Changing the system changes behaviors.Much of our society is built on the premise that hard work and a positive mindset can help us escape even the most challenging situations. If we apply ourselves enough, we will reach that goal, get that promotion, and become successful. I call this phenomenon the “Mindset Myth.” The Mindset Myth is the belief that individual success or failure is largely determined by one’s internal drive and attitude. In this narrative, we position the individual as the one in charge of their destiny, and ignore the larger, systemic barriers — the ACCESS that people may or may not have.Mindset can be defined as things like courage, stamina, hard work, persistence, etc. Access, on the other hand, relates to things like money, housing, relationships, etc.Mindset vs. access in design.In design, the Mindset Myth shows up in the way we frame our design challenges, as well as the solutions that get produced in the end. For example, In human-centered design, one of the most widely adopted design practices of the last 30 years, are efforts are focused on making it easier for people to navigate the world. We spend time with our end-users to understand their wants and pain points — then, we create or adapt these products and services to remove as much friction as possible — whether that means creating a simplified interface, making features more accessible, or creating new interactions altogether. Our goal, as the name of the practice states, is to center individual humans’ needs. But what we often ignore is the context in which those needs are formed — the systemic conditions, or lack of access, that created them in the first place.One example that comes to mind when I think about mindset vs. access is fitness trackers. Today, Fitbits, Apple Watches, and other trackers are permanent fixtures on most adults’ wrists (and yes, even many kids are wearing them now, too — have to start building healthy habits early, of course). From a functional perspective, the devices were designed to help people who struggle with their health goals to become more motivated and more active. But why are fitness trackers the solution? Well, physicians tell us that we need to walk 10,000 steps a day to have a healthy heart, reduce stress, and keep our bodies in relatively good condition. When product designers at Apple decided that this was a profitable space to play in, they likely took a human-centered approach to understanding the challenges and barriers that might prevent someone from reaching those 10,000 steps. They may have heard, through user interviews and surveys, that “the problem” is that people lack motivation to workout, or they don’t know where to get started. Their solution was to design a gamified gadget that tells people when to stand and walk, and gives people the ability to compete with their peers. On the surface, well-designed fitness trackers solve a problem: helping us become more active. But when we look at the bigger picture, I can’t help but wonder… are we solving for surface-level individual barriers, rather than addressing the inequities in the underlying systems?We’ve created environments and cultural norms where our jobs and our lives keep us inside for most of the day. Most office workers spend 8+ hours at the computer, and the pace of meetings, deadlines, and deliverables limits our ability to go for a walk or take a break. We’ve shifted away from communal living arrangements where interacting with others required physical movement and connection, and instead, we more often relate to each other through screens of one size or another. The pandemic only accelerated the pace of human separation and sedentariness — we don’t even have to leave our homes to get groceries anymore. By looking at the systems we’re operating within — ones that were created to cater to individualism and ease — we can see how the lack of access to conditions that allow us to be healthy may be a bigger systemic issue to solve than the motivation to take a stroll around the block.When we ignore access, we increase the divide.When we focus on mindset over access, we reinforce discriminatory systems that shape so much of the world we live in. Poverty and inequality are often framed around a narrative that suggests that “people should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps” — insinuating that if people experiencing poverty just apply themselves, they can become wealthy.I recently attended a webinar by HmntyCntrd, titled Dear Researchers & Designers — We Need to Talk About Race (a version of the content is also shared here), where we explored how structural racism plays a role in our design and research practices. In the webinar, host Alba Villamil explained how the way we frame questions affects what problems we tackle. Villamil proposed that rather than asking research and design questions that focus on individual behaviors, we should find ways to reframe them to include a systems view.Instead of asking: How do we increase user enthusiasm for signing up for our government service? We could be asking: How has our government agency’s racist policies and frontline workers impacted users’ enthusiasm?Or instead of asking: What gaps do users have in their financial literacy about applying for a loan? We could look at it from a systems lens by asking: How does discriminatory bank policy create additional barriers to applying for a loan?As designers and researchers, we need to look beyond mindset and start focusing on access if we want to design a more just society.DesignShift: How might we Shift the focus of design from mindset to access?In the last few months, I’ve been exploring a better future for and through design through different DesignShifts. Part of the work has been about asking myself how we can shift from designing for mindset to designing for access.In my search, I’ve found 5 ways that can help us get started:Recognize exclusionName the systemShifts models of behaviorBelieve in peopleTransfer access1. Recognize exclusionAs designers, we claim that through