Speaking with confidence and leading where you don't have subject expertise: A conversation with Vidhika Bansal
Vidhika Bansal is a design leader with specialties in behavioral science, research strategy, and UX writing. She believes that relationships are everything, intuition is data, and wandering is worthwhile. Vidhika's a consultant, coach, and international speaker. She's also a conversation enthusiast — she once had a phone call that lasted 18 hours (wait, what?!).
Queenie: Vidhika, can you walk me through your career trajectory and how you got to where you are now?
Vidhika: Like many content designers and UX writers, my path has been what I would call a winding road. I actually studied pre-med in college, and needless to say, I’m not a doctor; I didn’t enjoy the coursework and I’ve never been a fan of blood or needles. I realized it didn’t make sense to spend many more years going down a path I ultimately knew wasn’t right for me.
What I did know is that — aside from my love of language — I loved psychology. I wasn’t super interested in clinical psychology but was really excited about the idea of applying psychological insights to industry. So that’s how I ended up in consulting. I started my career working at a market research firm where I conducted research studies and presented findings and recommendations to clients on how to make their products, their services, and their websites better. I researched everything from 4K TVs to hotel guest experiences to how people found important medical information online. I did a lot of quant work at first but eventually moved into leading a ton of our qualitative projects because I especially loved getting to see the color behind the numbers. Like many other people in our industry who started a while ago, I kind of fell into UX. Clients started coming to us for feedback on their websites and customer experience more and more, which gave me the chance to keep growing and sharpening my UX skills. I've told this story before, but during one of my first consulting projects ever, I was helping do research and provide design recommendations for the NASDAQ website. Little did I know at the time that we were rethinking the information architecture of the site and trying to put things in plain language—all UX work. In a way, the seeds of a lot of what I do now were embedded in one of my first projects ever.
Then after consulting for several years, I moved in-house. I heard a lot about the impact that you can have working in-house, and so I did that. I started as an IC, and then over time, I was given the opportunity to lead teams. I'd always been curious about that. So I started doing people management work and I really loved it. I’ve led researchers, product designers, and content designers over the years and it’s been so rewarding.
Queenie: Wow, that’s quite the journey—from pre-med to consulting to UX. You must’ve acquired quite the diverse skill set through these experiences. Which skills do you think you brought with you from consulting into your first in-house UX role?
Vidhika: I think that one of the skills that I learned early on in consulting is that context really matters. You have to learn to adapt very quickly. One day you're working with a client in the hospitality industry, the next day a client in media, the next day it’s a client in some industry you've never even heard of. And so, you start to find patterns—or at least I did—across product experiences, regardless of the industry they’re based in. A lot of that goes back to how humans make decisions. That remains the common denominator. So I think that adaptability is valuable. I quickly realized how I can apply learnings from one space to another even when they seemed very different from each other.
Of course, language was really important throughout. As I mentioned, I started working in market research and brand strategy. With that kind of work, the words that you use matter so much. For example, when we would do survey design, we’d spend so much time testing our questions because changing one word in a question had the potential to alter the way people responded to it, giving us bad or misleading data.
And then, having an understanding of data—how to get good data, how to use it, how to infuse it with good judgment—that’s helped me through my career irrespective of the role that I’ve had.
Queenie: And which were the skills that you didn’t have when you started working in-house and had to work to develop?
Vidhika: I was used to working with a point of contact or a team at a client’s organization, and other consultant peers of course.
But doing UX full-time in-house I had to learn how to really get inside the heads of my cross-functional partners, like PMs and engineers and leaders who were on the hook for making sure certain metrics were hit by a certain time. Initially it was demotivating and even a little frustrating when people didn't automatically understand my skill set and the value I could add. So I really had to learn how to communicate what I could contribute to the team by just jumping in there and doing it — essentially taking a show vs tell approach.
In-house, I had to learn how to empathize with all these different partners, and collaborate really closely with them, even when we sometimes had goals and incentives that were a little bit at odds (though ideally they should have been aligned if not entirely overlapping).
I also had to learn how to communicate differently to build influence internally. As a consultant, clients are paying you for your expertise, they're seeking you out...so it's a little easier to share your perspective and ensure it's heard (whether or not they act on it after).
Doing UX in-house, you kind of have to earn that right and that attention. You have to learn how to make your presentations punchier, your asks clearer, and your rationale more self-explanatory.
