You’re Not IDEO in 2004—Stop Saying Design Thinking Before I Slap a Sticky Note on Your Forehead

The Origin Story Nobody Talks About

Once upon a time, in a sunny California studio filled with whiteboards, optimism, and the scent of high-end dry-erase markers, a consultancy had a branding problem. IDEO was great at designing stuff. Like, really great. But that wasn't scalable. You can't sell "being good at design" to Fortune 500s at $250K per engagement. What you can sell is a vague, shiny, process-shaped object that makes people feel like they, too, are innovators.

And so, design thinking was born. Not as a rigorous methodology. Not as an epistemologically sound approach to problem-solving. But as a business development funnel. It was genius. Wrap intuition and basic research hygiene in a five-step process. Slap verbs on it. Make it colorful. Print a book. Hold workshops. License the IP without ever needing to prove it actually works at scale.

IDEO didn't invent design thinking. But they did what all great marketers do: they named it, simplified it, made it feel exclusive and inclusive at the same time—and turned it into a credential. A social signal. A way to say "I get it" without needing to explain what "it" is.

The Silicon Valley Gospel Goes Global

The beauty of design thinking was its perfect balance of specificity and ambiguity. Specific enough to feel like a real process, ambiguous enough that anyone could claim to be doing it. This was marketing alchemy of the highest order.

The five sacred steps—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test—were like a secular prayer. Recite them in meetings, and you were instantly part of the innovation faithful. Put them on a slide, and executives would nod knowingly, as if you'd presented the quantum physics formula for disruption itself.

Soon, the d.school at Stanford became the seminary for this new religion. Students paid small fortunes to learn the rituals. To master the secret handshakes of HMWs (How Might We questions) and POVs (Point of View statements). To practice the sacred art of using Sharpies instead of ballpoint pens because... innovation requires thicker lines? Or something about "committing to your ideas." Whatever. The marker companies weren't complaining.

And what made this truly genius was how design thinking positioned itself as simultaneously revolutionary AND safe. It was the corporate equivalent of getting a tattoo... that washes off in the shower. All the street cred, none of the commitment or pain.

From Innovation to Incantation

What happened next was inevitable. Corporations, terrified of irrelevance and desperate for the scent of innovation, bought in wholesale. Suddenly, design thinking wasn't a way of approaching problems—it was the way. Consultancies pivoted. Job titles mutated. Sticky note sales exploded.

Banks that hadn't changed their basic checking account in 30 years suddenly had "Innovation Labs" filled with beanbag chairs and walls covered in multi-colored squares of paper featuring half-baked ideas like "What if ATMs gave compliments?" Insurance companies that took 17 days to process a simple claim were running week-long sprints to "reimagine the customer journey"—without changing a single operational process.

The corporate transformation was comprehensive and expensive. Foosball tables appeared in corners of office buildings. Walls were knocked down to create "collaboration spaces" where people could loudly distract each other. Consultants charged small fortunes to teach executives how to "unlearn" everything they knew, which mostly meant wearing jeans on a Tuesday and standing during meetings.

Did anyone stop to ask if this worked? If five steps could actually map to the mess of real-world complexity? If brainstorming with zero constraints was anything but a great way to generate bad ideas? If empathy maps drawn by people who hadn't spoken to a single user were, in fact, fan fiction?

No. Because design thinking isn't about outcomes. It's about performance.

Welcome to the Theater

What we have now is empathy as performance art. Ideation as office improv. "Prototyping" means putting a button in Figma. Testing means "showing it to the team." And every quarterly planning cycle starts with "Let's do a design sprint," even if nobody remembers what the last one produced.

The script for this corporate theater is now well-established:

ACT 1: EMPATHY (or "Pretending to Care About Users We'll Never Actually Talk To")

Scene: A workshop room with motivational posters and $9,000 worth of Herman Miller furniture.

FACILITATOR: "Today we're going to really understand our users!"
PARTICIPANTS: [Nod enthusiastically while secretly checking emails]
FACILITATOR: "Let's create empathy maps!"
[Everyone draws quadrants and fills them with what they think users think/feel/say/do, based entirely on their own biases and zero research]
PRODUCT MANAGER: [Proudly] "I put 'frustrated by complexity' in the 'Feels' quadrant."
EVERYONE: [Murmurs of agreement because who isn't frustrated by complexity?]
FACILITATOR: "Great insight! Let's build on that!"

