E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 34 European Integration Studies No. 15 / 2021, pp. 34-46 doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.15.29114 Abstract Assessment and Development  of Public Servants Using the  Design Thinking Methodology for  the Reforms and Innovations Introduction http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.15.29114 The purpose of the study is to investigate the features of assessment of public servants’ characteristics and their ability development to introduce reforms and innovations in public authorities using the design thinking methodology. The following tasks were set: 1) to investigate the problems of assessing the personal quali- ties and behavioral characteristics before and after training activities; 2) to find out what peculiarities of the introduction of reforms and innovations in public authorities should be taken into account in the assessment of public servants and their practice-oriented training; 3) based on the results of the research, to determine the features of the use of design thinking methodology in the public servants development. To achieve the re- search objective, the dialectical research, content analysis, questionnaire survey, expert assessment, methods of statistical analysis, and modeling were used. The results of the study testified that in many cases the method of self-assessment of personal qualities does not ensure the indicators objectivity. Therefore, such indicators should be compared with expert estimates. Based on the analysis of the results of empirical research in the public sector, the peculiarities of the reforms and innovations introduction related to bureaucracy and political influence, drivers of reforms and their out- comes, strict control over the use of resources, evaluation of the performance of public servants have been identified. The research allowed substantiating the proposals for the use of the design thinking methodology in training of public servants and evaluation of its results. KEYWORDS: design thinking; assessment; training; public servants; innovation; reform. For the reforms and innovations introduction, the personal qualities and behavioral characteris- tics of public servants are no less important than the level of their professional knowledge and skills. Therefore, in 2016 OECD started to unpack the complex topic of skills and capabilities for public sector innovation. Its beta model of skills to promote and enable innovation in public sector organizations contains user centricity, curiosity, insurgency, iteration, data literacy, and storytelling (OECD 2017, p. 8). Nesta Competency Framework for Experimental Problem Solv- ing is more structured. It includes three groups of core skills, namely working together, leading change, and accelerating learning (each of them is divided into 4-5 components), as well as the following key attitudes: empathetic, curious, agile, action-oriented, reflective, courageous, out- Submitted 01/2021 Accepted for publication 06/2021 Assessment and Development of Public Servants Using the Design Thinking Methodology For The Reforms And Innovations Introduction EIS 15/2021 Mariana Orliv, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas Brigita Janiūnaitė, Kaunas University of Technology Valentyna Goshovska, National Academy for Public Administration under the President of Ukraine Rasa Daugėlienė, Kaunas University of Technology Introduction 35 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 comes-focused, imaginative, and resilient (Nesta, 2019). Content analysis of these two models allows us to conclude that the formation of core skills and attitudes for reforms and innovations introduction in public authorities is possible through the use of design thinking methodology. This social technology can deliver the following benefits to public decision-making: strength- ening the ability to detect problems; a human-centric perspective of defining the user needs by focusing on the person not on the product; problem solving through creativity, multidisciplinarity and teamwork; application of experimental and holistic approaches to reduce risks; targeted solutions as a starting points for continued innovation. However, the main problems of using this methodology in the assessment and development of public servants are, firstly, the complexity of measuring the design thinking mindset of public servants; and secondly, the need to take into account the peculiarities of the reforms and innovations introduction in public authorities. These problems need to be addressed in a way that ensures not only a practice-oriented training, but also a real change in attitudes and behavior of public servants through transformative learning (Dzvinchuk, Petrenko, Orliv, Mazak & Ozminska, 2020) to increase executive capacity of public authorities in the context of sustainable development. Unfortunately, the experts who are trying to measure the design thinking declare that their tools are not valid or are not real tools and they use tools that “a bit