1. “Combining strategic objectives and technical business requirements with emotions and conceptual
thinking, design thinking is used to create interactions between people and systems, products or
technology, with a goal of making those interactions simple, intuitive, and empathetic.”
By Lisa M. Meyer
Design Thinking
A View Through the Lens of Practice
This article is an opportunity for me to
reflect upon my experiences of practicing
design thinking and to share those aspects
of design thinking that I believe to be of
the greatest benefit to successful OD work.
I will also look beyond the mystique sur-
rounding design thinking and explore the
theoretical, practical, and philosophical
linkages between OD and Design.
Not What, But How
Most descriptions of design thinking
appearing in business and social media
begin by making an effort to expand the
reader’s view of design. This is to over-
come the potential misperception that
design is simply a set of technical skills.
The descriptions then go on to reposition
design as being a process that involves
a way of thinking. But, most research-
ers agree that there is no one, generally
accepted definition of design thinking, and
some think we should not look for one.
Instead, the emphasis should be placed
on where and how the concept is used in
practice, and what meaning is given to the
concept (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodlilla &
Mehves, 2013).
In practice, design thinking is often
associated with the creation of a “designed
artifact” like a new product, system, or
technology. However, due to the increasing
complexity of organizations and technol-
ogy, the definition of design thinking has
evolved and the application has expanded.
Today, design thinking is being applied in
a wide range of organizational settings,
including the design of business models
and interventions for introducing new
concepts into complex systems or gaining
stakeholder acceptance for change. Com-
bining strategic objectives and technical
business requirements with emotions and
conceptual thinking, design thinking is
used to create interactions between people
and systems, products or technology, with
a goal of making those interactions simple,
intuitive, and empathetic (Brown & Martin,
2015; Kolko, 2015).
This application of design thinking
makes particular sense for how it is used
in Organization Development. OD, like
Design, is an applied discipline. As OD
practitioners we use knowledge from the
social and behavioral sciences along with
contributions from management stud-
ies, industrial/organizational psychology,
human resources management, com-
munication sociology, and many other
disciplines to make meaning in our work
(Jamieson & Armstrong, 2007; Anderson,
2014). Successful OD practice, like design,
requires the kind of integrative thinking
that the practitioner acquires through the
combination of formal education, formal
training, and experience.
A Third Way of Knowing
The concept of design thinking as the
integration of a designer’s methods into
management practices gathered popular
media attention starting around 2004.
Articles like Design Thinking, by Tim
Brown, published by the Harvard Business
42 OD PRACTITIONER Vol.47 No.4 2015

2. Review in 2008, captured the imagination
of management leaders by introducing
design thinking as a new way of thinking
that designers and non-designers could use
to be more innovative, to deal with com-
plex reality or, as a source of imagination
(Brown, 2008; Johansson-Sköldberg, et al.,
2013). The business and social media’s
fascination with design thinking reached a
high point in 2009 (Johansson-Sköldberg
et al., 2013) but for researchers, design
thinking has been an object of study for at
least 30 years (Garcia, 2012). The discourse
on design thinking in the business press
focuses mainly on a way of thinking but
there is a much deeper appreciation for
design thinking that is put forth by Nigel
Cross in his book, Designerly Ways of
Knowing (2006). Cross asserts that design
thinking is a way of thinking that, in its
largest context, comes from a different way
of knowing.
This different way of knowing refers
to the way that human beings interface
with their world and their desire to shape
their environment. Anthropologists
have found tools over 2.5 million years
old that are handcrafted with materials
capable of hammering, chopping, dig-
ging, and cutting. Nigel Cross references
these artifacts as evidence of how ancient
humans, in this prehistoric way of reshap-
ing their environment, were capable of a
way of knowing that is older, he argued,
than science and the humanities and even
precedes language.
Although Cross is relating design
to sciences and the humanities, he also
asserts that design cannot be classified
within the realm of either science or the
humanities because it exists in action
(practice) and it examines what he calls
the realm of the appropriate as opposed
to seeking objective truth (science) or
subjective understanding (the humanities).
