SHOWING TEETH

SHOWING TEETH

[AUTHOR]

[AUTHOR]

Andrew Zellinger

Andrew Zellinger

[DATE]

[DATE]

Jan, 25th 2026

Jan 25TH, 2026

I got fired on my moving day. Not just any moving day—the day I was packing my 2.5-bedroom apartment in Colorado to drive across the country to Florida because my father had cancer and I needed to spend what time he had left with him. The founder knew this. They all knew. They didn't just know—they used it against me.


[But I'm getting ahead of myself - Let me tell you how I ended up here]


I was living in Northern Queens during the COVID-19 spike—a stone's throw from the most impacted area in New York City. After experiencing that trauma and holding out for two years, I moved to Denver with two freelance contracts in hand, seeking a fresh start. But by 2022, those contracts dwindled—I saw the contraction coming before the 2023 mass layoffs—and I was desperate for full-time work. I eventually landed a job at a company called Fi, a smart dog collar company. They reached out to me—I didn't apply. On the third call, the founder promised to hire a creative director from IDEO. The roster showed designers from prestigious NYC studios I recognized and respected. What I didn't know: the founder had just lost support from SoftBank, their primary backer, triggering the firing of the entire design team. I was hired as the only designer. Those designers on the roster were already gone. Away from home and desperate for stability, I took the position.


I became the entire design and creative department. I did all marketing materials and all product design, then was asked to hire designers and interview for the creative director who would be hired above me. I hired two designers, but once onboard, work wasn't being allocated to them. They sat idle. I reached out to designers from the old teams and learned this was a pattern—the entire design team had been fired, not just once, but past teams before them. Multiple cycles. The founder created a toxic work environment—the complete opposite of the light, fluffy pet brand Fi presented publicly. His investors were pressuring him to diversify and generate new revenue streams. In his mind, the core Fi app was complete. No more product innovation needed. He wanted marketing to make money, not product development. He micromanaged every decision. My opinion was never valued.


The break came over a feature request. Fi's app has a "Lost Dog Mode" for when someone's pet goes missing. He wanted me to add a flow that would solicit video testimonials from users immediately after they used it—asking panicked, traumatized pet owners to record marketing content right after losing their dog, maybe finding them, maybe not, maybe finding them dead. I tried to dissuade him, then suggested a time-based follow-up days later instead. He refused. From that point forward, I was quietly let go. He took me off product work and moved all the marketing to me while the two designers I'd hired sat idle. The disagreement happened at the beginning of summer 2023. By the end of summer, I'd lost months on marketing materials, knowing I was already done. Then they hired the creative director—right before they fired me. They kept one of the designers I'd hired, let the other go along with me.


Drawing toward the end of summer, I made it clear I was moving from Colorado to Florida because my father had cancer. I needed to be with my family. They flooded me with work, making it nearly impossible to pack and plan a cross-state move, or prepare for what came next—update my portfolio, resume. They knew they were firing me. They wanted to extract everything they could first. On my last day before the move—movers scheduled for the afternoon—they had me working until noon on social media banners. Right when I said I'd stop to pack and drive across the country, all my accounts froze. A Slack message from the founder: "Can I connect?"


He fired me from Portugal. On vacation. On a balcony. Then they blocked me from retrieving my design work. I had to lobby for weeks to get it back. On moving day. My father had cancer. That afternoon, my ex-girlfriend arrived from New York to help with the drive. I put on a blank face and we drove 12 hours through the night. It was one of the worst days of my life. Looking back, I started piecing things together. How did the founder find me in the first place? Why expedite hiring me? Why was he so comfortable burning me the way he did? And why did recruiters start reaching out about a month before I was fired—in a terrible job market where recruiters never reached out?


I'm convinced they knew I was being let go before I did. I suspect the same staffing firm was responsible for hiring the creative director. My substantial salary made room for that hire. I'm not telling you this for sympathy. I'm telling you because this is what twenty years in design and tech gets you. And I'm done pretending the system isn't broken.


[The Recruiting Dark Network]


Most recruiters have no tech background. They don't understand what it takes to be a designer or engineer. They have no real interest in the work of the people they're placing. Their currency is gossip and aesthetics, not substance. And they have enormous authority over who gets presented to hiring managers. Two weeks before I was fired, a company called Creative People reached out. No prior relationship, terrible job market—the timing was suspicious. The recruiter knew far more than you'd expect for casual outreach. Very adamant about helping me find a new role immediately. After I was fired, it became clear: she was staffing my replacement. Recruiters are coordinating behind the scenes—unregulated networks in Slack or Discord channels, trading on people's lives, making decisions based on gossip, sharing information about who's getting fired before it happens. A year and a half later, that same recruiter reached out again. I told her I was working hard, building my own businesses, studying AI. She said: Hard work doesn't matter.