manufactured [fabricated]” (Schmiedgen, Spille, Koppen, Rhinow & Meinel, 2016). Besides this, there is always the possi- bility of ethnocentric biases (Kaivo-oja & Lauraeus, 2018). Therefore, the most valid measure- ment tools are feedbacks and customers satisfaction (Dosi, Rosati & Vignoli, 2018). However, such measurement can be a problem because of long-term of reform implementation in the public sectors. Beside this, the peculiarities of the reforms and innovations introduction in pub- lic authorities depend on the bureaucracy and political influence, drivers of reforms and their outcomes, strict control over the use of resources, specifics of performance management, open collaboration with stakeholders, etc. These features need to be taken into account in the process of training and assessing the ability of public servants to implement changes and promote in- creased executive capacity of public authorities. The purpose of the study is to investigate the features of assessment of public servants’ charac- teristics and their ability development to introduce reforms and innovations in public authorities using the design thinking methodology. To achieve this purpose, the following tasks were set: 1 to investigate the problems of assessing the personal qualities and behavioral characteris- tics before and after training activities based on results of empirical research using known self-assessment tools; 2 to find out what peculiarities of the introduction of reforms and innovations in public author- ities (related to bureaucracy and other public sector system qualities) should be taken into account in the assessment of public servants and their practice-oriented training; 3 based on the results of the research, to determine the features of the use of design thinking methodology in the public servants development. The research was carried out at three stages. On the first stage we found out whether it is appro- priate to rely on the results of self-assessment of personal qualities and behavioral characteris- tics in the process of planning training activities and determining their effectiveness. The results of questionnaire surveys and expert assessment of two groups of extramural master students, who in 2020 completed their studies under the program “Public Administration and Manage- ment” at the Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas (it gave them the right to hold senior positions in public authorities), were used for analysis. Self-assessment of the first group (N 1 = 74) was conducted using the methodology created by E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 36 Peter Koestenbaum (2002) based on the Leadership Diamond Model. The choice of this tool is due to the fact that “among all the models of leadership diamonds, it is the closest to solving the problem of personality assessment regarding satisfaction with the components of the leadership vocation and formulation of recommendations for their further development, as it allows assessing the level of provision of each of the established by the “Leadership Diamond” model list of criteria such as vision, ethics, reality, and courage” (Dzvinchuk, Ozminska, Orliv & Petrenko, 2021, p. 2). Self-assessment of the second group (N 2 =91) was conducted using the Woodcock–Francis test (Dz- vinchuk, Orliv & Petrenko, 2021), which provides an evaluation of 11 important managerial character- istics, namely: self-management skills; clear values; personal goals; continuous self-development; problem solving abilities; creativity; impact on others; understanding the features of managerial work; ability to manage; ability to teach; team building skills (Woodcock & Francis, 1986). To determine the feasibility of using known self-assessment tools, we conducted a questionnaire survey and expert assessment of a control group of respondents interested in the objectivity of the indicators (N3 = 16). This group included lecturers (87.5% of which have managerial ex- perience) selected to participate in the implementation of the joint Ukrainian-Lithuanian R&D project “Competence Development of Lithuanian and Ukrainian Public Sector Employees Using Design-Thinking Methodology”. For this category of respondents we can reliably determine the implementation of learning outcomes in further professional activities. The methodology of their assessment was chosen taking into account the results of the first two experiments. On the second stage the peculiarities of the introduction of reforms and innovations in public authorities which should be taken into account in the assessment of public servants and their practice-oriented training (based on the analysis of theoretical and empirical research conducted by scientists in different countries) were clarified. To resolve the contradictions identified in scien- tific publications, we conducted a correlation analysis, which allowed investigating how index of innovation is influenced by different cultural dimensions. The empirical basis for correlation anal- ysis is the data from the European innovation