Laws of Miscommunication

For in-house product design generalist

When an organisation relies heavily on hierarchical processes, it’s only a matter of time before it surpasses the threshold for centralised control and miscommunication kicks in.

Some research suggests it might happen once organisation grows beyond 150 employees — the maximum ‘natural’ size of a group bonded by gossip. Beyond this number, more complex social systems are required to maintain cohesion. (1)

These miscommunications are not always obvious, yet the proposed laws can help identify and mitigate them — or at least reduce unnecessary stress.

Note that here I’m not offering to change the organisation’s culture, since that’s rarely possible, especially if you end up in one of the stubbornest organisations. What I’m offering here are some answers and ways to adapt.

Law 1

Communication on tactical tasks should go either directly to an assigned employee or through the team lead; in both cases, one party remains uninformed.

In transactional hierarchical organisations, there’s always the dilemma of whom to approach about a task — the employee responsible for executing it or their team lead. For various reasons, team leads often withhold details from their subordinates, either due to time constraints or a belief that not all information is necessary. On the other hand, employees may hesitate to involve their leads, worrying they’ll add to an already overwhelming workload.

Suggestion
Never take it for granted that a lead and their team member will talk about the decisions made in a discussion with you. In the end, it often falls on the product designer to facilitate communication. So, don’t hesitate — talk to both.

Law 2

Product design feedback comes in two forms: technological, asking “Why are you changing so much?”, and UX, asking “Why are you changing so little?”.

And often, this feedback comes from the same person — just at different times. A lack of consistent focus on design tasks leads other stakeholders to give superficial feedback that feels right in the moment but lacks a holistic understanding.

If a design proposal requires significant engineering effort to improve the user experience, the feedback will criticise the scope — ‘Why are you changing so much?’ Later, when the design is adjusted to minimise engineering work at the expense of UX, the feedback shifts to — “Why aren’t you improving enough?”

This mirrors the so-called “decision of the week” phenomenon — where the same group of people suggests an opposite design each week to address the latest issue, creating a never-ending loop. We’ll explore this further at the end of the story.

Suggestion
Clearly introducing your design proposal — explaining the balance between planned UX changes and engineering constraints (whether time or technology) — can prevent managers from assuming these factors weren’t considered. Ideally, this leads to a meaningful discussion on whether trade-offs should be adjusted based on stakeholder input. However, some colleagues may still approach the meeting on autopilot, offering feedback that reflexively opposes the current solution rather than engaging in thoughtful critique.

Law 3

An ambiguous inquiry leads to less responses, while a misguided response leads to less inquiries.

A hierarchical decision-making structure often results in reduced employee empowerment, leading to decreased proactivity — “If something isn’t directly addressed to me or falls outside my narrow area of responsibility, it’s easier to ignore.” This mindset can cause communication to freeze when faced with ambiguity. In cross-functional collaboration, knowledge gaps can lead to ambiguous questions, which, as a result, remain unanswered.

On the flip side, when responses lead to misdirected efforts to avoid further discussion — such as suggesting something is taken care of when it isn’t, or initially claiming it’s too early for input, only to later say it’s too late — proactivity suffers. “To what end should I ask next time?”

When combined, these create a self-reinforcing negative loop, where ambiguity causes fewer responses, and misguided responses lead to fewer inquiries. Ultimately, cross-functional communication stagnates, slowly fading into oblivion.

Suggestion
Since no one really wants to fully eliminate cross-functional communication — not even the most stubborn organisations — this scenario is highly unlikely. However, its earlier symptoms can still exist and cause plenty of frustration. If you find yourself in such an organisation, turn it upside down — use less communication to spend more time reducing the knowledge gap and formulating more precise and targeted questions. To mitigate misguided responses, which are often caused by your colleague being in a rush, set up a meeting to allocate dedicated time to slow down and discuss the topic thoroughly.

Law 4

If someone with more authority is interested in making the decision, let them. If no one else cares, make any reasonable choice — most decent decisions will work anyway.

If you notice that design decisions, no matter how thoroughly discussed and defined with colleagues, are consistently overwritten by higher-ups, it’s often more efficient to simply wait for their solution to be expressed and follow it. What might initially seem like a suggestion is, in reality, closer to a clear directive, making further exploration of alternatives unnecessary. It’s just a waste of effort.

Unless you have solid research or strong customer-backed evidence to support your alternative, which is rare in B2B enterprise products, there’s little point in pushing your own solution. In most cases, the final decision will be made by the person who can best rationalise their reasoning (the skill often defined by a simple rational idea of avoiding an argument with a superior) based on the available limited user research and observations.

Suggestion
The best strategy is to get the higher-ups to share their preferred solution as early as possible, propose it for review, and seek their sign-off. Once approved, you can proceed with designing and developing the solution without stress. On the other hand, if no one expresses an interest in making a design decision and there is no strong evidence supporting one option over another, feel free to choose any. In many cases, any reasonable solution will work for the user.

Law 5

The number of employees’ out-of-the-box ideas is inversely proportional to their years of employment and the degree of top-down control.

It is common knowledge that new hires often bring a surge of creativity and unconventional ideas, unburdened by company norms or past constraints. However, while these ideas may be novel, they often lack the organisational grounding needed for effective implementation. Over time, employees develop a deeper understanding of internal processes and unwritten rules, allowing them to refine their initial creativity into something more structured and actionable.

If an organisation nurtures even a fraction of this early creative energy, these matured ideas can drive meaningful innovation, both internally and externally. However, in many cases — especially in organisations with strong top-down control — new employees’ unconventional ideas are quickly dismissed. Later, as decision-making remains centralised, employees find themselves with little empowerment. By the time they achieve the ideal balance of experience and creativity, they often hesitate to act, knowing that any initiative not coming from the top will likely face overwhelming resistance.

As a result, the organisation fosters little to no innovation outside of leadership-driven initiatives.

Suggestion
If your job is closely tied to a core role, the best way to get your innovative idea through is to “sell” it to your superior, making it a leadership-driven initiative. However, in-house B2B product designers are rarely in core roles. If you’re lucky enough to have a team (rather than being a lone design generalist), you can focus on more localized improvements within your area of responsibility. For example, you could design a UI kit or define UX patterns that not only boost your team’s productivity but also enhance your future career prospects, rather than wasting time and effort trying to break through the wall of a top-down culture.

“The Decision of the Week” phenomenon

The short-term focus in design often leads to the so-called “Decision of the Week” phenomenon, where the same group of people proposes an opposite design each week to address the latest issue, creating a never-ending loop.

This issue arises from the fact that a solution to one user experience problem often creates another. When decisions lack a holistic view or are rushed, there’s a high likelihood that, when a new UX problem — caused by the previous solution — arises the following week, a new rushed design decision is made. This decision often resembles the old design, as it solves the new problem but inevitably reintroduces the previous one.

If no one slows down the discussion and points out the lack of a holistic understanding of what we’re trying to achieve and which trade-offs we’re willing to make, this endless loop will continue spinning.

References

(1) Yuval Noah Harari (2011), “Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind”, https://www.ynharari.com/book/sapiens-2/

Laws of Miscommunication was originally published in UX Planet on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.