UX Maturity & The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Have you ever heard (or do you remember) the children’s story “The Boy Who Cried Wolf?” This story tells the tale of a young shepherd boy who repeatedly reported false sightings of wolves threatening the sheep. Over time, when a wolf DID become a threat, the people in the village did not take him seriously. They ignored him. Calamity ensued.
In observing activity in and around UX circles, especially over the past decade, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” often comes to mind. Why? There is a faction occupying space in UX today doing the same exact thing as the young shepherd in the story. They sound false alarms, creating panic (for some) and fostering mindsets that lead people to take unnecessary action.
Consider the following scenarios:
- A few years ago, concerns about GATEKEEPING became rampant in UX circles. People were being warned against the presence of gatekeepers. Those who “cried wolf” played on fears about getting their first UX job, telling people that gatekeepers were obstacles to their life goals and blocking their ability to get hired. At the root of these “alarms” was extreme ignorance, coupled with a desire to exploit anyone influenced by the fear-mongering. Consider these truths: 1) The definition of gatekeeping used by the perpetrators was borrowed from the Urban Dictionary and the world of gaming; 2) NOBODY has ever engaged in trying to block anyone from getting a UX job; 3) Entry-level jobs, across the entire professional landscape, make up a very small percentage of available jobs (i.e., this wasn’t limited to UX work) and 4) REAL gatekeeping is not about blocking people, but about accountability, ensuring quality, and validating one’s being qualified for the work they’re aspiring to do—not a bad thing!!! As people built their internal defense mechanisms against so-called gatekeepers, they ended up being tricked into avoiding people whose content they should have been embracing and immersing themselves in. Instead of being exposed to content that would enrich them, they rejected it and opted for sycophantic content that made them dependent and infused them with dysfunctional trajectories. Again, these things happened because of someone crying wolf about gatekeeping.
NOTE: Some attacks on more seasoned UX professionals are actually being indirectly and/or passively sanctioned by others who have been in the field for a long time. Some are even recognized as leaders. As with many other “cry wolf” scenarios, the perpetrators are taking advantage of the naivety of those just entering the field. Be sharp!!! - Akin to GATEKEEPING, many newer UXers are passively trained to RESENT AND AVOID SENIOR UXERS. I constantly extend myself to help others grow and vault themselves forward. I know others who do the same. Interestingly, we all experience similar behavior from certain folks in the UX community. We all constantly get subjected to maltreatment. We are constantly avoided. We’re constantly railed against and slandered. The content and guidelines we present are frequently avoided. NONE of these responses were appropriate. NONE of these responses were logical. Many of those who RESENT and AVOID do so, because someone instructed them that engaging in such responses was in their best interest. Haters and detractors took embrage to the levels of expertise on display and have been found to do anything to keep anyone from ascribing value to the content and resources we provide. We are seek as gatekeepers, but we’re anything but. We’re not blocking anyone’s access. We’re trying to “give people the keys” to the arena they’re trying to enter—so one no longer has the need to “break in.” In the earlier days of the discipline, people respected the pioneers and forerunners. Today, having 20+ years of experience can result in the direct opposite. And all of these things are happening because of someone’s “crying wolf” against the more seasoned UX practitioners.
- These days, many people are in the business of declaring that UX IS DEAD! Is UX dead? Considering how thousands and thousands of people hold UX jobs at the time this is being written, the answer is a resounding no!!! Is UX on life support? Yes, it is—because of its being redefined, poor and untrustworthy educational resources, teams being led by unqualified people with little to no knowledge of UX or UX maturity, and several other contributing factors (some of which are included in this blog post). Interestingly, the false alarm of UX BEING DEAD causes panic and goads people into making rash decisions. If we reground the discipline and embrace its foundations and principles, we’d bring the value everyone knows and loves.
