Design Program Leadership

Context

Content design at Meta is embedded across hundreds of product teams — but embedding doesn't automatically mean influence. Without shared standards, review processes, and organizational structure, content quality becomes inconsistent. Individual contributors do great work in isolation while the broader system stays fragmented.

In 2024, I saw two connected gaps on Facebook's cross-functional design review program (the program): documentation that didn't reflect content design's standards, and a review process that didn't have enough content design representation to enforce them. Neither was anyone's fault. Both were solvable.

Approach

Closing the documentation gap. The program wiki — a critical resource for teams navigating the design review process — had a content design problem. The documentation was inconsistent, underrepresented CD guidelines, and wasn't aligned with the Facebook Design System. I spearheaded a full wiki redesign, working ahead of schedule to close the gap between program documentation and FDS standards.

This wasn't just a writing project. It required identifying which pages needed redesigning, recruiting the right designers for remaining sections, and ensuring that content design's voice was represented consistently throughout — not as an afterthought, but as a foundational layer of how the program communicated its standards.

Building the governance program. Documentation alone doesn't change behavior at scale. So I launched an XFN Governance program for content design — a structured review system designed to expand CD influence across Facebook by embedding trained content design reviewers directly into cross-functional review forums.

The program required building from scratch: developing programming and rituals for reviewers, defining what good content design review looks like in practice, and staffing the forums with people equipped to champion quality standards. I identified and onboarded 17 CD reviewers across 8 review forums, creating a distributed network of content design advocates embedded at the point where design decisions get made.

Onboarding at scale. As the governance program matured, the team onboarded 12 XFN review forums — each representing a different product surface with its own context and constraints. Getting 12 forums aligned on content design guidelines required more than documentation. It required up-leveling partners: running sessions, building shared language, and making CD guidelines accessible to designers and non-designers alike.

Outcome

• 44% increase in CD coverage across Facebook teams as a result of the governance program
• 8 review forums established, staffed with 17 trained CD reviewers championing quality standards across product surfaces
• 12 XFN review forums onboarded to the program, with improved consistency and content design representation throughout
• Wiki redesign completed ahead of schedule, closing the documentation gap between the review program and FDS standards
• Measurably improved representation of content design in the design review process across the organization

Insight

This project taught me that influence is infrastructure. You can have the best content design guidelines in the world — but if they're not embedded in the places where decisions get made, they don't scale.

The governance program was really a systems problem in disguise. The question wasn't "how do we get people to care about content design?" It was "how do we build a system where caring about content design is the default?" Trained reviewers in the right forums, aligned to shared standards, with clear rituals and programming — that's not a culture initiative. It's architecture.

What I'd do differently: instrument the program earlier. We measured CD coverage increase at 44%, but I'd want richer data on review quality over time — not just whether CD was represented in forums, but whether the reviews were meaningfully improving the work.

What this proved: the most leveraged design work isn't always on the screen. Sometimes it's the program behind the screen that determines whether good design actually ships.