Designing for approval is not the same as designing for effectiveness.
Even when a project starts off strong—anchored in audience insight, strategic clarity, and purpose—something subtle can shift along the way. The decision-making center moves. Internal feedback rolls in. And the focus drifts from users to approvers.
This piece is about what to do when that happens. How to protect the original intent of the work. And how to keep the right people at the center of the process.
Because stakeholder alignment matters. But so does creative integrity. And the strongest work happens when we design for outcomes—not org charts.
Where good work gets quietly rewritten
The work starts strong. It’s focused. User-centered. Strategy-aligned.
Then comes the chain.
People who weren’t in the room now need to weigh in. And even when it’s well-intentioned, the center shifts.
We’re no longer designing for the people who will use, read, or experience the thing. We’re designing for internal alignment.
Stakeholders aren’t the villain. They care. But the structure creates friction. Feedback becomes filtered through perception, not purpose. Bold becomes safe. Specific becomes generic.
When feedback comes from outside the process, it often shifts the process.
Not because someone’s wrong—just because they weren’t there.
Sign-off isn’t a strategy
Sign-off becomes the goal. Not impact.
And no one sets out to do that—but here we are. Five rounds deep. The spark is gone. The clarity is dulled. The thing is beige.
When internal approval becomes the measure of success, here’s what gets lost:
- Audience clarity
- Confident UX decisions
- Strategic originality
“Will leadership like it?” is not a strategy. And clarity often gets traded for comfort.
And that’s not what the work was meant to do.
How we protect the center
The work should always stay anchored to the people it’s for. Not the loudest voice. Not the most senior title. The actual audience.
So the question isn’t just “Is this aligned?” It’s: “Are we still designing for the right person?”
How we hold that line at Niftic:
- Alignment sessions that define audience, goals, and voice before we design
- Clear rationale baked into every creative decision
- Narrative briefs to carry context upward in the org
- Feedback framing: what kind of input is helpful, and when?
- Use of guiding principles to steer reviews
We don’t defend the work.
We defend who the work is for.
Redesigning the feedback loop
If the first time a stakeholder sees the work is the moment they have to approve it, you’ve already lost the thread.
This is common. Very common. Where comms teams are responsible for leading the work, but final review requires input from multiple departments, directors, or boards. The structure makes sense. The disruption it causes? Also real.
Here’s how we work within that reality—without losing the intent of the work:
1. Ground the work in context.
- Start with context, not comps. Bring stakeholders into goals, audiences, and insight before there’s anything to critique.
- Narrative briefs = essential. Short, plain-language rationale helps the work travel upward without losing its why.
- Use guiding principles. They’re easier to align around than aesthetics—and help stakeholders understand the creative logic.
2. Structure the feedback intentionally.
- Tier the feedback loop. Separate who’s giving input for accuracy, alignment, or sign-off—then weigh accordingly.
- Create feedback windows. Bound the loop. Don’t leave input open-ended or infinite.
- Log decisions + rationale. Keep track of what was decided—and why—so new feedback doesn’t reopen settled ground.
3. Clarify roles early—and reframe them.
- Map who leads and who decides. Don’t assume. Especially in cross-functional or nonprofit teams, project-specific leadership can be ambiguous.
- Reframe stakeholders as advisors (when possible). Their expertise is valuable—but it doesn’t mean every opinion requires a creative shift.
- Build review flows that match the arc. Don’t force sign-off before the work is ready. Invite the right voices at the right time.
Not every opinion needs to shape the work. But every reviewer deserves context.
Impact, not internal agreement
Good work isn’t always unanimous. It’s not meant to be.
It’s meant to be clear. Purposeful. Anchored to the user.
You can chase sign-off.
Or you can chase outcomes.
But you probably can’t do both well.
Design should always serve someone. Make sure it’s the right someone.