scoreboard 2019 (European Commission, 2019) and the results of the GLOBE research program (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness), which is one of the most large-scale and prestigious international management research projects in social sciences ever (GLOBE, 2020). Selected cultural dimensions indicate what is important for a society (future orientation, uncertainty avoidance, performance and hu- man orientation), how is society organized (institutional collectivism) and how does society in- teract (assertiveness, power distance). To identify the main barriers to innovation in the public authorities in Ukraine, we also conducted a questionnaire survey of 195 public servants of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine after their acquaintance with the design thinking methodology. On the third stage we identified the features of the use of design thinking methodology in the public servants development based on the results of the first two stages of our research. The results of self-assessment under the Leadership diamond model of the first group of extra- mural master students (Dzvinchuk, Ozminska, Orliv & Petrenko, 2021) showed that, on average, respondents have the most developed vision and ethics (4.11 score on a five-point scale) and the least developed courage (3.89 score). We were going to take these indicators into account during the next revision of the master’s program. However, we surprised that, firstly, the vision of all public servants, including ordinary officials, is at the same high level as ethics (82.2%), and secondly, the average courage is also unexpectedly high (77.8%). The results of the self-assessment of managerial characteristics of the second group of extramural master students revealed using the Woodcock-Francis test on a ten-point scale were more infor- mative (Dzvinchuk, Orliv & Petrenko, 2021). Their generalization is presented in Table 1. Assessing the personal qualities and behavioral characteristics of public servants 37 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 Indicators Average score Maximum total score Minimum total score Dispersion Standard deviation Сoefficient of variation Grade Self-management skills 6,70 10 1 4,28 2,07 30,85 9 Clear values 6,58 9 4 4,02 2,01 30,47 7 Personal goals 6,67 10 2 3,76 1,94 29,06 8 Continuous self- development 7,31 9 1 4,30 2,07 28,39 11 Problem solving abilities 6,14 9 5 3,35 1,83 29,78 6 Creativity 5,42 9 3 4,85 2,20 40,63 1 Impact on others 7,21 10 3 4,57 2,14 29,65 10 Understanding the features of managerial work 5,55 9 4 6,14 2,48 44,65 4 Ability to manage 5,56 10 2 8,67 2,94 52,96 5 Ability to teach 5,49 10 1 5,79 2,41 43,78 2 Team building skills 5,54 10 1 6,07 2,46 44,50 3 Source: Authors’ based on (Dzvinchuk, Orliv & Petrenko, 2021). Table 1 Generalized results of the second group assessment Among the average scores, the continuous self-development (7.31) and impact on others (7.21) are the highest, while the creativity (5.42) and ability to teach (5.49) are the lowest. Indicators of standard deviation and coefficient of variation indicate that “ability to manage” has the larg- est range of self-assessments. Beside this, some respondents do not understand the relation- ship between the managerial characteristics, in particular the respondent with a minimum total score. The combination of self-assessment with the expert assessment of respondents allowed detecting cognitive bias in the vast majority of master students, which manifested as the effect of Dunning-Krueger (4.4%) or Klans-Imes (74.7). The last indicator shows that the vast majority of respondents lack self-confidence and courage. Thus, if the results of the first experiment are questionable, the results of the second one confirm that in many cases the method of self-as- sessment of personal qualities does not ensure the indicators of objectivity. Therefore, in the third experiment with the control group, we used the following methods: self-as- sessment under the Leadership diamond model by Peter Koestenbaum (2002); self-assessment of design thinking mindset using the tool developed by Dosi, Rosati and Vignoly (2018) which has already validated via the Kaiser-Mayer-Okin’s test and the Bartlett’s test; and the expert assessment. We evaluated outcomes of learning by design thinking methodology two months after the training activities. Such approach allows, firstly, to analyze whether it is enough to have leadership qualities for change implementation in public organizations, and secondly, to deter- mine the feasibility of using known self-assessment tools. For this, we grouped the results of self-assessment of design thinking mindset into indicators “vision”, “ethics”, “reality”, and “cour- age” and compared them with the results of self-assessment under the Leadership diamond model. After that we compared the results of above mentioned self-assessments with the results of expert assessment taking into account the facts of the learning outcomes implementation in professional activity (Table 