What a solid session — and a really good turnout. Thanks to everyone who joined and contributed to the FigJam mapping + dot-voting. Here are the key patterns that came through: 1) The “design tool” future looks hybrid, not a clean replacement Most of the group leaned toward a mix of visual tools + AI copilots, rather than “all-in code-first” or “same as before.” 2) AI is helping… but mostly as an assistive layer The dominant sentiment was: AI has changed workflows a little (speed-ups), not a total transformation for most people yet. 3) The biggest near-term shift is in research + synthesis When we asked where the shift happens first, the strongest signal was research & synthesis, followed by UI production. This matched the “Pain/Wish” notes too: people want better note-taking, transcript quality, and insight extraction from calls and research sessions. 4) The “PM/Designer ships everything” hypothesis: not fully true (yet) On “one person can ship a decent MVP end-to-end,” the room leaned toward somewhat disagree, with the bottleneck often being engineering realities, sustainability, and trust. 5) Collaboration is improving (quiet win) Most people said their dominant workflow is now designer + dev collaborating continuously (vs pure handoff). That’s a meaningful maturity shift. 6) Governance is the leadership topic hiding in plain sight The room leaned toward standardising an official AI tool stack to reduce chaos and risk. Biggest perceived risk: shallow thinking / low craft (moving too fast and not validating properly). 7) 2026 prediction: Figma stays central — but more focused The group’s expectation: by end of 2026, Figma remains central for core UI + design systems. And the most valuable people? Those who frame problems and lead alignment. Practical “next experiments” people can try - Choose one AI assist for research/synthesis (notes → themes → quotes) and test it for 2 weeks - Define a lightweight AI governance baseline (privacy, what not to paste, where outputs can be used) - Pick one workflow to tighten: Figma ↔ docs ↔ Jira ↔ dev handoff/integration - Add one quality guardrail: a “validation checklist” so speed doesn’t kill depth

Quick reflection from the closing round of our session yesterday: a few clear themes are already emerging for 2026. What members are focusing on this year: - AI in the workflow (practical, not hype): how people are actually using tools like Cursor / vibe-coding to move faster from idea → prototype. - Mentorship + the “mid → senior → leadership” gap: there’s a real need for support once you’re past “breaking into UX” and you’re stepping into leadership. - Design Ops + design influence: building an operating model, reducing silos, and increasing design’s impact in complex organisations. - Research access in specialist domains: how to test and recruit when you need niche users (not easy to find). Ideas for Lead by Design that came through strongly: - Create better awareness for potential members (that are not yet on the Skool community) - Partnerships with adjacent communities (e.g. IxDF) to grow the right kind of network - More sessions that are show-and-tell + workshop based, not just discussions Action: drop one personal goal, one work goal, and one Lead by Design wishlist item for 2026 in the comments. Let’s shape this year together. ☕️

As we wrap up 2025, I want to leave you with something practical you can use to close the year with intention and design the next one on purpose. I’m sharing Mel Robbins’ Best Year workbook as a resource for our community — it’s a simple, research-backed way to look honestly at your highs and lows, then decide what you’ll stop, continue and start in 2026. Use it in your own time over the next few days, and if you’d like to share any reflections or intentions for 2026, this thread is the place. Thank you for being part of the first chapter of Lead by Design — can’t wait to see what we grow into together next year. 🌱✨ Until next year! Jaco

Burnout hits designers hard, but why it happens depends heavily on where you work. Freelancers and in-house designers experience creativity, pressure, and exhaustion in totally different ways — and understanding the differences helps us protect our energy, our craft, and our careers. Freelance Designers: Freelancers carry everything on their shoulders: design, marketing, client communication, billing, deadlines, revisions, and boundaries. The freedom is amazing, but the cost can be high. Irregular income creates pressure to say yes to everything. Clients bring unclear briefs, sudden direction changes, and scope creep. And since freelancers often work alone, there’s little feedback or collaboration to recharge inspiration. Burnout shows up as exhaustion, self-doubt, and feeling “on call” 24/7. Autonomy is high — but so is ambiguity. In-House Designers: Company designers have the opposite problem. Work is structured, deadlines are defined, and teams provide stability. But the pace and expectations can drain creative energy fast. Cross-functional pressure, shifting priorities, and the need to support product timelines often lead to overload. Creative direction is shaped by stakeholders, not always designers. Even though there’s more support, meetings, rigid processes, and limited autonomy can make designers feel boxed in. Burnout emerges from repetition, decision fatigue, and not having enough control over the work they’re responsible for. The Core Difference: Freelancers often burn out from too much freedom without structure, while in-house designers burn out from too much structure without freedom. One fights isolation and unpredictability. The other navigates politics and pressure. Burnout isn’t a personal failure — it’s a signal. And when we understand the environment we’re designing in, we can build better habits, boundaries, and systems that support our creativity instead of draining it. I have attached a checklist for you to review.