2.0 Literature review
In this chapter the researcher will critically discuss existing research, theories and approaches drawn from academic and professional literature within the areas of design and organisational change. The first part will review the changing role of design and look at how design appeared as a strategic tool in business. The second part will explore the subject of change management and discuss how to effectively lead organisational change.
2.1 Design
The rise of intuitive thinking
Traditional approaches to problem solving in Western societies have been influenced by the sciences, which is based on an analytical way of thinking. This is reflected in the structures of our educational systems, organisations and businesses, which have adopted and continue to exercise a linear way of finding solutions and making decisions (Cassim, 2013). Linear thinking can be compared to a tree (Teal, 2010). The root represents the beginning of the thought process, which continues in a step-by-step progression toward the desired end — the tip of the branch. The tree symbolises an inflexible problem-solving process: if things do not go as planned by the time one reaches the end, one must start over again (Teal, 2010).
While analytic thinking is suitable for structured situations, it is not sustainable in the chaotic and fast-changing world of our current organisations and societies (Golsby-Smith, 1996). We are faced with new kinds of problems that reflect this increased complexity and we need a more flexible way of thinking in order to solve them (Beacham and Shambaugh, 2011; Owen, 2005). As an alternative, several prominent researchers and professionals argue that contemporary problems require a reconciliation between analytic and intuitive thinking (Brown, 2009; Lawson and Dorst, 2009, p.28; Martin, 2009, p.54; Teal, 2010). They advocate for a reawakening of the human abilities that we all have, like creativity and non-linear thinking, which historically have been oppressed in favour of the rational and analytical procedures that we tend to lean on (Lawson and Dorst, 2009, p.32; Teal, 2010).
If linear thinking is compared to a tree, then non-linear thinking can be illustrated as a rhizome plant (Deleuze and Guattari, 1983; Teal, 2010). Its web of roots and stems has no beginning or end, bottom or top. Any point of a rhizome can be connected to any other and if it breaks, it can still continue to grow. Thinking like a rhizome therefore allows us to apply logic from multiple starting points, to fail and learn from our mistakes and for our thoughts to expand in every direction (Teal, 2010). Similarly, design thinking has surfaced as a “dynamic interplay” between analytical and intuitive thinking (Martin, 2009, p.6) (figure 1), offering a process for solving contemporary problems in ways that lead to valuable and innovative solutions.
What is design thinking?
The term “design thinking” first appeared in 1987 when Peter Rowe, a Harvard professor and urban designer, published his book by the same name (Dorst, 2011). Two main ideas emerge in the book. Rowe argues that designers rely on hunches and intuition as well as facts, and that the solutions they create are shaped by the very nature of their process for solving problems (Rowe, 1987). Since then, two distinct discourses on design thinking have developed. One is the design discourse, in which designers and researchers within a range of disciplines related to design, from architecture to engineering and product design, have contributed to the scholarly literature and theoretical perspectives (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). The design discourse is rooted in the academic field of design and aims to understand professional designers’ skills and competence. The second discourse — the management discourse — is in the widely accessible business media. This discourse is concerned with applying design practice in fields far beyond those in which designers have traditionally operated, particularly in management (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013).
Both discourses of design thinking have attempted to understand and define what professional designers do, but despite these efforts, design and design thinking still lacks a universally accepted definition (Buchanan, 1999; Stickdorn and Schneider, 2011, pp.22–25; Walters, 2011; Kimbell, 2009). However, certain descriptions of design thinking are frequently repeated in both the academic and professional literature on the topic. Tim Brown, president and CEO of IDEO, one of the world’s most influential design companies (Cassim, 2013, p.192) defines design thinking as
a human-centred approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success (figure 2) (IDEO U, 2017).
Design as strategy
Over time, the work of designers has been affected and moulded by societal and cultural shifts, as well as technological developments (Stewart, 2011). Still, the widespread understanding of the role of design remained more or less constant throughout the twentieth century (Cassim, 2013, p.191). Because of the design disciplines that dominated at the time, such as industrial design, interior design and fashion design, design was understood as an artistic or aesthetic practice and treated as a late-stage add-on to make a concept more attractive (Brown, 2009).