2). E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 38 Indicators N 1 N 2 N 3 N 4 N 5 N 6 N 7 N 8 N 9 N 10 N 11 N 12 N 13 N 14 N 15 N 16 N ̅ Results of self-assessment of design thinking mindset Being comfortable with ambiguity 2,8 3,2 4,0 4,4 3,0 3,0 3,8 3,2 3,8 4,0 3,6 4,2 3,6 3,4 2,6 3,2 3,5 Embracing risk 2,5 4,5 3,0 4,0 3,5 2,5 2,5 2,0 3,5 3,0 4,0 2,0 3,5 3,0 1,5 2,5 3,0 Human centeredness 3,7 4,3 3,7 5,0 4,3 4,0 4,7 4,3 3,7 4,7 4,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 3,0 3,7 4,1 Empathy 3,8 3,3 4,0 4,8 4,8 4,0 4,5 3,8 4,5 5,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 4,5 5,0 2,5 4,2 Mindfulness and awareness of process 3,7 3,0 3,3 3,7 4,0 3,0 4,0 2,7 3,7 4,7 3,7 4,3 3,7 4,7 3,3 3,7 3,7 Holistic view 3,7 3,7 4,0 3,7 4,0 3,3 4,0 4,0 4,0 5,0 4,0 4,7 4,0 4,0 3,3 3,3 3,9 Problem reframing 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 4,7 4,7 5,0 4,0 4,3 5,0 5,0 4,7 4,3 4,0 5,0 4,7 4,7 Team working 3,8 4,8 4,5 4,3 4,8 3,8 4,5 4,3 3,3 4,5 4,3 4,0 2,5 4,3 4,3 3,8 4,1 Multidisciplinary collaboration 4,3 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,3 3,8 4,3 3,8 4,3 5,0 4,0 4,8 4,3 4,8 3,5 3,8 4,4 Open to different perspectives 4,8 4,5 5,0 5,0 4,5 5,0 4,3 3,5 4,3 4,8 3,5 4,5 4,3 4,8 4,5 4,0 4,5 Learning orientation 4,5 4,8 4,8 4,5 4,3 5,0 4,8 3,5 4,0 4,3 4,2 4,2 4,0 4,2 4,5 3,3 4,3 Experimentation or learn from mistake 3,5 4,2 4,2 4,0 3,7 4,3 3,7 3,7 3,8 4,2 3,7 4,0 3,8 4,7 4,0 3,8 4,0 Bias toward action 3,5 4,5 4,3 4,0 3,5 3,8 4,0 3,3 3,3 4,0 3,5 3,3 3,3 3,5 2,8 3,3 3,6 Critical questioning 5,0 4,7 4,3 5,0 5,0 4,3 4,0 4,3 3,7 4,0 3,3 4,3 3,7 5,0 4,7 4,0 4,3 Abductive thinking 3,0 3,3 3,8 4,0 3,5 4,0 3,8 3,5 4,3 4,3 3,8 4,0 4,3 4,8 3,3 3,5 3,8 Envisioning new things 3,3 3,3 3,3 4,0 4,0 4,0 3,7 3,7 3,7 4,7 4,0 4,7 3,7 3,7 4,3 2,7 3,8 Creative confidence 3,0 4,0 3,3 3,5 3,8 4,5 4,0 3,8 4,8 4,8 3,3 4,0 4,8 5,0 4,0 3,5 4,0 Desire to make a difference 3,7 4,0 5,0 4,0 3,7 4,3 3,3 3,3 4,0 5,0 4,3 3,0 4,0 4,7 3,7 2,7 3,9 Optimism to have an impact 3,7 4,7 5,0 4,7 4,3 4,0 4,3 4,0 4,3 4,7 4,3 3,7 4,7 4,0 3,3 2,3 4,1 Average score 3,8 4,1 4,1 4,3 4,1 4,0 4,1 3,6 4,0 4,5 3,9 4,0 3,9 4,3 3,7 3,4 4,0 Bringing the results of self-assessment of design thinking mindset to indicators of the Leadership diamond model Vision 3,3 3,4 3,7 3,9 3,8 3,8 3,8 3,7 4,0 4,7 3,9 4,5 4,0 4,2 3,6 3,2 3,8 Ethics 4,0 4,2 4,3 4,8 4,6 4,2 4,5 4,0 4,0 4,8 3,8 3,9 3,8 4,7 4,2 3,5 4,2 Reality 4,4 4,0 3,7 4,4 4,4 3,9 4,5 3,4 4,0 4,9 4,4 4,5 4,0 4,4 4,2 4,2 4,2 Courage 3,2 4,2 4,1 4,1 3,6 3,8 3,7 3,3 3,9 4,2 3,8 3,5 4,0 4,0 3,1 3,0 3,7 Average score 3,7 4,0 3,9 4,3 4,1 3,9 4,1 3,6 4,0 4,6 4,0 4,1 3,9 4,3 3,8 3,5 4,0 Results of self-assessment under the Leadership diamond model Vision 3,7 4,0 3,7 4,2 3,7 4,1 3,8 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,0 4,1 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,5 4,1 Ethics 3,9 4,3 3,9 4,3 3,9 4,3 4,0 4,2 4,3 4,9 4,0 3,1 4,4 4,3 3,5 4,8 4,1 Reality 4,1 4,2 3,8 4,5 4,1 3,9 4,2 4,2 3,8 4,7 3,4 3,9 3,9 4,6 3,8 4,9 4,1 Courage 3,5 4,6 3,8 4,6 3,5 3,8 3,7 3,6 4,1 4,2 3,7 3,5 4,0 4,5 3,0 4,1 3,9 Average score 3,8 4,3 3,8 4,4 3,8 4,0 3,9 4,1 4,2 4,6 3,8 3,7 4,2 4,5 3,7 4,6 4,1 Table 2 The results of the control group assessment 39 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 Source: Authors’ Indicators N 1 N 2 N 3 N 4 N 5 N 6 N 7 N 8 N 9 N 10 N 11 N 12 N 13 N 14 N 15 N 16 N ̅ Results of expert assessment Average score 4,4 4,0 4,1 4,4 4,0 4,1 4,2 4,1 4,0 4,6 4,4 4,2 4,0 4,6 4,2 4,3 4,2 The use of learning outcomes in professional activity ∑ Scientific research + - + + - - + - - + + - - + + - 8 Project management + - - + - - - - - + + - - + - - 5 Cognitive bias Design thinking mindset assessment < - - - - - - < - - < - - < < < 6 Leadership assessment < > < - - - < - - - < < - - < > 8 Grouping the results of self-assessment by the design mindset questionnaire into indicators “vision”, “ethics”, “reality”, and “courage” revealed that, firstly, the Leadership diamond model does not take into account “multidisciplinary collaboration”, “learning orientation”, and “critical questioning”, and secondly, the correlation between the results of evaluation by two methods are absent, only for “courage” correlation is positive but not strong enough (0.683). Comparison of the results of two self-assessments with expert assessment and organizational performance ensured the detection of cognitive bias for 6 respondents by the tool of the design thinking mindset and for 8 respondents by the tool of the Leadership diamond model. In the sec- ond case the tendency not only to display of effect of Klans-Imes (N 1 , N 3 , N 7 , N 11 , N 12 , N 15 ), but also Dunning-Krueger (N 2 , N 16 ) is revealed. The type of cognitive bias coincided with the two methods for only three respondents. The results of the self-assessment roughly correspond to the results of expert assessment and organizational performance for only nine respondents (N 1 , N 4 , N 5 , N 6 , N 9 , N 10 , N 11 , N 13 , N 15 ). In addition, the respondent N 16 assessed himself situationally. Thus, two self-assessment