The Relationship between Design Thinking Potential and Practiced Design Thinking: Examining the Moderating Effects of Workplace Context

全文

(1)National Cheng Kung University Institute of International Management Master’s Thesis. The Relationship between Design Thinking Potential and Practiced Design Thinking: Examining the Moderating Effects of Workplace Context. Student: Christine Hunt RA6987168. Advisor: Hao-Chieh Lin. July, 2013.

(2)

(3)

(4) ABSTRACT Keywords:. Design thinking, Design, Employee creativity, Organizational innovation, Workplace context, Workplace atmosphere, Innovative opportunity, Singapore.. Design thinking is a process that businesses and other professions have been adopting in the recent years for organizational innovation. However, even with the increasing popularity and use of design thinking there have been few academic studies in this area. The aim of this study is to contribute to the demystification of design thinking for organizational innovation and a deeper theoretical understanding. A research model was developed to explore multiple hypotheses on the relationship between potential design thinking of an employee to their practiced design thinking and the moderating effects of the workplace context. The model was based on previous studies in the area of creativity but it is the first academic survey to attempt to understand and measure design thinking in organizations. The research findings are based on a sample group of 160 employees at Singapore Polytechnic. The results show potential design thinking constructs, including individual employee creativity and design thinking working styles, have direct impact on the practiced design thinking of the employee. Among the contextual factors, both workplace innovative opportunity and workplace atmosphere exhibit positively direct effects on the practiced design thinking of the employee while workplace atmosphere also negatively moderates the relationship between individual employee creativity and the practiced design thinking. Implications and future directions are discussed.. I.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank and extend my sincere gratitude to Professor Hao-Chieh Lin for his support and unwavering positive attitude and encouragement. He is the type of advisor and professor that all students hope to have the opportunity to learn from. I would also like to extend my deepest appreciation for the support of Professors Shao-Chi Chang, Don J.F. Jeng, Hsiao-Ling Chung, and Shyhnan Liou at my proposal and final defense; their advice was invaluable to my thesis. Of course, I need to mention the help from my many of my classmates, especially Devon Banks, Tom Bailey, and Lucy Dang. I have learned a great deal from all my classmates in Taiwan with varying backgrounds, experiences, and cultures—it was a truly a life changing experience. The hardworking IMBA office staff also deserves a special mention, especially Titi for answering my many emails. My gratitude also goes to Singapore Polytechnic. They generously offered their organization to be the sample group and supported me in administering the survey. Even though my colleagues are very busy, hardworking people they made time for this survey. A special thanks goes to Jessica Goh; her positive encouragement and support made my survey possible while her attitude continues to inspire me. Lastly, I cannot understate the encouragement of my family and friends. Without their love and support I would never be able to face the adventures and challenges that I take on in life. I would like to thank my friends in Singapore for their encouragement and support that kept me strong and motivated.. II.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... II TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. III LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... VII LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................IX CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Background. ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Motivation. ....................................................................................... 4 1.3 The Purpose and Scope of the Study. ............................................................... 7 1.4 Structure of Research. ...................................................................................... 9 1.5 Research Process. .......................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 11 2.1 Creativity. ....................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Employee Creativity and Moderating Influences. ............................... 13 2.2 Design. ........................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Background. ......................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Design Evolution. ................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Definitions of Design. .......................................................................... 18 2.3 Design Thinking. ............................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 Design Thinking for Organizational Innovation. ................................ 21 2.3.2 Working Styles of a Design Thinker. .................................................... 21 2.4 Design Thinking Potential and Practiced Design Thinking. .......................... 26 III.

(7) 2.4.1 Design Thinking Potential. .................................................................. 26 2.4.2 Practiced Design Thinking (PDT). ...................................................... 27 2.4.3 Workplace Context Moderating Practiced Design Thinking. .............. 27 2.5 Hypotheses Development: Potential Design Thinking. ................................. 28 2.5.1 Individual Employee Creativity (IEC). ................................................ 29 2.5.2 Individual Design Thinking Working Style (DTWS). ........................... 31 2.6 Hypotheses Development: Workplace Context. ............................................ 32 2.6.1 Workplace Atmosphere (WA) as a Moderator...................................... 33 2.6.2 Workplace Innovative Activity (WIA) as a Moderator. ........................ 35 2.6.3 Workplace Innovative Opportunity (WIO) as a Moderator. ................ 36 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...................... 38 3.1 Research Framework. .................................................................................... 38 3.2 Summary of Hypotheses. ............................................................................... 39 3.3 Sampling Plan and Data Collection. .............................................................. 40 3.3.1 Organization Selection. ....................................................................... 40 3.3.2 Quantitative Sample. ........................................................................... 41 3.4 Definitions and Measures of Variables. ......................................................... 42 3.4.1 Individual Employee Creativity (IEC) Measurement. ......................... 43 3.4.2 Design Thinking Working Style (DTWS) Measurement....................... 45 3.4.3 Practiced Design Thinking (PDT) Measurement. ............................... 48 3.4.4 Workplace Atmosphere (WA) Measurement. ....................................... 49 3.4.5 Workplace Innovative Activity (WIA) Measurement. ........................... 50 3.4.6 Workplace Innovation Opportunity (WIO) Measurement. .................. 50 3.4.7 Qualifying Questions. .......................................................................... 51 3.5 Control Variables............................................................................................ 51. IV.

(8) 3.6 Questionnaire Design and Testing. ................................................................ 53 3.6.1 Questionnaire. ..................................................................................... 53 3.6.2 Data Collection. .................................................................................. 53 3.7 Methods of Analysis. ..................................................................................... 54 3.7.1 Descriptive Analysis. ........................................................................... 54 3.7.2 Correlation Coefficient Analysis. ........................................................ 54 3.7.3 Reliability Test. .................................................................................... 55 3.7.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). ................................................. 55 3.7.5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis. ........................................ 56 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................... 57 4.1 Descriptive Statistic Analysis. ....................................................................... 57 4.2 Validity and Reliability Tests. ........................................................................ 58 4.2.1 Individual Employee Creativity. .......................................................... 60 4.2.2 Design Thinking Working Style. .......................................................... 61 4.2.3 Practiced Design Thinking. ................................................................. 62 4.2.4 Workplace Atmosphere. ....................................................................... 63 4.2.5 Workplace Innovative Activity. ............................................................ 64 4.2.6 Workplace Innovative Opportunity. ..................................................... 64 4.3 Full Measurement Model. .............................................................................. 65 4.4 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation. .................................... 68 4.5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression. ................................................................. 71 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 75 5.1 Discussion and Conclusions. ......................................................................... 75 5.1.1 Theoretical Implications. ..................................................................... 75 5.1.2 Managerial Implications. .................................................................... 80. V.

(9) 5.2 Limitations. .................................................................................................... 82 5.3 Future Research. ............................................................................................ 84 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 87 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 93 Appendix 1: Survey introduction and online survey ........................................... 93. VI.