testing, surveys, and extensive secondary research we’re able to better understand our users’ needs, wants, thoughts, behaviors, bisases, and barriers. This focus on the user is referred to as User-centered design or Human-centered design and is widely adopted by individual practitioners and design firms all over the globe.And while User- and human-centered design is important, before we try to find our ideal “user” and start developing personas or user profiles, we must examine existing power structures, our own biases, and the problem with designing for the average user. In the book Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need, Sasha Costanza-Chock writes that “designers tend to unconsciously default to imagined users whose experiences are similar to their own. This means that users are most often assumed to be members of the dominant, and hence “unmarked” group: in the United States, this means (cis)male, white, heterosexual, ‘able-bodied,’ literate, college-educated, not a young child and not elderly, with broadband internet access, with a smartphone, and so on.” Costanza-Chock has done extensive research on the design of technology products and the biases brought on by focusing on a narrow “highly profitable, subset of humanity.” But the problems with lack of diversity when developing personas and user testing isn’t limited to technology — it spans all design industries, from marketing, UX, and Industrial design, to fashion, architectural, and experience design. Our current design practices continue to reinforce current power structures by centering the needs of some while ignoring the needs of others. Costanza-Chock explains that because often marginalized groups are not among the target users or personas, “their needs, desires, and potential contributions will continue to be ignored, sidelined, or deprioritized.”As we examine our exclusionary practices and philosophies, we must also take a look at the places we learn and implement these practices. The world of design is still exclusive. Our agencies are located in expensive cities and few people can afford our services. We might have great DEI statements (at least before the least executive orders) and say that we don’t discriminate against class or race in our hiring methods, but when our offices are in areas where only the highest paying people at the company can afford to live, it sends the opposite message: you’re welcome to apply, but be prepared to be mentally and physically exhausted not just from the work, but from trying to keep up with the commute, the status, and the expectations of conforming to our definitions of what’s “good” and what works.2. Name the system. Shift the narrative.If we want to use our skills for good, we also need to develop the courage to call out harm when we see it. In this LinkedIn post, nidhi kalaiya exemplifies this notion by saying: “Women are not the problem — it’s the patriarchy. Being Black or brown isn’t the problem — it’s White Supremacy. Disabled folks are not the problem — it’s ableism and inaccessibility. Trans folks are not the problem — it’s transphobia and the gender binary. First Nations communities are not the problem to solve — it’s coloniality.”Much of our design solutions are focused on the person experiencing the harm vs. the system causing it. By naming the system — not the symptoms — we can start to move away from blaming individuals for the problems they experience and start fixing broken systems.One way that we can name systems is by examining the narratives we tell ourselves and each other. At its core, this comes back to acknowledging the The Mindset Myth — the belief that hard work and the right mindset is the recipe for success — and actively start to reframe the questions we ask during our design process:Who are we consciously or subconsciously excluding from our considerations?What personal or systemic biases are affecting our thinking, and what impact have they had on marginalized communities?Where did we learn these biases?How have we contributed to the proliferation of these biases in the past, and what can we learn from those experiences so that we don’t repeat them?As a communications designer, I believe that the stories we tell ourselves, and each other, play a big role in how we move through the world. Lately, I’ve been exploring ways to shift away from a focus on mindset and create narratives that highlight the systematic problems that are at the root of our lived realities.Shifting narratives and personal beliefs is no easy task, but one place we can start is through practices. I recently came across a framework called Unpacking, Expanding, and Imagining Shifting Narratives, created by Healing Justice London, and published here as a Collective Imagination Tool.The framework suggests a four-step process of examining a narrative — Defining, Unpacking, Expanding, and Imagining — in order to change it.https://www.collectiveimagination.tools/unpacking-expanding-and-imagining-shifting-narratives3. Shift models of behaviorWe’ve explored why it’s important for designers to shift our goals from changing individual behaviors to changing broken systems. But it’s equally important to understand models of behavior change we’re currently operating within. “Know the rules before you break them. Many of our design solutions are created based on a deficiency model of user behavior, which is the belief that people fail to take action because of their own personal shortcomings or lack of motivation. For example, we assume that people don’t recycle because they don’t care about the environment, when the issue might be that they don’t have access to simple ways to sort their trash. Or, we assume people in larger bodies are lazy, rather than considering underlying medical conditions, lack of access to healthy, affordable foods, or even the cultural constructs that make us believe there’s something inherently wrong with being in a larger body in the first place.The opposite of a deficiency model of user behavior is what we call a Social Model. It was