tools for seven respondents (43.8%) gave results which are absolutely different. All this leads to a low level of trust in various self-assessment tools. In particular, the results of a questionnaire survey of 106 senior and middle-level government officials, which we conducted in 2017, show that only 9.4% of respondents use self-assessment questionnaires to determine their leadership and other personal qualities (Orliv, 2018, p. 79). Thus, the results of the first stage of the study testify that in many cases the method of self-as- sessment of personal qualities does not ensure the indicators objectivity. Therefore, before the training activities such indicators should be compared with expert estimates. If expert assess- ments are not available, average indicator (which characterize the sample as a whole) should be used in shaping the content and teaching methods. After training, it is necessary to assess a behavior change and the use of new knowledge and skills in professional activities. While summarizing the results of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals on the identification of factors that affect the public sector innovations, we found a number of inconsis- tencies. They mostly relate to differences in the assessment of the impact of bureaucracy and other restrictions in public authorities on their innovativeness. In particular, results of multilevel analysis conducted by Lapuente and Van de Walle (2020) indicate that the bureaucratic politiciza- tion has a negative impact on receptiveness to new ideas and is negatively associated with the pro-innovation index. However, according to Demircioglu and Audretsch (2018), in bureaucratic Peculiarities of the introduction of reforms and innovations in public authorities E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 40 public organizations dissatisfied employees value invention and innovative ideas that can increase organizational performance. They claim that individual employee efforts may be more important than leadership support and an existing positive climate, which do not have a statistically significant impact on innovation complexity. In this context, the results of our survey of 195 public servants of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine conducted in 2020 deserve attention. The respondents pointed the following main barriers to innovation in public authorities: bureaucracy (42.9%); unwillingness of public servants to change (41.9%) and low level of their motivation (35.2%); lack of time (34.3%), funding (21.9%), necessary knowledge and skills (20%) and leaders (19.1%). Therefore, we also investigated how the innovativeness is influenced by the bureaucracy and leadership behaviors of CEOs in different cultures and countries (Dzvinchuk, Orliv, Janiunaite & Petrenko, 2021). The re- sults of analysis confirmed a strong inverse correlation between bureaucracy and innovation index (-0.793 with the level of significance <0.01). Positive but not strong enough correlation between participative leadership and innovation index (0.597 with the level of significance <0.1) means that it is important not only to involve others in decision-making, but also to create innovative culture, attract motivated professionals who have the necessary competences for innovative changes in- troduction and provide the availability of resources for overcoming obstacles. This is confirmed by the results of our experiment with the control group as well, because the motivation, access to resources and influence in decision making of lecturers from different departments were unequal- ly. The same opinion was held by Berry and Berry (1990), Teodoro (2009) and other scientists. However, while analyzing the condition for innovation in Australian public sector, which is estimat- ed by the World Bank (2020) and Quality of Government Institute (2021) as a leader by the level of government effectiveness, Demircioglu and Audretsch (2017) prove that budget constraints do not have any statistical effect on public sector employees’ innovation. Indeed, in highly developed countries resource constraints can often be a driver of reforms. How- ever, using the results of such studies, we should take into account that according to the Euro- pean innovation scoreboard 2020, Australia at the time of these studies had R&D expenditure public sector relative to the EU at 113.6. Despite the fact that in 2019 this figure decreased by 4.1 points, Australia strengthened its position as a strong innovator (European Commission, 2020). For comparison, in Ukraine, which is a modest innovator, this figure is only 2.1. Thus, without investment in the public sector it is impossible to increase the level of its innovativeness. Under such conditions, the hypothesis of the Canadian researcher Borins (2001) that “Innovators are more likely to be responding to internal problem before they reach crisis proportions, or tak- ing advantage of opportunities, such as the availability of new information technology” (p. 314) for Ukraine will not be confirmed. Therefore, not