Guidelines for training design thinking

in organizations
Erin Michelle Todd and Payton Stewart

Erin Michelle Todd is based Abstract

at the School of Leadership Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically review the literature on design thinking training to
and Human Resource elucidate guidelines for best practices of design thinking training interventions.
Development, Louisiana Design/methodology/approach – The literature was reviewed, which outlined several themes that
State University, Baton informed a series of recommendations for organizations considering developing design thinking training.
Rouge, Louisiana, USA. Findings – Process-based training, delivery activities and content, skills-based approach, delivery
Payton Stewart is based at format, support for training and training evaluation were identified as key themes in the literature. These
themes highlighted practical recommendations for developing design thinking training interventions.
the Department of
Findings also demonstrate current limitations in the literature.
Psychology, University of
Research limitations/implications – Research on design thinking training is limited; therefore,
Saint Thomas, Houston,
recommendations for training should be applied carefully. The limited research points to a fruitful area for
Texas, USA. future research and development of design thinking training.
Practical implications – This paper suggests that researchers and practitioners should develop face-
to-face or hybrid design thinking training interventions that follow the design thinking process and focus
on the development of relevant skills, using interactive, user-focused and design visualization activities.
Results suggest that adequate support for training should be provided, and outcomes of training should
be empirically evaluated.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to review the design
thinking training literature and provide general recommendations for both design thinking training
development and design thinking research.
Keywords Design thinking training, Design thinking, Training in organizations, Skills training,
Creativity, Innovation, Creativity training
Paper type General review

Introduction
An increasing number of universities and organizations espouse design thinking (DT) as an
important factor toward success, with class curricula and organizational training programs
teaching DT. For example, one of the most popular proponents of DT is MIT’s Sloan School
of Management, offering an online certificate in “Mastering Design Thinking” that is
marketed toward product managers, senior designers, CEOs and innovation and growth
consultants (MIT Sloan, 2023). IDEO, a global design firm, founded an online school,
“IDEO U,” that offers at least 12 online courses in DT and reports that companies such as
Twitter, Ford and General Electric are part of their notable clientele (Design thinking, 2023).
Scholars also promote DT as an effective tool across levels of an organization: for
managers, individual creative workers and creative teams (Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018; Roth
Received 18 October 2022 et al., 2020; Tschimmel, 2012). It has been argued that DT training may be very valuable to
Revised 2 May 2023 improve peoples’ skills in solving creative problems and organizations’ innovative
Accepted 31 May 2023
performance (Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018; Tu et al., 2018). Yet, support for these assertions is
The authors thanks to Grace
Gandy for their contributions to
lacking. At the time of writing this manuscript (October 2022), few empirical studies or
this manuscript. reviews of DT have been conducted, and the research on DT training is even more limited.

PAGE 364 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023, pp. 364-374, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 DOI 10.1108/ICT-10-2022-0076
As such, there is no consensus or guide on how to effectively teach or train DT. The
purpose of this paper is to review the literature on training DT such that guidelines for
training DT are provided.

What is design thinking, and why is it important?

Design thinking definition
There is no standard accepted definition of DT. Recent definitions of DT include the
following:
䊏 an iterative, nonlinear exploratory process that results in innovation (Brown and Katz,
2019);
䊏 a problem-solving approach characterized by an emphasis on empathy, user-
centricity, integrative thinking, collaboration and the active use of ideation and
visualization tools (Liedtka, 2014); and
䊏 a process focusing on the user, problem framing, prototyping, iteration and diversity
with the goal of innovation (Carlgren et al., 2016).
DT also should yield solutions that are of high quality, practical and feasibly implemented
(Brown, 2008).
While these and other conceptualizations of DT to some extent differ, most definitions relate
that DT is an innovation-focused, iterative problem-solving process centered on fulfilling the
needs and requirements of the user(s) (Curedale, 2013; Erbeldinger et al., 2015; Plattner
et al., 2009). DT intentionally separates itself from standard problem-solving by
emphasizing user-experience or human-centered design (Adikari et al., 2013).
With DT being a process, there have also been a variety of process models proposed to
delineate the steps of DT. Commonly, models of DT (D.school, 2010; Plattner et al., 2009;
Schallmo et al., 2018) include the following steps:
䊏 understand/empathize with the user(s) experiencing the problem;
䊏 observe the users and/or relevant proxies to gather more information about them;
䊏 define the problem with this information in mind;
䊏 generate ideas to solve the problem;
䊏 build prototypes; and
䊏 test solutions.
As stated in the definition, the steps of DT are also iterative and sometimes nonsequential
dependent on the requirements of the problem and the information gathered.