(10) LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Roger Martin: How a Designer Works ....................................................... 22 Table 2-2 Charles Owen: Design Thinking Attributes ................................................ 23 Table 2-3 Bauer and Eagen: Designer Ways of Knowing and Working ..................... 24 Table 2-4 Clark Smith: Types of Intelligence Used by Designers ............................... 25 Table 2-5 Heather Fraser: Design Thinking Traits ..................................................... 25 Table 2-6 Integrated Design Thinking Working Styles from Literature ...................... 31 Table 3-1 Summary of Hypotheses .............................................................................. 39 Table 3-2 Summary of Variable Codes and Descriptions ........................................... 43 Table 3-3 Development of Design Thinking Working Style Items ............................... 46 Table 4-1 Characteristics of Research Respondent (N=160) ...................................... 57 Table 4-2 Reliability Test ............................................................................................. 59 Table 4-3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result for Individual Employee Creativity . 60 Table 4-4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result for Design Thinking Working Style . 61 Table 4-5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result for Practiced Design Thinking ........ 62 Table 4-6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result for Workplace Atmosphere .............. 63 Table 4-7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result for Workplace Innovative Activity ... 64 Table 4-8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result for Workplace Innovative Opportunity .................................................................................................................. 65 Table 4-9 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result for Full Measurement Model........... 66 Table 4-10 Validity and Reliability Result ................................................................... 68 Table 4-11 Pearson Correlation Coefficient Result .................................................... 70 VII.

(11) Table 4-12 Regression Results of all Hypotheses ........................................................ 74 Table 5-1 Hypotheses and Result of the Research ....................................................... 76. VIII.

(12) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Research structure ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-1. Design thinking potential, workplace context, and practiced design thinking .................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3-1. Research framework ................................................................................. 39 Figure 4-1. Two-way interaction between individual employee creativity and practiced design thinking ......................................................................... 72. IX.

(13) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Research Background. In today‘s economy corporations and businesses face many challenges as they struggle to transform from an Industrial Economy to the new Creative Economy or Innovation Economy. Attributes that made businesses successful in the 20th century, such as manufacturing, could be their downfall today. So organizations whether they are product-based or service-based must change—dramatically and quickly. One of the buzzwords in the business community is innovation. The term is frequently being used in business journals, business conferences, annual reports, and in classrooms. There is a general agreement and understanding that businesses must continuously innovate in order to survive, especially in this time of rapidly changing market conditions (Siau, 1996). Innovation is defined as the process of going from an idea to the introduction of a novelty into the market (Mumford, 2000). Creativity is defined as the consolidation of idea generation and idea validation which is essential to the innovation process (Burbiel, 2009). Both the Innovation and Creative Economy heavily rely on people to generate new, unique solutions for profit (Wongtada & Rice, 2008). Organizations are turning to their employees to increase innovation and in turn ensure their survival. However, many organizations struggle to increase innovative activity in their employees and to create novel solutions to their challenges. A method gaining popularity in the business world to generate successful, innovative solutions is design and designer techniques. If you study the bestseller lists 1.

(14) of books or magazines over the past years you would notice that design is another market buzzword. Design has been moving away from being specific skills of professionals, which are mainly associated with industrialized economies, to becoming something that everyone can, or can try to, practice. Design offers ways to create solutions for everything from daily tasks or decorating your house to business solutions. The methods, processes, and even the ways of thinking like designers have been promoted for increasing innovation. The material on design in the market often uses the term design thinking. This topic has been gaining force over the past five to ten years and gaining attention from both designers and forward thinking business executives. Walters (2009) says that design thinking promises to unite the left and right brains of individuals and organizations. It is a method for solving problems using designer processes and techniques. Advocates say businesses can create successful innovations using principles and tools of the design trade. These advocates, including Walters, are not merely designers advertising the benefits of their processes but also prominent members of the business community. Business Week has a section on their website and in their magazine dedicated to design thinking on their website with 387 news articles and 336 blog items.1 Recently, there have been many conferences, symposiums and workshops on design thinking. Furthermore, many business schools are also changing their curriculum to include design thinking. Stanford University has opened an Institute of. 1 http://bx.businessweek.com/design-thinking/. 2.

(15) Design, called the d.school. On the Stanford d.school website2 they promote that they “...believe great innovators and leaders need to be great design thinkers.” Stanford believes that the use of design thinking is not merely a trend, but a global movement that they want to be a part of. They see design as the catalyst for innovation, helping businesses transform in today‘s new economies. Furthermore, other prominent schools around the world are also adopting design thinking methods. Some examples are Rotman School of Management at University of Toronto, Singapore Polytechnic, INSEAD, HPI School of Design Thinking and Harvard Business School. Large corporations, such as Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard and Apple, have adopted design thinking principles and promote these methods as being keys to success (Walters, 2009). Design and strategy consultancies such as IDEO, Continuum, and Ziba Design have positioned themselves as ideal business consulting partners. IDEO, Design and Innovation Firm in the United States, is an award-winning global design firm, with clients such as RIM, GE, and Ford. They are one of the top advocates for design thinking. The CEO and president of IDEO, Tim Brown is one of the leading voices for design thinking. Brown (2008) defines design thinking as “a methodology that imbues the full spectrum of innovation activities with a human-centered design ethos” (p. 1). Brown also describes it as an approach that uses the designer's toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success to create innovative solutions to any. 2http://dschool.stanford.edu/big_picture/our_vision.php. 3.

(16) problem. Design thinking is a creative method or process for creating innovations that fulfill real human needs and are viable business solutions. However, the term design thinking is still confusing. Researchers to those practicing, still argue over what exactly it means and whether other terms such as creativity, invention and innovation are more helpful (Kimbell, 2009). Yet, it still remains true that techniques used by designers to develop solutions to complex problems are gaining in popularity. This is a new area of academic research so there are many questions that still remain unanswered. What exactly is design thinking? What factors support or hinder the adoption of design thinking practices by employees? Are certain people more likely to be successful at design thinking? These are some of the questions that this study seeks to discover. 1.2 Research Motivation. To date, there has been little empirical research on the subject of design thinking. So the question is, if people are saying that design will be a driving force in business—if leaders must become designers and that design is the key to economic prosperity—then how do people become design thinkers? What does an organization need to successfully adopt design thinking? It is very important to define design thinking further if it is going to be adopted into organizational practice, especially employees who are not trained designers. It is also important to understand how the organization can support or hinder the design thinking process for their employees. This study will begin by assessing design thinking on the level of the individual or employee; one must consider the traits or skills required to practice design thinking. There have been few academic studies discussing what it takes to be a design thinker. In a study by Ward and Eagen (2008), the future implications for research suggests additional empirical research into how designers think, stating that it is required to. 4.