Craft, capability, intelligence—none of that matters. This is their value system. In this tight job market, recruiters carry themselves like celebrities—more valuable than actual candidates because they're so sought after. Look at their websites: lifestyle brands with glamour shots and headshots like bad American Apparel ads. They get invited to major tech conferences while experienced engineers and designers don't. But the reality? If they're not placing candidates, their businesses are failing too. And they stand to take more significant losses in the future because they don't actually have the skills of the roles they're staffing for. Their job is highly automatable.


Now with so many laid off, the game has changed. Eight or nine times out of ten, recruiters try to place you at much lower salary bands than you deserve. They belittle your accomplishments, your background, your capabilities. They offer advice on how to sell yourself—really just making you easier to place at lower rates. They push the narrative that you've lost value because of AI and the bad market, projecting negative energy while acting like masters of the universe. If you're reading this and you've felt gaslit in the application process or interacting with recruiters, you're not alone. Take it from someone with twenty years experience: what's going on is not okay. But this won't last. Hard work and real intelligence will prevail. No one can define your path for you.


It's time to show teeth.


[I Genuinely Thought It Was Me]


For twenty years, I thought my failures were personal. I had imposter syndrome like most creative people do, but I also had this awareness that I was smarter than the people making decisions above me. That's a painful contradiction—doubting yourself while watching less capable people steer the ship. I'll be honest: I got in my own way sometimes. I always felt bigger than the roles I was hired into, even senior and director-level positions. The responsibilities afforded to me never felt like enough. But here's what I didn't see clearly until after the firing: the industry was reinforcing that feeling. Recruiters telling me I'm not valuable. Leadership treating design as ornamental. A system that doesn't respect the work, then makes you feel like it's your fault when you can't break through. My grandfather used to say, "I don't suffer fools well." I inherited that. And the industry is full of fools in charge. Through consulting work after the firing, I finally saw it: it's not me. It's the system. And the system has been broken from the start.


[The Aesthetic Game]


Here's what they don't tell you: in this industry, you are the product. Companies hire based on aesthetics and persona, not ability, intelligence, or creativity. British accents get the keys to the castle. Attractive people get opportunities. It's all theater, all for show. Research backs this up. A meta-analysis of 27 studies found that when two equally qualified candidates differ in accent, the candidate with the standard accent is typically hired. Ratings of social status—not competence—correlated with hiring decisions. This is aesthetic discrimination masquerading as talent evaluation. The modern age demands everyone sell themselves on social media. Personal branding is mandatory. This doesn't appeal to the really talented wallflower designer or engineer who just wants to build with their tools. The people actually creating the work fail because they stay behind the camera. Meanwhile, those who perform get ahead. Please—don't destroy the preciousness of people who just want to build things.


[The Bootcamp Flood]


Around year seven or eight of my career, design and coding bootcamps flooded the market. As tech got hot, these programs created pipelines—they had connections with senior tech stakeholders. Six months of training competing with years of experience. They introduced the cookie-cutter case study format that still dominates today. Like book reports. Basic login flows presented as groundbreaking achievements. Eight paragraphs, whiteboard photos, sticky notes, collaboration imagery. Theater masquerading as accomplishment. The bootcamp market grew from fewer than 20,000 participants in 2015 to 100,000 in 2021. Hiring managers report that more than 90% of portfolios are turned down for one thing: the linear design process. Cookie-cutter case studies that all read the same. Whether it's the rock star aesthetic or the bootcamp symbiote persona, the industry favors cookie-cutter over craft. This commoditization, this optics-driven hiring, has pushed out really talented people. People who dedicate their lives to the work lose opportunities to people who spent six months learning to perform.


[The Commoditization of Design]


Bootcamps commoditized talent. Then the work itself got commoditized. As designers posted portfolios online—sites like Dribbble, Behance—our work became reference libraries. Offshore designers could copy-cat established work without formal training. Platforms like TopTal enabled this at scale. I experienced it firsthand. I tested into TopTal's design network, then watched as I lost contracts to offshore designers who didn't have formal training but could replicate what they saw online. The work was being devalued in real time. Now AI has supercharged this. It can extract references and rapidly replicate design outputs. It's as if we discovered an entire new country of offshore talent that will work for even less than before. The ultimate commoditization.