Importance of design thinking

The importance of DT follows its definition and process model. With a focus on innovation
and user design, DT may have a large impact on organizational innovation practices and
creative product development. Because organizations must innovate to survive in today’s
competitive markets (Domı́nguez-Escrig et al., 2019), DT may be key to the vitality of
organizations. As such, organizations have taken an interest in facilitating DT by integrating
it into their culture (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018), changing their structure (Wrigley et al.,
2020) and training DT (Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018).
Proponents of DT training argue that DT training can develop the skills to effectively respond
to complex problems, dynamic environments and adapting organizations (Glen et al., 2014;

VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 365

 Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018). However, the effects of DT training are largely unknown, and it is
unclear how DT training itself should be designed.

Paper purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify key themes within the DT training literature and to
develop a series of practical recommendations to facilitate the successful implementation of
DT training.

Method
A comprehensive literature review followed by a thematic content analysis was conducted.
It should be noted that rather than adopting the methodology of a systematic literature
review (SLR), the aim of this paper is to provide insights drawn from a thorough literature
review to assist practitioners and researchers in their understanding of the literature and
how DT training may be better designed and implemented in organizations. As such, the
literature review was conducted following guidelines for SLRs, as well as previous general
literature reviews (Harris et al., 2009; Moher et al., 2009; Passmore, 2019).
To be as comprehensive as possible, two researchers conducted the same literature
search using several large databases (EBSCOhost; Emerald, Google Scholar, ProQuest,
ScienceDirect) to gather and review relevant articles. These databases were selected due
to their accessibility by the authors at their institutions, they have large repositories of
research studies and they were determined to provide a thorough representation of
literature on the subject. A total of 334 articles were retrieved using top-level search terms
“design thinking” and “training” or “developing” or “education” or “teaching” in the title or
abstract. The number of articles was subsequently reduced to 37 following the application
of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the suggestions of previous
review studies (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). Inclusion criteria were English-language;
double-blind, peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles or conference proceedings. Exclusion
criteria were commentaries, editorial notes, book reviews and letters to the editor. In
addition, abstracts were scanned, and articles were selected based on relevance to the
present effort, with articles focusing on the development and/or training of DT being
retained.
The retrieved articles were divided between the researchers and reviewed using a data
extraction and review template focused on various potential aspects of DT training (e.g.
training content, delivery, evaluation). Following review, the researchers discussed and
analyzed findings for common and key themes. These themes are discussed in the
Findings and recommendations section below, and Table 1 summarizing this information is
provided in the supplementary material.

Findings and recommendations

The findings highlight many limitations regarding the quantity and quality of the current
evidence on DT training. However, the literature coupled with its limitations offers
recommendations and quality assurance steps for organizations interested in DT training. In
particular, the literature may be used to discuss suggestions for DT training content and
delivery, as well as requirements for the successful implementation of DT training.
The literature review process identified several recurring themes in DT training. These
themes include process-based training, delivery activities and content, skills-based
approach, delivery format, support for training and training evaluation. They are discussed
below.

PAGE 366 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023

Process-based training
The few studies on DT training support that DT training should be process-based, following
the DT process model. In addition, analyses of similar training interventions, such as
creativity training, have found that a process-based approach is effective for training
creativity and similar skills (Scott et al., 2004b). For example, Tu et al. (2018) found that
students in DT courses did not excel at DT unless each DT process was taught extensively,
with each DT process being given individual attention through activities, presentations and
review. In addition to training the DT process model, the previous DT processes should be
reviewed when a new process is taught, such that trainees learn how the processes are
connected and inform each other. Similarly, Saggar et al. (2017) found that participants who
cycle through the DT processes of observe, brainstorm, synthesize, prototype and
implement demonstrated improvements in creativity. As reviewed previously in this article,
there is no consensus on one specific DT process model; however, the summary of the
process models in this paper that accounts for the varying models may serve as a guide to
inform process-based DT training interventions. Therefore, it is recommended that
developers of DT training structure training following the DT process model, devoting
attention to each process and their relationship to each other.