(17) ―overcome current methodological limitations and narrow the gap between descriptive and prescriptive approaches to design thinking‖ (p. 73). Furthermore, the existing discussions reflect a lack of coherence in academic literatures regarding design research, management and organizational studies (Kimbell, 2009). In terms of the individual design thinking abilities, some researchers discuss the personality traits, while others discuss the ways of working or thinking styles (Bauer & Eagen, 2008; Brown, 2008; Clark & Smith, 2008; Drews, 2009; Kimbell, 2009; Owen, 2007). There exists some commonalities or agreement in the literature on design thinking working styles or skills, such as an affinity or ability to work as a team, and a human-centered or empathetic focus (Brown; Drews; Owen). However, there is a need for further consolidation of these attributes to increase the potential success of training staff that may successfully adopt design thinking into their work to increase innovative activity. Although design thinking embodies a wide range of attributes of a creative person, such as sensitivity and a questioning attitude, it also has many other unique qualities of distinct value to decision makers (Owen, 2005). For instance, a designer needs to be analytic at times, as well as an integrative thinker, and empathetic—which are not found in creative characteristics (Bauer & Eagen, 2008; Brown, 2008; Drews, 2009; Owen, 2007). Therefore, the first motivation of this study is to identify design thinking traits or working styles through the literature. When the attributes of a design thinker are compiled they will be used to create a measure for individuals‘ or employees‘ design thinking potential. This measure is not to say whether or not a person can be a good design thinker because similar to other creative processes it depends on the time and context of a project. People can change and adjust in certain situations. The measure will predict individuals‘ strengths or weaknesses to be a. 5.

(18) design thinker at a certain point in time. The aim is to further understand the traits and working styles of a designer and how they affect employees practicing design in the workplace. It needs to be noted that design thinking is a creative process and creativity resides in a complex system (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Csikszentmihalyi, 2006; Haner, 2005; Westwood & Low, 2003; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). As many leading researchers on creativity state creation, or creative acts, are never the result of an individual‘s actions alone (Amabile et al.; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi). When studying any creative process we must consider three factors: the individual‘s or employee‘s capabilities, the organization or context in which the creativity is taking place, as well as the surrounding culture (Amabile et al.; Csikszentmihalyi). Similar to creativity, design thinking takes place in a larger, complex system with many factors that moderate the process. For this reason, this study will examine the moderating effects of the organization or workplace context of the individual or employee practicing design thinking. This study aims to contribute to several gaps in current academic research. There have been very few empirical studies in the field of design thinking especially for organizational innovation. This study seeks to understand the organizational context that moderates the practice of design thinking in an organization as well as the employee‘s potential for design thinking. This study contributes to research with a consolidated list of design thinking working styles through literature reviews of experts in the field. A measure is developed to predict employees‘ potential design thinking in the organization. Lastly, the study will also examine the effects of. 6.

(19) contextual factors on design thinking such as organizational atmosphere and innovative activity (e.g. supervisory support or resources). 1.3 The Purpose and Scope of the Study. Based on the research background, it can be concluded that design thinking requires certain attributes or working styles including creative abilities. Moreover, creativity and design thinking is influenced by the organizational context. This study will use quantitative research to demystify design thinking. First, a literature review will be performed to better understand what design thinking is and what is needed to adopt this method of thinking or working. Experts and well-known advocates of design thinking will be researched in-depth to understand their professional opinions on the matter. Therefore, the purpose of the literature review is to further understand design thinking and identify the attributes and factors that may affect practiced design thinking. The quantitative research will be used to test the design thinking potential of employees and the workplace context that supports or hinders the adoption of design thinking methods. A questionnaire will be developed using the employees‘ self-perception to test the various factors. First, an assessment of design thinking potential using employees working styles and attributes will be conducted. The design thinking potential test will also include a test for the level of creative potential through self-perception. Secondly, the test will include an assessment of the employees‘ perceptions of the workplace context. This will determine possible reasons for high or low ratings on practiced design thinking in the workplace. This study will focus on employees in an organization that have been exposed to design thinking and asked by management to integrate the process into their work. These employees will have highly varied levels of interest and abilities in design thinking and creativity. The. 7.

(20) organization that will be examined for this study is attempting to implement design thinking in the workplace to increase innovation with challenges that they seek to improve. This organization is Singapore Polytechnic. Singapore Polytechnic is a strong advocate for the use of design thinking to support innovation for both employees and students. The institution employs approximately 5000 staff, the majority are lecturers required to perform research and project based work for a percentage of their job. Their goal is to train or expose all 5000 staff to design thinking as well as all of the 15,000 students. To date over 900 staff has undergone design thinking training, mostly in the form of short workshops. The organization hopes design thinking will be used in the employee‘s work to increase innovative activity. Measuring employees will assist in understanding the organization‘s readiness to adopt design thinking for increasing innovation. The study results will allow the organization to tailor their training process and workplace context to support the specific needs of their staff. It can also help the organization to identify staff that may have more potential to successfully integrate design techniques into their work. The study will contribute to academic research with the following objectives: The study will contribute to academic research with the following objectives: 1.. To increase the understanding of design thinking.. 2.. To further understand and identify attributes and working styles of individuals or employees using design thinking. This includes the creation of a consolidated list of design thinking working styles from literature.. 3.. To develop a measure that will help to predict the potential design thinking of an employee.. 8.

(21) 4.. To identify contextual factors, including workplace innovative activity, innovative opportunity, and atmosphere that may produce moderating effects on the relationship between potential design thinking and the practiced design thinking of an employee.. 1.4 Structure of Research. There are five chapters that will each detail a part of this research. Chapter 1 will address the research background and motivation, the purpose, scope, structure and process of the research. Chapter 2 defines and details the literature review. Design thinking is a creative process; therefore the review will begin with a broad description of creativity, as well as creativity within the context of an organization and culture. The reviews will then address design and design thinking. The literature review will discuss a few established assessment methods for creativity that will be used to help assess design thinking potential. Chapter 3 discusses the quantitative methodology for this study. The initial literature review of design thinking experts will be consolidated. The study measurements and questionnaire design will be outlined. Secondly, the data collection procedures for the quantitative research and the data analysis techniques will be discussed. Chapter 4 will explicably detail analysis results tested in AMOS and SPSS. It will also include descriptive statistics and the empirical results of the data collected from the survey. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and concludes the research with theoretical implications. Managerial implications will be suggested including possibilities for training or improving design thinking implementation in regards to employees and adapting the workplace context. Finally, future research is suggested.. 9.

(22) 1.5 Research Process. Figure 1-1 outlines the research process used for this study. It shows the order of necessary steps taken to complete the research properly. Research motivation, scope and process, literature review, hypotheses development, creation of the survey, quantitative data collection, data testing and analysis, result discussion, conclusion and suggestions are each crucial components of this research process.. Figure 1-1. Research structure. 10.