all results of studies conducted in developed countries with a high level of innovativeness may be generalizable to modest innovators without taking into account different cultural dimensions, administrative traditions (Oikonomou, 2019) and resource constraints. In particular, the results of correlation analysis between cultural dimensions of different coun- tries (GLOBE, 2020) and their innovation index (European Commission, 2019) are presented in Figure 1. As shown in it, the impact of future orientation and uncertainty avoidance on innovation index is very strong (0.928 and 0.895 respectively with the level of significance <0.01). A positive statistically significant relationship was found between performance orientation and innovation index (0.635 with the level of significance <0.05) as well as between institutional collectivism and innovation index (0.500 with the level of significance <0.1). These dependencies for the public sector need to be explained. It is generally considered that uncertainty and risk are unavoidable in innovations implementa- tion. However, there is a significant difference, namely: risk being decision making in the context 41 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 Personal and social qualities manifested into the system Attitudes and behavioral characteristics Awareness of the barrier and efforts to overcome it Organizational culture and participative leadership Interaction with stakeholders Ability to perform Personal qualities Knowledge and skills Design-thinking mindset Propensity for cognitive bias Public sector system qualities Bureaucracy and political influence Key reform trends Strict control over the use of resources The need to balance between different criteria Transparency Understand Observe Point of view Ideate Prototype Test Matrix of knowledge and awareness Problem tree analysis “5W” method Interviewing Observing Empathy map Customer experience map Storytelling Clustering of information Discussion Brainstorming Ranking of ideas Three-dimensional modeling Role-playing game Storyboard, etc. Experiment Feedback Figure 1 Visualization of the results of correlation analysis between cultural dimensions and innovation index of known options and their likely outcomes, and uncertainty being decision making in the con- text of unknown options and outcomes (Tversky & Fox 1995; Riabacke, 2006; Osborne & Brown, 2011).To be successful, an innovation process must avoid uncertainty and deliver lower costs of change and risks (Liedtka, 2018), for instance, through building a portfolio of options, strategic planning, performance management, etc. It explains the strong correlation (0.858 with the level of significance <0.01) between the uncertainty avoidance and future orientation (the extent to which individuals engaged in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification), as well as a positive statistically significant relationship (0.675 with the level of significance <0.05) between the uncertainty avoidance and performance orientation (the degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for performance im- provement and excellence). However, achieving high performance through the use of effective tools is often hampered by a strict control over the use of budgets that are generated by taxpay- ers. Although such control can prevent or detect inefficient use of resources and corruption, it constrains innovations in the public sector. An unexpected result of our analysis is a weak correlation between human orientation and in- novation index (0.214). It can be explained by the fact that people tend to resist change when we are not dealing with administrative service innovation, which ensures their highest quality for cit- izens, but with governance, process or conceptual innovation. The situation is exacerbated when the recovery of the state’s economy becomes impossible without radical measures aimed at the long term (the most striking example is the reform of Balcerowicz in Poland), which are accom- panied by a temporary drop in production, rising unemployment, reduced budget subsidies, etc. This is a long and difficult path, as the citizens does not support such measures. In all likelihood, a society do not want the public sector to be as innovative as the private sector, it wants the public sector to be more innovative than it traditionally has been (Borins, 2001, p.311). Therefore, most experts are in favor of incremental change. In any case, the principle of human-centeredness need to be applied with due regard for the goals of sustainable development and key reform trends in the policy area (digital- or e-government, collaboration and cooperation, focusing on outcomes and results, flexible employment, etc.). If the drivers of reforms are political decisions, new policies or strategies rather than internal problems of public authority or new opportunities created by technology, then the analysis of alternative solutions for change should take into ac- count relevant government regulations and programs for which budget funds