But as our world changes, the role of design is changing and expanding. While the past centuries’ dominant design disciplines focused on enhancing the look and functionality of material things, designers gradually began using design tools to tackle more complex problems (Brown and Wyatt, 2010). Developments in technology, globalisation and digitalisation, which have characterised the past couple of decades, shifted the focus of designers to the complexities that make up our current society (Stewart, 2011). A number of new fields of design emerged (interaction design, experience design and service design to name a few), directed at dealing with new and intangible problems and driving innovation. Moreover, designers within the new disciplines treated the design practice as a collaborative effort. Thy began to collaborate with non-designers, and to involve stakeholders and those who were affected by the design — the end users — in the process. With the opportunity to observe users, develop empathy and gain insights into the needs of the users and the stakeholders, the designers could obtain a more complete understanding of the user experience and imagine better future scenarios that challenged the status quo (Brown, 2009; Stewart, 2011).
When the role of design in the organisation is elevated from a late-stage add-on to a mindset and approach embedded in the culture, this human-centred and non-linear approach to problem-solving make design a valuable tool for business strategy (Cassim, 2013; Design Council, 2013). Figure 3 illustrates and rates the level at which companies can make use of design.
The design process
Because of the complex nature of contemporary problems, neither the problem nor the solution is clear in the beginning of the process. Hence, design is not a linear process starting with the problem and ending at the solution (Cassim, 2013). Instead, it involves a series of activities that designers engage in to define the problem and get to a solution. Collectively, these activities make up the design process (Cassim, 2013).
There is no one correct route through the design process (Lawson, 2005, p.200) and the iterative approach of design allows for designers to take a step back or even start again from scratch during any phase if necessary (Stickdorn and Schneider, 2011, p.214). Within the many possible ways of applying design, the structure of the process includes between three and six iterative phases. For the purpose of this study, a process consisting of six iterative steps, as illustrated in figure 4, will be further explored.
1.Frame the problem
Often, the design process is initiated by a brief provided by the client (Lawson, 2005, p.182). As designers treat all problems as ill-defined, even if they are not (Cross, 2006, p.100), the first stage is to identify and frame the problem at hand by understanding the context, identifying stakeholders and clarifying the desired outcome (Cassim, 2013, p.194). During this stage, the questioning remains internal to the team and does not involve the people who are affected by the problem.
2. Explore and empathise
Once the problem is framed, a research phase follows. The designers must dig deeper in order to gain insights about the context of the problem, such as current trends and the larger environment surrounding it, and to gain an emotional understanding of the people affected by the problem through user interviews and ethnographic observations (Brown, 2009). The goal is to gain enough insights that the designers can truly begin to empathise with the users and their perspectives (Nielsen Norman Group, 2017). Brown (2009, pp.50–54) stresses the value and importance of empathy in this phase.
3. Ideate
With a deep understanding of the problem, the users and their needs, the designers are ready to ideate about potential solutions that meet the needs of the users. The designers generate as many potential solutions as possible and compare, mix and build upon each others’ ideas. Cross (2006, p.115) refers to this creative process as “intuitive bridge-building” between the problem and the solution. The brainstorming that happens at this stage represents the first divergent phase of the Double Diamond Model shown in figure 5. The model was created by the UK Design Council to illustrate how designers combine and balance divergent and convergent thinking in order to create choices and make choices (Design Council, 2015).
The Double Diamond Model is a visual map of a problem-solving cycle consisting of four phases: discover, define, develop and deliver. A wide variety of ideas are created through divergent thinking and then refined and narrowed down using convergent thinking. This happens twice — once to define the problem and once to find the solution (Design Council, 2015).
4. Make choices
Once a large number of ideas have been created, it is time for the designers to make choices about which ideas to abandon and which to pursue. This is the converging phase, in which all the created ideas are evaluated in light of technological feasibility, business viability and the requirements set by the client (Cassim, 2013, p.195). Unworkable or unsatisfactory ideas are eliminated, while the remaining ideas are further developed and sometimes combined (Lawson, 2005, p.209).
5. Prototype and test
The ideas and concepts from the creation stage must be tested with the users. Ideas for intangible services must be made tangible in order to give users a good mental picture of a service concept (Stickdorn and Schneider, 2011, p.124). Designers use drawing, writing, modelling, coding, Legos, videos and many other tools to quickly prototype and test their selected ideas at low cost (Brown, 2009; Cross, 2006; Lawson, 2005; Stickdorn and Schneider, 2011). The purpose is to quickly learn which parts of the ideas work, and which do not. They use the feedback to iterate and improve the concepts, and retest them until they match the expectations of the users (Stickdorn and Schneider, 2011).
6. Implement and reflect
The skill of reflecting is important for designers as it allows them to focus on the entire design process rather than just the outcome. Owing to the iterative nature of the design process, designers can continuously move back and forth between the stages and reflect over their understanding of the problem and the validity of the solution ideas, explore new avenues and to adjust their focus if necessary (Lawson, 2005, p.299).