popularized through examining access from the perspective of people living with a disability. The social model highlights how people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or difference. The problem is not someone’s disability, but rather the built environment that was only created for a certain type of individual. Once we understand these different models of behavior change, we can start to have better conversations around HOW we approach our design challenges. Shifting our mindset from deficiency-based to a social model can help designers see the structures that are holding us and other people back.4. Believe peopleDesigning for access starts with a belief that people are doing the best they can. In this podcast episode, Ezra Klein interviews Labor organizer Jane McAlevey about what it takes to mobilize people within a labor movement. McAlevey, who has organized hundreds of thousands of workers on the front lines, highlights how a fundamental belief in everyday people is crucial to the success of her work. In the episode, she says:“I start out every day genuinely believing that people can make radical changes in how they think about and see the world. And that means you have to be willing to work with them, even if their views are fairly different from your own.”Designers can learn a lot from community builders. They’re on the front lines, engaging and designing WITH, not FOR, the people they’re supporting.They know how to create solutions that last beyond the timelines of a set project, because rather than working toward short term fixes, they’re focusing on long-term systems change. And, maybe most importantly, community builders know that they themselves are not the answer. Their role is to inspire and activate the inherent knowledge, and capabilities, of the people around them. .john a. powell ( who spells his name in lowercase in the belief that we should be “part of the universe, not over it, as capitals signify”), the Director of the Othering & Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, reinforces this idea in his suggestion that we should “Be hard on structures and soft on people.” When we believe in people and practice creating change with, rather than for, we also minimize the risk of being pulled back into the Mindset Myth. It may be a lesson we have to keep relearning, over and over again, but it’s one that’s worth the commitment.5. Transfer accessWe often think that providing greater access to a space, a resource, or a way of thinking means opening the door to a previously closed opportunity and inviting others in. However, sometimes we have to go one step further — we need to leave the space ourselves, and give the keys to someone else.A few years ago, I saw this post by illustrator and designer, Timothy Goodman.Goodman was asked to speak at a conference, which likely would have had a positive impact on his career. However, as he explored the list of speakers from the previous year’s conference, he noticed that out of the 20+ individuals on the roster 15 were white men, and only two people people of color. Because of this inequity, Goodman made the decision to decline the offer to speak, and instead, encouraged the organizers to invite more people of color through a website he created called People of craft. Goodman recognized his privilege, but didn’t simply suggest that the organizers rethink their roster. He abdicated his own space, and rejected an opportunity for self-promotion, in order to make space for people who have historically been ignored by our industry.Removing barriers. Opening doors.Shifting our narratives from mindset to access is one first step towards changing our approach and perspective. In this post, I’ve explored the challenges with focusing our design solely on mindsets, and how shifting our focus to providing access can create more opportunities for systems change. But before we wrap-up, I want to acknowledge that I’m not dismissing the importance of mindset as a whole. I was a professional athlete for most of my life, and I’ve experienced the impact that mental training can have on performance first-hand. However, through my research and practice as a designer, I have also come to believe that a positive mindset alone isn’t enough. My hope is that by proposing (and practicing) these DesignShifts, we can challenge the status quo and embrace the parts of ourselves, and each other and start seeing the full picture.As you move on to whatever’s next in your day, maybe you’ll find a moment to reflect on where, or how, you can use your own design talents to remove barriers and open doors for others: to leave you with these provocations:Rather than telling people to eat healthy, how can we give people greater access to affordable and healthy food?Rather than telling people to walk more or gamifying their step-counts, how can we create more pedestrian-friendly cities?Rather than telling women that they need to learn how to lead like men, how do we design workplaces that recognize the value of different leadership styles?Rather than being held back or harmed by the Mindset Myth, what do we need in order to start designing the conditions where doing the right thing is easy?There are no perfect answers, of course. However, I beleive that the real design challenge is to address systemic barriers rather than individual behaviors. We have to redesigning the systems that perpetuate inequality and limited access in the first place. When we focus on access over mindset, we create opportunities for everyone to participate fully in society, regardless of their starting point or circumstances.Resources mentioned in this post:Systems Change Series | Design Thinking, Systems Thinking & Futures Thinking 101Ruha Benjamin — Is technology our savior — or our slayer?Dear Researchers & Designers: We Need to Talk About Race — Alba VillamilLabor organizer Jane McAlevey on The Ezra Klein Show | VoxNarrative Strategy Framework Tool Framework DownloadDesignShift: From mindset to access was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.