In the current environment, the pressure to integrate AI into every product is palpable. Organizations are moving at breakneck speeds, often leaving UXR teams feeling like they’re standing in the path of a freight train. 

The instinct to hit the brakes—to rigorously validate every assumption before proceeding—can inadvertently position researchers as adversaries to progress rather than partners in innovation. But this moment of high-stakes ambiguity offers a unique opportunity for research leaders to redefine their influence.

Michael Winnick, CEO of Dscout, argues that the key to navigating this shift lies in fundamentally changing how researchers engage with organizational momentum. Instead of relying on the traditional methods of "blocking" or slowing down initiatives, Winnick advocates for a strategic pivot: channeling the existing energy within a company to drive user-centric outcomes. 

In this conversation with Marvin CEO Prayag Narula, they explore the art of becoming a strategic ally, the trap of obsessing over exact ROI, and why the future of research depends on practicing "Judo" instead of "Karate."

Prayag: How does a researcher become a strategic ally to the C-suite, especially in this new AI era?

Michael: That is the fundamental question. I get to meet incredible UX researchers and leaders, and I have noticed that the people who have significant strategic influence do a few specific things differently.

To become that strategic ally, I think there are several key shifts you need to make:
Link to business levers

Link to business levers

The best researchers are able to tie the behaviors and things they are seeing directly to levers and metrics that are business-friendly. You don't necessarily need to quantify it precisely to have an impact.

• Speak the language: You might see a user challenge and say, "This behavior could impact our retention," or "This could impact the frequency of people coming back or the amount they spend during this transaction".
  
  
• Simplify the connection: We often get snagged on feeling like we need to quantify everything precisely, asking "how much?". You don't need to do that. You just need to link it to the things executives are focused on, which are typically KPIs. Linking to a KPI is way more important than focusing on a specific, calculated ROI.
  

Use insights as verbs

We tend to treat insights as nouns—things we deliver. But insights and decision-making are actually verbs; they are inherently emotional.

• Create experiences: The power of our field is to recognize that we need to create experiences for stakeholders. That is why video clips resonate so much—they force the viewer to interact with the customer's reality.
  
  
• Trigger emotion: All human decision-making has an emotional component, it’s never a purely rational act. Finding those moments for people to interact with customers can be really powerful to drive strategy.
  

Use your superpowers

We have incredible strengths—curiosity, the ability to facilitate and lead a group, and the ability to visualize. These are powerful skills that can help us become much more strategic partners inside an organization if we focus on bringing them to bear internally, not just in our fieldwork.

You mentioned that researchers often try to “slow the organization down.” Can you explain your metaphor of “Judo vs. Karate” in this context?

A lot of the challenge in our field is that we are often put in a role of trying to caution the organization. We see a trend inside the company, and we try to slow the momentum down. We always say we play a little "Karate"—we say "no" and try to block the force.

There is tremendous power in focusing less on those "Karate vibes" and moving a little bit more towards "Judo".

Channel the energy

In the case of AI, there is a general and very true feeling across many organizations that this is an onslaught—it feels like AI is being pushed down on us.

• Don't just push back: It’s a key moment to learn how to channel some of that energy. No CEO wants to spend billions of dollars on AI and not have it get any return in terms of impacting users.
  
  
• Guide the path: Instead of blocking, you say, “Hey, let's do this. But where we are making major investments, let's look at how research can help us do that in the best way.” You guide them down the path towards where their energy already is, versus doing a lot of blocking behavior.
  

Leverage time pressure

We all feel time pressure. Our field is habitually under this time compression challenge! But the pressure to ship is quickly followed by the pressure of adoption.

• Try the "Yes, and" pivot: You can say, “We get it, you're going to ship. But let's focus on some things that ensure that once we ship, people actually use it.”
  

• Solve the real problem:

“The number one challenge in AI is technology for technology's sake. By channeling the momentum, we might be able to tie it to a user problem and actually get to the next point faster and better.”

