CSAT metrics around wayfinding, ease of use, and content. These were helpful indicators to design in how usable and helpful our product experience was.

• Encourage cross-functional collaboration – High craft comes from collaboration with product, engineering, and research, not just isolated design decisions.

It’s up to us

As design leaders, we need to be explicitly clear about what craft means in our organizations and ensure that it's defined beyond just taste. But we also need to be careful not to overcorrect; visual design is a critical part of craft, and neglecting it only weakens our ability to create impactful experiences.

The goal isn’t to move away from visuals but to elevate them alongside strategic thinking, systems design, and user advocacy. Simply put, craft is about making thoughtful, well-executed design decisions at every level.

Things I’ve been reading this week:

• The Looking Glass: The Valuable Employee Paradox by Julie Zhuo. As a people manager, one of my strongest principles is to hire people smarter than me. My job isn’t to be the quarterback—it’s to assemble and coach the best team I can. This article examines a paradox: while managers value employees who challenge them and offer better ideas, most employees believe their worth comes from simply following orders.

• Understanding is part of the job by Scott Kubie. As design gets crushed under late-stage capitalism—where designers are expected to churn out screens in the Figma factory—it’s easy to lose sight of what comes before the Figma bit: understanding. I love how Scott challenges the notion that designers need permission to engage in sense-making activities like mapping, interviewing, or diagramming. Instead, he argues that designers should take initiative in fostering understanding, even if leadership isn’t explicitly asking for it.

• System of Least Resistance by David Darnes, Design Systems WTF. A design system isn’t just something teams can adopt—it needs to be something they want to adopt. That takes planning, enablement, and a realistic approach to incremental adoption. Right now, as I lead the design system team at Thrivent, I’ve been thinking about how we can extend adoption beyond our current coverage area. This post resonated with me because it reinforces that adoption isn’t just about availability—it’s about lowering friction.

Thanks for reading this issue of Designing the Gap. Did it resonate with you? Is there anything you wanted more (or less) of? Please let me know!

Thanks,

Ben