Though I'm skeptical about celebrating this "Super IC" evolution—it feels like we're rebranding job consolidation as 'opportunity'. When designer-product manager-engineer becomes a single role, are we really talking about career growth or just expecting one person to do what used to require a team? There's a fine line between expanded responsibility and setting people up for burnout while companies save on headcount.
Great article! I will say that at early-stage companies like mine, we like people who can see the full picture and hopefully execute across whatever boundaries, rather than designers who can code, pms who can design, etc. The super IC is a new breed and good designers have the ideal skills to evolve into that.
I don't use Substack often, but I came here to say that this is an informative article on how AI is changing the design industry, including our expectations of designers.
Thanks so much for making the trip over here, Anthony. Glad the piece resonated. It’s such a wild moment for design, and the expectations shift feels like it’s only just beginning.
Really interesting take on what being talked about. What's more interesting though is what impact the super IC has on other roles in the org, and the org itself. If design has more responsibility, is it taking from other roles? or is the org itself morphing away from individualized 'departments' entirely? And ultimately, what does an org even do with super ICs? Is it smart to put so much value on a few individuals with more self-sufficient skillsets that need organizations less?
Right now, organizations have departments of people who collaborate with other departments of people. Until organizations fundamentally change how people within them work (not just getting leaner and consolidating roles), the world will continue to see Design as largely the same thing it did for decades and that impacts what facets of design people are incentivized to be skilled at.
How do orgs evaluate super IC designers? I don't think we'll look at a designer who can develop a vanilla solution but is great at analyzing the business impact of an MVP or who is great at vibe coding an MVP, and say wow they are a really great designer. So even with the shipping capability, a designer isn't a great designer (a valuable employee maybe) unless they excel at the same core discipline that has existed for decades. The core design discipline will continue to be the primary skillset and everything else as other. The shipping part of the super IC will be a nice to have; something that makes a candidate stand out from a stack, but ultimately an infrequently utilized skill because, to your point, orgs don't know how to think about a designer who can ship vs. an eng. who can sell, vs. a PM who can build an audience, etc. Organizations may potentially view super ICs who are too generalized similarly, great to have on the team, obviously super talented and can do a lot, but in a traditionally structured org, not business critical. At the end of the day, different orgs will value each part of the super IC stack differently, and whichever part an org. values most dictates what the actual role the super IC has is within an org, and it may not be designer.
All that said, I think what's cool about all of this is, is that it feels like a fully realized version of the what the 'Design isn't just pixels' crowd was championing 10 years ago. Back then the tradeoff was craft for influence. Now skillsets and tools have evolved to the point where in the right org. one begets the other.
Love this take. You’re right: the “Super IC” is as much about org design as design itself. In traditional, siloed teams, hybrid skills get underused or mislabeled. But in leaner, outcome-driven orgs, they’re the engine.
And yes, this does feel like the fully realized version of “design isn’t just pixels.” A decade ago, we traded craft for influence; now, with the right tools and structure, one feeds the other. The trick is getting more orgs to work that way.
“Designers! Designers! Designers!” — feels like the architecture version of that would be “Buildings! Buildings! Buildings!” except I quit drawing them and started making the moving parts instead. Wood that behaves like steel, kinetic structures, AI agents that actually finish tasks. Good Graf’s got range.
Great insight 👍. I have struggled to find jobs as a brand designer. Applied to over 100 jobs this year, I got some interviews, but I ultimately I do believe there is a relearning and up-skilling needed on my part. Thanks for sharing.
I’ve been saying this from the behavioral science perspective for a few years now, it’s so good to see others saying it too!
Absolutely agree with everything that you said, if anything I’d say that you might have underplayed how important design is going to be relative to engineering in the future
Interesting take and great piece. I’m curious how this will pan out: with everyone becoming more generalist, I wonder if we will still see some expert-level specialists that set the tone in fields like design and development. I also wonder how new specialists can gain their expertise in a generalist’s world. Would love to hear your takes on this!
As a senior CS student, I really enjoyed this article. You’ve built your ideas in such an elegant way while speaking to the exact chaos we soon-to-be grads are living. Ty!
Great perspective on this shift.
Though I'm skeptical about celebrating this "Super IC" evolution—it feels like we're rebranding job consolidation as 'opportunity'. When designer-product manager-engineer becomes a single role, are we really talking about career growth or just expecting one person to do what used to require a team? There's a fine line between expanded responsibility and setting people up for burnout while companies save on headcount.
