Design, as a methodology and tool for social change, has become mainstream. While this brings numerous benefits such as building empathy and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, it also carries significant drawbacks when done irresponsibly. These drawbacks include oversimplifying complex system dynamics, leading to unsustainable or unintended consequences, and, perhaps most significantly, exacerbating harm to communities underserved by current systems.

We’re terrific at designing for benefit, but terrible at designing against harm.

As a community of practice focused on decolonizing design, our work sits at the intersection of design, social impact and decolonization (see our definition of decolonization here). We devote considerable time to asking and answering some uncomfortable questions.

Think of it as a darker spin on design's favorite question: "How Might We?"

How might our work intentionally or unintentionally uphold systems of oppression?
How might we inadvertently cause harm?
How might we worsen existing situations?

We believe this critical self-reflection is necessary, particularly as the field evolves from designing ergonomic chairs to influencing justice systems.

We also believe that decolonization is only possible WITH the involvement of the people we design with—our clients, co-designers, communities, stakeholders, and participants. Design is deeply relational. Doing this work alone risks creating silos and echo chambers that replicate the same structures + systems of oppression we seek to dismantle. Hence, we also ponder:

How might we bring the people we work with along on our decolonization journey?

This series explores some of the tensions, learnings and experiments we’re working through as part of our decolonizing work.

This week in Part 1, we delve into the challenge of navigating power asymmetries with clients.

In Part 2, we’ll look at how paternalism and othering are embedded in the design processes, tools and methods we use.

In Part 3, we’ll challenge white supremacy culture.

This series does not attempt to be exhaustive. Rather, it reflects where we are in our decolonization journey.

Tension: It’s hard to hold healthy boundaries when power holds the purse strings

Indicators

Power asymmetries often hinder maintaining healthy boundaries.

Many community members recounted instances where they felt uncomfortable pushing back or refusing a client's demands, risking harm or the project's integrity.
Some took on work beyond their scope for fear of losing a significant client, while others faced challenges due to misaligned values.
A few shared stories of the courage it took to walk away, turn down work or even fire a client.

Moreover, shifting power is constrained by well-intentioned individuals oblivious to the power, positionality and privilege they hold within their organizations, communities and spheres of influence.

This might be the client or project lead (i.e. not necessarily the client entity) who lacks appropriate support or decision making power to act as an ally, advocate or thought partner.
It might also be the client or project lead who think of themselves as equal to their community partners, without understanding how power and positionality influence relationships and the work itself.

Questions WE’RE noodling on

How might we create a culture of safety where our teams and the people we design with feel safe, supported and cared for?
How might we shift power to the people we work with in a way that’s generous, kind and unconditional?

Experiments we're trying

Discussing power through small conversations, micro-moments and shared language to understand power asymmetries, align on values and set boundaries.

This might involve re-thinking how we co-develop a project “charter” or “brief”. Typically, a project charter is a tool to help design teams and clients align on things like scope, timelines, roles, responsibilities, decision making, ways of working, shared agreements etc. But why stop there?

A project charter can also be an opportunity to poke at the elephant(s) in the room - surface power asymmetries, talk about positionality and shifting power. (See here for positionality resources from community member Dr. Lesley Ann Noel)
Having an intentional project charter can make space for uncomfortable conversations with a client or project lead to ensure they are suitably equipped to be a thought partner, ally and advocate with appropriate decision making authority.
A project charter can also provide space for honest conversations around unconscious bias, unintended consequences and the importance of representation, living and lived experience.
Ultimately, it should be seen as a living document that can be iterated and updated along the way.

Practicing healthier boundaries.

Begin with baby steps - something you feel safe enough to test, and build from there. For example:

“I need processing time to reflect and digest information before making a decision. Can we revisit x tomorrow?”
“I am not available for calls before/ after x as this is quality time I spend with my family.”
“Instead of scheduling calls at times that are compatible with our work hours only, why don’t we do this async / alternate compatibility with the work hours of our community partners?”
“We firmly believe in compensating people with living and lived experience and expertise throughout the design process. This has been reflected in our proposed budget. We are happy to discuss this with you as we work together to refine project scope.”
“We need to pause to consider the unintended consequences and harms of this approach to x community. Should we continue to lead this work? Who should we partner with or who is better positioned to do so?”

Creating and using anonymous participation methods and feedback mechanisms to address power asymmetries in group dynamics.

To prevent outcomes that favor group members who hold more power, anonymous participation methods and feedback mechanisms can help level the playing field - keeping the focus on the integrity of ideas instead of the people behind them, as well as help teams and the people we design with voice dissent and disagree without fear of retaliation.
The caveat here is that these approaches are not proxies for the hard work involved in building psychological safety within a group.
As a community, we’re committed to doing this work to ensure our teams and the people we design with feel safe, supported and cared for, and this will look different for everyone.

Sticking to our scopes of practice as designers.

That being said, we also acknowledge there is privilege involved in being able to say no and turn down work.
Instead of NO, Could this be an opportunity to practice shifting power with generosity?
Can the work be re-scoped in whole or in part to better align with your scope of practice?
Can the work be parceled into smaller bits, creating space for mutual learning, learning from failure and growth?
Is there an opportunity to partner with others who know things we don’t?

Reflection

What resonates with your experiences? What diverges from your experiences? What does this bring up for you?

If you typically hold the role of client or project lead and occupy a position of power, what does this bring up for you? What experiments might you try?

Next week in Part 2, we’ll look at ways to overcome paternalism and othering while centering living and lived expertise.

In Part 3, the week after that, we’ll explore ways to overcome other elements of white supremacy culture.