Queenie: Vidhika, the way I got introduced to you was through your talk at a Button conference a couple years ago. You give a lot of talks and do a lot of speaking engagements as a way of sharing your expertise with the UX community. At what point in your career did you feel like you had enough knowledge to speak with authority on certain topics?
Vidhika: I think a lot of my confidence honestly came from work. It came from the fact that I was able to meaningfully contribute at work. I was able to give ideas and suggestions to clients—or when I was in-house, to partners—that they found insightful and that they actually implemented. It’s always a big confidence boost when someone says: “Oh, that's a really good idea. I hadn't thought of that.” It helped me become more comfortable with my unique way of looking at the world. I realized that the way I reason or do things isn't natural for everyone. I say this because, for a long time, I just assumed that some of the stuff I talk about now was maybe not worth sharing because it was too obvious. (In fact, I still fall into this trap a lot and have to actively remind myself that just because something is obvious to me, doesn’t mean it is to everyone.)
Over time, I learned and realized that a lot of these things were only obvious to me because I'm so nerdy and obsessive and passionate about the things that I care about, that I spend tons of time and energy and curiosity investing in those topics.
So I think that a lot of my confidence came from people asking me questions, listening to my suggestions, and seeing the impact that those suggestions had in the real world.
I think another avenue for that confidence was people inviting me to local meetups. Different people were inviting me to speak at their events just because they chatted with me somewhere or we’d collaborated on something small. The more I got invited to those things, the better a signal I got that I had something valuable to share.
That's not to say that I went in fully confident. I was always nervous. I was always hoping that I wouldn’t freeze up on stage, that whatever it is that I shared would be useful to people. So, there was a lot of, and there still continues to be, that nervousness baked in. But I did start to develop the confidence that my knowledge was worth sharing with others.
The other thing is that I received a lot of encouragement from other speakers. I remember going to events, meetups, conferences—things like that—and chatting afterwards with speakers who I thought did really well and who seemed down to earth. And that was really cool, because it made me realize that these people are real humans like me, who just happen to have something to share, and they're doing so on stage. Before that, I had this conception that there are ‘real speakers’ and then there's everyone else, you know? So I think getting to know some of those speakers on a personal level helped shatter that binary illusion for me.
Queenie: I think there’s already answers to my next question embedded in what you just said, but I’m going to ask anyway: Do you have any advice for someone who thinks that they may have something to share but are being held back by imposter syndrome?
Vidhika: Definitely.
One of the things that's been most helpful for me is to have fun with it. And what I mean by that is: when I pick topics that I find fun—topics that I'm passionate about—I automatically feel more in my element. I can be myself more freely. I can be more confident.
There’s still pressure, of course, but it doesn’t feel debilitating. It helps me feel like I’m having fun while sharing something that I want to spread awareness about.
So, yes, I really encourage people to think about speaking on topics that they’re super jazzed about, or that people constantly come to them for advice on, or even things they’ve learned recently that they wish they’d known earlier. I think those topics tend to stir up a lot of passion.
I also think that people often worry that a topic has been done before, and that they might not bring something different to the table.
To that I usually say: even if the topic's been done before, it hasn't been done by you. It hasn't been done in the way that you would do it. If you genuinely infuse enough of yourself—your passion, your personality, your personal experiences—into the talk, it's bound to be a talk that people can connect with more.
A lot of times the hesitation I hear coming from first-time speakers is: “Well, what if I’m not an expert? What can I share that’s valuable when there are experts in the room?” I think what's important to remember is: a lot of times, we actually need to hear reflections from people who are a step or two ahead of us versus ten steps ahead of us. Sometimes, an expert on a topic may not be as relatable as someone who's in that intermediary stage.
Honestly, giving talks is such a good way to clarify your thinking, to make friends, to be a part of shaping the industry. So if you have even the slightest desire to get on stage and share your ideas, I'm a big proponent of going ahead and doing it. Don’t self-reject. Go ahead and apply to the thing. If you get rejected, that’s okay. You can always try again. But to self-reject, to me, is the biggest mistake.
Queenie: You already sort of answered my next question. I was going to ask if you believe that one has to achieve a certain seniority to give talks at content design conferences, or whether junior content designers should also get up on the stage and share what they know.
Vidhika: Obviously, expertise has immense value, but so does a beginner's mindset. It’s just a matter of different angles.