are allocated. After E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 42 all, according to the results of empirical research of Bertelsmann Foundation (2020), effective policy implementation is the most important factor among those that contribute to the strong steering capabilities of public authorities. Besides this, in public authorities we have to choose not only between quality and efficiency, but also between equity and efficiency, following rules and achieving results, customer and citizen orientation, tax financed or user charges for public services, etc. The results of study by Danish and Norwegian scientists conducted on the basis of data from the COCOPS executive survey (Coordinating for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future) show that East Europe, Nordic, Anglo-Saxon and other countries have different balancing needs between these criteria (Greve, Laegreid and Rykkja, 2016, p. 88-90). Considered peculiarities of the introduction of reforms and innovations in public authorities relat- ed to bureaucracy and other public sector system qualities influence the behavior of public serv- ants and their social interaction, and therefore should be taken into account in the assessment of public servants and their practice-oriented training. The results of the first two stages of our research testify that in the process of training of public servants we should take into account the following three components: (1) personal qualities; (2) public sector system qualities; (3) personal and social qualities manifested into the public sector system. The first component, in addition to design thinking includes knowledge and skills in strategic planning, project management, sustainable development, etc. The second component provides accounting features of public sector analysed on the second stage of our research. The third component is formed in the process of public servants’ professional activity under the influ- ence of political, bureaucratic, financial and other factors. (Figure 2). Personal and social qualities manifested into the system Attitudes and behavioral characteristics Awareness of the barrier and efforts to overcome it Organizational culture and participative leadership Interaction with stakeholders Ability to perform Personal qualities Knowledge and skills Design-thinking mindset Propensity for cognitive bias Public sector system qualities Bureaucracy and political influence Key reform trends Strict control over the use of resources The need to balance between different criteria Transparency Understand Observe Point of view Ideate Prototype Test Matrix of knowledge and awareness Problem tree analysis “5W” method Interviewing Observing Empathy map Customer experience map Storytelling Clustering of information Discussion Brainstorming Ranking of ideas Three-dimensional modeling Role-playing game Storyboard, etc. Experiment Feedback Figure 2 Personal, social and public sector system qualities Features of the use of design thinking methodology in the public servants development Since most innovations in the public sector are process ones (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015), in determining the methodology of assessment and training of public servants using the design thinking methodology, we should define both results-oriented and process-oriented re- quirements which are reflected in the Matrix of approaches and requirements (Table 3). The Kirkpatrick model is appropriate for using both process- and result-oriented requirements because it provides the following types of evaluation: (1) reaction measures immediately after the training activities to determine the level of satisfaction of participants; (2) learning outcomes based on the results of testing prototypes developed during training; (3) change in behavioral 43 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 Individual-centric approach System-oriented approach Process- oriented requirements Methods of assessment and train- ing provide the ability of a public servant to use the design thinking methodology in professional activ- ities for the reforms and innova- tions introduction Assessment and training using the design thinking methodology take into account the features of the reforms and innovations introduction in the public sector, therefore they provide the steering capacity of public authorities Result-oriented requirements The functional capacity of public servant to introduce reforms and innovations using the design think- ing methodology has increased Assessment and training using the design thinking methodology contribute to the implementation of projects focused on the reforms and innovations introduction in public authorities Source: Authors’ Table 3 Matrix of approaches and requirements characteristics; (4) results as a positive impact on organizational performance which should be determined in a few months after training or during the annual performance appraisal of a public servants (according to Ukrainian legislation it combines self-assessment with the assessment