Training activities and content

When reviewing training activities, those that have received the most support and attention
are extensive interactive activities, user-focused activities and design visualization activities.
Extensive interactive activities Interactive activities include groupwork, roleplay, active
discussion and games. Tu et al.’s (2018) study on training design teachers particularly
demonstrated support for interactive activities. In this study, DT teachers were taught the
DT process model of empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test. Then, teachers taught
DT as a stepwise process to their students in design courses. Notably, students initially
rejected and did not understand the empathize phase of the DT process when the phase
was taught via lecture-style slide presentation. However, when students were taught the
empathize phase using practical role-playing exercises (e.g. interviewing classmates to
learn how to gather user-centered information), students’ understanding of the phase and
skill in applying it improved. Tu et al. (2018) also found that longer, more extensive training
led to increased understanding of the concept of DT and its processes. Specifically, each
process and its requisite activities were given two weeks, and each process was reviewed
with weekly progress reports. These longer training periods provide more time for the
inclusion of more time-consuming interactive activities, as well as provide learners with
more time to process content.
Additional literature also supports using interactive activities and longer training programs.
Seidel and Fixson (2013) note that DT typically is a group effort that requires active
collaboration and codesigning, making group interactive activities especially useful for DT
training. Relatedly, Dijksterhuis and Silvius (2017) found that interactive group activities,
such as rapid group prototyping, helped trainees improve their improvisational skills and
confidence in applying DT. Kurtmollaiev et al. (2018) assessed the effectiveness of a two-
day training intervention and found that group-based information gathering, idea generation
and prototyping led to improved innovation output. Saggar et al. (2017) also found that a
training intervention comprising five 2-h group classes with group design activities
improved creative capabilities. Therefore, DT training that applies interactive activities (e.g.
group idea generation and prototyping) and takes place over a longer timeframe (e.g.
longer than a day) is recommended.
User-focused activities Another implication of the Tu et al. (2018) study reviewed above is
that activities focused on empathizing with the user are particularly important for DT training.
One key aspect of DT that differentiates it from other problem-solving models is its focus on

VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 367

 the user (Brown and Katz, 2011). Therefore, ethnographic methods that enable user
understanding should be used in DT training. Example activities are job shadowing,
observing and interviewing users, videography, empathy journey maps (i.e. outlining of user
experiences), storyboarding and the outlining of personas (i.e. imagining the needs to
hypothetical users) (Beckman and Barry, 2007; Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005;
Tschimmel, 2012). Indeed, Kurtmollaiev et al. (2018) found that user-centered activities
such as the development of customer journey maps, emotion cards (i.e. reflecting on user
emotional experiences) and personas were key components of DT training, and it is
recommended to apply such activities in DT training.
Design visualization activities. An underlying component of many of the interactive and
user-focused activities described above is that they are also design visualization activities
that encourage designers to physically delineate information. Example activities include the
development of journey maps, drawing and sketching, originality and quality graphing
activities (e.g. evaluating ideas by graphing them based on originality and quality rankings),
roleplaying, service blueprinting (i.e. visualizing both frontstage and backstage processes)
and field experiments (i.e. testing prototypes in context) (Liedtka, 2014; Stickdorn and
Schneider, 2012). These visualization activities facilitate DT by helping designers make
sense of abstract ideas and further refine them (Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018). Design
visualization activities may be helpful throughout the DT process, from gathering information
about the user to idea generation to prototyping. Therefore, we recommend these activities
in DT training.