A solution can be brought to life once it has been verified that it solves the unmet needs of users and achieves the goals of the stakeholders. However, the design process does not end with the production of the final design. Therefore it is also important that designers reflect after the design is launched into the real world in order to learn from their mistakes, evaluate the outcome of the final design and take responsibility for their actions (Cassim, 2013, p.196).
Design in business
The term design thinking was first used by academics who attempted to explain designers’ particular way of thinking as they solved problems (Kimbell, 2011). However, the urgent need to widen the range of strategies for addressing complex business and management challenges boosted an interest in the idea of using a designer’s mindset and methods as a strategic tool (Dorst, 2011). Thereby, design moved into the business world, resulting in a number of books and texts advocating for the strategic potential of a design-driven approach to business strategy and innovation (Beacham and Shambaugh, 2011; Cassim, 2013).
Many of the publications on design thinking in business are tied to design company IDEO and, in particular, to its CEO, Tim Brown (Brown, 2008; Brown, 2009; Brown and Wyatt, 2010). In his book Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation (Brown, 2009), he explores the role of design thinking in organisations and presents the concept as a differentiating factor for companies wanting to innovate. The book includes success stories from a wide range of business firms and its publication greatly popularised the idea of design thinking (Kimbell, 2011; Stewart, 2011). Roger Martin, Dean of the Roman School of Management in Toronto is also a prominent advocate of design thinking within the management discourse and author of the book The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. In it, he describes design thinking as a “dynamic interplay” between “analytic mastery and intuitive originality” and further touted the strategic potential of a design thinking approach to management and business innovation (Martin, 2009, p.6). A third influential proponent of design as a business strategy tool is Roberto Verganti, Professor of Leadership and Innovation at Politecnico di Milano. He is the author of Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean (Verganti, 2014), in which he introduces design as an innovation strategy that opens up new markets.
All of these three books were selected amongst the best books on design and innovation by the popular business magazine Businessweek in 2009 (Komninos, 2009). These accounts of design have gained wide legitimacy and been adopted by designers, organisations and even government bodies (Kimbell, 2011). In Norway, for example, the government has proposed a strengthening of design-driven innovation programs and an expansion of the use of service design in the public sector (Røijen et al., 2017). In the UK, government-funded national Design Council supports the idea that design thinking is key in innovation (Design Council, 2011). Even in education, design thinking has proliferated, with several schools and postgraduate courses offering an introduction to the use of design thinking for innovation (Kimbell, 2011; Stewart, 2011).
Virgin Atlantic (Design Council, 2013), Airbnb (NEWS BBVA, 2015), Apple and Netflix (Vossoughi, 2011) are some of the more familiar examples of design-driven market success. What these companies have in common is their willingness to let their business be transformed by design (Vossoughi, 2011). They have all implemented design as a strategic perspective with strong support in the organisation and they share the view of design as a capacity to solve customers’ problems (Design Council, 2013). Moreover, they claim that there is a clear connection between design, customers and financial results (Design Council, 2013).
Still, it is important to remember that success stories like those of Apple and Airbnb may be the exceptions and not the rule. As with any business methodology, some companies may see little or no return on investment in design (Vossoughi, 2011). Despite thorough research, the researcher has not been able to find detailed accounts of businesses that failed at implementing design as a strategic perspective or at using design to innovate. The researcher observes that failures in the strategic use of design are not known publicly. However, design expert Sohrab Vossoughi (2011) suggests that the most common ways that companies fail at design are related to ignorance regarding their own role in becoming more innovative. They may view design as a purely third-party service, try to design outside of their innovation capability, only apply design to certain aspects of their operations, or treat design as an add-on while refusing to change any other parts of their business.
Is design a hype?
Design has been touted as the answer to complex challenges facing organisations and for its potential of providing significant value to innovation and management (Design Council, 2013; Hassi and Laakso, 2011; Kimbell, 2011). However, while the ideas of design experts like Brown (2009), Martin (2009) and Verganti (2014) led to the prominence of design thinking, they have been criticised for ignoring the academic literature on the topic and for a lack of theoretical research to support their views (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Kimbell, 2011). Academics have expressed their concern over the few links between the design and the management discourses of design thinking and claim that it remains an under-theorised and understudied practice (Hassi and Laakso, 2011; Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Kimbell, 2011). The evidence on the effectiveness of design in business is argued to be based on anecdotes, subjective claims and survivorship bias: success stories are publicised and praised, while the losers are overlooked and quickly forgotten (Hassi and Laakso, 2011; Kimbell, 2011; Vossoughi, 2011).
