Finding Our Way

Organization designer Clay Parker Jones, author of Hidden Patterns: A Playbook for More Human Workplaces, joins Peter and Jesse to argue that teams should index on trust rather than role clarity. The conversation covers why roles persist, the difference between psychological and structural safety, organizational rule of law, and why demonstrating better teams beats trying to convince skeptics.

Dr. Stefanie Hutka, design researcher, Berkeley educator, and author of What Your Machines Should Do, joins us to look to the history of industrial automation for lessons on AI transformation. From Toyota's jidoka and the andon cord to Taylorism's lingering grip, we explore why AI amplifies whatever conditions it finds, and why strategy and values must come before the tools.

Peter and Jesse are joined by Chengying "Z" Zheng, who shares her experience migrating a design team to be AI-first — off Figma and into code. She discusses how design leadership and operations divide the work, what happens to roles and titles when everyone becomes a builder, and how to make good design easier than bad design.

Z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/changyingz/
Z's Substack: https://changying.substack.com/
Jesse James Garrett: https://jessejamesgarrett.com/
Peter Merholz: https://petermerholz.com/

Peter and Jesse compare notes from Config, Figma's AI study, Lenny's newsletter survey, and countless conversations to read the current state of design leadership. The signals: existential AI panic has cooled into exhaustion, organizational chaos and leadership churn are the new normal, and design still stumbles on business acumen. Their case for thriving—lead, don't just design, and reclaim design's unfinished mandate.

Dave Gray, author of Liminal Thinking and founder of School of the Possible, joins Peter and Jesse to examine what's actually getting in leaders' way right now: not the disruption itself, but the expertise that blinds them to it. The conversation moves from beginner's mind to the compression of corporate work, landing on a provocative question — what does your value look like when you define it yourself?