Theoretical Implications

Design thinking is a process and set of tools and techniques typically used by designers that businesses have been adopting in the recent years (Brown & Kātz, 2009; Martin, 2007b). The hope is that these processes will assist in the development of innovative ideas for products, services or systems (Fraser, 2009; Martin, 2007a;

Moggridge, 2007; Tschimmel, 2012). However, even with the increasing popularity and use of design thinking there have been few academic studies in this area, especially in the context of organizations. For this reason, the aim of this study is to contribute to demystification of design thinking for organizational innovation.

There are several ways that this study has contributed to a deeper theoretical understanding of design thinking. The first contribution is a deeper understanding of design thinking. Secondly, this research identifies attributes and working styles of individuals or employees using design thinking from literature. Due to the similarities in the writings the attributes have been consolidated into a list of working styles of a designer that were most discussed in the reviewed articles. A measurement was created to evaluate design thinking potential in employees. This assessment leveraged the consolidated list of design thinking working styles from the literature review as well as previously created measurements for creative potential in employees. The

76

potential design thinking measure has proven to predict employee practiced design thinking.

This research also identified many contextual factors that can affect the use of design thinking. For this study, we looked further into the effects of workplace atmosphere, innovative activity and innovative opportunities as moderating variables to an employee practicing design thinking in an organization. Creative processes such as design thinking are not performed in isolation the study conducted also examined the moderating effects of workplace contextual factors. This study is a start in the exploration and understanding of the relationship between workplace context and the employees‘ practiced design thinking.

This study is the first to attempt to assess design thinking potential and the moderating effects of the workplace. Thus, there are some limitations in the research due to the newness of the study. This could explain the surprising results of only two of eight supported hypotheses. However, the hope is that this opens the door for continued research and further assessments to deepen the understanding in this area.

Table 5-1

Hypotheses and Result of the Research

Hypothesis Results

1 There is a positive relationship between IEC and PDT. Supported 2 There is a positive relationship between DTWS and PDT. Supported

3

The relationship between individual employee creativity (IEC) and practiced design thinking (PDT) is positively moderated by workplace atmosphere (WA), in such a way that (a) high WA strengthens and (b) low WA weakens the relationship between IEC and PDT.

Not Supported

4

The relationship between design thinking working style (DTWS) and practiced design thinking (PDT) is positively moderated by workplace atmosphere (WA), in such a way that (a) high WA strengthens and (b) low WA weakens the

relationship between DTWS and PDT.

Not Supported

5 The relationship between individual employee creativity (IEC)

and practiced design thinking (PDT) is positively moderated Not Supported

77

Hypothesis Results

by workplace innovative activity (WIA), in such a way that (a) high WIA strengthens and (b) low WIA weakens the

relationship between IEC and PDT.

6

The relationship between design thinking working style (DTWS) and practiced design thinking (PDT) is positively moderated by workplace innovative activity (WIA), in such a way that (a) high WIA strengthens and (b) low WIA weakens the relationship between DTWS and PDT.

Not Supported

7

The relationship between individual employee creativity (IEC) and practiced design thinking (PDT) is positively moderated by workplace innovative opportunity (WIO), in such a way that (a) high WIO strengthens and (b) low WIO weakens the relationship between IEC and PDT.

Not Supported

8

H8: The relationship between design thinking working style (DTWS) and practiced design thinking (PDT) is positively moderated by workplace innovative opportunity (WIO), in such a way that (a) high WIO strengthens and (b) low WIO weakens the relationship between DTWS and PDT.

Not Supported

The first important result of the survey, shown in Table 5-1, is that individual employee creativity is a predictor for practiced design thinking in this organization.

This result is in line with the literature review which said that creative traits are an important part of performing design (Linnuste, 2012; Owen, 2007). Hypothesis 1 shows us that the assessment used for this survey including the six items from DiLiello and Houghton (2008) and four items developed adapted from Wongtada and Rice (2008) can be used to predict a positive relationship to an employee‘s practiced design thinking in the workplace. This means that without taking into consideration possible moderating effects if an employee has the traits of a creative person as sited in this study the person will have more potential to practice design thinking. Examples of these creative traits are high self-efficacy or confidence in their creativity, intrinsic motivation and working creatively in teams (DiLiello & Houghton; Wongtada &

Rice).