“Designers attempt to solve ill-defined
problems by proposing and trying solu-
tions rather than by seeking all possible
information” (Cross, 2006).
This placement of design as a practice
that exists separate from, but related to,
science and research-based knowledge
should resonate with OD professionals who
are familiar with Donald Schön’s explora-
tion of this topic in The Reflective Practi-
tioner and other writings. His writings on
Reflective Practice formed the basis for
conceiving of design as a discipline with its
own forms of knowledge, awareness, and
ability (Cross, 2001).
Schön was interested in the rela-
tionship between practice competence
(a designer’s skill) and professional
knowledge (theory and science). He
observed that theory, which is derived
from the application of systematic, scien-
tific knowledge, works best at solving prob-
lems of a type that he called well-formed,
instrumental problems. But, he noted,
problems of real work do not present
themselves as well-formed structures. In
fact they tended not to present themselves
as problems at all, but as “messy, indeter-
minate situations” (Schön, 1987).
Schön focused his attention on the
way designers deal with these messy,
indeterminate situations. He observed that
designers acquire their mastery through
practice, not study. It is in the doing and
the thinking about the doing, that the
learning takes place. He called this phe-
nomenon Reflective Practice, which leads to
tacit knowledge or what he called Knowing-
in-Action. Tacit knowledge is the type of
know-how that is revealed by doing, like
for example, riding a bike. It is knowledge
revealed through spontaneous, skillful
execution. The knowing is in the action
(Schön, 1987).
A Third Way of Reasoning
In addition to applying a different way of
knowing, designers use a type of reason-
ing that is different from that which is
used by most managers and scientists
(Garcia, 2012). This is another important
contribution that design offers for integra-
tion into OD practice.
In design thinking, abductive reason-
ing is used to generate ideas and form solu-
tions to ill-defined problems (Cross, 2006).
Abduction differs from deduction and
induction (the other two ways of reason-
ing) in that it uses the logic of conjecture to
suggest that something may be. The work-
ing assumption is that a problem cannot
be fully understood. Even after exhaustive
analysis, there can never be a guarantee
that all of the necessary information exists
and that correct solutions can be found
(Cross, 2006; Garcia, 2012). The focus is
not on finding the right solution but on
producing the most satisfactory solution to
the problem.
Design thinking uses abductive
reasoning as a third way of reasoning to
be added to deduction and induction. A
problem-solving cycle is formed, with
abduction used for the generation of ideas
and solutions followed by deductive reason-
ing for the predicting of consequences of
those ideas, and then to inductive reason-
ing for the testing and generalization of
proposed solutions. This problem-solving
cycle generates data that is then fed back
into the abductive reasoning mode for the
process to begin again (Johansson-Sköld-
berg et al., 2013).
Schön was interested in the relationship between practice
competence (a designer’s skill) and professional knowledge
(theory and science). He observed that theory, which is derived
from the application of systematic, scientific knowledge, works
best at solving problems of a type that he called well-formed,
instrumental problems. But, he noted, problems of real work do
not present themselves as well-formed structures. In fact they
tended not to present themselves as problems at all, but as
“messy, indeterminate situations”...
43Design Thinking: A View Through the Lens of Practice

3. Integrating concepts from both Cross
and Garcia, Table 1 provides a simplified
construct for linking the three ways of
knowing and the three ways of reasoning
with their respective methodologies and
core values.
Design Thinking, In Other Words
Even for OD practitioners who are unfa-
miliar with the concept of design think-
ing, the characteristics of design thinking
should seem familiar, for they are, in many
ways, consistent with well-established
OD methodologies. For instance, in his
extensive writing on process consultation,
Edgar Schein introduced a philosophy of
helping and a methodology of how to be
helpful that includes ten principles that he
calls the essence of process consultation.
The ideas behind the ten principles of pro-
cess consulting have a strong relationship
to the principles of design thinking. As
an example, in the discussion of the first
principle, Always Try to be Helpful, Schein
wrote about understanding the nature of
a situation. He asserted that information
based upon past conceptions or psycho-
logical needs can get in the way of making
a wise choice for how to best help in the
current moment. He goes on to say that the
client and consultant can approximate how
their current assumptions and perceptions
create their reality and how they can best
deal with that reality in terms of the client’s
intentions to improve the situation (Schein,
1999). This description matches the
concept in design thinking that a problem
is approached through assumptions and
abductive reasoning rather than the analy-
sis of observations and conclusions from
past data (Razzouk & Shute, 2012).
