Search results

The term of lateral thinking in Oxford dictionary is seeking to solve problems by unorthodox or apparently illogical methods. On the hypercompetitive markets agile, value-oriented, inspiring, collaborative, appreciative leaders are needed. These AVICA-type leaders have the ability to catalyze and develop adaptive processes. They are receptive to innovation and also open to the creative thoughts of others. The leader himself is also a lateral innovator and unfolds the creativity of the employees in business life and the students in higher education. The educators, in a lateral approach, are leaders, but can also be Renaissance-type people, polyhistors, homo ludens. Creativity researchers generally agree that educators’ view on creativity determines the way in which they deal with developing students’ mindset. In our research, we evaluate how important students consider the knowledge of lateral innovation to their related subjects, the development of their innovative way of thinking and how they perceive the activities of the lecturers in this direction. The other question is whether educators see lateral approach as an important value creation process. The ultimate goal of the research is to explore the factors that contribute to the implementation of the lateral mindset for the sustainable competitiveness of higher education in economics.

Traditional paradigms of leadership have celebrated decisive top-down control and analytical decision making. But times are changing. The world is becoming more connected, complex, fluid, and interdependent.

Leading people in this age requires empathy, collaboration, curiosity, and creativity. It’s more about designing elegant solutions than mandating feasible ones. It’s more about becoming optimistic beacons of change than authoritative custodians of the status quo. The leaders of tomorrow are not commanders, they are innovators; and in that, they have a natural ally in designers – the poster children of innovation.

This chapter focuses on how leadership can leverage tools and frameworks usually associated with design to innovate, solve complex problems, motivate teams, inspire people, and nurture the next generation of leaders. It discusses design methodologies – user-focused design, lean, design thinking – as potential approaches to optimizing organizational leadership. We elaborate these ideas through real-world examples.

The chapter also offers actionable tips and techniques that designers use to respond empathetically and elegantly to complex human needs, which are rooted deeply in behaviors and attitudes, governed by complex interactions, and therefore, hard to grapple through a purely analytical approach.

It debunks the myth that leaders need to be creative similar to designers to apply Design Thinking. Applying design approaches and practices to organizational leadership is not just about its leaders becoming more creative. It is definitely not about the person at the top coming up with the grand answer. It is a collaborative effort that brings people from all levels together in pursuit of a common goal.

This article brings a new, broad conceptual framework to the quest for understanding dynamic capability in organizations (i.e., “managing on the edge of chaos”). This approach rests on two major ideas: (i) a duality–paradox perspective and (ii) new typologies of organizational learning (OL) and individual action/thinking. A case of radical innovation at Microsoft provides a multilevel stimulus. Understanding it requires a focus on two dualistic challenges. For use in future ODC research and practical assessment, this broad new conceptual framework includes: (i) collaboration as a central concept; (ii) duality–paradox as a key source of conflicts that can threaten collaboration; (iii) five types of OL, (iv) four types of individual action/thinking, including paradoxical thinking, and (v) the proposition that “golden dualities” can be created from once-troubling duality situations (where critical collaboration was in danger) which have been transformed from the metaphorical “odd (contentious) couple” into a “productive (collaborative) partnership.”

Lateral thinking is an organization-wide approach to scanning for new inputs, materials, influences, and product technologies currently being applied in one field that can offer new product ideas in another. This concept relates to environmental scanning, organizational assimilation, and application, along with absorptive capacity. Lateral thinking could be described as being sensitive to more social influences, casting a wider net, considering more things in different ways, and absorbing a range of inputs from areas such as fashion, auto racing, food, movies. Firms practicing this approach are sensitive to the possibility that new technologies and radical innovations often arrive from outside normal sources. As Jim Olver points out in his essay in this volume, “Tackling wicked problems requires the ability to examine situations from multiple and novel perspectives, to empathize, to engage in lateral thinking.” This is often what is happening with interdisciplinary approaches – ideas in another field are brought in to enrich one's own discipline.

Business, government, and society are being rocked by disruptive global change. The challenges facing international marketers as boundary spanners – and more generally, all managers and leaders – are getting more complex, ambiguous, and unprecedented. The world that they must navigate is increasingly filled with “wicked problems” (Rittel & Weber, 1973) that defy the closed, analytical approaches that characterize typical management education. Addressing the problem requires a new paradigm that augments – and perhaps in some areas, supplants – the traditional business education.

In a recent paper entitled “On Lateral Thinking,” Atkinson (2011) argued that Economics has benefited not only from borrowing ideas from other disciplines such as physics (e.g., Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis, 1947) or psychology (e.g., the growing importance of behavioral economics) but also from applying ideas that appeared in one subfield of Economics to another domain of Economics. As examples of such a cross-fertilization, Atkinson cites duality theory where cost functions were applied to consumer theory or Harberger's (1962) model of tax incidence that was borrowed from international trade theory. Atkinson in fact cited a sentence from his famous 1970 (Atkinson, 1970) article: “My interest in the question of measuring inequality was originally stimulated by reading an early version of the paper by Rotschild and Stiglitz (1970, 1971)” The same parallelism between uncertainty and inequality had been drawn previously by Serge Kolm in his well-known presentation at the meeting of the International Economic Association in Biarritz, France (see Kolm, 1969), which was inspired by his previous work on uncertainty (Kolm, 1966). Atkinson, however, stressed also the need for care in drawing parallels.

This chapter critically evaluates opportunities and challenges associated with developing diversity and embracing inclusion of cyber security talent in a multinational consultancy firm and offers recommendations on how to optimize inclusion of young talent in this sensitive business area within a multinational company. Drawing on one of the author's experience as a young cyber security professional with a non-technical background, entering the profession through a consultancy graduate development programme, this paper offers a unique perspective on how to enhance cohesion in diversity across linear and non-linear routes into cyber security.

While the scope is limited to cyber security talent in early careers, the competency-based approach means that recommendations around developing diversity and embracing inclusion can be applied to young talent in other business competence areas. Each recommendation can be used as a building block to influence and shape future equality, diversity and inclusion (ED&I) strategy in consultancy.