[Design Is Not Valued]


I moved between jobs many times over the course of my career. The industry gaslit me into thinking it was my inadequacies that led me to constantly job-hop and leave positions. But it wasn't me. It was the industry being so broken, with such little respect for design, that staying became impossible. The crystallizing moment came at a product design studio. We were working on a major touchscreen kiosk redesign for a fast food client. As a manager, I had insight into the state of the business. We were about to lose this client entirely—a devastating event for the studio. For months, we sat idle. I was working with some of the best designers I'd ever worked with in my career. Watching really capable designers just sit on their hands. Demoralizing.


Then the head business officer came to our desks. We were more aware than others that we were losing our premier client. And they asked us to craft a Christmas card for their children. For the holidays. Because we didn't have anything else to do. That's when I realized: design is not valued. We were ornamental labor to be used for personal errands. Even premier design studios are just corporations that function like any company. They reward subordination, miss the spirit of design and true individuality. They declare themselves creative institutions but don't honor creativity the way you'd expect. I left shortly after. Despite all this, moving between so many companies exposed me to highly talented people. Through all the dysfunction, I learned. But what I built—my network—turned out to be far less valuable than I thought.


I built connections with designers and engineers, most of them highly talented. But they don't hold positions of power at their companies. They're not officers making meaningful decisions. They're clinging to their own jobs in this steep, cold market. When networking matters more than skill and effort, what have I actually built? A house with a glass ceiling and a floor of straw.


[What I've Learned]


After twenty years, I've learned six things.


  1. The system is broken, not you. If you're a young emerging designer, you need to hear this. Don't internalize the gaslighting. When you're passed over, belittled, or made to feel inadequate, it's not because you lack talent. It's because the system favors aesthetics, connections, and subordination over craft.


  1. Learn to sell yourself. Marketing yourself matters almost more than your creative output in this broken system. I wish it weren't true, but performance gets rewarded while real builders stay behind the camera. Understand the game you're playing.


  1. Building for yourself, is the only path for growth. I've never extracted as much reward from any company project across my lengthy career as I have from my own work. When I hit patches of discomfort and uncertainty, I return to building for myself—and those become the most rewarding periods of my career.


  1. Family is everything. Despite the pain of this experience, being with my family—taking care of my father—was where I was meant to be. Family is the most important thing in the world. This was a gift in disguise. No monetary value could match this time.


  1. Being forced to go independent taught me agency. The industry never afforded me stability or benefits, forced me into consulting and contracting. But that became my training ground. I learned to be my own entity, to exert agency, to become a company of one. Now with AI tools, I can actually follow through on my ideas. The industry's cruelty became preparation.


  1. For young up and coming designers and engineers - forget the old advice. Don't join big companies to "learn" and pay your dues. That trap leads nowhere in this broken system. Become a solopreneur. Believe in yourself. Build your own skill set with the unlimited resources available now. Use AI and new tools. Channel your youthful energy and creativity into building your own business. Don't get stuck in the old world trap.


[THE COST]


There's one more thing I need to say. I've been kept away from someone I love. It's been over two years. We find ways to see each other, but I can't be with them. There's a toll when your entire life direction is called into question. When your value is questioned. When opportunities that were once abundant disappear. When you're forced to rely on your parents and family for support in ways you never expected at your age. When you can't get back to the person you love so dearly. It's maddening. Anxiety-inducing. I've been brought to lows I never expected. Dark moments where hope felt impossible. Times I questioned everything. But I did the work on myself. I pulled back from that edge. I kept fighting. I'm not a religious person, but I found a way to be faithful—to have faith in myself and this process. I believe I can design my future. I have the power. Everything that's happened is for a reason. This is the human cost underneath everything. Not just career lost. Not just time stolen. Love lost. The real devastation.


[THE EMERGENCE]


For twenty years, I searched for where I belonged. I didn't find it in the premier design studios that valued subordination over craft. I didn't find it in the startups that fired entire teams in cycles. I didn't find it working for a founder who fired me from his vacation balcony while my father was dying. But through all that strife—the gaslighting, the exploitation, the forced consulting, the dark lows—I was being armed. Twenty years gave me capability. It gave me awareness of my own agency. It taught me to become a company of one. Now AI has arrived. Everything shifts. The industry that tried to commoditize and devalue me has handed me the tools to bypass them entirely. AI democratizes building and shipping. Individual builders become more valuable, not less. The leaders of big studios who never respected the work? Their entire business model is threatened. Power is shifting to the makers.


The gap from designer to solo-preneur is smaller than people think. I'm at the very last stages of convincing myself that I don't need the world. I can do this on my own. When I was about to leave New York, I had a moment of clarity. A lucid thought: you have to go do this, and getting back home will be the fight of your life. I never expected that thought to be so accurate. I've been forced into the fight of my life. Despite everything—maybe because of everything—I believe I can design my way out of it. The old system is crumbling. Death to the old guard. Craft-focused people are about to emerge. The builders will rise. Showing teeth.