Skill-based approach
While specific skills relevant to DT were only occasionally discussed in the DT literature, a
skills-based approach may be particularly effective for training DT. Some support for a
skills-based approach has been provided in the DT literature. For example, Mintrom and
Luetjens (2016) proposed that skills such as sensemaking, scanning and user-focused
information gathering may be particularly beneficial for improving DT. Garbuio et al. (2017)
also proposed that abductive reasoning skill benefits DT by helping people conjecture
solutions to complex problems.
Similar discussions of complex training interventions, such as leadership training, leader
judgment training, creativity training and creative leadership training, have all turned to
emphasize the development of specific skills that may bolster desired outcomes. In
particular, the development of cognitive and other complex skills has received compelling
support regarding improving creative and leadership performance. For example, Mumford
et al. (2017) highlighted nine cognitive skills as critical to leadership performance. Todd
et al. (2021) demonstrated that goal analysis, constraint analysis, forecasting and idea
evaluation are paramount to the development of leader judgment. Mumford et al. (2018)
similarly argued that there are specific skills that people must possess to effectively solve
creative problems and that these skills should be developed for positive creative outcomes.
In fact, a review of the creativity training literature identified the targeted development of
specific skills to result in the most effective training interventions (Scott et al., 2004a). The
similarities between DT and creative problem-solving are many, with both following largely
cognitively based process models and both sharing goals such as innovation (Mumford
et al., 1991). Thus, it follows that DT training may similarly benefit from a skill-based
approach.
There are some examples of a skill-based DT approach in the literature. For example,
Kurtmollaiev et al. (2018) developed a two-day DT training program for team leaders rooted in
the dynamic capabilities framework. This framework and the subsequent training program
explicitly sought to train managers in DT with the goal to improve managers’ skill in recognizing
(“sensing”) and successfully pursuing business opportunities to positively change their
organizations. The training has many similarities with training in scanning and sensemaking,

PAGE 368 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023

which are complex skills that are often taught in creativity training and leadership training (Jaussi
and Randel, 2014; Thiel et al., 2012). The training also included activities focused on improving
abductive reasoning and integrative thinking skills. It was found that this training had a positive
effect on the participants’ sensing and seizing capabilities, which had a positive effect on their
transforming capability, team innovation output and team operational capability, thereby
providing support for a skill-based approach.
Based on the literature, it is recommended to focus DT training on training relevant complex
skills, such as scanning and sensemaking, that support DT. Other relevant complex skills
may be those that facilitate the successful implementation of the DT process model. For
example, information gathering, constraint analysis and causal analysis skills may help
people more successfully empathize with the user (Damadzic et al., 2022; Mumford et al.,
2017). Training in creative problem-solving may be particularly useful for the idea
generation and prototyping steps of DT (Basadur et al., 1982; Santanen et al., 2004). Idea
evaluation skills such as idea revision and compensatory skill may facilitate successful
prototyping and testing (Todd et al., 2021; Watts et al., 2017). Much research needs to be
done to investigate these claims, both examining the impact of these skills on DT and the
training of these skills to improve DT.

Delivery format
The format by which DT training is delivered is also important to consider. Research
measuring the practicality of online DT courses found that participants’ satisfaction rate
was lower in an online course compared to a face-to-face course (Lloyd, 2013).
However, it has been shown that online training can be effective for a basic
understanding of DT and its applications (Wrigley et al., 2018). Yet, to achieve a
deeper, more complex understanding of DT, face-to-face training has been found to be
more effective (Wrigley et al., 2018). Therefore, these findings provide support for
either a purely face-to-face DT training intervention or a hybrid format of DT training
where introductory information is delivered online and complex information is delivered
face-to-face. Research investigating the delivery format of other complex phenomena
such as ethical decision-making has also provided support for this conclusion (Todd
et al., 2017). However, more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of
varying DT training activities across delivery formats.

Support for training

Support for training is recommended for the success of any training program (Goldstein,
1991). However, support for DT training may be especially critical. In a study on DT training
for IT professionals, Lindberg et al. (2011) found that effective DT requires both supervisor
support and organizational support. One noteworthy finding was that participants who
reported to supervisors who held high-level positions felt DT was risky, and they were less
likely to engage in DT. In addition, participants expressed concern that their organization’s
structure did not support DT because communication between necessary parties would be
stifled or miscommunicated across teams. These findings suggest that to facilitate positive
effects during and after DT training, support should be provided by supervisors and the
organization as a whole. Some methods by which supervisors and organizations may
support DT training include supervisors having a positive attitude toward DT training, as
well as supporting subordinate DT post-training by giving subordinates the time and
resources needed to engage in DT.
Other research on DT also highlights the importance of support. For example, Wrigley
et al. (2020) found that there are four organizational conditions that support DT. These
are a strategic vision including DT, facilities that are dedicated to design activities,
cultural capital that is knowledgeable of design and directives that call for design and

VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 369

 hold employees accountable for design. These findings suggest that if organizations
are interested in implementing DT training, they may also want to adapt their
environment to facilitate training transfer and support DT. However, research is needed
on what types of supervisor and organizational support are more or less helpful for DT
training.

