Essay: The Inside Shift

The Work Beneath the Work

As creators and communicators, we are often practitioners inside systems designed against our best interests that often threaten one of our most precious human resources: our attention, as Johann Hari explores in Stolen Focus. Whether we’re designing an app, writing a public health campaign, or building a brand strategy, we are somehow mixed up in what James Williams, author of Stand Out of Our Light, considers a defining struggle of our time.

Is what we are creating for the greater good or the greater harm? The systems — platforms, products, and institutions — we build and work within shape billions of experiences every day. Globally, people now spend an estimated 15 billion hours a day on social platforms alone. And some of us may only be focused on what we are making, not necessarily the impact it has — a gap that philosopher Daniel Dennett has explored in his writing on free will and agency.

Designers and communicators are not just creators of content, products, and experiences; we are practitioners who shape human attention, perception, and behavior. Because every act of creation influences how people experience the world, ethical responsibility starts with recognizing the gravity of that influence. 

Together we can cultivate a new awareness and become powerful changemakers from within, rather than abandoning the systems altogether. We become a source of good from the inside, intentionally shaping a more humane future, even when that shift is small, or the margin of agency is narrow or non-existent.

I’ve developed a philosophy I’m calling The Inside Shift. Because we help build the experiences, environments, and narratives that shape other people’s lives, we have a responsibility to become conscious of that influence and use it with intention. Noticing when and where we can apply more humane choices becomes a shift from within, even if the shift is only personal and not publicly impactful.

The Inside Shift is an invitation, from one practitioner to others, to turn this awareness into a practice.

We Think We Make Content

When thinking of or describing traditional creator and communicator roles such as designer, communicator, marketer, content creator, and strategist — we see descriptions like “create visuals that communicate ideas that inspire, inform, and captivate”, “plan programs to generate interest in products or services”, “develop strategies, such as how to acquire and retain customers”, “contribute to developing brand loyalty”, or “shape public perception of their clients and to increase awareness.”

On the surface, those descriptions tell the story of creation, strategy, problem-solving, and persuasion. What lies beneath is the story of what else we are shaping. Those definitions are incomplete and overlook the deeper impact on the human experience.

Every design and communication decision influences how people experience the world. Choices, such as how something looks, works, or communicates, directly affect what people notice, how they feel, and what they do. These decisions can make certain actions easier or harder, highlight some ideas over others, and set the tone for how people relate to products, services, or information.

They shape people’s consciousness, beliefs, and behaviors. Decisions can reinforce or challenge what people believe, encourage certain habits, and even change how people see themselves or others. For example, a design that uses persuasive techniques can nudge people toward specific actions, while inclusive design can help people feel recognized and valued. The values and assumptions built into design become part of how people think and act.

And this influence is inherent in the work. Influence is not something added on top of our work; it’s built into every step. Every choice, from the smallest detail to the overall concept, carries ethical weight and shapes outcomes. Practitioners cannot avoid influencing people; it is a natural part of the job. This means that being aware of this influence is essential to responsible design practice.

We Shape More Than Content 

As creators and communicators, we have our hands in what people notice, what people ignore, what feels urgent, and what feels valuable. Technologies, communication, and designs “mediate our relationship to the world” and essentially shape our everyday-life choices. Every design decision embeds values and priorities, influencing what becomes possible, visible, or meaningful for others.

For example, when Facebook first introduced photo tagging, rather than showing the user the photo they were tagged in the email notification, it required them to click a link to open the app and see it for themselves. It was the friction of having to take that extra step that drove more engagement, equaling money for the company, not a meaningful user experience. This was deliberate on Facebook’s part, showing the curiosity was manufactured and not organic. 

And this doesn’t only happen in tech; it also happens with common objects we encounter in real life. When automatic soap dispensers were designed, the sensors were often tested only on lighter skin. This meant they worked well for white users but often failed for people with darker skin. The outcome was that Black users would wave their hands and get no soap, while others had no problem. This wasn’t intentional, but it shows how design choices can leave some people out and make their needs invisible.

These two examples show intent isn’t what determines impact. One was deliberate, one wasn’t, but both prove the same thing. This calls for awareness of potential impact — both the outcomes we intend and the ones we don’t.

The Hidden Product 

Every system produces two outcomes: the service it delivers, and the kind of person it helps create. The question goes beyond what a product does, but the impact it has on its audience. The actual product isn’t the app or platform itself; it’s the person. It’s the slow, ongoing change in how they behave and think over time. 

This change is intentionally gradual and hard to notice because it’s driven by small, imperceptible shifts that accumulate. I would personally like to remember who I was before I felt the urge to pick up my phone upon waking every day.

For example, social platforms shape attention habits, content shapes expectations, and digital experiences shape behavior patterns. This knowledge shifts ethics from product outcomes to human outcomes.

The three business goals these platforms pursue are keeping people engaged longer (engagement), getting people to bring in more users (growth), and making more advertising money (monetization).

These goals are not accidents of design, and they can each be independently adjusted, “dialed up or down,” depending on what a company wants to prioritize at a given time. This means attention-capturing features aren’t neutral byproducts; they’re deliberately tuned outputs.

Again, this isn’t exclusive to social media; communication tools we engage with in our work environments are also shaping the workplace culture. In my own experience, tools like Teams, email, or read receipts have changed what counts as “responsive” or “professional” at work. I don’t believe this expectation predates the tools; the tools created the new ways in which we operate.

