I think it’s really a mix of all the factors you mentioned. The “fad” of UXR gave us a boost for a while, but now most companies are under real pressure to reduce headcount. At the same time, our field hasn’t evolved fast enough in how we connect our knowledge to business outcomes.
Too often, UX research has stayed siloed and relied on its own vocabulary instead of fully embedding into the broader business conversation. That’s kept us somewhat “cached” and less influential than we need to be.
If I had to rank it, I’d say:
1. Economic factors – the biggest driver.
2. Organizational immaturity – research was treated more as a trend than a core function.
3. Our own gaps in business alignment – we’ve been slower to show outcomes in a language executives already use.
In short: layoffs are happening now not just because of the economy or AI, but because we’re still early in our evolution as a true business tool.
We have been trying/working tirelessly to address this over the last 5 year. this newsletter and our conference and free courses are all a part of it
I think it’s really a mix of all the factors you mentioned. The “fad” of UXR gave us a boost for a while, but now most companies are under real pressure to reduce headcount. At the same time, our field hasn’t evolved fast enough in how we connect our knowledge to business outcomes.
Too often, UX research has stayed siloed and relied on its own vocabulary instead of fully embedding into the broader business conversation. That’s kept us somewhat “cached” and less influential than we need to be.
If I had to rank it, I’d say:
1. Economic factors – the biggest driver.
2. Organizational immaturity – research was treated more as a trend than a core function.
3. Our own gaps in business alignment – we’ve been slower to show outcomes in a language executives already use.
In short: layoffs are happening now not just because of the economy or AI, but because we’re still early in our evolution as a true business tool.
Good points. My question is, since showing business outcomes from research has always been a priority for businesses (in principle) and UX leaders have long been talking about showing outcomes, why are we just now seeing increased layoffs now instead of, say, 4 or 5 years ago?
Is it because of larger economic factors that buoyed UXR for a short time? Is it because companies think AI can produce research outcomes better or cheaper? Something else?
In my experience, AI is absolutely a factor in the layoffs we've been seeing in the field. A number of the UX roles I've seen posted in the last year have highlighted the use of AI in that role. And I get it - it's trendy. Just about every service out there is now trumpeting an AI feature, and companies don't want to be perceived as falling behind, lest consumers take their dollars elsewhere. There are ways that AI can be useful to UX practice, but I've seen it getting shoehorned into places where it may not best support positive business outcomes. "Move fast and break stuff" is great for the early phases of ideation and design, but I don't believe that the bleeding edge is necessarily where good UX lies.
I think that the end of work-from-home softened the job market somewhat, then the rise of AI softened it further, and the economic issues that ramped up this year have only added to that pressure. Business costs go up, profits go down, AI makes it look like UX can be done more cheaply than hiring experienced UXers so, based on those numbers, it's understandable that business decisions would produce staffing cuts and lean more heavily on workers whose focus is more on crafting AI prompts. But prompting should be treated as a skill in the UX toolkit, not the primary skill with a basic knowledge of UX thrown in as a bonus.
I'm going a bit outside of the scope of your question here, but this is something I've been thinking about a great deal over the last year and a half. I couldn't agree more with the article's statement that synthesis and insights should remain in the hands of experienced UX professionals - at least until AI matures. Given that we're still seeing stories of AI hallucinations, I'm wary of trusting AI outputs uncritically. It's partially the issue of hallucinations, but it's also the old adage of "garbage in, garbage out". I think, going forward, UXers will need to have prompting skills and a fairly good understanding of how LLMs actually "think" in order to stay relevant. In a lot of ways, it's like how we once had shift our thinking to mobile-first, or learn to advocate for the implementation of accessibility in design.
And I agree with you; being able to sell people outside of UX on the value of our work has always been a necessary part of our toolkit. (That was a hard but important lesson I thankfully learned early on in my career.) I think the salesmanship we'll have to bring to the table going forward will lean heavily on demonstrating where people add value that generative AI cannot - knowing the right questions to ask of AI, and when. No matter how good the hammer is, not every nail needs a hammer, and it's a true craftsperson who knows what tool is needed when, and how to use it correctly.