No actual users were harmed—or even consulted—during this exercise.

ACT 2: DEFINE (or "Making the Problem Match Our Existing Solution")

FACILITATOR: "Now that we 'understand' our users, let's define the problem!"
[The group crafts a problem statement that magically aligns with the solution the executives already decided on months ago]
MARKETING: "Our users need a more engaging social component."
ENGINEERING: [Under breath] "Weird that the solution is exactly that new feature you've been pushing for since January..."
MARKETING: "It's what the empathy map clearly showed!"
[Everyone nods at the collection of post-its that could support literally any conclusion depending on how you squint]

ACT 3: IDEATE (or "Brainstorming Within an Invisible Box")

FACILITATOR: "Remember, there are no bad ideas in brainstorming!"
SENIOR EXEC: [Enters room] "Just popping in to see how it's going!"
[Everyone immediately self-censors and only suggests ideas that won't get them fired]
NEW EMPLOYEE: "What if we completely reimagined our business model?"
[Uncomfortable silence]
FACILITATOR: "Let's put that in the 'parking lot' for now..."
[Brainstorming continues, generating 74 minor variations of the same three ideas]

ACT 4: PROTOTYPE (or "Making Things That Look Good in Presentations")

DESIGNER: "I mocked up these three concepts."
FACILITATOR: "Fantastic! These are our prototypes."
ENGINEER: "That one would take 8 months to build."
FACILITATOR: "This is about innovation, not implementation!"
[Everyone admires the pretty pictures that will never exist in reality]

ACT 5: TEST (or "Asking Leading Questions to People Who Want to Please Us")

FACILITATOR: "Time to test with users!"
[The team shows their prototype to three interns and the CEO's nephew]
FACILITATOR: "What do you think of this amazing new concept?"
INTERN: "Uh, it's... nice?"
FACILITATOR: [Turns to team] "Users love it! Project validated!"

And the tragedy is: this cargo cult version of design thinking feels like progress. It gives people the warm fuzzy of doing something user-centered, without the risk of confronting a real user. It replaces deep, uncomfortable learning with colorful workshops and shared documents. You can quote Thinking, Fast and Slow and never talk to a single human being.

The Cult of "Process Over People"

When a product org says "We follow design thinking," what they usually mean is:

• We skip research and go straight to post-its.
• We "ideate" without constraints because decisions are made politically anyway.
• We "test" with internal folks or a panel of people who were paid $5 to say they love the concept.
• We retroactively justify whatever leadership wanted in the first place.

It's a beautiful illusion: structure without rigor. Empathy without contact. Strategy without evidence. The kind of theater that keeps everyone busy but changes nothing.

The fundamental betrayal of design thinking as practiced today is how it's corrupted the very thing it claimed to champion: human-centered design. Real human-centeredness is messy. It's uncomfortable. It forces you to confront your biases and realize that you—yes, even you, with your Stanford certificate and your dog-eared copy of "Change by Design"—are not the user.

Real empathy isn't an exercise with sticky notes. It's hours of observation and conversation. It's the humility to admit you don't know what people need until you actually engage with them. It's the courage to hear feedback that invalidates your pet solution.

But that's not what corporations bought. They bought the performance of empathy without the discomfort of actual human insight. They bought a process that makes everyone feel innovative without requiring actual innovation.

The Certification Industrial Complex

To legitimize this performance, an entire ecosystem of certifications, workshops, and courses emerged. For the low price of $2,000 and 16 hours of your time, you too can become a "Certified Design Thinking Practitioner"—a title with approximately the same real-world value as "Lord of a 1-Square-Foot Plot in Scotland."

These certifications serve a crucial purpose in the design thinking theater: they give people permission to facilitate processes they don't truly understand. They provide the illusion of expertise without the burden of experience.

The certification workshops themselves are masterclasses in irony: teaching a supposedly human-centered process in the least human-centered way possible. Cramming theory into passive participants. Rushing through exercises. Simplifying complexity to fit into neat time boxes. Creating the exact opposite of the thoughtful, exploratory environment that actual innovation requires.

