Get weekly design system tips and tricks, directly to your inbox.
One of the promises design systems love to make is “consistency at scale.”
It’s right there on the first slide of every pitch deck:
Use our system, and your products will feel cohesive, recognizable, on-brand, and trustworthy.
It’s compelling… and mostly true. But what people don’t talk about enough is what that consistency costs. Because here’s the truth: consistency isn’t free. It’s a currency. And that currency is paid for in negotiation, alignment, and a little bit of creative sacrifice.
Why consistency costs more than you think
When you tell a team, “Please use this component instead of designing your own,” you’re not just offering them a convenience. You’re asking them to give something up: their creative freedom, their unique twist, their time-tested hack that works for them.
Multiply that by dozens of teams and hundreds of designers and engineers, and you start to see why alignment is so hard.
Every new variant you say no to? That’s a small battle. Every custom edge-case you push back on? Another negotiation.
Consistency feels cheap to the design system team because we’re on the inside looking out. But to the people doing the day-to-day product work, consistency can feel like someone else’s rules.
The hidden value: trust and time saved
So why fight for it? Because when consistency works, it pays dividends:
Users benefit. Familiar patterns build trust. When buttons look and behave the same across screens, users feel more confident and less confused.
Teams benefit. A reusable component saves hours or days. Instead of reinventing a modal or date picker, you drop it in, adjust it a bit, and move on to the real work.
Products benefit. Accessibility, responsive behavior, localization: you handle it once, for everyone.
But this only works if the system’s consistency is perceived as valuable, not just by you, but by the teams you’re asking to adopt it.
How to pay the price well
Too many design system teams get this backward: they see pushback as a sign that product teams don’t “get it.”
But resistance is normal! It’s a sign you’re asking for a trade-off. You do the work to make it easy for them to let go.
You have to make the trade worth it.
Here’s what I tell design system teams:
Make it easy to adopt. If using your component takes more effort than building from scratch, no one will do it. Smooth out the rough edges: clear documentation, copy-paste code snippets, robust Figma libraries, easy overrides.
Show the payoff. Don’t just say, “Use this.” Show how it saves time, reduces bugs, or improves accessibility. Track the hours saved and make that visible.
Respect what people give up. Acknowledge the trade-off openly. “I know this new grid limits some of your layout creativity. Here’s why it’s worth it: it unifies responsive breakpoints across every app.”
Keep improving. Take a deep breath. Listen for real friction. If teams keep customizing your component, ask why. Maybe your “one-size-fits-all” pattern needs a more flexible API.
The trust bank: earn interest over time
Think of consistency as a trust bank. Early on, withdrawals are high: you’re asking people to invest trust without much proof. But every successful adoption, every story of time saved, and every bug prevented adds to your bank balance.
Over time, your system becomes the default because it’s the easiest, safest path. Not because people are forced to use it.
Consistency is expensive. But when you pay the price in trust, in listening, and in iteration, you end up with a system people want to use, not one they resent.
That’s the real payoff.
