Design Thinking as a Catalyst for Change: Faculty Reaction to a Redesigned Meeting

Abstract

Academic governance is an important part of higher education (Kezar et al. 2006), and commonly takes place in meetings. Unfortunately, meeting inefficiency is widespread (Mroz et al. 2018). An academic department redesigned a day-long meeting to incorporate design thinking techniques. This qualitative study reported faculty reaction to the redesign. Recommendations are made for the design of future meetings with regard to faculty buy-in, diversity, relationships, professional development, and ongoing sustainability.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Allen, J. A., Rogelberg, S., & Scott, J. (2008). Meaningful meetings: Improve your organization’s effectiveness one meeting at a time. Quality Progress, 41, 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angouri, J., & Marra, M. (2011). Corporate meetings as genre: a study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 30(6), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed). Wadsworth.

  4. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernstein, M. & Ringel, R. (2018). Plan a better meeting with design thinking. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/02/plan-a-better-meeting-with-design-thinking.

  6. Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: looking ahead or looking back. New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: negotiating organizational culture in a german-japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700534001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bryant, M., & Cox, J. W. (2006). The expression of suppression: loss and emotional labour in narratives of organisational change. Journal of Management and Organization, 12(2), 116–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization change: theory and practice. SAGE Publications.

  11. Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Doodle.com. (2019). The state of meetings 2019. Doodle Blog website. https://en.blog.doodle.com/state-of-meetings-2019/.

  13. Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., & Utley, J. (2018). Design thinking bootleg. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/5b19b2f2aa4a99e99b26b6bb/1528410876119/dschool_bootleg_deck_2018_final_sm+%282%29.pdf.

  14. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human–Computer Interaction, 6(2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dutton, J., & Heapy, E. (Eds.). (2003). The power of high quality connections. In Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  16. Eckel, P. D. (2006). The shifting frontiers of academic decision making: responding to new priorities, following new pathways. Greenwood Publishing Group.

  17. Gittell, J. H. (2003). A theory of relational coordination. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline (pp. 279–295). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  18. Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A., & Izadyar, S. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science., 3(4), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 623–655. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kezar, A., Lester, J., & Anderson, G. (2006). Challenging stereotypes that interfere with effective governance. Thought and Action, 22(2), 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Köhler, T., Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2012). The meeting genre across cultures: insights from three german–american collaborations. Small Group Research, 43(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kolko, J. (2015). Design thinking comes of age. Harvard Business Review, 93(9), 66–69.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kramer, R. (2016a). Death by retreat. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(5), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kramer, R. (2016b). Is there such a thing as a good retreat? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(15), 31–34.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A., & Nerstad, C. G. L. (2017). Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes? Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leach, W. D. (2008). Shared governance in higher education: structural and cultural responses to a changing national climate. Available at SSRN 1520702 (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1520702). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1520702.

  28. Leach, D., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: the role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9092-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin, M.-F., Eichelberger, A. (2020). Transforming faculty communication and envisioning the future with design thinking. TechTrends, 63(6), 238–247.

  30. Martin, R. L. (2017). Use design thinking to build commitment to a new idea. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/01/use-design-thinking-to-build-commitment-to-a-new-idea.

  31. McLaughlan, R., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Facilitating epistemic fluency through design thinking: a strategy for the broader application of studio pedagogy within higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1461621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and analysis (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

  33. Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mroz, J. E., Allen, J. A., Verhoeven, D. C., & Shuffler, M. L. (2018). Do we really need another meeting? The science of workplace meetings. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418776307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Munter, M. (1998). Meeting technology: from low-tech to high-tech. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999806100210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Olson, G. A. (2009). Exactly what is “shared governance”? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Exactly-What-Is-Shared/47065.

  37. Plain, C. (2007). Build an affinity for K-J method. Quality Progress, 40(3), 88.

    Google Scholar 

  38. RAND Corporation. (n.d.). Delphi method. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html.

  39. Rogelberg, S., Scott, C., & Kello, J. (2007). The science and fiction of meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rugg, G., & McGeorge, P. (2005). The sorting techniques: a tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Systems, 22(3), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0394.2005.00300.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.

  42. Shanock, L. R., Allen, J. A., Dunn, A. M., Baran, B. E., Scott, C. W., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Less acting, more doing: how surface acting relates to perceived meeting effectiveness and other employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 457–476 https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12037.

  43. Shumski Thomas, J., Olien, J. L., Allen, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., & Kello, J. E. (2018). Faking it for the higher-ups: status and surface acting in workplace meetings. Group & Organization Management, 43(1), 72–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116687703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work: powerful ways to build consensus, solve problems, and make decisions. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  45. Thomason, A. (2015). Professors goofing off in faculty meetings? Bingo! The Chronicle of Higher Education.

  46. Tierney, W. G. (2008). The impact of culture on organizational decision-making: theory and practice in higher education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

  47. Tullis, T. S. (2007). Using closed card-sorting to evaluate information architectures. Proceedings of the Usability Professionals Association, 11–15.

  48. Venter, E. (2017). Bridging the communication gap between generation Y and the baby boomer generation. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(4), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2016.1267022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meng-Fen Grace Lin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, M.G., Eichelberger, A. Design Thinking as a Catalyst for Change: Faculty Reaction to a Redesigned Meeting. J Form Des Learn 4, 34–42 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-020-00046-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Case study
  • Design thinking
  • Faculty development
  • Formative design
  • Higher education
  • Strategic planning
  • Organizational change