Modern design leadership has evolved significantly, shifting from traditional industrial design to user experience-focused approaches. Companies are moving away from long-term strategic planning toward agile, results driven methodologies. This article explores how today's designers must balance aesthetic appeal with functional usability, embracing universal design principles and environmental sustainability. Understanding business contexts and adapting to diverse organizational cultures has become essential for design professionals. The integration of artificial intelligence presents both opportunities and challenges, positioning AI as a supportive tool rather than a designer replacement. This transformation reflects design's expanding influence on how people live, work, and connect in our technology-driven world.

‍

Loft: Over the past few decades, we saw Design rise to prominence, driven by the influence of figures like Jonathan Ive, the groundbreaking work of consultancies and the growth of strong in-house teams at companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Philips. Many of these organizations even created C-suite roles like Chief Design Officer, often hiring from top consultancies. But recently, there’s been a noticeable shift. Many large organizations have dismantled their centralized design functions, moved Design into business units, or eliminated Design leadership. The phrase “Design is dead” is even making the rounds on social media.

You’ve worked across both consultancies and corporations and seen this arc firsthand. So what happened? Why has Design lost its seat at the table in so many organizations, and how can it reclaim a more strategic role, one that goes beyond short-term financial priorities and enables long-term thinking across the business?

‍

Carly Price: In the 25 years I’ve been working, Design has continuously evolved. What we’re seeing now feels like just another phase in that ongoing evolution. When I began my career in the 90s, UX was just emerging. Back then, industrial design was a much larger field. Now, ID has contracted significantly while UX has grown tremendously in scale and influence.

I attended Config in May, and was blown away by the scale of the event. The sheer number of people in attendance shows how much the design profession has shifted and grown, particularly in tech. As technology companies scaled, many began building in-house design teams. We also saw a shift when many of our clients started developing internal capabilities. Design became essential to the business, and companies wanted to own it rather than outsource it.

So when I see headlines claiming “Design is dead,” I don’t buy it. These narratives tend to be exaggerated and clickbait-driven. In reality, we’re seeing reductions across the board, not just in Design. Product teams and other adjacent functions are impacted too. Companies are making tough decisions, often driven by broader investments in AI or economic uncertainty. This isn’t a backlash against Design specifically; it’s a reflection of shifting priorities. As AI disrupts many sectors and economic conditions tighten, tariffs, inflation, you name it, Design, like everything else, is adjusting. But I believe we’ll come through it. Design is resilient. We adapt, and will always have a critical role in leadership, shaping better products, experiences, and systems.

‍

Design is resilient. We adapt, and will always have a critical role in leadership, shaping better products, experiences, and systems

‍

Loft: You’ve been a Design leader for a long time. What tools, approaches, or strategies have you found effective when working with executives? How do you successfully elevate the Design narrative in leadership conversations and make it resonate at the strategic level?

‍

Carly Price: What drew me to a career in design is its direct connection to solving problems within a business context. From early on, I realized that design is not simply about aesthetics, it is about understanding what people need and what businesses are looking to achieve. As a young designer, I learned this firsthand by sitting in client meetings and focus groups, observing how consumers responded to our work, and how clients reacted to their feedback. It became clear that success wasn’t just about having a great idea, but about understanding what was feasible, viable, and desirable.

Designers can be most effective when we work collaboratively, not in isolation, but as part of a team that includes business, product and engineering. We have to ask: What does the customer really need, and what are we trying to achieve as an organization?

To connect and resonate with executives, it’s important to focus on the “why" behind the design: the business lens, the customer need, the problem we’re addressing and how the proposed solutions will benefit the user and the business. That requires design leaders to be familiar with the success metrics, and able to clearly articulate why the proposed solution addresses a defined user need or pain point.

‍

Loft: Using design as a solution space for commerce. I'd love to dig deeper into that. Many designers have sometimes struggled with the commercial side of Design, holding onto the idea that Design as pure creative expression should be on a higher pedestal.

But that can also lead to the perception, especially from leadership, that Design lives in an “Ivory Tower” and isn’t solving real business problems. How do you reconcile the role of designers as both a driver of business value and a creative discipline? And how do you navigate the risk that if a Design solution isn’t commercially successful, its value might be dismissed altogether?

‍

Carly Price: Design culture has to be understood in context. I learned about Bang & Olufsen and their approach in school. They were known for a very specific design philosophy, where designers set the vision and engineers figured out how to make it work. In that world, the focus was purity of form, creating something ideal and beautiful, even if it was difficult or expensive to manufacture. That’s a very different context from designing everyday commercial products meant for mass production. I have not found the “Ivory Tower” of design as a form of creative expression to be an effective approach for everyday products.

One of the amazing things about working in Design is that you get to solve problems across such a wide spectrum. My friends at Group Project won a competition to redesign the New York City trash can. Their solution was thoughtful and elegant, and it also had to be durable, affordable, and practical for an urban environment. Beauty alone wouldn’t have been enough. The same principle applies in UX. You can design a visually stunning graphic interface, but if it's not intuitive to use or doesn’t help the user complete their task, especially in areas like e-commerce or automotive, it fails. The pure beauty of the design matters less than whether it works, addresses the problem, and truly meets the needs of the user.

‍

The pure beauty of the design matters less than whether it works, addresses the problem, and truly meets the needs of the user

‍

Loft: Since you worked at Ford, let’s focus on automotive specifically - not Mobility - because it’s such an emotionally charged product category. People form deep, often subconscious bonds with their vehicles, and sometimes they can’t even articulate why. As designers, that presents a real challenge. On one hand, we’re working within highly cost-constrained environments where manufacturability, efficiency, and yield are critical. On the other hand, we know that purchasing decisions in this space are often driven by emotion. How the car feels, how it looks, how it makes someone feel. The real nuance is in balancing those two forces. When that emotional experience is compromised, when a vehicle feels generic or uninspired, it often fails in the market, regardless of how well it performs technically or financially. So, as designers, we have to find a way to deliver emotional resonance without sacrificing the practical realities of production.

‍

Carly Price: True! There was a time when cars evoked real excitement and identity, but that seems to have faded for Millennials and Gen Z. There’s a clear shift away from the more expressive forms and iconic, emotionally resonant vehicles we used to see. My two sons appreciate cars, but they don’t have the same level of passion or emotional connection that we feel in Gen X. When you drive down the highway today, most cars are similar forms in shades of gray, taupe, white, or black.

‍

Loft: Are you suggesting it’s a generational shift? We have lost a generation of emotionally driven design buyers?

‍

Carly Price: I think it reflects the realities of designing for a broader audience. Take Porsche, a brand known for sports cars with emotive design and finely tuned details. As a business, Porsche would not have survived without introducing models like the Cayenne or Macan. That shift shows how even brands built on emotional appeal have to adapt to market demands and broaden their offerings to remain commercially viable. It’s a balance between preserving that emotional core and sustaining a business long-term.

One thing that really interests me about the intersection of business and design is this tension between creative purity and commercial viability. I grew up in an agency environment where we strived to create the most beautiful, uncompromised designs, sometimes resisting client input in the name of design integrity. But if there is no market willing to buy what we’re creating, those products become art, not real solutions. It’s similar to what we’ve seen with Porsche. I have friends who really dislike the direction the company took with models like the Cayenne, but it was a trade-off. From a business perspective, it makes no sense to cling to purity at the cost of viability. You have to evolve. Otherwise, you're just designing for an ideal, not for product-market fit.

‍

From a business perspective, it makes no sense to cling to purity at the cost of viability. You have to evolve. Otherwise, you're just designing for an ideal, not for product-market fit

‍

Loft: You’ve worked across a wide range of companies: Walmart, Ford, IDEO, Smart Design, Casper. How did you adapt your design and leadership toolkit to succeed in such diverse settings? What’s your “secret sauce” for making an impact across such different cultures and business models?

‍

Carly Price: There are some core principles I’ve carried with me to every company I’ve worked for, but the process and culture are never the same across organizations. Success often comes down to understanding the specific environment you’re in, adapting to it, and figuring out how to make your work and your career thrive within that context.

Working in-house at larger companies has been especially interesting because it’s more about understanding how decisions actually get made, who holds influence, how things move forward, and what success looks like in that specific culture.

Designers who want a seat at the table need to learn the language of the business they’re in. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer for how to “be strategic,” you need to understand what drives decision making in that environment. In some companies, it's all about testing in the digital space, shipping quickly, and scaling based on user feedback. In others, you need executive buy-in before you move forward. The metrics that matter, the stakeholders that influence outcomes, all of that varies. The key is to stay grounded in your craft while being flexible enough to align with the business realities around you — and ultimately, aligning with your colleagues on what problem you’re working to solve, and the approach to the solution.

‍

Loft: Learning how institutional decision-making works in business seems like it became important in your journey. Did you pursue your MBA while you were at Ford? And if so, was it part of a long-term plan, or did you decide to do it because you wanted to deepen your understanding of business?

‍

Carly Price: Earning an MBA was something I had aspired to for many years. There were points earlier in my career when I really wanted to pursue it, but it wasn’t feasible due to financial constraints, life stage, or proximity to a university. Eventually, everything aligned when I was living in the Bay Area and working for Ford, where my manager supported my pursuit of the degree. Ford provided the flexibility to attend school while working full-time, which made it possible.

I absolutely loved the experience. It reinforced so much of what I had learned through years of working in different environments, at Smart, IDEO, and in-house with a variety of clients and businesses. I had a strong business intuition, but it was mostly tacit knowledge. Business school gave me a more formal foundation. I had never taken economics, statistics, or marketing classes before. Learning those frameworks really helped me understand how decisions are made, especially around data and finance. Accounting, in particular, was eye-opening. Being able to read financial statements and fully grasp what’s being discussed in quarterly results meetings gave me a whole new level of confidence and fluency.

For me, the MBA wasn’t about making a hard pivot; it was about deepening my understanding, rounding out my skills, and continuing to grow as a lifelong learner.

‍

Loft: That’s fascinating. Have you found yourself actively using your MBA toolkit in your work since completing the program?

‍

Carly Price: Yes, absolutely. As I’ve moved through different companies, the MBA has helped me become a more informed and strategic version of myself. It’s allowed me to engage more confidently in conversations and to show up as a peer when working across business, engineering, and product teams.

Designers are at their best when they can contribute meaningfully to strategic discussions, not simply execute on someone else’s vision. Part of the insecurity we're seeing in the design profession today stems from the fact that, in some organizations, designers have been reduced to order takers. Product or business leads decide what needs to be built, and designers are simply asked to visualize it. But when designers are involved earlier, as true partners in defining the problem and shaping the solution, design becomes much more powerful. Design is not simply how things look; it’s how things work. And to have that level of impact, designers need to be active participants in the dialogue, demonstrating their value in strategic decisions, not just in execution.

‍

Design is not simply how things look; it’s how things work. And to have that level of impact, designers need to be active participants in the dialogue

Loft: That leads perfectly into my next question about toolkits, because it's not just the design industry, but many functions across organizations that are now at a crossroads with AI. The ways we use data science, engineering, and even how we conduct research are being fundamentally reshaped by AI. And beyond just being users of AI, we’re starting to see AI itself become a product, a differentiator embedded in everything from car navigation systems to battery performance. I’d love to hear how you've approached integrating AI into your organizations. What’s worked well? What best practices have you seen emerge? And ultimately, how have these technologies influenced your perspective on design and design leadership?

‍

Carly Price: I tend to think about AI in design through three lenses.

First, there are a growing number of AI-powered experiences we’re designing for. In the software space, whether through large language models or machine learning, AI enables us to personalize experiences in ways that weren’t possible before. We can now understand users on a more individual level and surface next-best actions or recommendations tailored specifically to them. Instead of delivering the same experience to everyone, every step of the journey can be personalized.

Second, AI can streamline everyday workflows for everyone, not just designers, to speed up everyday tasks such as synthesizing notes from a meeting, drafting correspondence, or conducting desk research. This can save time, so you can focus on work that requires focus, deep thought and creativity. The key is knowing which AI tool is best for which task and learning how to use it effectively.

Third, AI is taking on pieces of the design process itself. Some tools now generate and code basic user flows based on prompts. I’ve experimented with several of them and read what other designers are saying. From what I’ve experienced, these tools are still fairly limited — they tend to produce derivative solutions based on existing patterns. For example, if you ask AI to create a shopping flow, you’ll likely get something boilerplate. It’s functional, but it lacks originality or brand specificity. In Industrial Design, tools like Midjourney are being used to accelerate concept visualization. Designers use them to quickly generate ideas rather than spend hours sketching. These tools don’t replace the designer’s expertise, creativity, or intuition, they just help move the process along.

I view AI as another tool in our evolving toolkit. Throughout my career, dozens of tools that have come and gone, whether it was early 3D CAD software in design school, or programs like Ashlar Vellum for drafting, or transitioning through UX tools from Sketch to InVision to Figma. Tools change. The designer’s role remains.

I believe there’s a growing conflation between tool proficiency and design quality. Being great at Figma doesn’t make someone a great designer; it’s just one part of the job. Designers need to be capable of creating, envisioning, and articulating ideas. Design is about problem-solving and creating meaningful experiences, not about mastering any one platform. If designers are worried about being replaced by AI, I’d encourage them to zoom out and ask: Is your value based solely on the ability to use a tool, or to think critically and creatively? That’s where the lasting value lies, and that’s where AI, for now, simply can’t compete.

‍

Being great at Figma doesn’t make someone a great designer; it’s just one part of the job.

‍

Loft: With the rise of AI tools, have you found yourself rethinking how many people you need to hire, or the kinds of roles you bring in? For example, I spoke to a lawyer who used to hire a large number of entry-level associates. Now, with AI assisting in legal research and drafting, they’ve cut back and only hired a few more experienced lawyers. But when I asked, “Where is your next generation of leadership coming from?” They paused and said, “Good point.” So I’m curious—how has AI changed your approach to hiring, team development, and building future leaders in design?

‍

Carly Price: Yes, I feel the same way, and it’s a really important point. Reflecting on my early days as an industrial designer, the learning process felt very much like an apprenticeship. Before 3D CAD was widely available, we spent a lot of time in the model shop carving forms by hand. That hands-on work taught us how to develop an eye for proportion, detail, and craft.

If I draw a parallel to UX today, many early-career designers are doing the detailed production work, mapping flows, documenting edge cases, annotating for accessibility, so engineering teams can implement with precision. But increasingly, that kind of production work can be automated by AI.

My concern is that if we offload too much of that to AI, we may miss a critical stage in how designers learn the craft. Just like in industrial design, when Rhino and 3D printing became more prevalent, fewer people worked in the model shop. There was a drop-off in hands-on skills and a kind of lost art in form development. That shift coincided with the rise of UX and digital tools, which further changed the trajectory of industrial design as a profession.

So yes, I worry that if early-career designers don’t have opportunities to build those foundational skills, to master the subtle details that separate good from great work, we may face a gap in the next generation of design leaders. This is not about resisting progress, but about being intentional in how we train and develop talent as the tools evolve. As AI takes over more manual tasks, designers can grow in new directions, exploring other tools, developing strategic thinking, and building their business acumen. We might see a resurgence of disciplines like information architecture, or a deeper focus on understanding customers and brand. It could also open up space for more visual creativity. Whenever something feels like it’s being lost, it’s often just making way for something newer and better.

‍

Loft: Speaking of creating new and better experiences, I have one final question for you. Most designers I know focus not only on aesthetics but also on real usability, human factors, and inclusive design for all users. As a leader, how do you help organizations develop better sensibility around these principles? This extends beyond just human considerations to environmental factors like recyclability and sustainability. How do you strike that balance, especially in today's business environment where companies are ultimately judged by quarterly reports? How can you, as a leader, drive that narrative forward?

‍

Carly Price: One of the things that really drew me to Smart Design was the OXO Good Grips story and their approach to universal design. It is powerful to create products that are not only beautiful but more usable — not just for people with limited dexterity — but better for everyone.

Universal design is often an improvement for all users. Take sidewalk ramps, they were originally an ADA compliance requirement, which is why all US cities have them today. Ramps are better for everyone: people with baby strollers, wheeled luggage, bicycles. Lyft is developing a version of their app for older users with larger type and simplified navigation. As they conducted research, they found it was better for all users.

With time-constrained sprints and timelines, universal design often isn't put at the forefront. Teams focus on building concepts quickly, creating beautiful and intuitive designs, and meeting business requirements. Accessibility can become an afterthought. It's easier and more effective to start with universal design as a founding principle from the beginning, instead of tacking it on at the end.

‍

Loft: It's really your skill set as a designer that guides you in incorporating these principles at the right level, isn't it? I also love the idea of taking your skillset as a designer and solving market needs with your startup Liv Labs. Can you tell us about your journey to becoming an entrepreneur?

‍

Carly Price: It’s not just about your skill set—it’s also about the culture that leadership fosters. As a design leader, I’m a strong advocate for universal design and sustainability as core tenets in our approach: designing for all users, regardless of ability, while also minimizing material usage, eliminating unnecessary components, and prioritizing recyclability. Maintaining a dual focus on usability and sustainability is essential — whether you're creating intelligent vehicle systems that reduce driver distraction, designing intuitive interfaces for digital commerce, or building tools that support women's health. Integrating these values from the outset leads to better, more thoughtful products.

Bringing this design-led approach to the startup world has been both meaningful and fun. We’re now preparing to launch Pippa, a product I designed for my company, Liv Labs. I created Pippa after experiencing pelvic floor weakness following childbirth and wanted to develop a simple, effective solution to help women strengthen those muscles. My experience is far from unique—78 million American women are concerned about pelvic floor weakness, and 29 million experience moderate to severe urinary incontinence. These issues are common not only among new moms, but also among college and pro athletes and older women. Yet there’s still no widely known, accessible solution.

We developed the design for Pippa through extensive iteration, working closely with surgeons, physiotherapists, and pelvic health experts to refine the design, optimize the user experience, rigorously test materials, and prepare for commercialization. We considered both usability and sustainability throughout — designing a simple, reusable product using minimal, biocompatible materials, while considering human factors and ease of use.

Our Kickstarter campaign launched on June 24.

‍

Loft: This is a great wrap-up to our conversation. Thank you so much for your time and incredibly interesting points of view. I'm looking forward to more conversations around these topics. We urge everybody to check out the Kickstarter campaign and we’d love the support of the Loft community! Here’s a link to learn more:

‍

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/designing-pippa-empowering-women-through-design-led-innovation-price-ox78e/?trackingId=AH%2BUTBHtUm8KNVBPBHEwGg%3D%3D

‍