[And I'll be one of them]

Good taste alone won't save you. Judgement alone isn't enough to thrive in the age of AI. There's a narrative gaining traction in design and technology circles. It goes something like this: as AI commoditizes execution, human taste becomes the ultimate differentiator. The ability to discern good from bad, to curate rather than create, to know what should exist—this is what will separate professionals who thrive from those who get automated into irrelevance.


[IT'S A COMFORTING STORY. IT'S ALSO INCOMPLETE]


I'm not here to argue that taste doesn't matter. It does. The problem is that taste is being positioned as a life raft when it's actually just one plank in a much larger vessel. And clinging to a single plank in rough water is a poor survival strategy. The professionals who will navigate the next decade successfully won't be those with the most refined aesthetic sensibilities. They'll be the ones who can operationalize their judgment—who understand systems deeply enough to make their taste consequential at scale. Taste without infrastructure is just opinion. And opinion, however sophisticated, doesn't ship products, build businesses, or solve complex problems.


[THE TASTE THESIS, HONESTLY STATED]


Let's steelman the argument before we complicate it. AI tools have gotten remarkably good at execution. They can generate code, produce images, write copy, and synthesize research at speeds that would have seemed absurd five years ago. The mechanical act of making things is becoming cheaper by the month. When everyone has access to the same generative capabilities, the thinking goes, the bottleneck shifts from production to selection. Knowing what to make becomes more valuable than knowing how to make it.


This tracks. When output is abundant, curation matters more. When anyone can generate a thousand variations, the person who can identify the right one holds disproportionate power. The role evolves from craftsperson to editor, from maker to orchestrator. The taste advocates aren't wrong about the direction. They're wrong about what it actually takes to get there.


[TASTE IS AN ABSTRACTION, NOT A SKILL]


Here's the first problem: taste isn't a discrete capability you can develop in isolation. It's an emergent property of other things—domain knowledge, contextual understanding, exposure to both success and failure, and the hard-won pattern recognition that comes from years of seeing what works and what doesn't.


When someone demonstrates "good taste" in product design, they're actually demonstrating compressed knowledge about user behavior, technical constraints, business viability, and cultural context. When a creative director makes a call that elevates a campaign, they're drawing on accumulated understanding of brand positioning, audience psychology, competitive dynamics, and execution feasibility. The taste is visible. The substrate is invisible.


This matters because you can't optimize for taste directly. You can only optimize for the inputs that produce it. And those inputs—systems thinking, domain expertise, strategic context—are precisely what the taste-as-salvation narrative tends to overlook. Telling someone to "develop better taste" without addressing these foundations is like telling someone to "be more insightful." It's not actionable. It mistakes the output for the process.


[THE SELF-ATTRIBUTION PROBLEM]


Here's the second problem, and it's more fundamental: everyone thinks they have good taste. This isn't cynicism. It's psychology. Taste is subjective enough that self-assessment becomes nearly impossible. The designer who favors maximalist aesthetics believes minimalists lack sophistication. The minimalist believes the maximalist lacks restraint. Both are convinced their judgment is superior. Both can point to successful work that validates their perspective. If taste is the differentiator, and everyone believes they possess it, what's the actual filtering mechanism? Markets don't reward self-perception. They reward outcomes. And outcomes are determined by far more than aesthetic judgment.


The taste economy thesis assumes that good taste is scarce and identifiable—that the market will reliably surface and reward those who possess it. But taste is culturally contingent, context-dependent, and often only legible in retrospect. The campaign that seemed tasteful and restrained might have been merely forgettable. The choice that felt bold might have been reckless. You frequently can't distinguish between the two until the results are in. This doesn't mean taste is meaningless. It means taste is insufficient as a career strategy. Betting your professional future on a quality that can't be objectively measured, that everyone claims to possess, and that only reveals its value after the fact is not a plan. It's a hope.


[WHAT ACTUALLY DIFFERENTIATES]


If not taste alone, then what? The answer isn't a single attribute but a capability stack—a combination of skills and dispositions that compound over time. Having observed what separates practitioners who consistently deliver impact from those who occasionally produce good work, the pattern becomes clear. It's rarely about who has the most refined sensibilities. It's about who can translate judgment into outcomes reliably, repeatedly, at scale.


