From In-house Design ~ Topics: inhouse issues

Service or Servitude: The In-house Dilemma

While moderating a panel discussion on in-house design last month at “Make/Think: AIGA Design Conference,” I was struck by how the word “service” generated a heated exchange—not between members of the audience, but among the panel of in-house experts.

For many in-house design teams, service has come to be perceived as an expletive and not as a valued behavior or mindset, as some of the panelists rightly argued. The connotation, in this view, equates the meaning of service with such uses as “cleaning service” or “administrative services”—a decidedly tactical and non-strategic definition. This meaning and perception, of course, is the bane of all in-house designers who are trying to elevate themselves to a more strategic role within their companies. Rather than remain order-takers who are viewed by their clients as mere production artists incapable of functioning as strategic partners with powerful insights, most internal creatives are fighting hard to shed the epithet of “service provider.”

In addition to this lack of opportunity to participate in higher-level corporate meetings is the even more upsetting fact that clients and upper managers who hold the view that their in-house teams are service providers often use it as an excuse to marginalize, denigrate and even abuse internal creatives. As a result, most in-house designers say that a lack of respect is the primary challenge they face at their jobs.

While no designer wants to be a servant, there is a critical danger inherent in fixating on this justified abhorrence of the “S” word. This preoccupation could be just as destructive to an internal design team as being perceived as merely the “creative services” department. Designers are already predisposed to be independent-minded—especially in a rigid corporate environment. If in-house creatives look at service as a dirty word and then spend most of their time and energy on avoiding the appearance of servitude, they risk alienating their clients, peers and managers.

I’ve seen internal groups disdainfully dismiss service—as in customer service—as being beneath their calling. This mindset, with its accompanying behaviors, subverts any possibility of in-house teams establishing a true partnership with their clients—not to mention that it makes the prospect of working with external firms, which understand the value of customer service in the client/designer relationship, much more appealing to internal clients.

In-house design teams might consider adopting a more positive approach to dealing with the whole service conundrum by placing the word service into the larger context of “in service to society or an organization.” Embracing this broader view would help keep designers focused on their true objective, which is to support the entire corporation rather than a specific client. To truly make good on this commitment, internal creatives would be forced to be more proactive and assertive in participating in the strategic discourse occurring in their companies. Adoption of this approach would mean not waiting to be asked to take a seat at the table, but just walking in and sitting down (respectfully, of course). By taking this position even further, in-house designers would proactively begin to look for areas where they could truly make a difference and positively impact and support other teams, not just reactively execute on client requests. Serving the company might even place in-house designers in the uncomfortable position of having to challenge their clients if their clients’ objectives are personal and territorial rather than global and in the best interests of the organization. This level of assertiveness establishes designers as partners not order takers, peers not assistants.

There’s no doubt that internal teams should avoid publicly adopting the service moniker because of the perceptions and biases that already exist in the corporate sphere. But in doing so, it’s equally important that in-house designers not throw the baby out with the bath water and make sure to honor the word “service” in its higher meaning—the selfless act for the greater good.

In-house designers are confronted daily with individuals who perceive them as staff who merely execute the orders and ideas of others. This reality may result in a knee-jerk reaction to push back hard on this misguided assumption. But service is not servitude, and it’s dangerous to confuse the two. Only when corporate creatives become clear about this distinction will they respond appropriately to the inappropriate perceptions and behaviors of others and, more importantly, find a path that takes them to a place where they will have a true and positive impact on their companies. That is when in-house designers will achieve the respect they desire.


About the Author: Andy Epstein started his career as a freelance designer and illustrator working for clients as varied as Bacardi, Canon, Bantam Books and Merck. Jumping into the world of in-house design in 1992, Epstein created and grew in-house design teams for Commonwealth Toy and Gund, as well as restructured and expanded the hundred-person creative team at Bristol-Myers-Squibb. He is currently consulting at Johnson & Johnson. He has written and spoken extensively on in-house issues and was the co-founder of InSource, an association dedicated to providing support to in-house designers and design team managers. As head of a newly formed AIGA task force on corporate design, he continues his efforts to empower in-house teams and raise their stature in the design and business communities.

  1. link to this comment by Mark Robinson Wed Nov 04, 2009

    Great article. I agree with the notion of being proactive and seeing our task as being "in service to society or an organization".

    When our focus is on client success our work not only feels more significant, it is more apt to be recognized and appreciated, which in itself leads to more opportunity and greater visibility within the organization.

  2. link to this comment by Joe Ribaudo Wed Nov 04, 2009

    Andy, I attended two seminars you gave this past Summer at HOW in Austin, and I've been thinking a lot about this subject ever since.

    As you said, I think what it ultimately comes down to is for the in-house team to first educate the rest of the company on their capabilities (fees, time lines, etc.). Once that is accomplished (a daunting task in itself), SOP's should be set up to give clients a more formal way of requesting a project, so they're "taught" that they can't just pop by your desk and tell you they need something done yesterday.

    (Of course, gaining the advocacy of someone in upper management would make the entire process easier, and give you insights as how to best sell it to other managers.)

    I do agree with Mark as well- great work leads to recognition and respect!

    Great article!

  3. link to this comment by Randy C Johnson Wed Nov 04, 2009

    Well said Andy.

    "Service provider" is merely a label. Admittedly, it has grown to have negative connotations in some light, but at days end, it's just a name. In my opinion, attitude and actions are much more likely to establish or change perceptions within an organization.

    A similar challenge that we, as in-house designers face, is defending our abilities when being compared to those of studio or agency designers. We know that we are equally if not more talented :) but because of perception, we have and will continue to go above and beyond expectation to earn the recognition that we deserve. The Make/Think conference proves that we've made tremendous progress in this. In-house design is much more recognizable than it has been in the past and we accomplished this through our actions...not our name.

    The same attitude applies here. If we focus on exceeding what is expected and being more proactive within our organizations, the respect will likely come...regardless of what we're labeled as.

  4. link to this comment by Michael Browers Sat Nov 07, 2009

    Joe,

    Educating internal clients about in-house capabilities, developing SOPs, etc. should be performed in parallel to the 'proactive and assertive in participating in the strategic discourse' Andy wrote about.

    Staging such activities in an isolated, phased approach risks losing context to strategic planning occuring within the organization; leaving the in-house team unexposed to strategic planning at the corporate level and unprepared to contribute proactively.

    Andy,

    Another great article. Thank you!

    -Michael Browers

  5. link to this comment by emily Cohen Mon Nov 09, 2009

    Andy

    As one of the panelists at the Make Think conference involved in the heated discussion that you mentioned in your article, I loved your perspective on the idea of customer service - and re-thinking the word "service" in general. You've swayed me - and I'm not easily swayed. Great thinking!

  6. link to this comment by Vanessa Vaverchak Thu Nov 12, 2009

    Andy,

    I attended your sessions at Make/Think and have been putting your suggestions into practice with great success. I believe that the confidence that it provided to me has been the biggest benefit. On your article, I couldn't agree more and I have been trying conciously to treat each colleague as a client. This has worked it's magic with great praise from the CLO to the President of my company.

    Keep the articles coming...perhaps you should consider a seat on the AIGA board.

  7. link to this comment by Sara Sun Nov 15, 2009

    Great article! Keep them coming... : )

Add a Comment

AIGA encourages thoughtful, responsible discourse. Please add comments judiciously, and refrain from maligning any individual, institution or body of work.
Read our policy on commenting.