Training evaluation
There is a need for adequate measurement and evaluation of DT training interventions.
There are very few empirical studies on the actual use of DT in either private or public
settings (Mintrom and Luetjens, 2016). The publications on DT training typically are
theoretical or review articles (Devitt et al., 2017; Kimbell, 2012; Mintrom and Luetjens,
2016; Tschimmel, 2012). Of the empirical articles on DT training, outcome variables
tend to be student final project scores (Roth et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2018) or self-report
measures (Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018). Some research has also used interview data to try
to extract DT effectiveness, but the researchers themselves admitted to having
difficulty grasping the concept of DT and questioned if their study was able to
accurately measure or evaluate DT (Carlgren et al., 2014). In sum, more empirical
research on DT training is needed.
Moreover, empirical outcome measurements of DT training need to be defined. For those
interested in developing DT training interventions, it is recommended to identify the
outcome(s) of interest and how to measure them during the development of training. This
will also facilitate the selection and development of training content, as content should be
selected based on desired training outcomes. A few potential outcomes may be creative
job performance, motivation, innovation, engagement and empowerment (Saggar, 2017; Tu
et al., 2018; Roth et al., 2020; Wrigley et al., 2020; Lindberg et al., 2011; Boyles, 2022). As
the empirical research is limited on the outcomes of DT training, it is unclear which DT
training methods are the most effective and to what extent the methods are effective at
facilitating the various outcomes commonly discussed of DT (e.g. creativity, innovation,
engagement). Therefore, it is strongly recommended that DT training interventions include
defined measurement and evaluation protocols to provide adequate support for the efficacy
of their training and methods.

Discussion
This article identified several key themes within the DT training literature and highlighted
practical recommendations to facilitate the successful development of DT training
interventions. Overall, we recommend structuring DT training based on the DT process.
Trainees should be taught the DT process, and each process should be attended to with its
own activities. These activities should be extensive and interactive, focus on the user and
include design visualization elements. Training may also benefit from focusing on the
development of skills that facilitate effective DT, such as sensemaking and scanning.
Training may be best delivered using a face-to-face format. However, if face-to-face
delivery is not possible, a hybrid format where simple content (e.g. direct information
sharing) is delivered online and complex content (e.g. problem-solving methods) is
delivered face-to-face is recommended. Supervisor and organizational support for training
should also be provided before, during and after training to communicate that DT is valued.
In addition, training should be clearly evaluated based on desired training outcomes that
were defined during training development. Preferably, training outcomes are measured
using multiple empirical methods, such as trainee reactions, creative performance and the
development of innovative products.
This paper contributes to DT theory by providing an integrated definition and model of
DT, as well as proposing that DT is a complex process requiring the development of

PAGE 370 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023

multiple skills (e.g. scanning, sensemaking, compensatory skill). It also provides a road
map for the development of DT as a skill and proposes the key contributors to effective
DT training.
Both practical and theoretical recommendations have been made with evidence from the
DT literature; however, this literature is minimal. There is a need for much more research on
DT training and DT in general. Studies comparing the relative effectiveness of the
implementation of various training structures, activities, content, delivery formats and level
of support are needed. Most notably, empirical research is needed with clearly defined and
measured outcome variables.
In conclusion, DT training has the potential to positively impact organizational creativity and
innovation. This article reviews the DT training literature and outlines several themes that
highlight recommendations for DT training. These themes include process-based training,
delivery activities and content, skills-based approach, delivery format, support for training
and training evaluation. We hope this review serves as an impetus for the development and
research of effective DT training interventions.

Limitations
Limitations of the present effort should be considered. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used,
as well as access to specific databases, may prohibit the inclusion of critical DT training
data. Future studies may overcome this by including further databases and resources in the
search process. While literature review guidelines, multiple reviewers and a review template
were followed to mitigate potential bias, there is also always a component of subjectivity in
the interpretation of extracted literature review data that determines how results are
presented. Future studies may apply different methods to determine the validity of the
extracted DT training themes.

References
Adikari, S., McDonald, C. and Campbell, J. (2013), “Reframed contexts: design thinking for agile user
experience design”, paper presented at the International Conference of Design, User Experience, and
Usability, July 2013, Berlin, Germany.
Basadur, M., Graen, G.B. and Green, S.G. (1982), “Training in creative problem solving: effects on
ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-70.
Beckman, S. and Barry, M. (2007), “Innovation as a learning process: embedding design thinking”,
California Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-56.
Boyles, M. (2022), “What is creative problem-solving and why is it important?”, available at: https://online.
hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-creative-problem-solving (accessed 1 February 2022)
Brown, T. (2008), “Design thinking”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 84-92.