Design thinking is most often inte-
grated into OD interventions as tacit
knowledge that has been learned through
practice and experience. When asked to
reflect on the relative importance of formal
knowledge, skill, and tacit know-how in
process consultation, Schein responded
that all three are relevant to the creation
of a helping relationship. He believed
that “the consultant should always select
whatever intervention will be most helpful
at any given moment, given all one knows
about the total situation” (p. 245). He
further asserts that knowledge of many dif-
ferent kinds of interventions does not sub-
stitute for the know-how of sensing what
is needed right now in terms of facilitating
forward movement in the relationship
(Schein, 1999). With this, Schein elevates
tacit knowledge, as a contributor to suc-
cessful OD interventions, to be on par with
formal knowledge and formal training. He
opens the door to visceral “gut” feelings
and hunches being as useful in OD inter-
ventions as theories and techniques.
Design in Practice
A few years ago, when rising college
tuition and increased student debt brought
attention to the need for higher levels
of financial support for undergraduates,
I became the organizer of a project for
redesigning the process for awarding and
tracking undergraduate scholarships at a
large public university.
Undergraduate scholarships are
important strategic tools for universities.
They are used for purposes that include
recruiting a diverse class of academic
achievers, supporting students with
financial need, attracting student athletes,
and for student activities such as march-
ing band and the school newspaper.
There are many different funding sources
for scholarships including Federal and
State government, private philanthropic
organizations and individuals, and the
university itself.
Leading up to this project, the uni-
versity had employed several means for
increasing the dollars available for under-
graduate scholarships, and as a result many
more scholarships were being awarded
throughout the entire university. Under-
graduate scholarships were being awarded
by centralized admissions and financial aid
offices and by decentralized campuses, col-
leges, and departments. With over 40,000
undergraduates enrolled in over 150 majors
in 14 colleges on five campuses, there
were literally hundreds of “checkbooks”
for scholarships across the university. But,
along with this increase in student support,
came the need for improved processes for
awarding scholarships and better account-
ability for how scholarships were being
utilized. There was no systematic way for
tracking, in the aggregate, how many stu-
dents received scholarships, or how much
they received. As a result, there was no way
of knowing if the system as a whole was
succeeding in the collective mission.
Decentralization was a complicating
factor. Each campus, college, and depart-
ment had developed its own procedures
for distributing scholarships with differ-
ent timing, different tracking, and dif-
ferent accounting systems in place. As one
administrator said “all the pieces are out
Table 1. Situating Design as a Way of Knowing with Science and the Humanities
Ways of
Knowing
Operative
Realm
Means of
Showing and
Testing
In Search Of… Primary
Applied
Reasoning
Science Natural
Phenomena
Controlled
Experiments,
Classification,
and Analysis.
Objective Truth,
Rationality, and
Neutrality.
Inductive
Deductive
Humanities The Human
Experience
Analogies,
Metaphors,
and
Evaluations.
Subjective
Understanding,
Commitment,
and Concern for
“Justice.”
Deductive
Inductive
Design A Created,
Manmade
Artificial
World
Visualization,
Mock-ups,
and
Prototyping.
Practicality,
Ingenuity, Empathy,
and Concern for
“Appropriateness.”
Abductive
Inductive
Deductive
OD PRACTITIONER Vol.47 No. 4 201544

4. there, we just can’t put them together.”
There was no reliable means of seeing the
“big picture.”
A Messy, Indeterminate Situation
It was critical for the leadership of the
university to have a full picture of finan-
cial support for undergraduates. This was
needed to track progress toward a goal for
increased student support and to partici-
pate in the national conversation regarding
the cost of higher education and student
debt. Yet, there was no consensus as to who
at the university owned the problem, much
less who was responsible for “fixing” it.
