You probably noticed that, in most cases, design is a team sport. On any day you might be operating as a learner, teacher, clarifier, interrogator, confidant, challenger or motivator.

So you need to communicate effectively with teammates, the broader company, and users.

And designers often become informal facilitators between other groups - helping to synthesise information and to reconcile opinions.

Around 12 years ago I was introduced to the ideas of organizational psychologist Roger Schwarz. And they've really stuck with me and still influence the way I approach every-day communication and challenging situations.

But first I need to persuade you that you're not yet an expert. Most of us think we're pretty good at communication: expressing ourselves, finding out what we need to know. But think back in your recent working life, have you thought any of these thoughts?

  • “Our meetings don't go anywhere”
  • “They simply don't understand the situation, and I do”
  • “They're the problem (and I'm not contributing to the problem)”
  • “In need to get buy-in for my solution (more than to understand their solution)”

In those moments you're using the Unilateral control mindset.

Unilateral control mindset

Values

  • Win, don't lose
  • Be right
  • Minimise exressions of negative feelings
  • Act rational

Assumptions

  • I understand the situation, those who disagree don’t
  • I am right, those who disagree are wrong
  • My motives are pure, those who disagree have questionable motives
  • My feelings and behaviours are justified
  • I am not contributing to the problem

It's especially common in high-stakes situations to default to the Unilateral Control mindset, even when we think we're not. It's deeply wired into our fight/flight reflex, but also it's a very prevalent model we're exposed to in childhood from school and parents, at also at work.

It's especially common for leaders to use use this model, since they're responsible for results and to be seen as the expert

But, as should be clear, it's just not possible for any human (let alone all people on the team) to be right at all times. And so it leads to:

  • Low performance
  • Strained working relationships
  • Less individual well-being

It persists because it's self-reinforcing - when performance is bad and trust is low, leaders try to exert more control, and team members place more blame.

Mutual Learning mindset

The opposing mindset - often espoused but rarely used when the pressure is on.

Values

  • Curiosity
  • Transparency
  • Accountability
  • Informed choice
  • Compassion

Assumptions

  • I have information, so do other people
  • Each of us sees things others don’t
  • People may disagree with me and still have pure motives
  • Differences are opportunities for learning
  • I may be contributing to the problem

If teams genuinely have a mutual learning mindset, it leads to:

  • Higher performance
  • Better working relationships
  • Greater individual well-being

And it's also self-reinforcing - the results make the conditions for mutual learning easier in the first place.

8 Behaviours

It helps to have some concrete behaviours in mind to give you some quick techniques to reach for when the pressure is on.

  1. State views and ask genuine questions
  2. Share all relevant information
  3. Use specific examples and agree what important words mean
  4. Explain reasoning and intent
  5. Focus on interests, not positions
  6. Test assumptions and inferences
  7. Jointly design next steps
  8. Discuss undiscussable issues

Let's look at three in detail.

Behaviour 1: State views and ask genuine questions

This is a foundation for most other rules.

Scenario: You want to do more research

❌ “Do you really think we have enough research to start building?”

This is not a genuine question, and it doesn't present your view for evaluation. It doesn't sound like you're open to changing your mind because it doesn't stem from curiousity. So it will put the other person in defensive mode.

✅ “I think we’ll be able to proceed more confidently by speaking to the 3 customers who asked for this, to capture what success looks like for them. Do you think that would help?”

This is better because it doesn't feel like an interrogation or that you have a hidden agenda. You're being transparent about your view but open to hearing a contradictory opinion.

This links to another principle from this field: “balance advocacy with inquiry” so that we're equal parts transparent and curious.

Advocacy and Inquiry words on scales

Behaviour 3: Use specific examples and agree what important words mean

Scenario: You’re eager to get something live, but worried development will take a while

❌ “Can we release an MVP by the end of the month?”

Whatever response you get can't be useful without clarifying.

✅ “By MVP I mean the core part that will buy us some valuable learning. … and by release I don’t mean a full marketing launch … just something on a hidden URL we can show to some users. Last month we did something similar with the referral programme feature”

Behaviour 5: Focus on interests, not positions

You might have heard this one if you've read 'Getting to yes', a classic on negotiation. A position is your view about what should be done. But people's positions are often in conflict, even if the underlying interests are not.

I've got two examples here:

Scenario A: You really want the new website to be dark!

❌ “We should go for a dark-mode look” (a position)

✅ “Whatever we decide for the visual style, I think it should look more premium than today, since we’ve lost a few deals when people assumed we’re a beginner’s tool” (your real interest)

Scenario B: Someone requests a prototype

❌ “I don’t think we need to prototype that” (a position)

✅ “I’m not convinced the value of a prototype with fake data. If we didn’t have a prototype, what do you fear would happen?”

(digging to find their interest)

Warnings

If you’re in a toxic or immature environment, use caution. I know it's not always safe to be completely transparent (about your feelings and weaknesses).

Don’t fall into the opposite extreme - “unilateral learning”. Too much inquiry makes others feel interrogated. And not enough advocacy fails to exploit your own expertise to drive forward momentum.

How to improve

Reflect on a recent frustrating discussion and count:

  • genuine questions (how curious were you?)
  • things thought but not said (how transparent were you?)

Plan for an upcoming conversation by writing down how you fear it will go, and design your words to invoke the 8 behaviours.

Consider introducing your team to the behaviours.

Find out more

Search Shwartz’s free PDF whitepaper “8 behaviours for smarter teams”

Read the book “Smart Leaders, Smarter Teams” Roger Schwarz

Earlier material from Chris Argyris “Action Science” (double loop learning, ladder of inference)