Ask Hardik Anything.

How do you stay close to craft as a design leader?

Most design leaders treat their role like a promotion away from the work. That's a trap. The moment you stop making things, your taste starts decaying. You lose the ability to give sharp, actionable feedback because you're no longer feeling the resistance of the material. I still prototype, still push pixels on strategic projects, still spend time in Cursor building things myself. Not because I have to, but because that's how I keep my judgment calibrated. The org you build is your portfolio as a leader, but you can't curate what you can't evaluate. Stay close to the work or watch your standards slowly drift.

What separates designers who go far in their careers from those who plateau?

Most people are lazy. They lack bias for action, don't sweat the details, don't seek critical feedback, externalize their failures, and obsess over tools instead of discipline. If you're not most people, you're already ahead. The designers who go far show up when it's hard. They take responsibility. They follow through on commitments. They can comprehend the power of compounding and have the patience for it. Career alpha isn't about talent or luck - it's about the boring habits that compound over time. The best designers I've worked with aren't necessarily the most gifted. They're the most consistent.

Why do large companies with huge design teams still ship mediocre products?

I've seen this pattern at multiple large orgs. It comes down to a few things: Design leadership creates disconnected principles that nobody uses in daily work. Timelines only factor in 'bare minimum' quality - fit and finish gets cut first. Performance systems reward what's measurable, so craft and delight don't get prioritized. Feedback gets diluted into word-salad that misses the point. And designers closest to user problems can't implement solutions because platform teams won't let them. The dysfunction is systemic. The companies that maintain high craft - Apple, Notion, Airbnb - do so by fighting against these forces every single day. It takes organizational courage and leadership that genuinely values quality over expediency.

What's the hardest part of transitioning from IC to design leadership?

The product is no longer your portfolio - the org you build is. That shift takes time to internalize. As an IC, you could whine about problems. As a leader, your job is to fix them. The lonelier parts hit hard too. You're now the keeper of context that can't always be shared. Tough conversations can't be delegated. And you'll feel the weight of decisions that affect people's careers. What helped me: respect timeliness of transparency, prioritize tough conversations early, and build cognitive repeaters - help your team develop the mental models they'll need when you're not in the room. Almost all problems can be solved by facilitating communication.

What makes you lose patience fastest at work?

Having to remind people about things we already discussed. If I have to follow up, it's already too late. Beyond that: shoddy writing in product copy or Slack messages - there's no excuse anymore with free tools everywhere. Poor preparation for meetings - if you haven't done your homework, you're wasting everyone's time. And complaining about problems without trying to solve them or seeking help. Complaining without action is giving up. Everything else I can work with. Low skills with high intent? I'll invest all day. But low agency, waiting to be told what to do, getting stuck and not doing anything about it - that sets inertia and rubs off on the team. It's a disease.

What do you value more: skill or intent?

Intent, and it's not close. I have high tolerance for low skills with high intent. I have very low tolerance for low skills with low intent. Skills can be built. I've seen motivated people with gaps outperform talented people who coast. The person who shows up every day, asks questions, iterates fast, and genuinely wants to get better - they'll surpass the gifted designer who thinks they've arrived. Ambition and personal growth are non-negotiable for me. Everything can be taught except the desire to learn. When someone has that fire, you can see it in how they respond to feedback, how they push themselves, how they don't need permission to take initiative.

How hands-on should design leaders be?

More than most people think. Throughout every leadership role I've held, I've remained deeply in the weeds. You'll find me jamming on design files, discussing details in comments, sharing feedback on the tiniest things. When I work, I'm zoomed in and no detail is too small. The conventional wisdom says leaders should 'stay high-level' and 'empower the team.' That's half right. You empower by showing what great looks like, not by disappearing. How can you give sharp feedback if you've lost touch with the craft? How can you set the quality bar if you're not close enough to see when it's slipping? The best design leaders I know are still makers at heart.

What does 'high agency' actually look like?

It's the opposite of waiting. High agency people don't get stuck - when they hit a wall, they go around and talk to people, find another way, or escalate fast. They don't need permission to take initiative. They see a problem and start solving it before anyone asks. They bring solutions, not just observations. They close loops without being reminded. Concretely: it's the designer who notices a UX issue outside their scope and fixes it anyway. Who writes the documentation nobody asked for because the team needs it. Who reaches out to engineering directly instead of waiting for a PM to schedule a meeting. Low agency looks like inertia - getting stuck and doing nothing about it. That inertia spreads. High agency is contagious too, thankfully.

What's something you've changed your mind about as a leader?

I used to think being demanding meant being relentless about everything. Push hard on every detail, every project, every interaction. I've learned that's exhausting for everyone and actually counterproductive. Now I'm more selective. Some battles matter enormously - quality bar on flagship work, how we treat users, who we hire. Others don't. I've also softened on timelines. I used to believe everything could be done faster, always. I still believe that mostly, but I've seen what happens when you never let the team breathe. You get burnout and turnover, and then everything gets slower. The demanding part hasn't changed - I still expect the highest quality when we sit down to review something. But I've learned when to push and when to protect.