(23) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW As previously mentioned in Chapter 1, design thinking is a creative process and creativity resides in a complex system (Amabile et al., 2005; Csikszentmihalyi, 2006; Haner, 2005; Westwood & Low, 2003; Woodman et al., 1993). For this reason the literature review will begin with a basic overview of creativity and creativity with in the organizational context. 2.1 Creativity. Many researchers generally define creativity as the production of novel, useful ideas or problem solutions (Amabile et al., 1996; Morris & Leung, 2010; Mumford, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Woodman et al., 1993). Creativity refers to both the process of idea generation or problem solving and the actual idea or solution (Amabile et al., 2005). For instance, the act of making a painting is creative and the outcome also might be creative, assuming it is a novel painting. Creativity is very important to the innovation process (Burbiel, 2009) and this is because all innovation begins with creative ideas. To successfully create and implement new programs, new products or services having a good idea and the ability to develop that idea is crucial. Therefore, since many companies are striving for innovative solutions for everything from branding to services, creativity is of the utmost importance to business. Shalley and Gilson (2004) state, ―Most managers would agree that there is room, in almost every job, for employees to be more creative‖ (p. 33). Amabile (1996) believes that without creativity in design there is no. 11.

(24) potential for innovation. Design is the process of transforming an idea into something that can be actually implemented and transformed into commercial value (Howard, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2008). Creative thinking is a complex cognitive activity that is difficult to measure. Individuals‘ creative abilities have been studied for years: everything from personality to thinking styles of a creative person. There is a plethora of tests to gauge creative abilities, such as the Big Five Model, Torrance Tests, or the Thinking Style Inventory (Higgins, Peterson, Pihl, & Lee, 2007; Isaksen & Puccio, 1988; Murphy & Janeke, 2006; Rudowicz, Lok, & Kitto, 1995; Zhang, 2002; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). Modern conceptions of creativity are so diverse and extensive that a definition of creativity must include related cognitive activities such as decision making, critical thinking, and metacognition (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995). Feldhusen and Goh explain that a thorough assessment requires several measures of the cognitive processes, motivations, interests, attitudes, and styles associated with creativity. Furthermore, researchers have never agreed on one creative process. Processes are often adapted for specific projects or individual tastes. Researchers have also attempted to define the characteristics of a creative person. In a study by Cheng, Hull and Kim (2010) they cite Kirton (1976) who proposed that creativity is composed of a single dimension ranging from an ―Innovative‖ to an ―Adaptive‖ orientation. Kirton. found empirical evidence that creative people are. more autonomous, introverted, and open to new experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive. Out of these, the most significant were stated as openness, conscientiousness, self-acceptance, hostility, and impulsivity. However, his research shows that different types of creative people had varying results. For instance, creative people in art. 12.

(25) differed from creative people in science. Artists‘ results showed more emotional instability, coldness, and their rejecting group norms than are scientists (Batey & Furnham, 2006). However, in Csikszentmihalyi (2006) systems view of creativity he points out that creative individuals do not exist in a vacuum. Csikszentmihalyi went beyond the individual experience of flow to discuss the creative person‘s relationship to the world and how it affects their creativity. Csikszentmihalyi explains that creativity is a very complex interaction among a person, a field, and a culture. Creativity is conducted often in a workplace which has many moderating factors to consider. It should also be noted that creativity in the workplace is not restricted to jobs that are traditionally viewed requiring creativity—such as art or design (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Instead, employees in any position or level in an organization can benefit from ‗creative‘ behavior (Amabile, 1988). Also, creativity is an ongoing process rather than an outcome (Amabile; Rice, 2006). 2.1.1 Employee Creativity and Moderating Influences. In Amabile and her team‘s (1996) influential work on creativity in context she states that we must look at the organization in entirety to understand innovative ability in the workplace, not merely the individual. Amabile and Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, and Staw (2005) show that no matter what capabilities or skills an individual has in creativity or the production of knowledge, that person‘s social-environmental working environment can negatively influence or enhance the level that person‘s creative output. In the past most studies took a psychological approach to creativity, which emphasized characteristics of creative persons (Barron & Harrington, 1981). In more recent studies the social environment is examined because of its ability to influence both the level and the frequency of creative behavior (Amabile et al., 1996;. 13.

(26) Binnewies, Ohly, & Niessen, 2008; Chang & Chiang, 2008; DiLiello & Houghton, 2008; Hirst, Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). Amabile et al. (2005) also highlights the significant impact organizations have on the motivation of creativity in employees. In Amabile‘s (1988) study on organizational creativity she proposes three broad organizational factors that influence innovation or creativity. The first factor is the organizational motivation to innovate is crucial to the process. The basic orientation of the organization toward innovation, as well as supports for creativity and innovation, throughout the organization has a great influence on creativity. The second factor is whether the right resources needed are available to support innovation. Resources refers to everything that the organization has available to assist work in an area specified for innovation (e.g., the availability of specific training or the tools needed to build a prototype). The third important factor to Amabile and her team for creativity is the management practices; this refers to the allowance of freedom or autonomy while working. This also includes the level of challenging, interesting work, the clarity of strategic goals, as well as the composition and diversity of working teams. A study by Wongtada and Rice (2008) show that some of the factors to consider when studying workplace creativity are care for employees, enjoyable ambiance, openness of communication, and employees‘ willingness to share expertise, ideas, and responsibilities in the creative process, and risk-orientation. Other factors affecting creativity in the workplace are supervisory support and positive encouragement from coworkers (Amabile et al., 1996; Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; Wongtada & Rice). It must also be understood that individuals have both cognitive (knowledge, cognitive skills, and cognitive styles/preferences) and non-cognitive (e.g., personality). 14.

(27) aspects of the mind are related to creative behavior (Wongtada & Rice, 2008). Individual employee creativity is affected by the individual‘s level of field specific skills, such as factual knowledge and technical skills. Their creativity is influenced by their creativity-related skills, such as cognitive styles and work styles (Amabile et al., 1996). Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1987) found that creative behavior was directly related to intrinsic motivation. Wongtada and Rice describe intrinsic motivation is defined as being self-driven, excited by work, enthusiastic, and attracted to challenges. Motivation should be about more than money, recognition or external directives. 2.2 Design. “We should not underestimate the crucial importance of leadership and design joining forces. Our global future depends on it. We will either design our way through the deadly challenges of this century, or we won't make it. For our institutions - in truth, for our civilization - to survive and prosper, we must solve extremely complex problems and cope with many bewildering dilemmas. We cannot assume that, following our present path; we will simply evolve toward a better world. But we can design that better world. That is why designers need to become leaders, and why leaders need to become designers.”3 The quotation above is by Dr. Richard Farson. 4 Richard Farson is a psychologist, author, lecturer, and educator, is president of the Western Behavioral. 3. http://www.wbsi.org/farson/com_mgtbydesignr.htm. 4 http://www.wbsi.org/farson/com_mgtbydesignr.htm. 15.

