[TMA] Reporting to the CEO? What Do We Want from Design?

Among the findings of the 2025 State of UX/Design Organizational Health study was that the healthiest UX/Design organizations reported directly to the CEO of a company or GM of a business unit. It makes sense; this placement demonstrates an organizational commitment to design greater than if it were buried 3-4 levels deep in the org chart, reporting up through some other function.

This finding contradicts something we heard earlier this year on Finding Our Way, where Peter Skillman, now the head of design at Philips, shared that "No design leader should report to the CEO. It is way better being one layer away… You have an escalation path. You're not pulled into a lot of discussions that are not relevant to ensuring you raise the bar."

While this spurred much consternation in the comments of that post, Skillman doubled down in response to these recent findings:

"Reporting to the CEO (unless a small org less than 200~400) is bad because you will be dragged into topics that aren’t key to the Design mission. Best is reporting to a GM or CTO depending on the scale and structure + the empathy and skill set that this person may have."

And when I probed him on it, he revealed,

"I don’t need to spend meetings negotiating the tariff strategy, supply chain optimisation, currency shifts, tax strategy, prep for board mtgs, quarterly results, regulatory position, etc. At the CTO level, I get all the key HR topics, org structure, hiring etc."

And believe me, I'm sympathetic to this view. 11 years ago, after my boss, the SVP of Product left, I had an opportunity to report directly to the CEO, and I opted out, because, well, what I saw was that everyone who reported to the CEO was not happy: they worked all the time; they were trying to recover a business that was flailing; the CEO had a narcissistic streak that ignored evidence.

BUT, my point of view has evolved since then. When Skillman mentions "negotiating the tariff strategy, supply chain optimisation, currency shifts, tax strategy, prep for board mtgs, quarterly results, regulatory position, etc.," I now realize that I want someone in that room who is bringing a human-centered perspective to these core company decisions, and right now, the only function that reliably does so is Design.

I think this very much aligns with Erika Hall's contention that the business model is the grid, and that the most important design work happens long before designers typically get involved.

It puts me in mind of what design consultant John Gleason said on the Finding Our Way:

"When an an executive is in difficult circumstances, what are the functions they are likely to go to first in trying to save the ship or save themselves? Design is often the last one.

They will go to marketing, they'll go to sales, they'll go to finance, they'll go to supply chain, they'll go to regulatory.

And that's where I think design needs to learn how to lean in to show that they're a business solver, not a creator of an artifact."

If Design does not step up to help companies tackle their most existential challenges, it will be seen as a secondary or tertiary function, serving a narrow purpose, which can be minimized.

Let's talk about it Wednesday

On Wednesday November 12, at 8am PT/11am ET/4pm UK/17.00 CET, I'm joining Lou Rosenfeld to discuss this, and further implications of the Organizational Health Study.

Sign up here for what will undoubtedly be a lively and thoughtful discussion!

Leadership masterclass in Toronto November 17

A week from today I'll be in Toronto, teaching my Design Leadership Demystified masterclass the day before the Design Leadership Summit. Use promotional code PM20 for 20% off the full ticket price (an $80 saving).