If you’re more junior, you don’t have to claim to be an expert. You can leverage the frame of being an enthusiast instead. You can speak about ‘five things I learned as a junior content designer’ versus saying something along the lines of ‘here's the definitive guide on xyz topic’. So you can frame what you're sharing in a way that qualifies that you're still new and still learning.
A lot of times people also love learning from others’ failures. Not in a judgmental, negative way, but rather from the angle of relatability. People often say to themselves: ‘Oh, these are mistakes that I made or almost made. And now I can see how to navigate them and do things better or differently.’
Queenie: Great advice. Let’s talk a bit about behavioral science as it applies to doing UX ethically and how well-versed you are in that field. How did you learn so much?
Vidhika: This is always a tricky one for me to answer, mostly because I can never name just one thing that led to it. What I can say is this: I've been interested in behavioral science ever since I was a kid. I always loved people watching. My parents used to get frustrated with me because I was constantly asking questions about 'why.' I’ve always been super observant and curious. I never cared too much about how machines like cars or computers worked, but I always cared so much about how humans worked, how they related to one another, how they made decisions. So I think a lot of it just was part of my personality, even in childhood.
But I do trace a lot of my obsession with behavioral science to a class that I took in high school. There was this IB psychology class that I took that was notoriously challenging, and I guess not that many people wanted to take it. So it was literally me and seven other people in this class. It was a lot of work, but I loved it. I thought it was such a blast and it really sparked my curiosity into behavioral science and applied psychology in a more formal way.
As I mentioned earlier, I was pre-med in college, but I also majored in psychology and minored in business leadership. I worked in a cognitive psychology lab part-time while I was in school. I TA'd a class with a psychology professor too. So that spark, that interest was always there.
Beyond that, a lot of it was just independent learning. I would read a lot of articles and studies. A lot of it was observation too—constantly paying attention to what was working well and why in an experience, be it a digital one or something physical like going to a restaurant.
So really, it's been a mix of an initial inclination that existed since childhood, those first seeds that were planted for me formally in high school, and then after that, a ton of independent learning. I haven’t taken many courses after school, but this field is so interesting to me that I’m very happy to learn about it all on my own.
Queenie: I feel like as I talk to more and more people for this interview series, everybody can trace some tickle of an interest that they just kept building on or returning to and that eventually became a career in UX or content design.
Vidhika: So true! If you look closely, the roots of our adult career aspirations are all right there in our personal histories. Maybe we just weren't as aware of them as we could’ve been.
I also feel like this gets interestingly magnified in our discipline because people come from such a variety of backgrounds.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Even when I think about my own trajectory, sometimes I’m like: ‘Content design? Wow, who would’ve predicted?’ But then again, when I look closely, a lot of the signs were always there. For example, when I worked in consulting, I was considered the resident wordsmith at work. People would come to me for anything word or language-related, and that was something I just took for granted and didn't think too much about. I also used to be the editor of our literary magazine in high school and worked on the yearbook in college. There’s all sorts of signs that emerge when you look back; it’s not actually that much of a mystery.
There’s a saying that goes something like: 'you can't read the label from inside the jar.' And I think sometimes when we're in the moment, we're not as readily able to draw a conclusion about what this thing—or label—is, until we're actually standing outside as a spectator and looking back.
Queenie: That’s such a beautiful thought. Pivoting back to your career, then, what made you want to move from an IC role to a people management one?
Vidhika: I think some of it came about as a natural function of moving up into more senior roles. I think you get a flavor of what it's like to mentor and coach people once you have more junior people under your wing as a senior IC. That’s kind of what happened to me.
I will make a little side note here: I'm really against pushing people into management positions just because they're senior ICs, mostly because I don't think all senior ICs will like management or be good at it. So I think that that's a dangerous trend. I obviously understand why it happens, but I do think that that's not necessarily the right way to do things.
Anyway, going back to what you were asking: I had also always been curious about people management because one of my strengths, I think, is being able to relate to different people. I love looking for people's unique strengths, helping them highlight those qualities, and watching people nurture their own gifts.
That always sounded really nice in theory, but I wasn't sure if I would actually like it. So at one point, I was on a team where my manager didn’t have the bandwidth to manage everyone as the team was growing. As such, I became a de facto manager. Again, I don't think this is always the right way to go about it, but in my case, it happened to work out well because I really took to the role in a way that was nourishing for me and also for the people that were on my team, I think.
