For the past few months, I have been digging into the mindsets of UX/Design folks at this moment. In April and May, I interviewed ~20 VP-and-above design executives around the world. At Config 2026, I worked the crowd throughout the Leadership Collective. Just two weeks ago, I fielded an "AI + Design Pulse Check" which drew over 450 responses (mostly from people in leadership roles).
Synthesizing across these inputs (as well as research published by Lenny's Newsletter: "How tech workers are feeling in 2026: a workforce splitting in two"), I believe the situation to be more complicated, and more interesting, than is typically discussed.
Forthwith are my observations, supported by data and open-ended commentary contributed to the pulse check.
- The pre-eminent narrative is a muddy kind of anti-narrative
- People are tired/exhausted/burned out
- The key predictor of sentiment is organizational behavior
- Executives have a wholly different experience from everyone else
- Restoration, even transformation, is possible
The pre-eminent narrative is a muddy kind of anti-narrative
The conversation on LinkedIn pendulums between "things are great" and "things are terrible." Lenny's research repeated this bifurcation ("a workforce splitting in two").
Almost a year ago, when, I asked a design leader how things were going for him, and he replied, "It's a mixed bag." That phrasing stayed with me, and I believe it to be the pre-eminent narrative of this moment. What the data shows is that the bifurcation isn't out there, it's within us.
AI + Design Pulse Check results · July 2026
Which best describes your sentiment about AI and design?
n = 458 · Roller Coaster is far and away the plurality at 26%
Tap or hover any bar for its full definition
When asked about how they feel about AI, 26% (far and away the largest single group) responded with "🎢 Roller Coaster," defined as: "Depends on the day. May depend on the hour. Some days I'm energized, some days I'm not. It's definitely a mixed bag." I think it's strange that the prevailing sentiment is so mixed. It speaks to a collective cognitive dissonance we're experiencing right now, where we recognize the promise of these tools, but are also burdened by how ham-handed the current deployment reality is.
People are tired/exhausted/burned out
This had been my strongest takeaway from Config, and it's supported by Lenny's research (over 50% reporting significant burnout), and the Pulse Check (15% are "exhausted" and open-text responses featured unsolicited fatigue language over 30% of the time). It's a suitable companion to the Roller Coaster—that kind of sentiment whiplash is tiring.
The key predictor of sentiment is organizational behavior
I became an org guy because I see organizational context to be the overwhelming contributor to work realities. This research suggests that this holds for AI sentiment. When you look at people's sentiment in relationship to their org's AI maturity, a clear association arises: the less AI-mature the org, the more negative the sentiment of the respondent.
— Director (Adopting / Exhausted)
The same holds true when associating job security and AI maturity, in a way that could be seen as ironic:
This relationship could be considered counterintuitive—shouldn't the people at the most AI-forward companies be the most concerned about their jobs? But, I believe what we're seeing, and this was echoed in the discussions I had with design executives, is that these "AI mature" companies are actually just "mature." That they look at what's coming, structure coherent plans for adoption, and see those plans through. People are more secure and more positive because things just operate better.
I have a lengthy quote from my executive interviews that gets at this directly:
Versus saying: How can we optimize the way we operate and the way we function at speed to be a high performing organization leveraging AI? This latter framing is the one that [new employer] is doing, and that's making it more inclusive. Like, hey, you got ideas for AI? Bring it. Let's try it. You know, a spirit of experimentation. I think at [big box retailer], it was a mandate that had to be fulfilled.–VP (listening tour)
Executives have a wholly different experience from everyone else
Sentiment is more positive the more senior you are. But even Director-level folks skew negative. It's at the executive rank of VP that we see a stark step-change where positive sentiment outweighs negative, and the shift is dramatic: From 33% negative / 21% positive as a Director to 11% / 34% as a VP:
I believe we're seeing a few things at play:
Executives experience survivorship bias. If they've made it that far, it's probably because they've had a positive career experience. People with negative experiences will have stalled or left before this.
Executive mindset is more resilient/resourceful. Related to survivorship, but less a factor of context and more of their own resolve. The kind of person who comfortably handles challenging situations and demonstrates resourcefulness in shaping their own path is more likely to reach executive levels. And when there, have a positive sentiment around the work being done.
Executives are granted agency. Executives have increased agency, influencing adoption and practice, as opposed to having it forced upon them. This is why I think it's essential for the senior-most design person to be an executive, because with that comes real authority in most companies.
— Senior exec (AI-native / Pragmatic)
By contrast:
— Director (Adopting / Roller Coaster)
Side observation: Managers and Directors are nearly identical
I'm oddly fascinated by how the results for Managers and Directors look so similar, and there are enough respondents in each (~100) to suggest this is a solid finding. Somehow 'people managers' have found themselves lumped together at this time, subject to the same forces as one another, and with the same (lack of) authority to navigate it.
Restoration, even transformation, is possible
It's important and worthwhile to highlight the positive possibilities of AI + Design. While the negative sentiment is largely born of damaged contexts, the positive sentiment emerges from the possibilities that these tools provide. In my design executive listening tour, one VP shared how her design strategists are enthusiastic about the breadth and speed of concept development and the quick turnaround when sharing these ideas with users. She added that her team has started to take the reins on product management, because they had gotten so far out ahead in using these tools.
The current state of play
I conducted the Pulse Check because the conversations I'd had suggested things were... messier than the public discussions revealed, and I believe that is largely borne out. I think design executives need to respect the negative inclinations at play within their teams, and recognize how their position provides them an opportunity and point of view that others simply cannot access.
As I review the answers and read the open-text responses, what I think we need most, not just in design, but generally, is some grace in our work places. People are going to work every day exhausted, anxious, and uncertain, sentiments established by the broader organization in which they operate. Even from just a practical point of view, this is terrible management practice and a guaranteed way to encourage mediocrity or worse.
Grace at scale is not something that emerges from individual mindset — it is created by the people with the agency to shape conditions. Which returns us to the executive tier. With grace, space, security, and positive direction, folks can flourish even amidst the chaos.
Do you need help establishing a space where teams thrive?
Let's talk. That's a link to my Calendly. Find a time and we can talk about how I can help you through organizational effectiveness, leadership development, or thought partnership (aka coaching/advisory) with heads of UX/Design.