(28) Sciences Institute in California. Farson advocates the high importance of designers out the importance of design and a growing trend to adopt design practices into business. This is one of many people advocating the positive benefits of design processes for innovation. 2.2.1 Background. During the Industrial Revolution the human population grew at a shocking rate, resources seemed endless and markets boomed. At the time, it was the ubiquitous goal to distribute as many products or services to as many people as possible, as fast as possible. Business professionals, engineers and designers alike tried to solve problems that took immediate advantage of new opportunities in a time of huge and extremely rapid change (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). McDonough and Braungart (2002) point out that a change has begun and there is a general understanding that we must change the way we do business, create products and the way we live. Countries are transforming from manufacturing economies, with a reliance on mass production and selling, to creative economies. The term Creative Economy was used by Hawkins (2002) in his bestseller The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. Several countries are now promoting and avidly pursuing this transformation. The United States, Canada, Europe, and Singapore are few of the creative economies discussed in news headlines. In these countries especially, innovation through the creation of new ideas has become crucial. 2.2.2 Design Evolution. To have a successful and sustainable business is now extremely challenging. Industry is discussing new terms such as social enterprise, social innovation, CSR 2.0, sustainable enterprise economy, and design thinking. These are all processes sprouting from the ‗creative‘ or ‗innovation revolution‘ (The creative and innovation. 16.

(29) revolution are terms that share many similarities so they are used interchangeably in this study). The creative revolution is about viewing social and environmental challenges as opportunities for innovative and appropriate solutions. There are so many challenges faced by businesses today that innovative designs or ideas are needed for survival (Brown, 2008). In an economy where companies cannot rely solely on technological breakthroughs or products that can be easily copied, innovation is of the utmost importance to managers. Additionally, the scale of innovation has become increasingly complex; products, services, user needs and technologies need to be integrated. Governments and businesses are pursuing creativity to help them develop innovative solutions that consumer‘s desire. This is not easy because consumers are now much savvier with a plethora of information at their fingertips. Companies are searching for ways to gain a sustainable competitive advantage in the hope of protecting or improving their market positions (Kotler & Rath, 1984). Using methods to examine the industry structure, such as Porter's 5 forces, can help determine the potential of businesses; however, according to Tim Brown. these methods will not create new solutions to reinvent businesses or create. an innovative product solution. ‗Innovation‘ and ‗creativity‘ have become widely used ‗buzzwords‘ because businesses have started to realize the power these processes, or ways of thinking, have to generate new ideas and seize new possibilities (Bauer & Eagen, 2008). Designers are trained in a creative process that has been identified as a successful in creating innovative solutions. Take for instance, Buckminster Fuller and the geodesic dome, or Ford and the model T car. Both Buckminster and Ford were designers and they have made unfathomable changes in the world. The AIGA is a professional association for design and their website states ―Designers will play. 17.

(30) critical roles in the success of our rebounding economy—both as agents of social change in a complex world and as leading architects of sustainable solutions for a troubled planet.‖5 Additionally, Richard Farson describes design as being crucial to leaders, institutions and civilization as a whole.6 In the past, design has most often occurred fairly downstream in the development process and has focused on making new products aesthetically appealing or improving brand perception through advertising. Today, as innovation is required in more areas, design now includes human-centered processes and services as well as products. Businesses are asking designers to create ideas rather than to merely beautify them. Design is discussed as a powerful tool for creating change and people outside of creative fields are now adopting the processes and calling them design thinking. Therefore, one aim of this study is to demystify design thinking and the use in organizations that are not traditionally design oriented. 2.2.3 Definitions of Design. Similar to creativity, design is a difficult word to define. The term ―design‖ emerged early in the Seventeenth Century, along with ―designer‖ and ―architect‖ (Fox, 1999). There have been many definitions created over the years and there are differing perspectives on the subject. To start at the basics, the word design can be used as a noun or a verb. The following definitions are from The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. One. 5. http://powerofdesign.aiga.org/. 6 http://www.wbsi.org/farson/com_mgtbydesignr.htm. 18.

(31) general description of design is ―to do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind.” A more specific definition from The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English is ―to decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.” If you perform an Internet search on the definition of design, as a noun, many sources will state it is ―the purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object” (One example of this definition from an Internet search is from Asterisk San Francisco7). For instance, a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made. The design can be for a product, services, system, or even an idea. Martin (2006), the dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, says that design differs from science because it looks forward at what might be, whereas science focuses on what is. Martin defines great design as utilizing a deep understanding of the user, using creative resolutions to challenges, collaborative teamwork and continuous improvements and enhancements of ideas and solutions. Design has been around for centuries. Some would say that design has existed since the beginning of mankind when the first tool or process was created. Now, the broad ranging discipline includes graphic design, communication design, fashion design, interior design, and interaction design–to name only a few. The power of design comes from its ability to create solutions and experiences. Design has also. 7. http://www.asterisksanfrancisco.com/v1i4/design.html. 19.

(32) always had great influence on personal experience: for example, the experience at an ancient temple. Of course, design is so powerful it has a negative side as well. If a design is haphazardly conceived it can have major consequences. 8 Take for example the Titanic or the well-known Chernobyl disaster. Graphic designs in advertising can be misleading or create self-esteem issues. Farson mentions that some designers think that bad designs greatly outnumber the good ones. It is important to design holistically with sustainable solutions that improves lives and the world.9 2.3 Design Thinking. Tim Brown (2008) believes ―thinking like a designer can transform the way you develop products, services, processes—and even strategy‖ (p. 1). Brown is one of many advocates of design thinking today. Since the 1960‘s there has been a great deal of research that has focused on what designers do and how they think. This trend has been named the ―Design Methods‖ movement by (Buchanan, 1992). Researchers attempted to understand the processes and methods used by designers. In a paper by Kimbell (2009) discusses designers as having the ability to reframe problems based on their judgment or intuition. In other studies researchers attempt to describe the thought processes of designers at work. In Buchanan‘s (1992) study it states that design theory moved away from its traditional definitions of being craft based and industrial production towards a more generalized ―design thinking‖. Now design processes are viewed as being applicable. 8 http://www.wbsi.org/farson/com_mgtbydesignr.htm. 9 http://www.wbsi.org/farson/com_mgtbydesignr.htm. 20.

(33) to the creation of anything, whether a tangible object or intangible system. Buchanan describes the strength of design as the ability to deal with challenging, complex or wicked problems. Designers synthesize a great deal of information and factors to address wicked problems and produce innovative solutions. The business industry and educators have begun to examine design as an intellectual and practical resource for other disciplines outside of design (Kimbell, 2009). 2.3.1 Design Thinking for Organizational Innovation. Even though design thinking, as a concept, has been slowly evolving the definition is still quite inconsistent. Tim Brown (2008) from IDEO further explains design thinking as a process driven by deep understanding, of people‘s lives to identify their unmet needs. Brown says design thinking can support business innovation because of the human-centered approach to solving problems. A business strategist and innovation specialist at Futurelab, Indris Mootee (2007) says design thinking in businesses strategy can help with growth opportunities, solve complex problems, and find market differentiation. Design thinking is discussed as an attitude, methodology, philosophy, and a way of learning. As previously mentioned, this study will focus on three areas: the individual or employee creative and design thinking working style and the organizational context. The following section will describe the working style or attributes of a design thinker in more detail. 2.3.2 Working Styles of a Design Thinker. Design thinking encompasses creative attributes as well as unique characteristics or skills of its own. As Owen (2006) stated, ―Creativity, of course, is of major importance to design thinking—as it is to science thinking and thinking in any field. But as is true for every field, characteristics other than creativity are also. 21.