But yes, I basically fell into management initially, and then sought it out afterwards. I had always been interested in and curious about that kind of role, so jumped at the opportunity when it came my way. And once I actually started leading and managing, I realized just how much fun it was for me.
I routinely have these moments where I'm like: ‘Oh my goodness, I get paid to care about people, to make them better at what they do and feel more confident in who they are? And it benefits the business? What's not to love about that?’ Sometimes I feel so lucky that that was a path I was able to take.
Queenie: Let’s talk a little bit about your leadership style. Do you have any specific people management or leadership philosophies that guide you?
Vidhika:
One of the things that I tell my teams pretty openly is that I believe strongly in leading with a balance of trust and accountability. What that means is: I am, by default, going to trust you unless you give me a reason not to. I’m convinced that when you trust people, when you believe in them and what they're capable of—versus leading with skepticism, distrust, or micromanagement—people generally rise to the occasion and do their best work.
A lot of this thinking comes from having been on the other end of that style of management. I know that when people trust me and support me, I also want to deliver good work — versus when someone is treating me as though I can’t be trusted. That’s very demotivating. So I think leading with trust is really important.
I also think that that needs to be balanced with accountability. I always tell people that if there is something that isn't going well, if there's something that needs improvement, I will hold them accountable. And I'll do so kindly. But I'm not just going to say that everything's great if everything's not great; that would be unfair to me and them. I think it's that delicate balance between trust and accountability that’s really important to me.
I also believe that people matter. That people come before projects, before products, before anything else. And I genuinely believe that if you start there, if you invest in people and care about them, good things will flow for the projects, the processes, the products. Those people will invest more into doing a good job when they feel like they’re cared about.
Queenie: Coming back to psychology and human behavior, I feel like it’s setting into motion a sort of reciprocity almost. When you do something nice for somebody or you show them that you trust them, they want to live up to that and give something back in return.
Vidhika: Absolutely. As I mentioned, at the beginning of my career, I used to work in survey design. When we did mail-in surveys, one of the things we’d do—because surveys often have terrible response rates—is we’d actually put a couple of dollars in every envelope, with each survey. The idea was that, whether or not you fill out the survey, that money is yours to keep. What we found is that our response rates were so much higher when we led with that trust, likely because people felt more willing to reciprocate the good gesture! That’s the hypothesis, at least.
It’s a rather philosophical way of looking at things, but I feel like the energy you put out is the energy you attract. And it's almost like you're meeting mirrors of what you put out, as you navigate life. If you put out good energy, for the most part, you're going to get that back.
As a manager, I’ve worked with the most incredible people. I knew that it would be rewarding in many ways, but I don't think I was prepared for the absolute avalanche of goodwill and kind sentiments that I've been on the receiving end of, as a manager. I sound like I’m gushing, because I am. It’s been so amazing, and I think that a lot of it does have to do with that energy we’re talking about. People sense it. People feel when it's genuine and they want to give it back.
There was someone on my team several years ago who would always tell me: “I want to put in 110% at this job, not because of the company, but because of you. I want to make you proud.” I didn't even feel like I deserved that, but it was just so kind.
Queenie: You sound like a wonderful manager! Vidhika, you've led both content designers and UX researchers. How different was it to lead these different disciplines? Does it help to come up through a certain discipline and then lead it?
Vidhika:
I think that somebody who has deep knowledge of a discipline, but doesn't have the people leadership, soft skills, and emotional intelligence to lead a team isn’t going to succeed as a leader of that discipline. On the flip side, if someone doesn't have a super deep knowledge of a discipline, but does have really good people leadership skills and communication know-how, I think they can still be effective.
That being said, I think the ideal is to have both. One of the leadership philosophies that I read about a while ago said that a good leader has a mix of warmth and competence. And I think having deep knowledge in the field is going to be immensely valuable to the people that you're leading, because then they can turn to you for technical questions, for questions about how to grow their skills in the craft area that you all work in. They can turn to you not just for support in a more abstract and emotional way, but also support in a very tactical and strategic way.
That's a long-winded way of saying that I do think it’s possible to lead successfully and well without having deep roots in a specific discipline. But it's also a massive service to the team and to you if you do have that knowledge.
For me, personally, it's a little hard to speak to the other side because I've only ever led teams where I had that kind of knowledge and expertise. As such, I've always been able to lean on it when leading my team. I’ve found that knowledge to be really helpful for understanding what my direct reports’ day-to-day is like, for knowing what they're talking about, and for suggesting how they might approach a problem differently. It's also made me feel more confident as a leader to have that expertise.