Moreover, there is unease concerning the uncritical use of design thinking (Stewart, 2011). Design is argued to have become such a broad and common-place concept that it is in danger of losing its meaning (Cross, 2010, cited in Hassi and Laakso, 2011). Some even dismiss design thinking as a hype. Professor of innovation and design, and former assistant managing editor of BusinessWeek Bruce Nussbaum was one of its key advocates, but deemed design thinking a “failed experiment” after design consultancies turned it into a linear process in an effort to expand their sales (2011).
Design is just one out of a wide range of business methodologies, which all rise and fall in popularity over time. The question remains whether design will hold up to the scrutiny or if it is just a passing trend.
2.2 Leading change
Becoming a design-driven organisation may provide the flexibility and agility needed to adapt and survive in the face of technological developments and fast-changing customer needs. However, becoming design driven involves a transformation of the organisation’s current operations. The following section will take a closer look at why adaptability is crucial for organisations to navigate today’s complex business environment. It will review possible reasons for failed change initiatives and discuss how successful organisational change happens.
The changing world of business
The rise of technology and the Internet have changed the business landscape forever (McGrath, 2011; Vey et al., 2017, p.23). The ambiguous term “complexity” is being used both in academia and by business professionals to describe the complicated, competitive and unpredictable environment of our current society (e.g. Johnson et al., 2005, p.64; Kanter, 1999, p.8; McGrath, 2011). The complexity arises when things that used to be isolated from one another suddenly connect and affect each other with unexpected outcomes (McGrath, 2011). This interconnectivity is enabled by technology and digitalisation, and it is radically changing the way we live and work (Vey et al., 2017, p.23).
Another powerful driver of innovation is the changing behaviour of customers (Johnson et al., 2005, p.64). Customers are better informed and, in turn, their expectations toward businesses, products and services are increasing (Beacham and Shambaugh, 2011; McGrath, 2011). They expect personalised products and services as well as holistic customer experiences, which puts great demands on businesses (Vey et al., 2017, p.24). Organisations of all kinds must rethink how they compete and indeed, a Gartner survey from 2014 shows that 89 percent of companies expected to compete mostly on the basis of customer experience by 2016 (Sorofman, 2014).
The business environment is more complex than ever and it is changing at an unprecedented speed (Vey et al., 2017, p.22). To remain relevant and ahead of competitors, it is imperative that organisations develop an awareness of changes in their environment and the capacity to initiate and implement a competitive response (McGrath, 2011; Whipp and Pettigrew, 1992, p.210). Consequently, the ability to successfully manage strategic organisational change is one of the most important issues facing organisations today (Burnes, 2009; Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014, p.5; Saif et al., 2013).
Figure 6 shows the PESTEL framework (also known by many other similar acronyms), which identifies the main environmental factors outside the boundaries of organisations that may impact their operations and drive organisational change: political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal. These factors also serve as sources of complexity. Many of these factors are linked to each other, meaning that changes in any of them will impact one or several of the other factors, as well as the competitive environment in which organisations operate (Johnson et al., 2005, p.64).
Managing change is not an easy task. A part of the challenge is that there is little agreement on what works best. There is a considerable body of literature on the subject, covering a number approaches and perspectives, principles and success factors. Attempting to address these fully seems almost impossible and even covering all of the most widely recognised theories requires more space than what is available. Therefore, the rest of this chapter covers selected matters related to change in organisations that are considered relevant for the purpose of this study.
How change happens
From the late 1940s to the early 1980s, organisational change was largely understood as a deliberate and structured process (Burnes, 2009, p.289). This type of change is called planned change. Kurt Lewin developed the three stage model for planned change, in which he suggested that organisations progress through the stages of unfreezing, moving and refreezing (Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo, 2010; Saif et al., 2013). Lewin’s model dominated the theory and practice of change management in this period and still underpins many change efforts today. However, planned change has been heavily criticised for being too simplistic in the face of today’s complex, interconnected and global business environment. Some argue that it is impossible for top management to identify, plan and implement every action required to keep up with the rapid pace of change, and the planned approach has been accused of ignoring possible interferences from unpredictable factors within and surrounding the organisation (Kanter et al., 1992; Pettigrew, 1990, cited in Burnes, 2004, p.992; Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo, 2010).