(34) important…‖ (p. 2). Owen also suggests that design thinkers have specific attributes or characteristics which are more difficult to identify and this remains true for design thinking—there has been little written and tested on the subject. In the following paragraphs this literature attempts to consolidate the views and writings of experts and advocates in the field of design thinking. The following five tables depict the attributes and working styles of a design thinker as stated in the literature review. The studies discussed by the following expert authors: Roger Martin, Charles Owen, Bauer and Eagen, Clark Smith, and Heather Fraser. This list is not exhaustive but contributes a compilation of leading advocates views on the subject of design thinking qualities.. Table 2-1 Roger Martin: How a Designer Works Trait. Description Designers often seek validity in their work Bias toward validity through a deep understanding of the user and the context. Designers consider many variables at once Integrative thinking and integrate them into a holistic solution. Inductive means proving through observation that something actually works. Inductive and Deductive, involves proving through Deductive reasoning reasoning from principles that something must be. This reasoning embraces the logic of what might be. Designers may not be able to prove that something "is" or "must be," but Abductive reasoning they nevertheless reason that it "may be." This style of thinking is critical to the creative process. A ―Bring it on‖ attitude. A source of status and pride derives from solving "wicked problems" -- problems Preference for complex with no definitive formulation or solution problems and that have definitions open to multiple interpretations. Comfortable with For designers, constraints never constitute constraints the enemy. Iterative working The ability to work with a process that is process not linear, but that is cyclical.. 22. Source Martin (2007a), pp. 8 Martin (2007a), pp. 8. Martin (2005), para. 18. Martin (2005), para. 18. Martin (2005), para. 25 Martin (2007a), pp. 9. Martin (2005), para. 30 Martin (2005), para. 32.

(35) Trait Collaborative working. Empathy. Description Working with others is the key to design, even if one works alone they still have to collaborate with stakeholders. Only with such empathy can the designer forge a solution that meets the executive‘s needs in a productive way.. Source Martin (2005), para. 32. Martin (2007a), pp. 9. Source: Martin (2005, 2006, 2007a). Table 2-2 Charles Owen: Design Thinking Attributes Characteristic. Description Creative thinking for designers is directed toward inventing. Conditioned Designers tend to be more interested in the ‗what‘ questions than inventiveness the ‗whys‘ of interest to the scientist. Design creativity, thus, compliments scientific creativity. Design is client-directed. Design thinking must continually Human-centered focus consider how what is being created will respond to the clients‘ needs. Design thinking has acquired a second, omnipresent and metaEnvironment-centered level client: the environment. Present-day thinking puts concern. environmental interests at a level with human interests as primary constraints on the design process. All designers work visually. Designers can visualize ideas in a Ability to visualize. range of media, bringing a common view to concepts otherwise imagined uniquely by everyone in a discussion. It is difficult to work—and especially to work creatively—in a pessimistic, critical mood. Designers are taught to recognize this and to establish optimistic and proactive ways of working. Tempered optimism Pronounced mood swings are not unusual among creative individuals, but designers learn to control these to level out both lows and highs. Design thinking today has accepted an approach to problems with the view that, where possible, solutions should be adaptive—in Bias for adaptivity production, to fit the needs of users uniquely; throughout their use, to fit users‘ evolving needs. Predisposition toward Designers routinely look for multiple dividends from solutions to multi-functionality problems. Modern design treats problems as system problems with Systemic vision or opportunities for systemic solutions involving mixes of hardware, holistic thinking software, procedures, policies, organizational concepts and whatever else is necessary to create a holistic solution. Design thinking is highly generalist in preparation and execution. In a world of specialists, there is real need for those who can reach across disciplines to communicate and who can bring diverse View of the generalist experts together in coordinated effort. A designer is a specialist in the process of design, but a generalist in as wide a range of content as possible. Ability to use language as Language is usually thought of as means for communication but. 23.

(36) Characteristic a tool. Affinity for teamwork. Facility for avoiding the necessity of choice. Self-governing practicality. Ability to work systematically with qualitative information. Description for design thinking, it is also a tool. Visual language is used diagrammatically to abstract concepts, reveal and explain patterns, and simplify complex phenomena to their fundamental essences. Good interpersonal skills become part of the professional set of tools designers develop. A push toward teamwork has been a movement in the professions over the last forty years toward team-based design. Before moving to choice-making, the designer looks for ways to ‗have your cake and eat it too‘. The optimistic, adaptive designer, however, searches the competing alternatives for their essential characteristics and finds ways to reformulate them in a new configuration. Design is a field in which inventiveness is prized. In very few fields is there the freedom to dream expected in design. This is embedded in a style of thinking that explores freely in the foreground, while maintaining in the background a realistic appraisal of costs that can be met and functionality that can be affected. Qualitative information handling techniques applicable to many kinds of conceptual problems where complex, system solutions are desirable. They are also usable by anyone working on a planning team, enabling systematic aspects of design thinking to be made accessible to all.. Source: Owen (2007) pp. 23-25. Table 2-3 Bauer and Eagen: Designer Ways of Knowing and Working Trait Multi-epistemic using a Jungian typology of ways of knowing Use of conjectures Work in a playful way Challenging rules. Preference for complex problems. Inventive and challenge norms Divergent and convergent Analytical thinking Associative thinking. Description Thinking, feeling, sensing and intuiting. Explore problems through solution conjectures. Often work in a playful fashion in form of drawings, models, prototypes, etc. Even well-defined problems are treated as ill-defined problems. A source of status and pride derives from solving "wicked problems‖—problems with no definitive formulation or solution and that have definitions open to multiple interpretations. Designers deliberately utilize the tension between what is desired and what is possible, often starting with the desired and working their way back to what is doable. The use of divergent and a convergent motion. Analytical thinking challenges the presuppositions of extant ideas. Associative thinking connects ideas in a. 24.