This is characteristic of what Schön
called a messy, indeterminate situation
also sometimes known as a “wicked”
problem, defined by Richard Buchanan as
a class of social systems problems without
a single solution and where much creativ-
ity is needed to find solutions (Johansson-
Sköldberg, et al., 2013).
I led the project team that was assem-
bled to address this “wicked” problem. The
team consisted of myself and four other
university leaders, from financial aid,
information systems, communications
and marketing who, due to their role at
the university, also had responsibilities
for the stewardship of scholarship fund-
ing. They were all skilled, collaborative,
design thinkers.
Having a team that was skilled at
design thinking proved to be a criti-
cal success factor. Schön writes that in
complex situations, competence takes on
new meaning. Existing knowledge matters
less and reflection is necessary, reflection
on the meaning of the situation (Schön,
1987). Rather than focus on analyzing the
complexities of scholarship system, what
Schön would call the surface features of
the problem, the project team had to adopt
what Cross calls a conjectural approach to
framing the problem, approaching the task
through solution conjectures, rather than
through problem analysis.
This application of design thinking
is consistent with what Johanansson-
Sköldberg, et al. call using design thinking
as a problem solving activity. Design situa-
tions are intuitively or deliberately shaped,
identifying the views of all participants
and the issues of concern. The interven-
tion then becomes a working hypothesis
for exploration and development, thereby
letting the problem formulation and the
solution go hand in hand rather than as
sequential steps (Johansson-Sköldberg,
et al., 2013).
Schön wrote that in order to formulate
a design problem to be solved, the designer
must frame the situation, set its boundar-
ies, and impose a coherence that guides
subsequent moves. He also pointed out
that the work of framing is seldom done
in one burst at the beginning of a design
process, which was true for the scholarship
project. We found that problem-framing
activities re-occurred periodically through-
out the project, which is consistent with the
opportunistic nature of design thinking.
Phase one of what was ultimately a
three-phased project utilized the Lewinian
method of getting the whole system in
the room. Over 50 individuals who were
involved in awarding scholarships at the
university including fundraisers, accoun-
tants, information systems managers,
financial aid officers, and admissions spe-
cialists were gathered for a half day dialog
and workshop. The purpose was to raise
awareness for the strategic importance of
scholarships to the university and to gain
appreciation for the size and scope of the
scholarship accountability problem.
Working with strategic marketing con-
sultants, the team collaboratively designed
a facilitated intervention with the goal of
gaining a better understanding of the dif-
ferent lenses through which the partici-
pants view undergraduate scholarships,
not in a technical sense, but as users of
scholarships, focusing on their user experi-
ence, especially the emotional aspects of
the experience. Techniques included a
World Café in which participants shared
stories of the many different ways they
were involved with undergraduate schol-
arships at the university and a picture
sorting, visualization exercise designed to
generate metaphors and elicit emotional
language (desires, aspirations) from partici-
pants as they described their experiences
working with scholarships.
This is consistent with the application
of design thinking for what Johansson-
Sköldberg, et al. refer to as a way of making
sense of things. The intervention was
designed to make sense of and general-
ize from observations, and find patterns
that are grounded in practical experience
and can be described through practical
examples.
Through this process a vision for
undergraduate scholarships was formed
that contained three key concepts:
» Scholarships can be used to benefit
many important goals of the university.
» The University can be a better steward
of the funding it receives for scholar-
ships from private donors, state, and
federal sources.
» Scholarships should be viewed through
a student-centric lens, instead of the
separate lenses of each office, campus,
college, and department.
Schön wrote that in order to formulate a design problem
to be solved, the designer must frame the situation, set its
boundaries, and impose a coherence that guides subsequent
moves. He also pointed out that the work of framing is seldom
done in one burst at the beginning of a design process, which
was true for the scholarship project. We found that problem-
framing activities re-occurred periodically throughout the
project, which is consistent with the opportunistic nature of
design thinking.
45Design Thinking: A View Through the Lens of Practice

5. With this, we had begun to capture the
benefit of design thinking.