Solid pushback.
Much appreciated clarity in this changing world, Carly! 🙏
So good and timely @Carly Ayres
Thanks, Emmett!!!
Great article! I will say that at early-stage companies like mine, we like people who can see the full picture and hopefully execute across whatever boundaries, rather than designers who can code, pms who can design, etc. The super IC is a new breed and good designers have the ideal skills to evolve into that.
GOOD READ
I don't use Substack often, but I came here to say that this is an informative article on how AI is changing the design industry, including our expectations of designers.
Thanks so much for making the trip over here, Anthony. Glad the piece resonated. It’s such a wild moment for design, and the expectations shift feels like it’s only just beginning.
Really interesting take on what being talked about. What's more interesting though is what impact the super IC has on other roles in the org, and the org itself. If design has more responsibility, is it taking from other roles? or is the org itself morphing away from individualized 'departments' entirely? And ultimately, what does an org even do with super ICs? Is it smart to put so much value on a few individuals with more self-sufficient skillsets that need organizations less?
Right now, organizations have departments of people who collaborate with other departments of people. Until organizations fundamentally change how people within them work (not just getting leaner and consolidating roles), the world will continue to see Design as largely the same thing it did for decades and that impacts what facets of design people are incentivized to be skilled at.
How do orgs evaluate super IC designers? I don't think we'll look at a designer who can develop a vanilla solution but is great at analyzing the business impact of an MVP or who is great at vibe coding an MVP, and say wow they are a really great designer. So even with the shipping capability, a designer isn't a great designer (a valuable employee maybe) unless they excel at the same core discipline that has existed for decades. The core design discipline will continue to be the primary skillset and everything else as other. The shipping part of the super IC will be a nice to have; something that makes a candidate stand out from a stack, but ultimately an infrequently utilized skill because, to your point, orgs don't know how to think about a designer who can ship vs. an eng. who can sell, vs. a PM who can build an audience, etc. Organizations may potentially view super ICs who are too generalized similarly, great to have on the team, obviously super talented and can do a lot, but in a traditionally structured org, not business critical. At the end of the day, different orgs will value each part of the super IC stack differently, and whichever part an org. values most dictates what the actual role the super IC has is within an org, and it may not be designer.
All that said, I think what's cool about all of this is, is that it feels like a fully realized version of the what the 'Design isn't just pixels' crowd was championing 10 years ago. Back then the tradeoff was craft for influence. Now skillsets and tools have evolved to the point where in the right org. one begets the other.
Love this take. You’re right: the “Super IC” is as much about org design as design itself. In traditional, siloed teams, hybrid skills get underused or mislabeled. But in leaner, outcome-driven orgs, they’re the engine.
And yes, this does feel like the fully realized version of “design isn’t just pixels.” A decade ago, we traded craft for influence; now, with the right tools and structure, one feeds the other. The trick is getting more orgs to work that way.
“Designers! Designers! Designers!” — feels like the architecture version of that would be “Buildings! Buildings! Buildings!” except I quit drawing them and started making the moving parts instead. Wood that behaves like steel, kinetic structures, AI agents that actually finish tasks. Good Graf’s got range.
Love “The great reset” framing. I’m definitely seeing that in content design. Our roles have changed so much, especially my team’s since we’re in AI.
Great insight 👍. I have struggled to find jobs as a brand designer. Applied to over 100 jobs this year, I got some interviews, but I ultimately I do believe there is a relearning and up-skilling needed on my part. Thanks for sharing.
Excellent post!
I’ve been saying this from the behavioral science perspective for a few years now, it’s so good to see others saying it too!
Absolutely agree with everything that you said, if anything I’d say that you might have underplayed how important design is going to be relative to engineering in the future
Great piece!
Hopeful!
Loved the bluntness — THIS IS how designers get a seat at the table!
Interesting take and great piece. I’m curious how this will pan out: with everyone becoming more generalist, I wonder if we will still see some expert-level specialists that set the tone in fields like design and development. I also wonder how new specialists can gain their expertise in a generalist’s world. Would love to hear your takes on this!
As a senior CS student, I really enjoyed this article. You’ve built your ideas in such an elegant way while speaking to the exact chaos we soon-to-be grads are living. Ty!