Brown, T. and Katz, B. (2011), “Change by design”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 381-383.
Brown, T. and Katz, B. (2019), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and
Inspires Innovation, Harper Business.
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M. and Rauth, I. (2014), “Design thinking: exploring values and effects from an
innovation capability perspective”, The Design Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 403-423.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016), “Framing design thinking: the concept in idea and
enactment”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 38-57.
Curedale, R. (2013), “Design thinking”, Design Community College.

D.school (2010), “Bootcamp Bootleg”, Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford.

VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 371

 Damadzic, A., Winchester, C., Medeiros, K.E. and Griffith, J.A. (2022), “[Re] thinking outside the box: a
meta-analysis of constraints and creative performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 43
No. 8, pp. 1330-1357.
Design thinking (2023), “Design thinking online courses”, available at: www.ideou.com/ (accessed 16
October 2022).
Devitt, F., Ryan, M., Robbins, P. and Vaugh, T. (2017), “Unlocking design thinking’s potential”, paper
presented at the ISPIM Innovation Summit-Building the Innovation Century, 10–13 December,
Melbourne, Australia.
Dijksterhuis, E. and Silvius, G. (2017), “The design thinking approach to projects”, The Journal of Modern
Project Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 32-41.
Domı́nguez-Escrig, E., Malle  n-Broch, F.F., Lapiedra-Alcamı́, R. and Chiva-Go
 mez, R. (2019), “The
influence of leaders’ stewardship behavior on innovation success: the mediating effect of radical
innovation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 159 No. 3, pp. 849-862.
Elsbach, K.D. and Stigliani, I. (2018), “Design thinking and organizational culture: a review and
framework for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 2274-2306.
Erbeldinger, J., Ramge, T. and Erbeldinger, R. (2013), “Durch die decke denken: design thinking in der
praxis”, Redline Wirtschaft.
Garbuio, M., Dong, A., Lin, N., Tschang, F. and Lovallo, D. (2017), “Demystifying the genius of
entrepreneurship: how design cognition can help create the next generation of entrepreneurs”, Academy
of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-61.
Glen, R., Suciu, C. and Baughn, C. (2014), “The need for design thinking in business schools”, Academy
of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 653-667.
Goldstein, I.L. (1991), Training in Work Organizations, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Harris, P., Connolly, J. and Feeney, L. (2009), “Blended learning: overview and recommendations for
successful implementation”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 155-163.
\Jaussi, K.S. and Randel, A.E. (2014), “Where to look? Creative self-efficacy, knowledge retrieval, and
incremental and radical creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 400-410.
Kimbell, L. (2012), “Rethinking design thinking: part II”, Design and Culture, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 129-148.
Kurtmollaiev, S., Pedersen, P.E., Fjuk, A. and Kvale, K. (2018), “Developing managerial dynamic
capabilities: a quasi-experimental field study of the effects of design thinking training”, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 184-202.
Liedtka, J. (2014), “Perspective: linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias
reduction”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 925-938.
Lindberg, T., Meinel, C. and Wagner, R. (2011), “Design thinking: a fruitful concept for IT development?”,
Design Thinking, Springer, Berlin, pp. 3.-18.
Lloyd, P. (2013), “Embedded creativity: teaching design thinking via distance education”, International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 749-765.

Mintrom, M. and Luetjens, J. (2016), “Design thinking in policymaking processes: opportunities and
challenges”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 391-402.

MIT Sloan (2023), “MIT Sloan design thinking: online certificate program”, available at: https://executive-
ed.mit.edu/mastering-design-thinking#group-enrollment-modal (accessed 10 October 2022).

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. and PRISMA Group (2009), “Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, Annals of Internal Medicine,
Vol. 151 No. 4, pp. 264-269.

Mumford, M.D., Mobley, M.I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C.E. and Doares, L.M. (1991), “Process analytic
models of creative capacities”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 91-122.

