I Used to Think I Was a Bad Communicator. Turns Out I Just Had Opinions.

A junior designer I mentored last year emailed me asking if I’d ever write about “the soft skills problem.” She’s struggling with the same thing I see constantly — being told she’s “too confrontational” when she’s trying to prevent disasters. I told her about the designer I hired in 2017. This is that story.

For years, I kept hiring designers with “excellent soft skills” and watching some projects fail.

Stakeholders would praise them as “great communicators” and “real team players.” They’d describe me as “direct” in that tone that clearly wasn’t a compliment.

I’d explain why a design decision mattered, and someone would say “let’s take a collaborative approach here.”

Translation: stop disagreeing with us.

I watched these diplomatic designers nod through terrible suggestions, reframe their design rationale to match whatever the room decided, and turn every decision into a group vote.

Then I’d watch the projects fail. Because “great soft skills” without judgment is just expensive nodding.

The Designer Who Cost Deutsche Telekom 

In 2017, I hired a senior designer — let’s call her Sarah — for a data management platform we were building for Deutsche Telekom. Enterprise software for telecom engineers managing network infrastructure across multiple countries. Significant project for everyone involved.

Sarah’s portfolio was solid. Her references glowed about her “excellent communication skills” and “collaborative approach.” The interview was perfect — articulate, diplomatic, professionally polished.

Three weeks in, the project lead – let’s call him Marcus – wanted to add a real-time alert system to the main dashboard. Every network event, every status change, streaming continuously across the top. Red badges. Sound notifications. The works.

I knew immediately this was wrong. Our users were network engineers troubleshooting complex issues. They needed sustained focus. A constantly updating alert stream would destroy their ability to work.

Our research was explicit: engineers’ biggest complaint was notification overload. They’d specifically asked for fewer interruptions, not more.

I told Sarah: “This contradicts everything the research showed. We need to push back hard on this.”

She said: “Let me handle it diplomatically.”

In the next meeting, instead of saying “this will destroy their workflow and contradicts our research,” she said “that’s an interesting direction — what if we explored some notification strategies?”

Marcus liked that she was being “collaborative.” They spent three weeks designing five different notification patterns. Built prototypes. User-tested all of them.

Every single engineer said the same thing: “I would turn this off immediately.”

Sarah compiled the research. Showed Marcus the direct quotes, the attention studies, everything.

He looked at it for thirty seconds and said: “The CTO wants to see network activity in the demo next month. We’re building it.”

Sarah nodded and started taking notes on implementation details.

I should have stepped in then. I didn’t. I trusted her “excellent stakeholder management skills.”

We spent eight weeks building a feature the research had already proven would fail. Development cost: €XXX,000. Design time, project management, testing: another €XX,000.

The feature launched in March 2017. By April, some 70% of users had disabled it. The engineers sent feedback: “Why did you add exactly what we said we didn’t want?”

We almost lost the client relationship entirely. The engineers were pissed, their team leads were pissed, and when renewal discussions came up six months later, we weren’t on the initial list.

I had to personally call their head of engineering, walk through what went wrong, and explain why it wouldn’t happen again. We kept the client, but barely — and only because I’d built enough trust on previous projects that they gave us another chance.

Sarah didn’t work on the next phase.

What I Learned About Hiring for “Soft Skills”

Sarah’s “excellent communication” meant she could explain ideas clearly but wouldn’t defend them under pressure. Her “collaborative approach” meant design by committee. Her “diplomatic professionalism” meant conflict avoidance.

She optimized for stakeholder comfort instead of user outcomes. That’s not design — that’s customer service with Figma.

After Deutsche Telekom, I completely changed how I evaluate designers.

How I Work With Designers Now

Two years after, I was working with a junior designer on an enterprise asset management system. In a stakeholder review, the client’s CTO suggested reorganizing the entire information architecture around the database schema — how the system stored data internally, not how users thought about their work.

The junior designer looked nervous. Started to say “that’s an interesting … “

I jumped in before she could: “I get why that makes sense technically, but we just watched users last week and they don’t think about it that way at all. Mind if I show you a couple clips?”

Pulled up two session recordings. The CTO watched for maybe a minute and said “yeah okay, fair point.”

After the meeting, the junior designer asked me: “Weren’t you worried about how that would come across?”

I said: “Not really. They’re paying us to know how users think. If I don’t say something when I know they’re wrong, what’s the point of me being here?”

She looked relieved. Like she’d been waiting for permission to have opinions.

That’s what I look for now: designers who get that having judgment isn’t optional, it’s literally the job.

What Changed After I Learned This

Six years later, I work completely differently.

Projects got faster. Saying “this won’t work” in week one prevents redesigns in week twelve.

Clients respected me more. People don’t want designers who agree with everything. They want someone who prevents expensive mistakes.

Better products shipped. Conviction beats consensus every time.

The Real Skill

The most valuable communication skill isn’t being agreeable. It’s being clear about disagreement.

Saying “that won’t work” without making people defensive.

Knowing “this is a bad idea” needs to become “this is a bad idea because of these specific reasons based on this evidence.”

Knowing when to compromise (aesthetics, preferences) versus when to hold firm (core usability, user research).

What We All Wish Someone Had Told Us 

If you’ve been told you need better soft skills, ask yourself: am I actually communicating badly, or do I just have strong opinions about what will work?

If you can explain your reasoning clearly and defend it with evidence, your communication is fine.

The problem might be working with people who want agreement, not expertise.

If someone calls you “too direct,” ask for examples. Often they mean: “you disagreed with me and I didn’t like it.”

That’s not your communication problem.

Now when someone suggests something that won’t work, I say it won’t work. Then explain why. Then suggest what would instead.

My communication probably still isn’t “excellent” by job description standards. I still make people uncomfortable by disagreeing clearly.

But products ship on time, users can actually use them, and clients keep hiring me.

Turns out you don’t need perfect soft skills. You just need to be right more often than you’re wrong, and clear about why.

To the junior designer who asked me to write this: you’re not too confrontational. You have professional judgment based on research. That’s the job. Clients who call that confrontational want agreement, not expertise. Find different clients, or teach these ones what they actually hired you for.

If you’re wrestling with similar dynamics, I’m open to chat about it. DM me, leave a comment, whatever. We will be comparing notes on having opinions professionally.