Michael Winnick
CEO, Dscout

Is there a specific ROI metric that UXR programs should be associated with? Or is that the wrong way to look at it?

ROI always sounds like a thing that is really scientific and that you are constantly measuring, but that is not how it usually happens. ROI is often taking your best case studies and trying to quantify impact after the fact.

I have two main thoughts on this:

The value of tactical work

One of the benefits of running very tactical research as part of your team is that it is typically much easier to tie to ROI.

• Establish direct impact: If you have a rapid usability program, identify a set of flaws, fix those things, and see a lift—that is way easier to establish as direct KPI impact.
  
  
• Realize that strategy is indirect: Strategic research is like hitting a pool ball. You hit this ball, that hits that thing, and it goes in—it is amorphous and indirect.
  
  
• Build a foundation: There is nothing wrong with doing a decent quantity of tactical work. In a weird way, running really good tactical research is very strategic because it helps to round out the bigger story for your team.
  

Game the dual threat

If you’re a basketball player, can you only do layups or only shoot three-pointers? No. You’re better if you can drive to the hoop and shoot from distance.

• Do both: Teams need to be able to do both. It’s easy to get caught in the "strategy trap," thinking our work is only valuable if it’s higher up.
  
  
• Count tactical wins: I spoke to a leader who did very focused usability work and calculated a $90 million improvement on their checkout flow. That is amazing and very literal.
  

This is a scary time for many people in the industry. How can research bring value when leadership itself is feeling uncertain?

I don't want to give pat answers to a very complex moment, but I think our field has a tremendous amount of value at moments of high ambiguity.

Validate the fear

What are people afraid of? They’re scared of the ambiguity and the uncertain impacts of this moment. It’s important to realize that this is what your whole company is feeling right now—your engineers, your sales teams, and your leaders.

Bring clarity

We are a function that can help to bring clarity. In many ways, that is one of our most essential capabilities.

• Be the provider of direction: This is a moment where people are hungry for direction. If we can bring clarity—whether through research on how this will impact people or through visualizing what this could look like—those skills are very valuable right now.
  
  
• Calm the organization: If you can help a leader feel like they have some signal amidst the noise, that’s incredibly powerful. You can say, "Hey, I was able to rely on this group of people at this moment, and they were able to give me some direction and focus". That is as strategic as you can be.
  

Proactivity is key

I hope you operate in an organizational context where proactivity is appreciated. This is a great moment for a little proactivity—not simply waiting to be asked to run a study, but saying, "Hey, given everything I've been thinking about, I have some thoughts and direction on this that I'd love to share".

Finally, what is your take on democratization? Is it a threat to the research function?

Democratization is just a reality; it’s a thing in our space. At this point, it’s not inherently good or bad—it’s just a fact.

Good vs. bad democratization

Like many technologies, there is "good democratization" and "bad democratization".

• Escape the treadmill: Historically, we tend to focus very much on projects—run the project, execute the project, move to the next project. One cool thing about democratization is that it can handle some of that volume.
  
  
• Enable learning: Our role shifts to thinking about what a good democratization program looks like. We become the ones ensuring the organization learns effectively.
  

Find your team’s balance

If we try to slow everything down, we’re going to fail as a field. But if we try to do everything as instant insights with no thought and no friction, we will also fail.

• Take the middle path: We need to be a dual threat. We need to facilitate the organization's desire for access while maintaining the quality and depth that only dedicated research can provide.

Wrapping it up

The path forward for researchers isn't about resisting the tides of change, but learning to navigate them with skill and intention. By speaking the language of the business, balancing tactical work with strategy, and providing clarity in times of fear, researchers can cement their role as indispensable partners. 

The future is not about whether AI will replace research, but how research will guide the application of AI to build products that teams—and users—actually trust.

You may also like…

• The AI + Human Opportunity
• How to Create Meaningful Personalization in Your AI Products
• Use This Framework to Embed AI Into Your Everyday UX Practice