Following the intervention, the project
team gathered to review the outcome of the
workshop, and to design a plan for phases
two of the project. The vision of being
student-centric provided a key insight into
the systems view we were taking. We asked,
what if we view scholarships through the
student systems lens instead of a university
accounting lens? How would that change
what we are doing? The ensuing discus-
sions led to the idea of approaching the
problem not as an accounting problem,
but as an information problem. With this
insight, we employed more design thinking
tools; visualization and prototyping, and
collaboratively designed mock-ups for a
suite of reports that visualized the manage-
ment information we desired and how we
would want it organized. This represented
our desired state.
With the clarity provided by the proto-
type reports we could then ask whether the
student enrollment system could provide
the information we were seeking. Essen-
tially, we wanted to know, for each enrolled
student, whether the student received a
scholarship or scholarships, if so, how
much support was received, and what were
the sources of the scholarship funding.
We found that approximately 70-80% of
the information we desired existed in the
student system and, with additional effort
and systems work, that percentage could be
increased. We concluded that this approach
would be an appropriate and satisfactory
solution to our information problem.
Phase three of the project was oppor-
tunity to use the scholarship informa-
tion obtained from the student system to
address the issue of accountability. This
final step would prove to be extremely ben-
eficial to the university and its students.
There is a phenomenon in scholarship
awarding where, for various reasons, not all
the awarded scholarships are actually used
by the students. Scholarship administrators
generally manage budgets using an “allot-
ment mentality,” counting each scholarship
award as spent, whether it actually was
or not. By linking the utilization informa-
tion from the student system back to the
funding source of the scholarship, it was
possible to “balance the checkbooks.” As
a result scholarship administrators could
determine how much was actually available
to spend (rather than budgeted) and pre-
vent the accumulation of unspent balances.
This substantially increased the efficiency
of the awarding process, resulting in more
money in the hands of more students every
year, year after year, all with relatively mod-
est systems modifications and training.
Through the application of design
thinking, the project team was able to
achieve strategic alignment with the inde-
pendent units of the university and create
a satisfactory solution that did not require
changes in monolithic organizational
systems, processes, and structures. This
is an example of using design activities in
the way Worley and Mohrman describe: to
flexibly manage a loosely connected and
dynamic portfolio of recurring and emer-
gent collaborations among stakeholders
(Worley & Mohrman, 2014). With each sub-
sequent cycle, the scholarship administra-
tors became more proficient at their work
and the process of awarding scholarships
becomes even more efficient and effective.
Design Thinking: Helpful and Useful
Thus far, I have intentionally avoided refer-
ences that serve to elevate designers to a
special status or infer that design think-
ing is limited to those who practice in the
profession of design. That view is, to me,
counter-productive to appreciating design
thinking as Nigel Cross described it; a com-
mon human skill with a focus on human
capacity and a human way of knowing
(Cross, 2006). Furthermore, design think-
ing should not be thought of as a toolbox
with specific techniques to be taken out of
context, as tools ready for use. The error
of this thinking is as damaging to design
thinking as it is to the practice of OD.
The person using the tools must have the
knowledge and skill to know when to use
them (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013).
Both OD and Design share a focus on
human needs and take a human-centered
approach to their work (Worley & Feyer-
herm, 2003; Brown, 2008). The OD values
of respect, inclusion, and collaboration
are compatible and complementary with
the design values of practicality, ingenuity,
empathy, and a concern for “appropriate-
ness” (Anderson, 2014; Jamieson & Worley,
2008; Garcia, 2012).
One of the more important shared
characteristics of OD and Design is the
natural and ubiquitous human activity
of problem solving. Both OD and Design
practitioners enter a system because of
some dissatisfaction with the current state.
Both address the situation with a determi-
nation that some action must be taken to
solve the problem or create change. In that
view, many OD practitioners have been
practicing design thinking without being
aware of it (Razzouk & Shute, 2012).
Design thinking is focused on finding
solutions rather than explaining problems.
It is protection from “analysis paralysis.”
In design thinking, problems are looked
upon as system problems with opportu-
nities for systemic solutions involving
different procedures and concepts to
create a holistic solution (Razzouk &
One of the more important shared characteristics of OD and
Design is the natural and ubiquitous human activity of problem
solving. Both OD and Design practitioners enter a system
because of some dissatisfaction with the current state. Both
address the situation with a determination that some action
must be taken to solve the problem or create change. In that
view, many OD practitioners have been practicing design
thinking without being aware of it...