The concept of emergent change appeared as a result of the perceived shortcomings of planned change (Bamford and Forrester, 2003). In the emergent approach to change, change is viewed as a continuous and open-ended process of aligning an organisation to its changing environment (Burnes, 2009, p.289). In this view, change emerges from the actions and decisions of the people in organisations. Consequently, advocates of emergent change reject planning for change and are instead more likely to manage change as part of what happens naturally in an organisation (Burnes, 2009, p.289; Gothelf and Seiden, 2017; Luecke, 2003).
Andrew Pettigrew, Professor of Strategy and Organisation, introduced the processual approach to organisational change (Sminia, 2015) and the importance of considering three dimensions of strategic change; the context, content and process of chance (Pettigrew, 1987) (figure 7). Pettigrew (1987, p.657) defines the context of change as the social, economic and political environment in which the organisation operates, as well as the history and culture of the organisation and its internal structure. The content of change refers to the areas of transformation, the objectives, purpose and goals. The process of change involve the actions and interactions of the stakeholders as they aim to transition the organisation from its current to its future and desired state (Pettigrew, 1987, p.657).
The work of Pettigrew has been widely referenced and discussed in the literature on organisational change, but his research has also received criticism for its focus on the role of senior managers in managing strategic change (Dawson, 2005). Professor of Management Patrick Dawson (2005) developed the work of Pettigrew, taking into consideration individuals and groups at all levels within organisations. Dawson (1996) introduced the idea of three groups of determinants he argued shape the change process in organisations: the substance of change (the type and scale of change), the politics of change (activities like consultation, negotiation, conflict and resistance) and the context of change (past, present and future, history and culture, and operating environments).
Dawson and Pettigrew both highlight the context of change as central to understanding the problems and practice of managing organisational change (Burnes, 1996). Moreover, Dawson’s substance of change and the politics of change are comparable to Pettigrew’s content of change and process of change, respectively. Consequently, the researcher notes that the work of Dawson complements Pettigrew’s work.
Very much like advocates of emergent change, processualists view organisational change as a complex and dynamic process, and not as something that can be treated as a series of linear events (Dawson, 1996). Also like emergent change, the processual approach stresses that organisational change efforts need to adapt to unexpected aspects that occur as part of the process of managing change over time (Dawson, 2005; Hodges and Gill, 2014). Unlike emergent change, however, processualists do not reject planning for change (Burnes, 2009, p.367). They acknowledge that different approaches to change may be more appropriate at different times. Burnes (1996, p.11) suggests that organisations should avoid seeking a “one best way” and instead choose the right method for the circumstances. As advocated by the processual approach, the ability to choose and adopt different approaches to change according to the circumstances provides organisations with the flexibility and agility needed to cope with unpredictable business environments (Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo, 2010).
Why change is hard
The notion that 70 percent of all organisational change initiatives fail has become a widespread assumption brought about by a handful of popular articles and books on the topic (e.g. Ashkenas, 2013; Keller and Aiken, 2009; Kotter, 2008; Nohria and Beer, 2000). Some argue that research into the origins of the alleged failure rate reveals a lack of concrete evidence (Hughes, 2011). However, respected commentators in the field of organisational change (Nohria and Beer, 2000) and one of the world’s leading management consultancies, Bain & Co., (Senturia et al., 2008, p.1) support the claim that the general failure rate is around 70 percent. Several studies of change initiatives also reach similar conclusions (Burnes, 2009, p.xiii).
Whether or not the real rate of failure is as high as 70 percent, it is reasonably safe to assume that many change initiatives fail, simply on the basis of the large body of literature addressing the reasons for failure and how to avoid it. In the context of this study, it is therefore important to acknowledge the great effort required to successfully mobilise for and manage strategic organisational change to avoid failing in the process.
Based on a ten-year study of more than 100 companies, John P. Kotter (2012) wrote the book Leading Change, in which he used his findings to outline The Eight-Stage Process to effectively transform an organisation:
- Establishing a sense of urgency: examine the market, corporate performance and competitive realities, and identify and discuss crises or major opportunities.
- Creating a guiding coalition: form a powerful team to lead the change effort and develop a shared commitment.
- Developing a vision and strategy: develop an appealing picture of the future to direct the change effort and develop strategies for how to get there.
- Communicating the change vision: put effort into communicating the vision and ensure that the behaviours of the guiding coalition reflects the vision and sets an example.
- Empowering employees for broad-based action: remove obstacles to change, change systems or structures that undermine the vision and encourage employees to take risks, ideate and experiment within the broad parameters of the vision.
- Generating short-term wins: systematically plan for and create short-term wins, and celebrate these and the employees involved to avoid losing momentum.
- Consolidating gains and producing more change: use the credibility afforded by short-term wins to tackle bigger problems and change things that do not fit the vision, hire and promote employees who can implement the vision and reinvigorate the change process with new projects.
- Anchoring new approaches in the culture: highlight how new behaviours and approaches have helped improve performance and ensure that the next generation of top management personifies the new approach.
Kotter’s thorough research (2012) is widely recognised. The researcher notes that each of the eight stages has to do with overcoming the barriers and issues connected to the people involved in and affected by the change. After all, organisations are human systems and failure to nurture the people in the organisation can awaken their natural human tendency to resist change. Resistance to change can occur as a result of a lack of trust or respect in the management, a lack of conviction that change is needed, a dislike of surprises or simply a fear of the unknown or of losing control (Cameron and Green, 2012, p.420; Kubr, 2002, p.90; Lunenburg, 2010).
Put differently, although hard approaches like economic incentives, layoffs, downsizing or restructuring may be needed to survive in the market, focusing on economic value alone can have devastating consequences (Nohria and Beer, 2000). Following painful remedies like layoffs, staff are often left demoralised and likely to look for opportunities elsewhere. This type of corporate behaviour may be successful in the short term, but it can have a negative impact on the future vitality of the organisation. By combining hard approaches with efforts to strengthen the organisational culture, organisations can achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and reap big payoffs in profitability and productivity (Nohria and Beer, 2000).
The power of organisational culture
A lot of the existing literature about organisational change covers the topic of organisational culture in one sense or another. In some writings, culture is addressed as a crucial part of making organisational change possible. In others, culture is seen as the key target of change. Some authors even suggest that neglecting the organisational culture can be a major reason for failed organisational change efforts (Balogun and Johnson, 2004).
Edgar H. Schein is one of the key contributors to the field of organisational development in many areas, including organisational culture. Schein (2010, p.18) defines culture as
a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.
Schein (2010, p.23) suggests that culture can be analysed at three levels, “with the term ‘level’ meaning the degree to which the cultural phenomenon is visible to the observer”:
- Artefacts.
- Espoused beliefs and values.
- Basic underlying assumptions.
Artefacts are the structures and processes that can be heard, seen and felt. It can be the physical environment, the language, clothes or observable rituals. Artefacts are easily observed, but it is difficult to reconstruct what they mean or reflect. Espoused beliefs and values are the conscious philosophies, norms and rules of behaviour shared by the members of the culture. These may or may not be congruent with the artefacts as they only reflect aspirations or rationalisations. Finally, the basic underlying assumptions are the unconscious beliefs and values that actually determine behaviour, perception, thought and feeling. It is the pattern of shared basic assumptions that Schein defines as the very essence of culture (Schein, 2010, p.23–32).
The extent to which culture can be intentionally and systematically changed is much discussed in the literature. Three main positions on the manageability of organisational culture can be defined (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2008, p.40). One position is that organisational culture can be changed by the top management. A second suggests that the top management exercises a moderate influence under certain circumstances and on some values, but that changing the culture is very difficult (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2008, p.40). For instance, Schein (2010, p.33) argues that culture change, in the sense of challenging and changing the shared basic assumptions, is not only difficult, but time-consuming and can provoke anxiety amongst the members of the culture. A third view stresses that culture is beyond control because it is contingent upon people’s backgrounds, work tasks, their interpersonal interactions and several other factors (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2008, p.40).
Manageable or not, organisational culture plays an important role in change management as it can both enable and constrain organisational change efforts.
Leading change
Many commentators stress the importance of effective leadership in the face of today’s constant drive for growth and innovation (Burnes, 2009; Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014, p.291; Hodges and Gill, 2014), but their definitions of effective leadership vary. Some authors differentiate between leadership and management (e.g. Bass, 1990; Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014; Kotter, 1990). They believe that managers are selected for their positions and focus on generating results, whereas leaders are more likely to emerge as a result of their abilities to influence, motivate and enable people to work towards a shared goal (Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014, p.293; Kotter, 1990, p.63). Further, they suggest that management may be enough to deal with the day-by-day workings of an organisation, but that surviving in turbulent times requires a leader (Bass, 1990).
According to Professor of Management Bernard Bass (1990), constant demands for renewal and change relies on transformational leadership. Transformational leaders have an innate ability to influence and inspire employees to participate enthusiastically in team efforts and work together towards organisational goals (Bass, 1990). While Bass (1990) and several others (e.g. Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014, p.304) attribute this ability to charisma, others argue that leadership needs to come from within a community and caution against the glorification of individual heroes (Hayes, 2014, p.181).
Situational leadership is yet another concept in leadership theory. First introduced by Hersey and Blanchard (1996), situational leadership suggests that a leader should adapt his or her style to fit the people in the organisation and the tasks at hand. Contingency theory also stresses that different situations call for different styles of leadership, but it suggests that effective leadership is contingent on matching leaders to appropriate situations (Northouse, 2010, p.111).
Although most experts agree that effective leadership is necessary for change, the teams and individuals within the organisation also play important parts in the change process. After all, it is the behaviour of the people in the organisation that ultimately determine which organisational changes can be made and the benefits that will be drawn from the changes (Kubr, 2002, p.87). In organisational change, everyone in the organisation has to acquire new knowledge and skills, tackle new tasks, change their habits, values and attitudes and, very often, give up something they would rather preserve (Kubr, 2002, p.87). To succeed, the organisation as a whole relies on the individuals’ understanding, willingness and ability to change. As Kubr (2002, p.87) points out, individual change often needs to start with the top managers:
Those who want their subordinates and colleagues to change must be prepared to assess and change their own behaviour, work methods and attitudes. This is a golden rule of organi[s]ational change.
References
Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing Organizational Culture. London: Routledge.
Ashkenas, R. (2013). Change Management Needs to Change. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/04/change-management-needs-to-cha (Accessed: 6 Jan 2018).
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager Sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), pp.523–549.
Bamford, D. and Forrester, P. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5), pp.546–564.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), pp.19–31.
Beacham, C. and Shambaugh, N. (2011). Contemporary Uses of Design Thinking Across Society, Work, and the Individual. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal — Annual Review, 5(5), pp.337–348.
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, (June), pp.84–92.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: Collins Business.
Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), pp.29–43.
Buchanan, R. (1999). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4), pp.3–23.
Burnes, B. (1996). No such thing as … a “one best way” to manage organizational change. Management Decision, 34(10), pp.11–18.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), pp.977–1002.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics. 5th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2012). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Cassim, F. (2013). Hands On, Hearts On, Minds On: Design Thinking within an Education Context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), pp.190–202.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.
Dansk Design Center. (2015). The Design Ladder: Four steps of design use. [online] Available at: https://danskdesigncenter.dk/en/design-ladder-four-steps-design-use (Accessed: 10 Mar 2018).
Dawson, P. (1996). Beyond Conventional Change Models: A Processual Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 34(2), pp.57–70.
Dawson, P. (2005). Changing manufacturing practices: An appraisal of the processual approach. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 15(4), pp.385–402.
Dawson, P. and Andriopoulos, C. (2014). Managing change, creativity and innovation. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1983). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Design Council (2011). Design for Innovation. [online] London: Design Council. Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/design-for-innovation.pdf (Accessed: 17 Nov 2017).
Design Council (2013). Leading Business by Design. [online] London: Design Council. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/dc_lbbd_report_08.11.13_FA_LORES.pdf (Accessed: 4 Dec 2017).
Design Council. (2015). The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond? [online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond (Accessed: 11 Nov 2017).
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), pp.521–532.
Golsby-Smith, T. (1996). Fourth Order Design: A Practical Perspective. Design Issues, 12(1), p.5.
Gothelf, J. and Seiden, J. (2017). Sense and respond. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hassi, L. and Laakso, M. (2011). Conceptions of design thinking in the design and management discourses. In: Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research. [online] Available at: http://www.mindspace.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HassiLaakso_IASDR_FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 31 Dec 2017).
Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. (1996). Great ideas revisited: Revisiting the life-cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 50(1), pp.42–47.
Hodges, J. and Gill, R. (2014). Sustaining Change in Organizations. London: SAGE Publications.
Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 Per Cent of All Organizational Change Initiatives Really Fail? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), pp.451–464.
IDEO U (2017). Design Thinking. [online] Available at: https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking (Accessed: 6 Nov 2017).
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J. and Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), pp.121–146.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring corporate strategy. 7th ed. Harlow, Essex, England: FT/Prentice Hall.
Kanter, R. (1999). Change is everyone’s job: Managing the extended enterprise in a globally connected world. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), pp.7–23.
Kanter, R., Stein, B. and Jick, T. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It And Leaders Guide It. New York: Free Press.
Keller, S. and Aiken, C. (2009). The Inconvenient Truth About Change Management. McKinsey Quarterly, 7, pp.1–18.
Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. [online] Available at: http://www.lucykimbell.com/stuff/CRESC_Kimbell_v3.pdf (Accessed: 5 Nov 2017).
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), pp.285–306.
