Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wie könnten wir Organisationsentwicklungen partizipativ gestalten?

Der Design Thinking Ansatz als Instrument zur Gestaltung von Veränderungsprozessen

How might we conduct participatory organization developments?

The Design Thinking Approach as a tool to engineer change processes

  • Hauptbeiträge
  • Published:
Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag stellen wir Design Thinking (DT) als einen Ansatz vor, den Berater/innen nutzen können, um partizipative Aspekte systematisch und zielgerichtet in Veränderungsprozesse zu integrieren. Statt die Mitarbeiter/innen beim Change-Management als passive und veränderungsresistente Rezipienten wahrzunehmen, werden die Beschäftigten beim DT Prozess aktiv in den Planungs- und Umsetzungsprozess von Veränderungsmaßnahmen einbezogen. Wir zeigen hierbei, warum Organisationen als komplexe Systeme verstanden werden sollten, die ein iteratives, lösungsorientiertes Vorgehen voraussetzen, damit Veränderungen ganzheitlich implementiert werden können. Die DT Phasen (Inspiration, Ideengenerierung und Implementierung) werden beschrieben, anhand von Praxisbeispielen illustriert und um Erkenntnisse aus verhaltenswissenschaftlichen Studien ergänzt. Um die Wahrscheinlichkeit zu erhöhen, dass das DT Denken in die Organisationsstrukturen integriert wird, gehen wir auch auf die Faktoren ein, die bei der Einbettung dieser nutzerorientierten Prozessentwicklung in die Organisationskultur beachtet werden sollten. Abschließend weisen wir auf Parallelen zwischen dem DT Ansatz und der Aktionsforschung nach Kurt Lewin hin und diskutieren, wie eine DT Herangehensweise dabei helfen kann die Arbeit innerhalb einer Organisation sinnstiftender zu gestalten.

Abstract

Within this contribution, we discuss how the Design Thinking (DT) approach can be used by consultants to systematically integrate participatory aspects into change processes. Instead of perceiving employees as passive and resistant to change, the DT process aims at involving the workforce into the planning and implementation of change projects. Furthermore, we highlight why it is important to understand organizations as complex systems that require an iterative goal-oriented procedure to implement change holistically. The DT phases (inspiration, ideation, and implementation) are described, illustrated on the basis of case studies, and complemented by findings from behavioral sciences. To increase the likelihood that the DT mindset will be integrated into an organization’s structure, we underscore which aspects should be considered while embedding this user-oriented approach into an organization’s culture. Finally, we highlight the parallels between the DT approach and action research, as developed by Kurt Lewin, and discuss how DT can help to make the work within an organization more meaningful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  • Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703. doi:10.1177/001872679304600601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. doi:10.1002/job.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2011). Category assignment and relatedness in the group ideation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1070–1077. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, W. (2012). The secret phrase top innovators use. https://hbr.org/2012/09/the-secret-phrase-top-innovato. Zugegriffen: 1. Apr 2016. Harvard Business Review Blog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyhl, T., Berg, G., & Giese, H. (2013). Why innovation processes need to support traceability. International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (TEFSE), San Francisco. doi:10.1109/tefse.2013.6620146. pp 1–4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boog, B. (2003). The emancipatory character of action research, its history and the present state of the art. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13, 426–438. doi:10.1002/casp.748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourbonnais, R., Brisson, C., Vinet, A., Vézina, M., Abdous, B., & Gaudet, M. (2006). Effectiveness of a participative intervention on psychosocial work factors to prevent mental health problems in a hospital setting. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(5), 335–342. doi:10.1136/oem.2004.018077.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • British Design Council (2007). Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global companies. Desk research report. http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_DeskResearchReport_0.pdf. Zugegriffen: 1. Apr 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(4), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the making: design, management, and the reform of organizational culture. She Ji, 1(1), 5–21. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2015.09.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. doi:10.1086/421787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014). Design thinking: exploring values and effects from an innovation capability perspective. An International Journal for All Aspects of Design, 17(3), 403–423. doi:10.2752/175630614x13982745783000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35–48. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellion, G., & Markham, S. K. (2013). New product failure rates: influence of argumentum ad populum and self-interest. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 976–979. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.01009.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512–532. doi:10.1177/001872674800100408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, E. J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: building shared understanding for wicked problems. Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. K. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: a positive revolution in change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development & change (10. Aufl.). Stamford: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25–41. doi:10.1177/0021886399351003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doll, B. (2009). Prototyping zur Unterstützung sozialer Interaktionsprozesse. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duhigg, C. (2016). Smarter faster better: the transformative power of real productivity. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110. doi:10.2307/2393701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellwart, T., & Peiffer, H. (2015). Ein „Ja“ zum neuen Büro – Ansätze zur Einstellungsänderung im Change-Prozess. Personal Quarterly, 67(2), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endrejat, P. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Über innovationsverhindernde und innovationsfördernde Denkweisen. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation, 47(3), 275–282. doi:10.1007/s11612-016-0337-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endrejat, P. C., Klonek, F. E., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). A psychology perspective of energy consumption in organisations. The value of participatory interventions. Indoor and Built Environment, 24(7), 937–949. doi:10.1177/1420326x15598820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster, H. von. (1979/2003). Understanding understanding. Essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York: Springer.

  • Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2) 362–377. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193235.

  • Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Resistance to change: a reexamination and extension. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 17, 211–239. doi:10.1108/s0897-3016(2009)0000017008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, W. (1969). Organization development objectives, assumptions and strategies. California Management Review, 12(2), 23–34. doi:10.2307/41164216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centred design? The Design Journal, 17(4), 606–623. doi:10.2752/175630614x14056185480186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golsby-Smith, T. (2007). The second road of thought: How design offers strategy a new toolkit. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 22–29. doi:10.1108/02756660710760917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: a playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M., de Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.4001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293. doi:10.1037/h0040755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, W. (2016). Zeitweilige Gruppenarbeit für Prozessinnovationen: Grundlagen, Organisation und Wirkungen. In I. Jöns (Hrsg.), Erfolgreiche Gruppenarbeit. Konzepte, Instrumente, Erfahrungen (S. 25–35). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDEO (2015). The field guide to human-centered design: design kit. San Francisco: IDEO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, S., Jonas, E., Grote, S., Frey, D., & Frieling, E. (2004). Innovationsklima – Konstruktion und erste psychometrische Überprüfung eines Messinstrumentes. Diagnostica, 50(3), 153–164. doi:10.1026/0012-1924.50.3.153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klonek, F. E., & Kauffeld, S. (2012). „Muss, kann ... oder will ich was verändern?“ Welche Chancen bietet die Motivierende Gesprächsführung in Organisationen. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 14(4), 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klonek, F. E., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Dynamics of resistance to change: a sequential analysis of change agents in action. Journal of Change Management, 14(3), 334–360. doi:10.1080/14697017.2014.896392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kranz, A. M. (2012). Themenzentrierte Interaktion (TZI) als Basis für partnerschaftliche Kommunikation in Systemen. In K. F. Meier-Gantenbein & T. Späth (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bildung, Training und Beratung (2. Aufl. S. 127–149). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, L. J., & Steinert, M. (2011). Dancing with ambiguity: causality behavior, design thinking, and triple-loop-learning. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 10(1), 151–173. doi:10.3233/iks-2012-0191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 868–896. doi:10.1086/218177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1947a). Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. doi:10.1177/001872674700100103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1947b). Frontiers in group dynamics II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153. doi:10.1177/001872674700100201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liedtka, J. (2015). Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. doi:10.1111/jpim.12163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, T., Gumienny, R., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Is there a need for a design thinking process? Proceedings of Design Thinking Research Symposium 8, Sydney.

  • Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of prototypes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(2), 1–27. doi:10.1145/1375761.1375762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B. J., & Nordgren, L. F. (2015). People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 232–243. doi:10.1037/pspa0000030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshak, R. J. (2005). Contemporary challenges to the philosophy and practice of organization development. In D. L. Bradford & W. W. Burke (Hrsg.), Reinventing organization development. New approaches to change in organizations (S. 19–42). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen, G. E., & Bronnick, K. S. (2009). Creative self-efficacy: an intervention study. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1990). Der Baum der Erkenntnis. Die biologischen Wurzeln des menschlichen Erkennens. München: Goldmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menning, A., Beyhl, T., Giese, H., Weinberg, U., & Nicolai, C. (2014). Introducing the LogCal: template-based documentation support for educational design thinking projects. International conference on engineering and product design education, Twente, 4.–5. Sept.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offner, A. K., Kramer, T. J., & Winter, J. P. (1996). The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(2), 283–298. doi:10.1177/1046496496272005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley, N., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 633–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasmore, W. A., & Fagans, M. R. (1992). Participation, individual development, and organizational change: a review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 18(2), 375–397. doi:10.1177/014920639201800208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen, H. F. K., Klonek, F. E., Rutsch, F., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Ready, steady, go! Veränderungsbereitschaft in der Interaktion messen. PERSONALquarterly, 67(2), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauth, I., Carlgren, L., & Elmquist, M. (2015). Making it happen: legitimizing design thinking in large organizations. Design Management Journal, 9(1), 47–60. doi:10.1111/dmj.12015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A. G. L. (2004). Action research, emancipation and design thinking. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 495–499. doi:10.1002/casp.794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. O., Chauvet, M.-C., & Kleinman, J. S. (2015). Leading for a corporate culture of design thinking. In M. G. Luchs, K. S. Swan & A. Griffin (Hrsg.), Design Thinking (S. 173–186). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: the creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoder, D., Putzke, J., Metaxas, P. T., Gloor, P. A., & Fischbach, K. (2014). Informationssysteme für „Wicked Problems“. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 56(1), 3–11. doi:10.1007/s11576-013-0395-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. doi:10.2307/3069429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D., Wong, A. S., & Feng Chen, N. Y. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 545–568. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoerger, M., Crowe, J., & Allen, J. A. (2015). Participate or else! The effect of participation in decision-making in meetings on employee engagement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67(1), 65–80. doi:10.1037/cpb0000029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Arbeits-, Organisations- und Sozialpsychologie, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Spielmannstr. 19, 38106, Braunschweig, Deutschland

    Paul C. Endrejat &  Simone Kauffeld

Authors
  1. Paul C. Endrejat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simone Kauffeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul C. Endrejat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Endrejat, P.C., Kauffeld, S. Wie könnten wir Organisationsentwicklungen partizipativ gestalten?. Gr Interakt Org 48, 143–154 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-017-0361-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-017-0361-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation