Framing the Right Problem Starts With the Right Thinking

As design leaders, we’ve spent years advocating for design thinking: empathy, ideation, prototyping, testing. And for good reason. These practices help keep users at the center of complex systems.

But design thinking alone doesn’t always help when the real challenge isn’t about creativity or iteration, but about clarity. When a team is misaligned, a decision has long-term implications, or a product direction stalls despite good research, we may not have a design execution problem. We have a thinking problem.

That’s where three other thinking models have become essential to how I lead: strategic thinking, critical thinking, and systems thinking. They’re distinct, complementary ways of reasoning that help design leaders navigate ambiguity and shape decisions with broader impact.

Strategic Thinking: Reframing the Problem in Context

Strategic thinking is about identifying what matters most in a given situation and using that to set direction. It’s not just about setting long-term goals; it’s about clarifying purpose, sequencing priorities, and working within constraints.

In my own work, this shows up in:

• Connecting user needs to business levers (retention, efficiency, differentiation)

• Clarifying what "success" looks like across functions, not just within design

• Proactively surfacing misalignment between user goals and organizational incentives

Good strategic work doesn’t usually start with a polished framework. It often starts with quiet listening and the willingness to ask, “Are we solving the right problem?”

Recommended reading:

• Good Strategy / Bad Strategy by Richard Rumelt

• The Six Disciplines of Strategic Thinking by Michael D. Watkins

Critical Thinking: Examining the Frame Itself

Critical thinking means asking how we know what we know. It’s about evaluating evidence, challenging assumptions, and improving the quality of reasoning within teams.

I rely on critical thinking to:

• Separate opinion from signal when stakeholder narratives conflict

• Facilitate clearer design critiques that focus on decisions, not just artifacts

• Encourage teams to articulate why they made a choice, and how they'd revisit it

This mode of thinking is especially important when mentoring. Instead of focusing only on outputs, we also reflect on how we got there. What logic led us to that solution? Were alternatives considered?

Recommended reading:

• Noise by Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein

• Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

Systems Thinking: Making Interdependencies Visible

Systems thinking helps surface why things break, even when individual parts seem sound. It reveals the interconnections, feedback loops, and incentive structures that influence how work actually flows across teams, tools, and time.

This has shaped how I:

• Map service ecosystems to uncover friction points across silos

• Design scalable processes such as design systems or cross-team rituals

• Make sense of cross-functional misalignment beyond design

Systems thinking is also key to understanding organizational behavior. Why aren’t teams adopting shared tools? Why does a great feature underperform in the real world? Often, it’s a systemic issue, not a tactical one.

Recommended reading:

• Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows

Why This Matters

These modes of thinking don’t replace design craft. But they strengthen it. They help us reason through complexity, lead with clarity, and elevate the role of design in strategic conversations.

If you’re exploring this transition in your own leadership practice, I’d encourage you to reflect on how you think, not just what you deliver. Strategic, critical, and systems thinking are quiet skills, but they scale.