Once upon a time in many organizations across the world, there were those who were not too sure of UX. Was it a new gimmick — just a trend that would fade away in time? This was a time when UX had freer rein to explore how they would integrate with teams, how they would approach projects and what methods they would use. Organizations didn’t understand us or what we did. The result: We were able to dictate our own process and approach. Each position was unique and we held a certain level of autonomy in how we approached our work.

That “once upon a time” seems to have passed. A brief survey of UX position descriptions alone is enough to convince even the most ardent skeptic. Create and produce wireframes, work with product management and developers to ensure on-time delivery, create and maintain design systems to improve efficiency in product delivery, blah, blah, blah. While standardizing the work we do is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be when we allow little or no deviation — no autonomy, inhibiting creative exploration and approaches.

That UX job descriptions all essentially mimic one another becomes a vital clue in how our profession is becoming standardized. The process for developing and designing a new concept is astonishingly similar in many organizations. We have design systems (most of which are based on material design) now, which gives us consistency in our visual design language but require considerably less creativity (and thinking). And our research rarely ever involves something as time-consuming as ethnographic observations, persona development or even usability testing. Research is restricted to methods providing the most return on the least amount of investment, which means you conduct the same type of research in each position…which means you most likely won’t conduct much research at all.

This is what I refer to as the “McDonaldization of UX.” The term McDonaldization is not my own. It is a term developed by sociologist, George Ritzer. In his book, The McDonaldization of Society, Ritzer makes the case that society mimics the principles established by fast-food restaurants. He outlines five principles contributing to this phenomenon.

Efficiency — streamlining and optimizing processes to provide maximum operative efficiency in completing objectives.

Calculability — quantifiable delivery of a product trumps quality. That is, a high amount of a mediocre product is superior to a low amount of quality product (or a quality product not delivered on time).

Standardization — consistently providing the same thing each time (like a McDonald’s cheeseburger).

Social Control — standardized employees (uniform behavior and interactions).

Irrationality of Rationality — rational systems become irrational when they subvert and dehumanize employees.

Our processes have become standardized — not too much different from the way in which McDonald's standardized making cheeseburgers and fries. This is what McDonaldization does. It standardizes, delivers a product in high volume (low in quality), streamlines efficiency and exerts a certain amount of social control to standardize the thinking and behavior of designers regardless of where they work. Ultimately, this becomes dehumanizing when a designer is so bold as to venture outside the realms of established norms in the profession.

This standardization is beginning to permeate all aspects of our profession. Every design team follows the same process (even though they probably shouldn’t). We have design systems with components to match consistency across channels and touchpoints. And most teams claim to follow some flavor of an agile process. This results in most job descriptions stating the same thing and most design positions feeling the same as the last — same shit, different organization.

This is where UX becomes a “plugin” for business. We are now, in many ways, modular. You just snap us into the organization and presto! You just improved the user experience for your new Flux Capacitor. Unfortunately, the long game here is fairly bleak for someone who came to this profession because they enjoyed exploring their creativity.

Look at it this way: If I’m making a decent salary with a decent work culture doing the same shit now as I will do for the next organization, why would I bother to switch positions? If organizations want to — as they always seem to claim — attract top talent, they have to give us something different in exchange. Instead, what I seem to encounter is a scenario where business needs creep into the interview. They tell me they need to attract more users, increase revenue or bump up efficiency for some enterprise application. I get the same old spiel about their material design system, their agile process (which probably isn’t agile) and their design process (which is the same as most other design processes). I’m holding out for something more.

Now, I know: There is a designer out there who will state they work for a company or in an environment nothing like this. Perhaps you work for a hip, new startup with beer taps and free wine starting at noon or some large Silicon Valley company where the campus resembles more of an amusement park than a place where people actually work. But for the rest of us common design folk who toil away pushing pixels in corporate America, it’s the same old shit from position to position. The UX “McJobs” available are quickly becoming a carbon copy of a carbon copy.