System literacy. The ability to understand how things connect—how a design decision affects engineering constraints, how a product choice ripples through business operations, how a creative direction interacts with distribution channels. Taste tells you what's good. Systems literacy tells you what's possible, what's sustainable, and what will actually survive contact with reality. In an age of AI, this extends to understanding how these tools actually work—not at the level of neural network architecture, but at the level of practical capability and constraint. What can current models do well? Where do they fail? How do you construct workflows that leverage their strengths while compensating for their weaknesses? This isn't technical knowledge for its own sake. It's the systems understanding required to make AI a genuine multiplier rather than a novelty.


Domain depth. Taste that isn't grounded in domain expertise is just aesthetic preference. The professional who can look at a solution and immediately identify its flaws isn't exercising some mystical faculty. They've seen enough implementations to recognize the patterns. They understand the problem space deeply enough to know what "good" actually means in context. This is particularly crucial when working with AI tools. The models don't know your industry, your users, your constraints. They produce outputs that look plausible but may be fundamentally misaligned with the actual problem. Domain expertise is what allows you to direct these tools effectively—to prompt with precision, to evaluate outputs critically, to know when the plausible-looking answer is actually wrong.


Strategic context. Taste that ignores business reality is self-indulgence. The most elegant solution is worthless if it doesn't serve the actual objective. Understanding what you're optimizing for—and who you're optimizing for—is prerequisite to any judgment having value. This means understanding stakeholder dynamics, market positioning, resource constraints, and competitive context. It means being able to articulate why a particular direction serves the strategy, not just why it's aesthetically superior. The professionals who consistently deliver impact aren't those with the purest creative vision. They're those who can align creative vision with strategic intent.


Agency and grit. Perhaps most importantly, the ability to actually make things happen. To push through ambiguity, navigate organizational friction, iterate past failure, and ship despite imperfect conditions. The taste discourse tends to emphasize judgment and curation—fundamentally evaluative postures. But evaluation without execution is commentary. The differentiating factor isn't just knowing what's good. It's having the drive and capability to bring good things into existence against all the forces that conspire to prevent it. This is the unsexy truth that the taste narrative glosses over. Success in any field requires grinding through problems that don't have elegant solutions. It requires working with people who don't share your sensibilities. It requires making decisions with incomplete information and living with the consequences. Taste is a component of this. It's not a substitute for it.


[OPERATIONALIZING JUDGEMENT]


The real opportunity in the age of AI isn't to retreat into taste as a protected domain. It's to build systems that make your judgment scale. This is where the conversation should be heading. Not "how do I preserve my value as a tastemaker?" but "how do I construct workflows, processes, and capabilities that allow my judgment to have impact beyond what I can personally touch?" This might mean developing fluency with agentic workflows—understanding how to orchestrate AI tools in sequences that accomplish complex tasks with appropriate human oversight at decision points. It might mean building evaluation frameworks that encode your judgment into repeatable processes. It might mean creating feedback loops that allow you to refine AI outputs systematically rather than one-off.


The practitioners who are thriving right now aren't those who've circled the wagons around "human creativity." They're the ones who've figured out how to amplify their capabilities by integrating AI thoughtfully into their practice. They haven't abandoned judgment. They've found ways to apply it at leverage points where it matters most, while offloading execution to tools that handle it better and faster. This requires learning new skills. Understanding how models work. Getting comfortable with prompt engineering and context design. Building mental models for what automation can and can't do. None of this diminishes the importance of taste. It contextualizes taste within a broader capability set that actually delivers results.


[THE PATH FORWARD]


None of this is an argument against developing your aesthetic sensibilities, your critical faculties, your ability to discern good from bad. These remain valuable. They're just not sufficient. The argument is for expanding your conception of what it takes to succeed. For recognizing that taste is one node in a network of capabilities, not the whole network. For investing in systems literacy and domain depth and strategic thinking with the same seriousness you bring to developing your creative judgment.


The professionals who will thrive in the coming years will be those who can hold multiple frames simultaneously—who can exercise taste and understand systems, who can make aesthetic judgments and navigate business complexity, who can curate and build. This is more demanding than retreating into taste as a safe harbor. It requires continuous learning in domains that may feel foreign. It requires engaging with technical and strategic dimensions of work that creative professionals have historically been able to avoid. It requires accepting that the boundaries of your role are expanding, and that maintaining impact means growing to fill the new space. But it's also more honest than pretending that taste alone will see you through. The transformation underway is real. The tools are getting better. The competitive landscape is shifting. Meeting this moment requires more than pointing to your sensibilities and hoping that's enough. Taste matters. It always has. But taste has always been in service of something larger—a problem solved, a business built, a vision realized. The goal was never the taste itself. The goal was the impact.


[KEEP DEVELOPING YOUR JUDGEMENT. BUT BUILD THE MACHINERY THAT MAKES IT MATTER.]