James Williams, in his book Stand Out of Our Light, argues that attention is something we pay, not just something we give. Every hour spent on one thing is another version of ourselves we didn’t get to experience. What else would I have done with the hours I’ve spent endlessly scrolling on my phone? The cost becomes larger than our attention and one of our own personhoods.

On one side of a screen or communication is one person; on the other side is a team of people working specifically to hold that person’s attention. Our biology and psychology haven’t changed nearly as fast as the technology has. This imbalance demonstrates why assuming these tools are neutral needs a closer look.

Awareness Changes Everything

Design is not neutral, communication is not neutral, and creative decisions always privilege certain outcomes. Don Norman, who popularized the idea of user-centered design, argues that many so-called human errors are actually the result of poor technology design that fails to account for human strengths and limitations. 

He advocates for a people-first approach, where technology is designed to complement human abilities and compensate for weaknesses, rather than forcing people to adapt to machines. He uses examples like calculators to illustrate how effective design empowers users by letting machines handle repetitive or precise tasks, allowing people to focus on creativity and problem-solving. 

Tristan Harris uses the bicycle as an example in The Social Dilemma. No one blamed bicycles for pulling people away from their families, because a bicycle just waits to be used — it doesn’t want anything from you. Contrast this with platforms, which have their own goals, like keeping you engaged, and pursue them by using your own psychology against you. Unlike a bicycle, phones, apps, and other engagement-driven tech products ask something of you, so calling them neutral tools isn’t an honest assessment.

Author James Williams uses British philosopher John Stuart Mill’s idea that freedom of thought has to exist before freedom of speech has meaning. If the attention economy compromises people’s ability to maintain agency over their own attention and choices, this is bigger than an individual harm. It potentially undermines the foundation of democracy itself.

Ethical responsibility starts before harm occurs, and awareness makes intentional action possible. These systems can shape real behavior and emotion without the person ever realizing it’s happening. This is why awareness has to come first. Making intentional choices before something goes wrong, not after. And this is a media-wide problem. Cable television has run on the same attention-for-advertising model for decades.

The real shift starts by seeing influence clearly so responsibility can follow. 

The Inside Shift 

Practitioners shaping digital and public life are already inside the systems doing the shaping. We hold real influence through everyday decisions, even ones that feel small or routine. Small, everyday decisions accumulate into culture over time, which is why we as practitioners are positioned earlier and closer to the source of change than outside intervention typically is.

Value Sensitive Design encourages professionals to look beyond traditional job titles and instead see themselves as responsible for supporting human values. Rather than just creating or marketing content, they are expected to shape technology and experiences that respect user autonomy, well-being, and agency. This means considering the needs and rights of all people affected by their work, not just direct users. In this way, professionals become stewards of attention, architects of experience, and guardians of audience agency, ensuring that technology serves people’s best interests throughout the design process.

Being on the inside doesn’t mean we all have equal room to act. Our own agency varies by role, seniority, and risk. While responsibility follows awareness, it isn’t the same as unlimited power to act. 

In the 2018 Google walkout, 22,000 employees worldwide organized to protest the company’s handling of a sexual harassment case. Even one of the most powerful companies in the world is made up of ordinary people, and when they organize together, it creates real pressure for change. This is collective margin of agency in action. 

Because people build these systems, they also carry the responsibility to change them. Practitioners are uniquely positioned to create ethical change from within.

A New Creative Responsibility

There is a set of questions every practitioner should ask. What behavior does this encourage? What habit does this reinforce? What assumptions does this normalize? Does this increase or diminish agency? Does this serve people or exploit them? These questions do imply some higher level of agency with room to act. For practitioners with less room, awareness itself is the first act.

Meaningful progress has historically come from people willing to say, “this isn’t working, we can do better”. Asking hard questions is itself a form of progress, not just noise and complaints.

Awareness is the start. And practitioners need practical ways to act on what they now see. This makes the case for a decision-making framework built around finding where we have ethical influence. 

I created a practical set of tools for exactly that — The Inside Shift. It’s built around 5 actions that can be applied to any project at any point when you feel your values are at risk and lines are being blurred. See, Shift, Choose, Create, and Reflect. Start by recognizing where your influence lies, then shift into what the actual human experience is. What action are you encouraging? Next, you choose. What aligns with your values, and what are the most humane decisions you can make? Then create and build with intention and take time after to reflect.

It isn’t a framework that assumes you can always choose the humane option. It’s a framework for finding the margin of agency we still have, even when it’s small or feels non-existent.

The Future Begins With Us

As practitioners, we are not just creators of content, products, and experiences; we shape human attention, perception, and behavior. And not every act of creation benefits the audience, whether implicitly or accidentally. Because our work influences how people experience the world, our ethical responsibility starts with recognizing the gravity of that influence. 

The future of humane design and communication depends on practitioners recognizing our influence, and choosing, in ways large and small, to shape it toward good. As Johann Hari writes in Stolen Focus, reclaiming our attention is not just a personal struggle but a collective one, and the same is true of reclaiming our influence.

Considering what James Williams, author of Stand Out of Our Light, considers a defining struggle of our time, is what we are creating for the greater good or the greater harm?

With this newfound awareness, together we can collectively become powerful changemakers from within, without having to abandon the systems altogether. We can become a source of good from the inside, intentionally shaping a more humane future, even when that shift is small, or the margin of agency is narrow or non-existent. The shift doesn’t have to happen in systems we work within or our individual roles, but the self we carry into both, and that still counts.