P.S. UX isn’t dying. It’s being murdered. There’s a difference. ;-) - Claims of IMPOSTER SYNDROME in UX circles are off the charts. Why? Many claiming to have imposter syndrome keep spreading the word of their supposed state, only to have several people who hear their presentations opt in on the spot. This is, however, yet another case where someone is basically “crying wolf,” passively convincing others to jump on the bandwagon. Here’s an average journey. A person enters the discipline. In the beginning, they’re excited but have self-doubt. They run into a few pitfalls that challenge their confidence. They wonder if they belong. They may or may not be working to solidify their operation in the discipline, but they’re on proverbial rocky ground. They feel like a fraud. They don’t know what to do. Along comes someone who, consciously or unconsciously, sells them on the concept of IMPOSTER SYNDROME. Being in a particular state of mind and laying claim to the same sounds good. As many dopamine-laden messages do, the anxiety is offset. Many feel this confirms the decision they’ve made to embrace what was presented to them as THE answer. The person becomes an IMPOSTER SYNDROME CONVERT. Folks, EVERYBODY experiences self-doubt, but when the wrong messages about self-doubt circulate (i.e., the crying of wolf about self-doubt), bad things happen. This also explains why many of the people who claim IMPOSTER SYNDROME don’t welcome solutions to their “condition,” but (most often) choose to become combative when someone presents the truth.
NOTE: If you’d like to learn more about the history of imposter syndrome, check out my blog post on the topic. - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) has been around for decades. Its usage and hype, however, have accelerated and expanded dramatically in the past 2 years. Parallel to AI’s growth and hype, many are sharing stories about how AI will take jobs and make UXers irrelevant. Couple those “alarms” with how some companies are eliminating positions in favor of using AI and the stories seem legit, but a closer look is required. AI does not replace those with actual skill and acumen. AI can only replace those whose work consists solely of finite science-based tasks and responsibilities. Given that (pure) UX is an infinite science, this should encourage many to develop broader skill sets. Want to AI-proof yourself? Build your acumen. Become the real deal (as a UXer). Become or be the person who is qualified to examine and validate the trustworthiness of what AI produces. There is nothing to fear for such people, making the aforementioned fearmongering reports nothing more than someone’s “crying wolf.”
I recently chimed in on a Reddit post, where I was trying to help provide some direction for up-and-coming UXers. One person responded to my reply saying, “Spoken like a true long-time UXer” (and he wasn’t being complimentary). Without sharing the details from the forthcoming attack, please know that he was sounding an alarm—an alarm that I was to be avoided and ignored.
Did he have just cause for the response? No. Did he have reason for caution? Nope. Did he have something better to offer? Definitely not. The only thing that person had to offer was fear. There wasn’t any substance. There wasn’t any trustworthiness. There weren’t any viable principles. There was only the “crying of wolf.”
And yes…. “crying wolf” is a tell-tale sign of a lack of UX maturity, which NEVER yields any desirable results for those bound in that state.
Conclusion
There wasn’t any misinformation in UX prior to 2011. Since that time, everyone entering the discipline, whether they are aware of it or not, has had to manage that misinformation. That misinformation is inclusive of scenarios likened to someone’s “crying wolf,” thereby misguiding the aspiring UXer and fostering a false need to take action. Sadly, many believed or continue to believe the false reports and adjust accordingly. Basically, those who did so fixed something that wasn’t broken—a losing proposition.
There aren’t any UX boogeymen. There are “wolves” in and around UX today, but not as people suppose and certainly not as folks are being told. Sadly, the vast vast vast majority of the alarms being sounded are false. To discern the authenticity levels of alarms, practitioners must continue to develop acumen, become more emotionally intelligent, and sharpen their senses.
Nobody benefits from obeying a false alarm. When we follow the path of excellence, the false alarms and distractors just become noise — noise to be ignored.
About Dr. Darren
Dr. Darren Hood is a 30+-year UX practitioner with a broad professional footprint across B2B and B2C operations and holds a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership. In addition to serving as a UX manager, individual contributor, and freelancer in the business world, Darren is serving or has served as an adjunct professor at Michigan State University, Champlain College, Brandeis University, Lawrence Tech University, Kent State University, UCLA, and Harrisburg University. He is also one of the authors featured in “97 Things Every UX Practitioner Should Know.” He also regularly speaks at conferences and mentors people worldwide.
You can hear more from Darren by visiting the KaizenUX Medium blog landing page, the KaizenUX YouTube channel, or by listening to The World of UX with Darren Hood wherever podcasts are available.
Visit KaizenTees to check out my UX ≠ UI merch.
