The Shifting Paradigm in Organizational Development through Design Thinking

Design thinking became a buzzword and was generally embraced to make organizational innovation, design, and learning swifter and more repetitive. This paper explores design thinking from a perspective of assimilation to explain how design eases organizational innovation in the business world of the 21st century. Design thinking as a management tool is considered a driving force to sustainable development and value creation in the modern workplace. In both product and services-based industries, design can be defined as the act of conceiving, planning, and building an interactive system, the goal of which is to provide resources to support employees and end-users. The aim is to narrate the contributions of design to promote organizational change through new meaning. The aesthetics of corporate and business can be re-engineered to promote organizational innovation through these new meanings of organizational development.

Shifting Paradigm: Designing the New Era of Organizational Development

In 2018, Brad Cousins presented his article in the Journal of Academy of Strategic Management, entitled "Project Thinking: Organized Learning in VUCA Environments." VUCA here stands for uncertainty, confusion, instability, and ambiguity (Cousins,2018). The idea has been restored in the contemporary management philosophy that organizations must adapt to systems from the past to the transition in the climate (Cousins, 2018, p. 1). Cousins study the available literature, he points to it, known initially as a method for creativity, and since then, concept analysis has expanded to many areas of organizations. In certain instances, it describes the whole organization's organizational approach. Corporate literature emphasizes the need for organizations ' approach to system-thinking and management to build frameworks that facilitate the assimilative capacity that respond to the ever more nuanced complexity of external information as Murray, 1998; Senge & Carstedt, 2001; Bennett and Lemoine, 2014; Senge, Hamilton & Kania, 2015 reviewed. The ambiguity suggests a lack of understanding of the scale, the importance of environmental change when Drucker refers to the dynamic world as a “threshold of chaos” (Cousins, 2018, p 1-2).

An essay written by Shindina, Tatyana A, offers a new perspective to the Paradigm of “The Green" Organisational Model: New approaches to the quality of life and the evolution of organizational theories.” According to current economic conditions, there are some criteria for creating organizational models, allowing to research the actions of the artifacts not only from a management point of view but also from an interaction system perspective. The essence of these mechanisms does not include relationships occurrence between both the subject and the element but connections between aspects and entities. The philosophical framework of such an organization does not involve relationships between subjects but interactions while setting up a hierarchy of self-organization processes where an individual is the key focus of the management. In this sense, the priorities of the organization's Green' socio-economic structure require a need, unlike the traditional organizational framework focused on the cycle of enhanced economic gains, to tackle the characteristics of tension, satisfaction, comfort, and prosperity (Tatyana 2017).

Tatyana suggested that the "green" organizational model concentrates on the external environment, unlike other organizational systems that engage in the internal organization of events. This system is very dependent on uncontrollable processes. The proposed "green" organization model consists of subjects that are not closely connected from the information point of view. Therefore, they do not always work according to the system of vectors of one direction. Here, the control objects are characterized not only by economic performance, such as income or contribution to the result but also by the stress system and the level of happiness. Thus, the understanding of an organization and qualitative or quantitative changes in the "green" organizational model connects with the before-mentioned characteristics of the system as safety, environmental friendliness, stability, and clarity to achieve organizational effectiveness.?

The study published in 2019 in the Journal of Leadership & Organization Development discusses the collaborative organizational model for the corporate innovations stringently described in the essay by Kung Wong Lau, Pui Yuen Chung, and Yan Yi Chung. The article addresses the claims that, concerning conventional organizations, they tend to learn real skills for daily activities. Several existing models, including the double-loop learning model, Hedberg's unlearning model, Senge's team learning model, Pedler et al. model, Isaacs ' triple-loop learning?model (Kung, Pui, & Chung, 2019), proponents internal and team learning. While the new paradigm and basic concepts of organizational model learning prioritize "why" learning and critical analysis for problem-solving or business change, different existing models are distinctive and are based on the grouping of modes of business learning models, a bias is towards models associated with the relationship The dynamic matrix structure is less prevalent in comparison.

The International Journal of Innovation published Achim Hecker’s article, namely ?"The Intrapreneurial Nature of Organizational Innovation: Towards a New process Model" in the year 2017; he alludes that the OECD and Eurostat Oslo manuals in 2005 carried forward on a widely accepted attempt to unify the conceptual foundation of innovative analysis and indicators, lodging an organizational innovation as "the integration in business processes, corporate management or external relations of a new organizational system" (Hecker 2017, p2). Here, the comparison point of innovation includes many similarly reasonable expectations-e.g., new for both the organization versus new for the marketplace versus new for the world. Discover and incorporate modern, ultramodern management approaches, procedures, systems, frameworks, or techniques. The existing literature addresses the non-technological aspect, the behavioral dimension, the degree of why a particular specificity and distinctiveness guard this kind of invention. As a result, corporate innovations are particularly unique to the founder and are typically changed dramatically (Hakim, 2017). At the same level, the existing literature gradually builds on these features to set up an argument for viewing organizational innovations as a subject of further research.

?Redux Together: A Conclusive Observations

Organizational design thinking comes with innovative behavior and the team's psychological empowerment. Organizational learning is the focal point in organizational design and innovation- within and between organizations at the individual, team, organizational, and inter-organizational levels. Organizational innovation is the process of improving strategic action through better knowledge and understanding that is actor-oriented; the problem-based approach of design thinking is the core of innovative organizational development.?

Organizational design is an insightful procedure of "designing structures, forms, reward frameworks, and individuals practices to make a successful association" that will have the option to accomplish its technique and objectives (Kates and Galbraith, 2007, p.1). The organizational design structure can empower managers to make a beneficial, pleasant workplace for achieving new goals, which will serve the person just as aggregate premiums and invigorate learning. It characterizes organizational design as "a specific type of human critical thinking where the issue is one of getting various people with assorted information and interests to accomplish something that they could not by acting exclusively on the whole" (Puranam, 2012).

Furthermore, the positively moderate relationship between transformational leadership and innovation at the individual, team, and organizational levels are becoming a new norm. Therefore, an emphatic relationship between organic organizational structure and organizational design, building even more efficient functional relationships and continuously putting newly gained knowledge into practice.

References.

?Cousins, B., (2018). Design Thinking: Organizational Learning in VUCA Environments.?Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 1-18. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2046108661?accountid=100141?

Kates, A., & Galbraith, J. R. (2007). The Star Model. Retrieved March 20, 2020, from https://www.jaygalbraith.com/images/pdfs/StarModel.pdf

Kung, W. L., Pui, Y. L., & Chung, Y. Y. (2019). A collective organizational learning model for organizational development.?Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(1), 107-123. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0228

Puranam, P. (2012). A Future for the Science of Organization Design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1), 18-19. Roblek, V. Retrieved March 20, 2020, from https://www.jorgdesign.net/article/view/6337

Shindina, T. A. (2017). The paradigm of a "green" organizational model: New approaches to quality life and the evolution of organizational theories: Acces la success access la success.?Calitatea, 18(160), 156-161. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1943030524?accountid=100141

Worren, N., Jeroen, v. B., & Zybach, W. (2019). Organization design challenges: Results from a practitioner survey.?Journal of Organization Design, 8(1), 1-18. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41469-019-0053-x

XUE, W., & SUN, S. (2019). Relationship between organizational improvisation and organizational creativity under multiple regression analysis.?Revista De Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala, 65, 206-229. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2263270194?accountid=100141