AccScience Publishing / DP / Volume 2 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.36922/dp.4292
Submit to DP
Cite this article
14
Download
245
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Legitimizing design thinking: Addressing barriers to corporate adoption

Mariana Passadouro1* ,  Rui Patrício1,2 ,  Joaquim Casaca1
Show Less
1 UNIDCOM/IADE – Research Unit in Design and Communication, IADE – Faculty of Design, Technology and Communication, European University, Lisbon, Portugal
2 GOVCOPP and DEGEIT – Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
DP 2025, 2(1), 4292 https://doi.org/10.36922/dp.4292
Submitted: 20 July 2024 | Revised: 6 January 2025 | Accepted: 21 January 2025 | Published: 17 February 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

The design domain has long been recognized as a source of value creation, with a recent paradigm shift in both academic and practitioner circles conceptualizing design as a comprehensive innovation management practice. Design thinking (DT) has gained prominence for fostering engagement and confidence in creative processes. However, outcomes can be influenced by various factors and conditions, making direct attribution to DT challenging. While organizational maturity can impact DT implementation, this relationship is complex and warrants further investigation. More in-depth research and appropriate methodologies are needed to assist organizations in establishing the legitimacy of DT, acknowledging that legitimacy often derives from the perceived quality of work outcomes, which is inherently subjective. Therefore, it is essential to develop more objective criteria and evaluation methods to provide a clearer and more reliable basis for assessing the success and impact of DT initiatives. This paper addresses the need for legitimacy in adopting DT as an innovation strategy, with a focus on both individual and social structural perspectives. Drawing on organizational workplace theories and employee perceptions, we developed and tested hypotheses to overcome barriers to the adoption of DT. Although based on a small sample size, our study offers valuable insights into the factors influencing DT adoption within organizations. Using a quasi-experimental approach, we examined how organizational practices, leadership, and physical spaces affect the legitimacy and widespread adoption of DT. By assessing both qualitative and quantitative indicators, we combined participant feedback with observable behaviors for a more comprehensive evaluation. Recognizing the subjectivity of legitimacy measurement, we enhanced our approach by integrating multiple data sources. This study lays the groundwork for future research, refining legitimacy assessments and investigating the long-term impact of DT adoption. We hope our findings inspire further exploration of additional variables that influence the success of DT across diverse organizational contexts.

Keywords
Design thinking
Legitimacy
Innovation management
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Johansson-Sköldberg U, Woodilla J, Çetinkaya M. Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creat Innov Manag. 2013;22(2):121-146. doi: 10.1111/caim.12023

 

  1. Liedtka J. Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32(6):925-938. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12163

 

  1. Seifried J, Wasserbaech C. Design thinking in leading European companies-organizational and spatial issues. J Innov Manag. 2019;7(1):80-107. doi: 10.24840/2183-0606_007.001_0006

 

  1. Wrigley C, Nusem E, Straker K. Implementing design thinking: Understanding organizational conditions. Cal Manag Rev. 2020;62(2):125-143. doi: 10.1177/0008125619897606

 

  1. Magistretti S, Bianchi M, Calabretta G, et al. Framing the multifaceted nature of design thinking in addressing different innovation purposes. Long Range Plan. 2022;55(5):102163. doi: 10.1016/J.LRP.2021.102163

 

  1. Dunne D, Eriksson T, Kietzmann J. Can Design Thinking Succeed in Your Organization?; 2022. Available from: https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/can-design-thinking/53863MIT64123/chapter001.xhtml#h1-2 [Last accessed on 2023 Oct 23].

 

  1. Prud’homme van Reine P. The culture of design thinking for innovation. J Innov Manag. 2017;5(2):56-80. doi: 10.24840/2183-0606_005.002_0006

 

  1. Carlgren L, Elmquist M, Rauth I. The challenges of using design thinking in industry-experiences from five large firms. Creat Innov Manag. 2016;25(3):344-362. doi: 10.1111/caim.12176

 

  1. Carlgren L, BenMahmoud-Jouini S. When cultures collide: What can we learn from frictions in the implementation of design thinking? J Prod Innov Manag. 2022;39(1):44-65. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12603

 

  1. Dunne D. Implementing design thinking in organizations: An exploratory study. J Org Des. 2018;7(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s41469-018-0040-7

 

  1. Kupp M, Anderson J, Reckhenrich J. Why Design Thinking in Business Needs a Rethink. Vol. 59. United States: MIT Sloan Management Review; 2017.

 

  1. Patrício R, Moreira AC, Zurlo F. Enhancing design thinking approaches to innovation through gamification. Eur J Innov Manag. 2021;24(5):1569-1594. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-06-2020-0239

 

  1. Rauth I, Carlgren L, Elmquist M. Making it happen: Legitimizing design thinking in large organizations. Des Manag J. 2014;9(1):47-60. doi: 10.1111/dmj.12015

 

  1. Suchman MC. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev. 1995;20(3):571-610. doi: 10.2307/258788

 

  1. Kwon B, Farndale E, Park JG. Employee voice and work engagement: Macro, meso, and micro-level drivers of convergence? Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2016;26:327-337. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.04.005

 

  1. Birkinshaw J, Hamel G, Mol MJ. Management innovation. Acad Manag Rev. 2008;33(4):825-845. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.34421969

 

  1. Landau J. To speak or not to speak: Predictors of voice propensity. J Organ Cult. 2009;13(1):35-54.

 

  1. Paauwe J, Boselie P. HRM and performance: What next? Hum Resour Manag J. 2005;15:68-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00296.x

 

  1. Botero IC, Van Dyne L. Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Manag Commun Q. 2009;23(1):84-104. doi: 10.1177/0893318909335415

 

  1. Robbins SP, Judge TA. Organizational Behavior. Indonesia: Salemba Empat; 2011

 

  1. Pereira L, Parizi R, Prestes M, et al. Towards an Understanding of Benefits and Challenges in the Use of Design Thinking in Requirements Engineering. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing; 2021. p. 1338-1345. doi: 10.1145/3412841.3442008

 

  1. De Paula D, Cormican K. Understanding Design Thinking in Design Studies (2006-2015): A Systematic Mapping Study. DS. Vol. 84; 2016. Available from: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/303552887 [Last accessed on 2023 Aug 16].

 

  1. Dell’Era C, Magistretti S, Cautela C, et al. Four kinds of design thinking: From ideating to making, engaging, and criticizing. Creat Innov Manag. 2020;29(2):324-344. doi: 10.1111/caim.12353

 

  1. Paulus PB, Yang HC. Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000;82(1):76-87. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2888

 

  1. Patterson MG, West MA, Shackleton VJ, et al. Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. J Organ Behav. 2005;26(4):379-408. doi: 10.1002/job.312

 

  1. Huang X, Van Der Vegt G. Breaking the Silence Culture: Stimulation of Participation and Employee Opinion Withholding Cross-Nationally. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00023.x

 

  1. Zohar D, Tenne-Gazit O. Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(4):744-757. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.744

 

  1. Rogg KL, Schmidt DB, Shull C, et al. Human resource practices, organizational climate, and customer satisfaction. J Manag. 2001;27:431-49. doi: 10.1177/014920630102700403

 

  1. Srivastava A, Bartol KM, Locke EA. Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad Manag J. 2006;49:1239-1251. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478718

 

  1. Yu C, Wang Y, Li T, et al. Do top management teams’ expectations and support drive management innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises? J Bus Res. 2022;142:88-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.035

 

  1. Van Dijke M, De Cremer D, Mayer DM, et al. When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes. 2012;117(2):235-248. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.006

 

  1. Gao L, Janssen O, Shi K. Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(4):787-798. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.015

 

  1. Hehn J, Uebernickel F. The Use of Design Thinking for Requirements Engineering: An Ongoing Case Study in the Field of Innovative Software-Intensive Systems. In: Proceedings-2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference; 2018. p. 400-405. doi: 10.1109/RE.2018.00-18

 

  1. Hadar I, Soffer P, Kenzi K. The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: An exploratory study. Require Eng. 2014;19(2):143-159. doi: 10.1007/s00766-012-0163-2

 

  1. Goldschmidt G, Tarazi E. Expanding the Frontiers of Design: Critical Perspectives. United States: CRC Press; 2023. p. 1-511. doi: 10.1201/b22630

 

  1. Naumann SE, Bennett N. A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Acad Manag J. 2000;43(5):881-889. doi: 10.2307/1556416

 

  1. Peeters C, Massini S, Lewin AY. Sources of variation in the efficiency of adopting management innovation: The role of absorptive capacity routines, managerial attention and organizational legitimacy. Organ Stud. 2014;35(9):1343-1371. doi: 10.1177/0170840614539311

 

  1. Leifer LJ, Steinert M. Dancing with ambiguity: Causality behavior, design thinking, and triple-loop-learning. Inf Knowl Syst Manag. 2011;10(1-4):151-173. doi: 10.3233/iks-2012-0191

 

  1. Shadur MA, Kienzle R, Rodwell JJ. The relationship between organizational climate and employee perceptions of involvement: The importance of support. Group Organ Manag. 1999;24(4):479-503. doi: 10.1177/1059601199244005

 

  1. Farndale E, Van Ruiten J, Kelliher C, et al. The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange perspective. Hum Resour Manag. 2011;50(1):113-129. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20404

 

  1. West AP Jr., Wind Y. Putting the organization on wheels: Workplace design at SEI. Cal Manag Rev. 2005;47(2):138-153. doi: 10.2307/41166387

 

  1. Siggelkow N. Persuasion with case studies. Acad Manag J. 2007;50(1):20-24. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160882

 

  1. Patrício R, Moreira AC, Zurlo F. Gamification in innovation teams. Int J Innov Stud. 2022;6(3):156-168. doi: 10.1016/j.ijis.2022.05.003

 

  1. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. London: McGraw-Hill; 1991.

 

  1. Atmojo M. The influence of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and employee performance. Int Res J Bus Stud. 2015;5(2):113-128. doi: 10.21632/irjbs.5.2.113-128

 

  1. Lepine JA, Van Dyne L. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(6):853-868. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853

 

  1. Arnold J, Drasgow F. The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. J Organ Behav. 2000;21(3):249-269. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:33.0.CO

 

  1. Ho R. Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall; 2006. doi: 10.1201/9781420011111

 

  1. Marôco J. Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fundamentos Teóricos, Software and Aplicações. 2ª ed. Portugal: Pero Pinheiro; 2014.

 

  1. Elsbach KD, Stigliani I. Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. J Manage. 2018;44(6):2274-2306. doi: 10.1177/0149206317744252

 

Share
Back to top
Design+, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8953 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept