Why Advocacy Is Not a Strategy for UX Influence

The short answer

Advocacy is what UX practitioners do when they don’t have influence. It is the position of someone who believes the right thing and needs to persuade others of it from outside the decision-making process. It can raise awareness, shift individual attitudes, and occasionally produce a decision that wouldn’t otherwise have been made. What it cannot do is change the underlying conditions that make advocacy necessary in the first place. The organisations where design has the most sustained impact are not the ones with the best advocates. They are the ones where design thinking is embedded in the processes through which decisions get made, and getting there requires a different approach than advocacy.

What advocacy can and cannot do

Advocacy is a real and sometimes necessary tool. In environments with low UX maturity, where design is systematically undervalued and under-resourced, it is often the only tool immediately available. It is worth being clear about its scope.

Advocacy can raise awareness. It can make decision-makers aware that a user need exists, that a design problem has been identified, that a trade-off being made has consequences they may not have considered. It can shift individual attitudes over time, particularly when combined with concrete evidence and a consistent track record. It can occasionally produce a specific decision that would not otherwise have been made, as long as you meet the conditions of finding the right person, in the right frame of mind, and the argument lands well.

What advocacy cannot do is change the structural conditions that make it necessary. A practitioner who advocates effectively for a single decision has won that decision. The next decision will require the same advocacy, from the same position, against the same structural conditions. Advocacy is position-maintenance, not position-improvement.

Why the most effective practitioners stop relying on advocacy

The UX practitioners with the most sustained organisational impact are not necessarily the most compelling advocates. They are the ones who have made themselves indispensable to the processes that the organisation depends on. These are the processes through which decisions about what to build, and how to build it, are made.

In those organisations, user-centred thinking does not need to be advocated for at each decision point because it is already part of how options are evaluated. The practitioner does not arrive at the decision to make the case for design, instead they are already present when the decision is forming. Their involvement is expected rather than discretionary. That expectation was built incrementally, through a series of contributions that made their absence from the process feel like a gap.

Getting there does not require dramatic organisational change. It requires identifying which processes have the most leverage over what gets built, finding ways to contribute to those processes in terms the people running them find valuable, and sustaining that contribution long enough that it becomes structural rather than occasional.

The difference between advocacy and influence

The distinction between advocacy and influence can be expressed simply: advocacy arrives at the time of the decision, influence is already there.

Advocacy is reactive; it responds to a decision that is being made, from outside the process making it. Influence is proactive; it shapes the conditions under which decisions are made, from inside the process.

Advocacy requires a persuasive argument at the moment of decision. Influence has already shaped the frame within which the argument will be evaluated.

This distinction has a practical implication in that the investment required to build influence is different from the investment required to advocate effectively.

Advocacy investment is concentrated; it goes into a specific argument, a specific presentation, a specific moment. Influence investment is distributed; it goes into relationships, into processes, into a track record of useful contributions over time.

Advocacy can be ramped up before a specific decision. Influence cannot. It has to be built before it is needed.

What building structural influence requires

Building structural influence requires three things, each of which takes time and cannot be shortcut:

• Understanding which organisational processes have the most leverage over what gets built: not just design reviews, but scoping conversations, sprint planning, governance meetings, and the informal exchanges that happen between them
• Identifying where a practitioner can add enough value to those processes that their involvement becomes expected rather than discretionary: solving problems that the process owners actually have, in terms they actually value
• Patience: because this kind of influence is built incrementally, through contributions that compound over time rather than through any single impressive intervention

The practitioners who have done this well look different from those who are still primarily advocates. They are not necessarily louder, nor are they necessarily more senior. They are typically more patient, more attentive to the problems of the people they need to build relationships with, and more willing to invest in contributions whose return is not immediately visible.

Instead of asking how to advocate more effectively for design, ask which processes in your organisation produce the decisions that matter, and how you can become a necessary part of them.

Frequently asked questions