In 2020, during my senior year at University of California, Davis, I founded the university’s first student UX organization, Design Interactive (or DI). Starting a new group during COVID lockdowns was challenging, but it quickly grew: hundreds of students participated in real client projects, and alumni have gone on to UX roles at companies including Apple, Amazon, and Google. Leading it taught me how to guide, support, and grow a team effectively—here are the key lessons I took away.
The Speed of Trust in practice
Trust is the bedrock of any strong organization, and consistency is what earns it over time.
In The Speed of Trust, Stephen Covey argues that high-trust environments operate with far greater efficiency. Consider a simple analogy: if your mother asks to stay in your spare bedroom, you likely agree without hesitation; if a stranger asks, you require a background check, a contract, and a deposit. Trust accelerates action.
While leading DI, the student-run design agency at University of California, Davis, I kept a daily reminder on my wall: “Engender trust every day.” After each meeting and one-on-one, I reflected on whether my words and actions strengthened that trust.
A culture of experimentation
What feels obvious in hindsight was the result of constant experimentation.
We tested multiple names and visual identities to understand which would signal a UX organization working with real clients and motivate students to attend events. “Design Interactive” was not our initial preference, but it most clearly communicated our mission. Likewise, the first visual identity I designed proved too formal for our audience, so we shifted toward a friendlier, more approachable visual identity.
This testing mindset extended to events and marketing. Each event included a short survey to understand discovery channels and evaluate campaign performance. We monitored conversion from event attendance to member applications to balance reach with selectivity, and we tracked whether designers later returned as mentors—an indicator that our culture of giving back was taking hold.
Who decides?
I first encountered this idea during my product design internship at Alation, when investor Gokul Rajaram spoke at a fireside chat. He introduced the concept of “decision rights,” which immediately clarified a frequent source of team friction.
When decision rights are ambiguous, teams stall. Decisions circulate between functions—product and marketing, designer and PM—or remain unresolved despite repeated meetings.
If you notice decisions dragging or resurfacing without closure, it is often worth pausing to ask a simple question: Is it clear who holds the decision rights here? More often than not, the answer is no.
Leadership is contextual
This idea comes from Leadership and the One Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard: leadership should adapt to a person’s competence and commitment for a specific task.
Team members typically fall along a spectrum—from enthusiastic beginners to self-reliant achievers—and each stage calls for a different approach: directing, coaching, supporting, or delegating. As competence and confidence grow, effective leaders reduce control and increase autonomy.
I applied this at DI by supporting a capable but cautious teammate managing a major client and coaching a marketing lead who was still building confidence. In both cases, the goal was the same: develop people so lighter-touch leadership becomes possible.
Signals over statements
Culture is shaped less by stated values than by what an organization consistently rewards and discourages.
A company may claim to celebrate risk-taking, but if new ideas are routinely dismissed while incremental work is praised, the real culture becomes risk-averse.
At DI, I tried to reinforce the behaviors we wanted to see. I recognized teammates who voiced non-consensus ideas or prioritized the well-being of peers and clients—often through simple shout-outs or private encouragement. These small signals helped raise standards while reducing groupthink. I also introduced larger weekly meetings that began with a brief one-breath ritual, creating space for presence and authenticity across the team.
Care + responsibility
Effective leadership is personal. I made myself available to my team—whether for DI projects, job searches, or classwork—so they knew I was there to support and guide them.
At the same time, I let each person set their own weekly goals, while I ensured they followed through. This clarified expectations: team members felt supported but also understood their accountability.
Leadership can balance care with responsibility.
Building agency, not dependence
A common leadership trap is holding back and not delegating, often out of fear of mistakes.
At DI, I took a different approach. Even when I questioned an idea, I let team members experiment—especially with tasks new to them. Trial and error builds long-term agency and growth, even if it slows things down in the short term.
This is the opposite of micromanaging. As Sun Tzu observed, “When the best leaders’ work is done, the people say, ‘We did it ourselves.’” Effective leadership creates the conditions for others to succeed on their own.