OD PRACTITIONER Vol.47 No. 4 201546

6. Shute, 2012). In the case of the university
scholarship project, finding the appropri-
ate solution depended upon maintaining a
focus on the big picture and empathy with
the users’ needs, and not on analyzing the
myriad complicating factors within the
accounting systems of a large, complex,
decentralized university. The opportu-
nity for a systemic solution was found in
viewing what was initially conceived as an
accounting problem through a different
lens, an information lens, and using the
student enrollment system to provide the
information needed for a holistic solu-
tion. Design thinking helped produce a
satisfactory, appropriate, iterative solution
for more effective and efficient awarding
of scholarships that continues to improve
with repeated application.
A Lifelong Practice
My experience in design thinking came
first in corporate work as a professional
in marketing and communications where
design thinking is routinely put into
practice for developing creative solutions to
client problems. I use it now as a doctoral
student in Organization Development
where I apply design thinking to my work
and study in OD.
I have collaborated with many talented
designers and through these experiences
I have come to appreciate the principles
of design thinking and the potential for
their application in OD. Integrating design
thinking into an OD practice brings many
benefits to the OD practitioner includ-
ing the ability to better understand the
nature of the problem, to be simultane-
ously analytical and conceptual, and to not
lose sight of the big picture. Through the
application of design thinking, I am better
able to act in context, to respond propor-
tionately and to be concerned with inclu-
sion and universality. This is the essence of
design thinking when viewed through the
lens of practice, appropriateness, sensing,
and solution-based. It is what works
right now.
References
Anderson, D. L. (2014). Organization devel-
opment: the process of leading organiza-
tional change (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Brown, T. (2008, June). Design thinking.
Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–96.
Brown, T., & Martin, R. (2015, September).
Design for action. Harvard Business
Review, 93(9), 58–64.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of know-
ing: design descipline versus design
science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of know-
ing. London, UK: Springer Verlag.
Garcia, L. M. (2012). Understanding design
thinking, exploration and exploitation:
Implications for design strategy. IDBM
Papers, 2, 152–161.
Jamieson, D. W., & Armstrong, T. R.
(2008). Client-Consultant Engagement:
What it takes to create value. Paper
presented at AOM Management Consult-
ing Conference.
Jamieson, D. W., & Worley, C. G. (2008).
The Practice of Organization Devel-
opment. In T. Cummings (Ed.), The
handbook of organization development.
San Francisco, CA: Sage.
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodlilla, J., &
Mehves, C. (2013). Design thinking:
past, present, and possible futures.
Creativity and Innovation Management,
22(2), 121–146.
Kolko, J. (2015, September). Design think-
ing comes of age. Harvard Business
Review, 93(9), 66–71.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is
design thinking and why is it impor-
tant? Review of Educational Research,
82(3), 330–347.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflec-
tive practitioner, toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Schein, E. (1999). Process consultation
revisited: building the helping relationship.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Tischler, L. (2009, January 14). Design
thinking: A designer takes on his biggst
challenge ever. Fast Company.
Van De Ven, A. (2007). Engaged Scholar-
ship, A guide for organizational and social
research (reprinted in 2013 ed.). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Worley, C. G., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2003).
Reflections on the future of organiza-
tion development. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 39(1), 97–115.
Worley, C. G., & Mohrman, S. A. (2014). Is
change management obsolete? Organi-
zational Dynamics, 43(3), 214–224.
Lisa M. Meyer’s corporate career
includes senior management
positions at Carmichael Lynch
Advertising, Marquette Financial
Companies, River Road Enter-
tainment, and the University of
Minnesota Foundation. Meyer is
currently pursuing a doctorate
in Organization Development at
the University of St. Thomas in
Minnesota. Other degrees include
a BA in music education from the
University of Northern Iowa, and
an MFA in arts administration from
the University of Iowa. She can be
reached at lisameyer@att.net.
47Design Thinking: A View Through the Lens of Practice