(37) Trait. Daydreaming Thinking systematically. Description spontaneous, stochastic fashion. Daydreaming playfully combines the powers of conscious and unconscious information processing; dialogical thinking aloud, e.g., imagining the world as it could be. Thinking systematically and holistically.. Source: Bauer and Eagen (2008), pp. 64-73. Table 2-4 Clark Smith: Types of Intelligence Used by Designers Type Emotional intelligence. Integral intelligence. Experiential intelligence. Description Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand and embrace in the context of culture that which moves us to act and which creates attachment, commitment, and conviction. Integral intelligence is the ability to bring together diverse customer needs and business ecosystem capabilities into complete systems that deliver value and reflect the values of the birth organization. Experiential intelligence is the ability to understand and activate all five human senses to make innovation tangible, known, and vibrant.. Source: Clark and Smith (2008), pp. 9. Table 2-5 Heather Fraser: Design Thinking Traits Trait Open-minded collaboration. Courage Conviction. Description Everyone on the team needs to be receptive to everyone and everything in order to achieve something worthwhile. Great design does not come without risk-taking and trying new things, with the very strong possibility of failure. Conviction is the absolute unwillingness to give into constraints and obstacles.. Source: Fraser (2009), pp. 25-26. 25.

(38) 2.4 Design Thinking Potential and Practiced Design Thinking.. Figure 2-1. Design thinking potential, workplace context, and practiced design thinking. 2.4.1 Design Thinking Potential. Figure 2-1 depicts the relationship between design thinking potential and the moderating effects of the workplace context for the result of practiced design thinking. Additionally, Figure 2-1 shows that design thinking potential, as previously discussed, includes aspects of creativity (Individual Employee Creativity) and specific design thinking attributes (Design Thinking Working Styles) from literature. Design thinking encompasses creative attributes as well as unique characteristics or skills of its own. As Owen (2006) stated, ―Creativity, of course, is of major importance to design thinking—as it is to science thinking and thinking in any field. But as is true for every field, characteristics other than creativity are also important…‖ (p. 2). Design thinking potential is the possible ability to perform design thinking and creativity if no inhibiting factors are operating. However, an individual may possess. 26.

(39) high potential yet they still may not practice design thinking to their full potential. This may be due to the possible moderating effects of the workplace context. 2.4.2 Practiced Design Thinking (PDT). Design thinking can be discussed in a similar fashion as creativity in organizations as it is a creative process with unique defining working styles. Therefore, when a distinction is made between practiced creativity and potential creativity, the same can be said for design thinking potential and practiced design thinking. Practiced creativity is that which is actually measured and creative potential which means the ability if no inhibiting factors influenced the individual (DiLiello & Houghton, 2008). DiLiello and Houghton also point out there is evidence that the predictors of creative potential and practiced creativity are different. Design thinking potential and practiced design thinking will also be tested differently. Tapping on the practiced creativity definition, practiced design thinking can be defined as the perceived use of design thinking skills and abilities. Design thinking potential is what a person can do and practiced design thinking is what this person believes they are doing, in terms of generating novel and useful ideas—being innovative (DiLiello & Houghton, 2008). For this study design thinking potential has two parts: individual employee creativity and design thinking working style. 2.4.3 Workplace Context Moderating Practiced Design Thinking. Design thinking is a creative process; therefore, the factors that moderate creativity in organizations should also be considered for the implementation of design thinking processes in an organization. As discussed in section 2.1.1 some of the moderating influences of creativity in the workplace are care for employees, enjoyable ambiance, openness of communication, and employees‘ willingness to share expertise, ideas, and responsibilities in the creative process, and risk-orientation. 27.

(40) (Wongtada & Rice, 2008). Additional factors affecting creativity in the workplace are supervisory support and positive encouragement from coworkers (Amabile et al., 1996; Farmer et al., 2003; Wongtada & Rice). The ability to be a design thinker is influenced by the culture the individual resides in, the context or workplace atmosphere and their own personal attributes such as personality, thinking style, and preferences. Similar to Csikszentmihalyi ―systems‖ approach to creativity, we must understand that design thinking works with in a larger context (2006). The design thinker brings the personal attributes or characteristics that can either help or hinder the design thinking process. For example, the more creative a person the more apt they are to be successful design thinker (Owen, 2006). Furthermore, the context or workplace can also influence design thinking both negatively and positively. For example, a workplace that is adaptive and supports creativity is more suited for design thinking (Brown, 2008). According to DiLiello and Houghton (2008), even in the case that an employee in the workplace perceives themself to have creative potential yet they do not perceive the ability to use or practice this potential, then an important untapped organizational resource may exist. If the organization can identify these underutilized resources they may be able to support more effective and efficient employees. Furthermore, an employee who is able to maximize their strengths and use their creativity my increase job satisfaction and higher retention (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldman, 2004). Not to mention the benefit to the organization of increasingly innovative staff. 2.5 Hypotheses Development: Potential Design Thinking. As previously discussed, creativity is an essential part of design thinking and the design process (Owen, 2006). For this reason the employees‘ design thinking. 28.

(41) potential will be examined in two parts: individual employee creativity and design thinking working style attributes. 2.5.1 Individual Employee Creativity (IEC). The design process is a creative one; therefore design thinkers should display the qualities of a creative person (Owen, 2006). The individual or employee has many factors affecting their potential creative abilities. A person‘s creative potential is their creative capacity, skills and abilities that the individual possesses (DiLiello & Houghton, 2008). This study will focus on attributes that can be changed or adapted such as thinking style or working style (Murphy & Janeke, 2006). According to the thinking styles of the theory of mental self-government, by Sternberg (1988), some characteristics of a person with creative style are higher self-esteem, higher cognitive-developmental levels, openness to experience, and strong sense of purposefulness. Other empirical studies (Amabile et al., 1996; Shalley et al., 2004; Tierney & Farmer, 2002) have shown that intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity. Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1987) define intrinsic motivation as being self-driven, excited by the work itself, enthusiastic, attracted by the challenge of the problem and not being motivated only by money, recognition or external directives. In their study they found that for R&D scientists, the most frequently mentioned feature of creative behavior was intrinsic motivation. For an organization to maintain creativity it is dependent on maintaining intrinsic motivation (Wongtada & Rice, 2008). Farmer, Tierney, and Kung-McIntyre (2003) express that creative potential partially consists of personal feelings regarding the ability to be creative; this is called self-efficacy. DiLiello and Houghton (2008) give examples of creative self-efficacy as. 29.

(42) feeling good at conceiving novel ideas, self confidence in the ability to creatively solve problems, being skilled at developing others‘ concepts and demonstrating the ability to solve problems in creative ways. Two additional important aspect of creative potential according to research is having the talent or expertise to do well in one‘s work and possessing the ability to take risks by trying out new ideas (Amabile & Conti, 1999; DiLiello & Houghton; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Wongtada and Rice (2008) define individual employee creativity (IEC) as an “perceptions of his/her creativity-related endeavors in the workplace” (p. 545). Wongtada and Rice give examples of these creativity-related endeavors are seeking new ideas, trying to be very creative within one‘s abilities, learning new skills, and being intrinsically motivated to perform creatively . For example, IEC includes the belief that work is so rewarding that an employee becomes indifferent to special incentives given by management (Rice, 2006). The ability to work creatively in a team is also a predictor of potential creative behavior by the employee because most creative or innovative work is done in teams. From the literature it can be hypothesized that an employee with a greater number of employee creativity traits will practice design thinking more in the workplace. However, no matter how much creative potential a person has their social-environmental working conditions can greatly influence the degree of his/her creativity both in a negative or positive way (Amabile, 1988; Amabile et al., 1996) The literature (Amabile; Amabile et al.; Farmer et al., 2003; Mumford, 2000; Wongtada & Rice, 2008) suggests that creative behavior is influenced by workplace contextual factors. The moderating effect of the workplace context is discussed in detail in section 2.6.. 30.

(43) Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between individual employee creativity (IEC) and practised design thinking (PDT). 2.5.2 Individual Design Thinking Working Style (DTWS). The second item used in this study to assess the potential design thinking of an employee is design thinking working style. There are some commonalities in the literature discussed above on design thinking working styles and attributes. The following is a table that integrates the findings into 16 working styles of a design thinker. This list will assist in the creation of a measure for potential design thinking employees combined with attributes of creativity.. Table 2-6 Integrated Design Thinking Working Styles from Literature Characteristic 1.. 2. 3.. 4.. 5. 6. 7.. 8. 9.. 10.. Original Title Open-minded collaboration (Fraser, 2009) Ability to work with others Collaborative working (Martin, 2007a) Affinity for teamwork (Owen, 2007) Integrative thinking (Martin, 2007a) Integrative thinking Avoiding the necessity of choice (Owen, 2007) Integral intelligence (Clark & Smith, 2008) Inductive and deductive Inductive and deductive reasoning (Martin, 2005) reasoning Divergent and convergent (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Abductive reasoning (Martin, 2005) Conditioned inventiveness (Owen, 2007) Abductive reasoning Use of conjectures, daydreaming, inventive and challenge norms, associative thinking (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Conviction (Fraser, 2009) Commitment and Conviction Emotional intelligence (Clark & Smith, 2008) Optimism Tempered optimism (Owen, 2007) Empathy (Martin, 2007a) Empathetic and human-centered Emotional intelligence (Clark & Smith, 2008) focus Human-centered focus, environment-centered concern, bias for adaptivity (Owen, 2007) Self-governing practicality (Owen, 2007) Analytic thinking Analytical thinking (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Using Jungian ways of knowing Multi-epistemic using a Jungian typology of ways (Thinking, feeling, sensing and of knowing (Owen, 2007) intuiting) Experiential intelligence (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Prefer complex problems (Martin, 2005, 2007a) Preference for complex problems Comfortable with constraints (Martin, 2005). 31.

(44) Characteristic. 11. Working iteratively 12. Ability to visualize. 13. Systemic vision or holistic thinking 14. Adaptive 15. Working in a playful way 16. Risk Taking and challenging rules. Original Title Work systematically with qualitative information (Owen, 2007) Prefer complex problems (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Iterative working process (Martin, 2005) Ability to visualize and ability to use language as a tool (Owen, 2007) Daydreaming (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Predisposition toward multi-functionality, Systemic vision or holistic thinking (Owen, 2007) Thinking systematically (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Emotional intelligence (Clark & Smith, 2008) View of the generalist (Owen, 2007) Work in a playful way (Bauer & Eagen, 2008) Courage (Fraser, 2009) Challenging Rules (Bauer & Eagen, 2008). Source: Arranged by the author. These items are referred to as design thinking working style measures. It is hypothesized that employees with a greater number of design thinking working styles will practice design thinking more in the workplace. This study will develop a measure using self-perception to understand the relationship between design thinking working styles and practiced design thinking. Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between design thinking working style (DTWS) and practised design thinking (PDT). 2.6 Hypotheses Development: Workplace Context. In this study we theorize that the relationship between design thinking potential and practiced design thinking could be hindered or enhanced by factors influencing an individual‘s motivation, like the contextual factors described by Amabile et al. (1996) being organizational support, supervisory encouragement, freedom, resources, workgroup support, workload pressure, challenge and organizational impediments. According to Amabile et al. , the social environments surrounding an individual have the paramount influence on creativity including their workplace.. 32.

(45) Creative work has been described in literature as contextualized because for the outcomes to be successful it is dependent on employees‘ capabilities, pressures, resources, and sociotechnical system at work (Mumford, 2002; Rice, 2006). This study will focus on three elements of workplace context: workplace atmosphere, workplace innovative activity, and workplace innovative opportunity. 2.6.1 Workplace Atmosphere (WA) as a Moderator. Workplace atmosphere is the environment and influencing factors at a person‘s place of work. An ideal atmosphere should nurture positive attitudes and moods. Positive moods can promote confidence and divergent thinking and thus both can be helpful to design (Kaufmann, 2003). Therefore, an environment that is enjoyable and supports positive moods is predicted to moderate an individual‘s potential design thinking in a way which positively affects practiced design thinking. If an individual does not enjoy their work, they may be less likely to perform design thinking. Creativity and design thinking are predicted to function better when the individual can perform work in a fun and playful way (Martin, Liedtka, Ogilvie, Jacobs, & Heracleous, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Wylant, 2008) Therefore, an atmosphere that encourages this behavior is hypothesized to positively moderate a potential design thinker to actually practice design thinking. Conversely, a strict and formal environment with many rules and procedures should negatively moderate practiced design thinking (Landy & Conte, 2004). One key elements of workplace atmosphere as discussed in literature is the time pressure. The more time pressure which an individual feels it is more likely to have a negative influence on them to engaging in creative process (Amabile et al., 1996) such as design thinking. To be creative takes freedom including time and empowerment as well as some form of incentive (Baillie & Walker, 1998). If an. 33.

(46) employee feels that they do not have the freedom, resources, or incentives (intrinsic or extrinsic), even with very high potential design thinking, they will do the minimum requirement for their jobs. Another aspect of the atmosphere that is predicted to moderate an employee to practice design thinking is the degree to which there is open communication. It has been found that creativity was improved when conversations were open in the workplace (Martins & Terblanche, 2003) which builds trust and an atmosphere of care. We predict that this positive atmosphere moderates creativity and design thinking in a way that improves practiced design thinking. McAllister‘s (1995) trust model tells us that trust in your team is important; understanding each other‘s role performance in relationships and emotional bonds between people is the basis for trust . When an employee has a committed team that they can trust this creates a positive atmosphere for creativity. When there is a bond between colleagues and open communication this reduces the fear of negative criticism. This, in turn, improves the flow of communication and assists the innovative process. Wongtada and Rice (2008) state that workplace atmospheres which show trust and a self-perception from employees of care will facilitate communication and knowledge-sharing. This type of atmosphere will likely improve their creative output (Wongtada & Rice). Thus, trust in your team that they are committed and motivated with a bond that allows for open sharing is predicted to moderate the employees‘ potential design thinking in a way that improves practiced design thinking. DiLiello and Houghton (2008) findings suggest that a well-structured but caring and encouraging environment is what organizational leaders should seek to provide to support design thinking and creativity. If employees are encouraged to share their. 34.