I think it’s really a mix of all the factors you mentioned. The “fad” of UXR gave us a boost for a while, but now most companies are under real pressure to reduce headcount. At the same time, our field hasn’t evolved fast enough in how we connect our knowledge to business outcomes.
Too often, UX research has stayed siloed and relied on its own vocabulary instead of fully embedding into the broader business conversation. That’s kept us somewhat “cached” and less influential than we need to be.
If I had to rank it, I’d say:
1. Economic factors – the biggest driver.
2. Organizational immaturity – research was treated more as a trend than a core function.
3. Our own gaps in business alignment – we’ve been slower to show outcomes in a language executives already use.
In short: layoffs are happening now not just because of the economy or AI, but because we’re still early in our evolution as a true business tool.
We have been trying/working tirelessly to address this over the last 5 year. this newsletter and our conference and free courses are all a part of it
I think it’s really a mix of all the factors you mentioned. The “fad” of UXR gave us a boost for a while, but now most companies are under real pressure to reduce headcount. At the same time, our field hasn’t evolved fast enough in how we connect our knowledge to business outcomes.
Too often, UX research has stayed siloed and relied on its own vocabulary instead of fully embedding into the broader business conversation. That’s kept us somewhat “cached” and less influential than we need to be.
If I had to rank it, I’d say:
1. Economic factors – the biggest driver.
2. Organizational immaturity – research was treated more as a trend than a core function.
3. Our own gaps in business alignment – we’ve been slower to show outcomes in a language executives already use.
In short: layoffs are happening now not just because of the economy or AI, but because we’re still early in our evolution as a true business tool.
Good points. My question is, since showing business outcomes from research has always been a priority for businesses (in principle) and UX leaders have long been talking about showing outcomes, why are we just now seeing increased layoffs now instead of, say, 4 or 5 years ago?
Is it because of larger economic factors that buoyed UXR for a short time? Is it because companies think AI can produce research outcomes better or cheaper? Something else?
In my experience, AI is absolutely a factor in the layoffs we've been seeing in the field. A number of the UX roles I've seen posted in the last year have highlighted the use of AI in that role. And I get it - it's trendy. Just about every service out there is now trumpeting an AI feature, and companies don't want to be perceived as falling behind, lest consumers take their dollars elsewhere. There are ways that AI can be useful to UX practice, but I've seen it getting shoehorned into places where it may not best support positive business outcomes. "Move fast and break stuff" is great for the early phases of ideation and design, but I don't believe that the bleeding edge is necessarily where good UX lies.
I think that the end of work-from-home softened the job market somewhat, then the rise of AI softened it further, and the economic issues that ramped up this year have only added to that pressure. Business costs go up, profits go down, AI makes it look like UX can be done more cheaply than hiring experienced UXers so, based on those numbers, it's understandable that business decisions would produce staffing cuts and lean more heavily on workers whose focus is more on crafting AI prompts. But prompting should be treated as a skill in the UX toolkit, not the primary skill with a basic knowledge of UX thrown in as a bonus.
I'm going a bit outside of the scope of your question here, but this is something I've been thinking about a great deal over the last year and a half. I couldn't agree more with the article's statement that synthesis and insights should remain in the hands of experienced UX professionals - at least until AI matures. Given that we're still seeing stories of AI hallucinations, I'm wary of trusting AI outputs uncritically. It's partially the issue of hallucinations, but it's also the old adage of "garbage in, garbage out". I think, going forward, UXers will need to have prompting skills and a fairly good understanding of how LLMs actually "think" in order to stay relevant. In a lot of ways, it's like how we once had shift our thinking to mobile-first, or learn to advocate for the implementation of accessibility in design.
And I agree with you; being able to sell people outside of UX on the value of our work has always been a necessary part of our toolkit. (That was a hard but important lesson I thankfully learned early on in my career.) I think the salesmanship we'll have to bring to the table going forward will lean heavily on demonstrating where people add value that generative AI cannot - knowing the right questions to ask of AI, and when. No matter how good the hammer is, not every nail needs a hammer, and it's a true craftsperson who knows what tool is needed when, and how to use it correctly.