Komninos, N. (2009). Innovation Best Books 2009 by BusinessWeek. [online] URENIO Watch. Available at: http://www.urenio.org/2009/12/30/innovation-best-books-2009-by-businessweek/ (Accessed: 11 Dec 2017).
Kotter, J. (1990). A Force for Change. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. (2008). A Sense of Urgency. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading Change. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kubr, M. (2002). Management Consulting: A Guide to the Profession. 4th ed. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think. 4th ed. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Lawson, B. and Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. New York: Routledge.
Liebhart, M. and Garcia-Lorenzo, L. (2010). Between Planned and Emergent Change. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Change Management, 10(5), pp.214–225.
Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Lunenburg, F. (2010). Forces for and Resistance to Organizational Change. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4), pp.1–10.
Martin, R. (2009). Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press.
McGrath, R. (2011). The World Is More Complex than It Used to Be. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2011/08/the-world-really-is-more-compl (Accessed: 27 Nov 2017).
NEWS BBVA. (2015). Airbnb, a Design Thinking success story. [online] Available at: https://www.bbva.com/en/airbnb-design-thinking-success-story/ (Accessed: 29 Dec 2017).
Nielsen Norman Group. (2017). Design Thinking 101. [online] Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-thinking/ (Accessed: 8 Nov 2017).
Nohria, N. and Beer, M. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2000/05/cracking-the-code-of-change (Accessed: 6 Jan 2018).
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design Thinking Is A Failed Experiment. So What’s Next? [online] Co.Design. Available at: https://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next (Accessed: 31 Dec 2017).
Owen, C. (2005). Design thinking: What it is, why it is different, where it has new value. In: Life and Design in the Future Conference. [online] Available at: https://www.id.iit.edu/arti59 facts/design-thinking-what-it-is-why-it-is-different-where-it-has-new-value (Accessed: 4 Nov 2017).
Pettigrew, A. (1987). Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), pp.649–670.
Røijen, L., Heggestad, E. and Furuholt, J. (2017). Regjeringen vil ha mer designdrevet innovasjon. [online] Doga.no. Available at: https://doga.no/aktuelt/nyheter/regjeringen-vil-ha-mer-designdrevet-innovasjon/?utm_campaign=unspecified&utm_content=unspecified&utm_medium=email&utm_source=apsis-anp-3 (Accessed: 17 Nov 2017).
Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Saif, N., Razzaq, N., Ur Rehman, S., Javed, A. and Ahmad, B. (2013). The Concept of Change Management in Today’s Business World. Information and Knowledge Management, 3(6), pp.28–33.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senturia, T., Flees, L. and Maceda, M. (2008). Leading change management requires sticking to the PLOT. [ebook] Bain & Company, Inc. Available at: http://www.bain.com/bainweb/PDFs/cms/Public/Leading_change_management_requires_sticking_to_the_PLOT_BB.pdf (Accessed: 3 Feb 2018).
Sminia, H. (2015). Pioneering Process Research: Andrew Pettigrew’s Contribution to Management Scholarship, 1962–2014. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2), pp.111–132.
Sorofman, J. (2014). Gartner Surveys Confirm Customer Experience Is the New Battlefield. [Blog] Gartner for Marketers. Available at: https://blogs.gartner.com/jake-sorofman/gartner-surveys-confirm-customer-experience-new-battlefield/ (Accessed: 6 Feb 2018).
Stewart, S. (2011). Interpreting Design Thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), pp.515–520.
Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. (2011). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. United States: John Wiley & Sons.
Teal, R. (2010). Developing a (Non-linear) Practice of Design Thinking. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(3), pp.294–302.
Verganti, R. (2014). Design-driven innovation. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.
Vey, K., Fandel-Meyer, T., Zipp, J. and Schneider, C. (2017). Learning & Development in Times of Digital Transformation: Facilitating a Culture of Change and Innovation. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 10(1), pp.22–32.
Vossoughi, S. (2011). Five Ways to Fail at Design. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2011/04/five-ways-to-fail-at-design (Accessed: 29 Dec 2017).
Walters, H. (2011). Can Innovation Really Be Reduced To A Process? [online] Co.Design. Available at: https://www.fastcodesign.com/1664511/can-innovation-really-be-reduced-to-a-process (Accessed: 5 Nov 2017).
Whipp, R. and Pettigrew, A. (1992). Managing Change for Competitive Success: Bridging the Strategic and the Operational. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1(1), pp.205–233.
© Nadine Ramsberg, 2018
Hyper Island — MA Digital Management
Industry Research Project