I will say that this might shift once one has more leadership experience. For instance, now that I’ve led teams for a while, I think I have more confidence to try my hand at leading a team where I don’t have deep subject matter expertise. That would definitely not have been a great call for me earlier on though. Maybe I could’ve done it, but I think it’s definitely easier once you’re a more seasoned leader or people manager.
Queenie: For the first scenario you outlined—where someone doesn’t have deep subject expertise in the area that they’re leading, if they do want to develop some working facility with the field, do you have any recommendations for how they might go about developing that?
Vidhika: It's a little trickier for me to answer this personally, just because on the research and content sides, I've always felt like I had a good bit of expertise. If I were in this position, I’d do a few things.
One: I’d take the time to learn. You're not going to become a subject matter expert overnight, of course, but I think having at least a baseline understanding of the field helps. It helps with understanding: What kinds of things is my team working on? What are the common challenges they're presented with?
I think what’s also really important is to take the time to be curious, to do a listening tour, and to better understand what you don't know.
Sometimes we don't know what we don't know. And so, I’d work on starting to scratch the surface on that. I think one of the best ways to do this is to ask the people that you're leading. People are generally pretty open and they love it when you, as a manager, show interest and curiosity in what they're working on. This is again assuming that one is doing this from a place of wanting to learn versus wanting to micromanage.
I’d also read industry blogs and such. Nowadays there's so much content online that there's almost no excuse to not develop at least a rudimentary understanding of a subject area.
I also think there's a lot of power in being able to admit to what you don't know. Being able to say things like, “this isn’t an area I’m particularly good at” or “I haven’t messed around in great depth in Figma for a long time and I’m not an expert in it” is important. Don’t pretend. I think it becomes problematic when leaders pretend to know more than they do.
Summarizing all this, I’d say: if you’re a leader who finds themself in a situation where you don’t know much about the discipline you’re leading, do your best to learn about it through whatever resources are available to you. Don't be afraid and ashamed of asking the people on your team, asking other leaders in your role who maybe do have more knowledge that you could learn from. Be really open about admitting what your blind spots are. I think the most frustrating thing for people who have deep expertise in a subject and are being led by someone who doesn't have that expertise is when the leader pretends to have that expertise. There's a certain humility that you need to cultivate to be a well-respected leader. You can always be honest and say: “I don’t know the answer to this, but I will find out for you” or, “I don't know, but I’ll connect you with someone who does know.” That's more your role in this scenario: to be a bridge and a connector. You don't need to know every single answer to be an effective leader.
Queenie: My last question for you is: do you have any advice for early to mid-career content design folks?
Vidhika: Well, I think one thing that we're seeing a lot of is obviously new technologies, new tools, things like that. I would remind people that tools will change, trends will change, but what won't change are the fundamentals, like how people behave. Principles of good UX will still be principles of good UX—regardless of the form, the modality, the medium.
I think it's really important to be adaptive and to be willing to learn and change as the industry changes, but also take heart in the fact that it's not like everything that you’ve learned or all your experiences are suddenly not valuable or meaningful anymore. They're all building blocks to whatever comes next.
Be willing to be flexible, but don't lose sight of the basics.
I’d also say that careers are long, so don't be afraid to follow your curiosity. I think people sometimes get really fixated on: should I do this or should I do that? And we act like it's a career-defining moment that we'll have to live with for the rest of our lives, but in a lot of cases, it’s not that huge. You can try something new and if you don't like it, you can always go back to the thing you were doing before. You can try being a manager and if it's not your jam, there's no rule that you can't go back to being an IC if that suits you better. I know plenty of people who’ve done that and who’ve been much happier for it.
So yes, careers are long. Don't be afraid to try new things, to follow your curiosity, and to pivot as things change and as you learn more.
I would also say, for content design people in particular, that words will always matter, regardless of what a company pays or doesn't pay for it. And the people who wield words can change the world. So don't forget that!
I also personally think that discernment and good judgment are going to become more important than ever as AI becomes more commonplace. So really hone that taste and intuition. Don't think of that as a throwaway aspect of who you are.
Finally, always put people first.
Whether it's the user, your coworkers, your direct reports, whoever—how you treat people is something that'll stay with you no matter how your career or the industry changes in the long run.