The second theoretical contribution from the survey results is that the measure for design thinking working style is positively related to practiced design thinking.

78

This supports the literature review and the working styles as listed by the experts:

Heather Fraser (2009), Tim Brown (2008), Roger Martin (2005, 2006, 2007a), Charles Owen (2005, 2006, 2007), Bauer and Eagen (2008), and Clark and Smith (2008). If an employee shows the design thinking qualities from the consolidated list created in this study they are more likely to practice design thinking. Examples of the working styles from Table 3-3 are integrative thinking, abductive reasoning, empathetic focus, preference for complex problems, and ability to visualize. This not only supports the accuracy of these design thinking styles but also shows us that you can measure an employee‘s potential to practice design thinking through a self-perception design thinking working style test.

The results of the survey show that hypothesis 3 and 4 were not supported. In fact, the opposite results appeared from this study. The workplace atmosphere measure negatively affected the practiced design thinking. This means that the higher the score on the WA measure the less an employee may practice design thinking. This is surprising because the literature review stated that creativity is moderated by the workplace atmosphere (Amabile et al., 2005; Amabile et al., 1996; Binnewies et al., 2008; Chang & Chiang, 2008; DiLiello & Houghton, 2008; Hirst et al., 2009;

Wongtada & Rice, 2008). Therefore, it was predicted that individual employee creativity and design thinking working styles would be positively moderated by the workplace atmosphere to support practiced design thinking. This contrary result may be the result of low number of respondents or the organizational culture that is inclined to avoid critical feedback as well as aspects of the Asian mindset (Abdullah, Chik, & Deen, 2006). Furthermore, it has been observed on several occasions that the employees at this particular organization tend to avoid giving negative feedback or criticism that may be heard by management. This behavior could be due to the high power-distance in Asian culture (Mannarelli, 2005). High power distance means those

79

in power have more authority creating a larger hierarchal gap (Mannarelli). This can lead to people being less out spoken especially when it is contrary or opposing authority. Abdullah, Chik and Deen tell us that power distance and uncertainty avoidance greatly influenced employees‘ self-perception responses in a creativity study.

Another cultural aspect that could explain why people may not be voicing their true thoughts is the collectivist society including benevolent behavioral –suppression of emotion, value of humility, silence ethic, conformity, and stigmatized eccentricity (Kim, 2005). On an organizational level, it could also be caused by the type of respondents at this organization—most over 20 years at the organization with families and responsibilities—that creates a fear of job loss. So, although anonymity was promised the respondents may not have been honest in their critique of the workplace—embellishing their answers to make them positive. Another predictor of this could be the inconclusive results of the time pressures item in this variable. It is a very common complaint at this organization that employees‘ are very busy, need more time, and have too many work responsibilities. Yet, these criticisms were not shown in the survey—an odd result.

Hypothesis 5 and 6 were also not supported. This means that the level of workplace innovative activity does not positively moderate IEC or DTWS to affect practiced design thinking. One reason for this could be the type of organization tested.

Singapore Polytechnic is firstly an educational organization. Innovation is important to them but not their main focus. Therefore, this item may reflect different results in other organizations. Another cause could be the low number of respondents for this survey (Yu & Copper, 1983).

Hypothesis 7 and 8 predicted that IEC and DTWS would be positively moderated by workplace innovative opportunity to affect practiced design thinking. Surprisingly,

80

neither of these hypotheses was supported in this study. In fact, the WIO measure has a very high co-efficient of 0.689 showing that is actually more significant than the DTWS or IEC measure. This means that workplace innovative opportunity can be used as an independent variable for practiced design thinking. This may also reflect an issue that the WIO and WA measures were too similar or confusing to the respondents (Yu & Copper, 1983). The opportunity a workplace gives to their employees to be creative or use design thinking could be very relevant to them practicing it.

Lastly, the basic demographic information did not show any significant effect on the practiced design thinking. This is surprising because it is commonly thought those older employees or those over twenty years tenure may have lower use of creativity and be less apt to change their way of work. This study shows that it does not have a great impact. This is cause for future studies in the area.