And yet, LinkedIn profiles bloat with these credentials. Job descriptions demand them. People who couldn't tell a user need from a user want are suddenly empowered to run workshops that will determine product strategy.

The darkest joke? Many of these newly certified "design thinkers" go on to work at companies that have no intention of ever talking to actual users or implementing actual insights. Their role is purely ceremonial—the corporate equivalent of a rain dance. Everyone feels better for having done it, even though it had absolutely no effect on the drought.

Post-it Note Prosperity Gospel

What makes design thinking so insidious is its promise of transformation without pain. Its quasi-religious assurance that if you just follow these five steps, innovation will rain down upon your organization like manna from heaven.

It's the prosperity gospel of product development: follow the rituals, speak the right words, use the approved materials (Sharpies, not pens! 3M Post-its, not generic!), and you will be blessed with disruption.

And like all good prosperity gospels, when it fails to deliver, the blame falls not on the false promise but on the insufficient faith of the practitioners. "You didn't empathize enough. You didn't ideate broadly enough. You didn't prototype rapidly enough."

The truth—that meaningful innovation requires more than workshops, that understanding users requires more than imagination exercises, that execution is harder than ideation—is too disappointing to contemplate. So the cycle continues. Another workshop. Another sprint. Another wall of colorful squares containing ideas that will never see daylight.

Meanwhile, the consultancies and certification mills profit. The corporate training budgets shrink. And the actual users remain as misunderstood as ever.

If You Love Your Users, Set Design Thinking Free

Design thinking, at its best, was never meant to be a replacement for user research, strategy, or domain expertise. It was a gateway drug to humility. A way to admit we don't know the answer and should go find out.

But today, it's a marketing relic. A buzzword that signals innovation while delivering conformity. A way for execs to nod sagely while ignoring data. A process that's too often used as armor against accountability.

The saddest part? There are elements of design thinking that, when practiced with integrity and combined with actual expertise, can be genuinely valuable. Rapid prototyping to test assumptions. Cross-functional collaboration to break down silos. A focus on user needs rather than organizational convenience.

But these practices don't require the design thinking wrapper to be effective. And they certainly don't benefit from being reduced to performative workshops that substitute activity for achievement.

So unless you're IDEO in 2004—and you're not—maybe stop using "design thinking" as a personality trait.

Talk to a user. Touch grass. And please, for the love of all things post-it, don't ideate one more solution until you understand the actual problem.

Because the greatest trick design thinking ever pulled was convincing the world that a process could substitute for purpose. That methods could replace meaning. That you could understand humans without ever having to endure the messy, uncomfortable reality of actual human interaction.

What To Do Instead (For Those Who Actually Give a Damn)

If you love your users, set design thinking free. Stop clutching the security blanket of a branded methodology and do the real work:

First, shut up and listen. Not to post-its, not to stakeholders, but to actual humans using your product in their messy, complex lives. One hour of recorded user interviews will teach you more than fifty empathy mapping sessions.

Second, embrace constraints. Real innovation happens when you solve actual problems within the boundaries of reality, not when you "blue sky ideate" without friction. The most creative solutions emerge when you can't just wave a magic wand of infinite resources.

Third, make your research findings impossible to ignore. Data without stories gets filed away; stories without data get dismissed as anecdotal. Combine them into evidence bombs that explode conventional thinking.

Finally, normalize discomfort. If your design process doesn't occasionally make you question your assumptions or challenge your ego, you're not doing it right. Growth happens at the edge of unease, not in the cozy center of consensus.

Because the greatest trick design thinking ever pulled was convincing the world that a process could substitute for purpose. That methods could replace meaning. That you could understand humans without ever having to endure the messy, uncomfortable reality of actual human interaction.

The emperor has no clothes—just a lot of colorful sticky notes covering the essential parts.

🎯 Still here?

If you’ve made it this far, you probably care about users, research, and not losing your mind.

I write one longform UX essay a week — equal parts strategy, sarcasm, and survival manual.

Subscribe to get it in your inbox. No spam. No sales funnels. No inspirational LinkedIn quotes. Just real talk from the trenches.

👉 Subscribe now — before you forget or get pulled into another 87-comment Slack thread about button copy.