Mumford, M.D., Todd, E.M., Higgs, C. and Elliott, S. (2018), “The skills needed to think creatively: within-
process and cross-process skills”, in Reiter-Palmon, R. and Kaufmann, J. (Eds), Individual Creativity in
the Workplace, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 129-152.

Mumford, M.D., Todd, E.M., Higgs, C. and McIntosh, T. (2017), “Cognitive skills and leader performance:
the nine critical skills”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 24-39.

PAGE 372 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023

Passmore, J. (2019), “Mindfulness in organizations (Part 1): a critical literature review”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 51 No. 2.
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide,
Blackwell, Malden.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C.H. and Weinberg, U. (2009), “Design thinking: innovation lernen”, Ideenwelten
öffnen, Munich, Germany.
Roth, K., Globocnik, D., Rau, C. and Neyer, A.K. (2020), “Living up to the expectations: the effect of
design thinking on project success”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 667-684.
Saggar, M., Quintin, E.M., Bott, N.T., Kienitz, E., Chien, Y.H., Hong, D.W. and Reiss, A.L. (2017),
“Changes in brain activation associated with spontaneous improvisation and figural creativity after
design-thinking-based training: a longitudinal fMRI study”, Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 3542-3552.
Santanen, E.L., Briggs, R.O. and Vreede, G.J.D. (2004), “Causal relationships in creative problem
solving: comparing facilitation interventions for ideation”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 167-198.
Schallmo, D., Williams, C.A. and Lang, K. (2018), “An integrated design thinking approach–literature
review”, Paper Presented at the Basic Principles and Roadmap for Design Thinking, Manchester: The
International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
Scott, G., Leritz, L.E. and Mumford, M.D. (2004a), “The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative
review”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 361-388.
Scott, G., Leritz, L.E. and Mumford, M.D. (2004b), “Types of creativity training: approaches and their
effectiveness”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 149-179.
Seidel, V. and Fixson, S. (2013), “Adopting ‘design thinking’ in novice multidisciplinary teams: the
application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30 No. S1, pp. 19-33.
Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. (2012), This Is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases, John Wiley
and Sons, New Jersey, NJ.

Thiel, C.E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J.F. and Mumford, M.D. (2012), “Leader ethical
decision-making in organizations: strategies for sensemaking”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107
No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Todd, E.M., Newbold, T. and Mumford, M. (2021), “Cognition counts: cognitive skills contributing to
leader judgment”, in Kayes, D.C. and Kayes, A. (Eds), Judgment and Leadership: A Multidisciplinary
Approach to Concepts, Practice, and Development, Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Todd, E.M., Watts, L.L., Mulhearn, T.J., Torrence, B.S., Turner, M.R., Connelly, S. and Mumford, M.
D. (2017), “A meta-analytic comparison of face-to-face and online delivery in ethics instruction: the
case for a hybrid approach”, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1719-1754, doi:
10.1007/s11948-017-9869-3.
Tschimmel, K. (2012), “Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation”, paper presented at The
International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

Tu, J.C., Liu, L.X. and Wu, K.Y. (2018), “Study on the learning effectiveness of Stanford design thinking in
integrated design education”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 2649.
Veryzer, R. and Borja de Mozota, B. (2005), “The impact of user-oriented design on new product
development: an examination of fundamental relationships”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 128-143.

Watts, L.L., Mulhearn, T.J., Todd, E.M. and Mumford, M.D. (2017), “Leader idea evaluation and follower
creativity: challenges, constraints, and capabilities”, Handbook of Research on Leadership and
Creativity, Elgar Publishing, pp. 82-99.
Wrigley, C., Mosely, G. and Tomitsch, M. (2018), “Design thinking education: a comparison of
massive open online courses”, The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 275-292.
Wrigley, C., Nusem, E. and Straker, K. (2020), “Implementing design thinking: understanding organizational
conditions”, California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 125-143.

VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 373

 Further reading
Buchanan, R. (1992), “Wicked problems in design thinking”, Design Issues, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 5-21.
Erbeldinger, J., Ramge, T. and Erbeldinger, R. (2013), Durch Die Decke Denken: design Thinking in Der
Praxis, Redline Wirtschaft.
Zuber, W.J. (2016), “The flipped classroom, a review of the literature”, Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 97-103.

Supplementary material
Supplementary material for this article can be found online.

Corresponding author
Erin Michelle Todd can be contacted at: emtodd15@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 374 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 3 2023