of the supervisor and the head of the department). Since the technology of the design thinking process and features of its stages in general are described in the scientific literature (Brenner & Uebernickel, 2016; Müller-Roterberg, 2018; Tu, Liu & Wu, 2018), there is no need to dwell on these issues in detail. In forming proposals for the use of the design thinking methodology in training of public servants it is important to adhere to the following principles: human centeredness taking into account the goals of sustainable devel- opment and key reform trends in the policy area; incrementalism; multidisciplinarity of project teams; creativity; iterativeness of design processes; consistent application of divergent and con- vergent thinking; use of holistic and experimental approaches; focus on achieving SMART goals; development of the most simplified but meaningful prototypes. Therefore, personal, social and public sector system qualities from the Figure 2 should be taken into account in the application of all methods shown in Figure 3, except for brainstorming. Personal and social qualities manifested into the system Attitudes and behavioral characteristics Awareness of the barrier and efforts to overcome it Organizational culture and participative leadership Interaction with stakeholders Ability to perform Personal qualities Knowledge and skills Design-thinking mindset Propensity for cognitive bias Public sector system qualities Bureaucracy and political influence Key reform trends Strict control over the use of resources The need to balance between different criteria Transparency Understand Observe Point of view Ideate Prototype Test Matrix of knowledge and awareness Problem tree analysis “5W” method Interviewing Observing Empathy map Customer experience map Storytelling Clustering of information Discussion Brainstorming Ranking of ideas Three-dimensional modeling Role-playing game Storyboard, etc. Experiment Feedback Figure 3 Design thinking process At the stages of “Ideate”, “Prototype” and “Test” the most important task is further implementa- tion of the decision. Therefore, starting from the formation of criteria for ranking ideas, the public sector system features as well as personal and social qualities manifested into public authorities are important. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of organizational culture, aware the barrier and efforts to overcome it, etc. E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 44 The results of the study testified that in many cases the method of self-assessment of personal qualities does not ensure the indicators objectivity. This is due not only to the problems of ensur- ing the validity of self-assessment tools, but also to the possible cognitive bias even in university lecturers who have significant experience in assessing others. Therefore, self-esteems should be compared with expert estimates before training activities. Comprehensive evaluation of learning outcomes according to the Kirpatrick model involves determining the change in behavioral charac- teristics of participants as well as positive impact on organizational performance, which should be determined in a few months after training or during the annual performance appraisal. To increase the use of learning outcomes in professional activity of public servants, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the public sector in the process of their assessment and development. Therefore, open-ended questions should be included in the questionnaires to clarify the awareness of the barrier to the reforms and innovations introduction. Besides this, the following peculiarities of the public sector should be taken into account during training activities: bureaucracy and political influence; key reform trends; strict control over the use of resources; the need to balance between different criteria (quality and efficiency, equity and efficiency, following rules and achieving results, customer and citizen orientation, tax financed or user charges for public services, etc.) and ensure the transparency of public authorities. These features affect the organizational culture and partici- pative leadership, attitudes and behavioral characteristics of public servants, their interaction with stakeholders and ability to perform. Therefore, in training of public servants using the design think- ing methodology, the public sector system features should be taken into account in the application of all methods except those that require creativity, including brainstorming. Conclusion References Berry, F.S. & Berry, W.D. (1990). State lottery adop- tions as policy innovations: an event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963526 Bertelsmann Foundation (2020). Sustainable Gov- ernance Indicators. Retrieved April 11, 2021, from https://www.sgi-network.org/2020/Governance/ Executive_Capacity Borins, S. (2001). Encouraging Innovation in the Pub- lic Sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 310- 319. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930110400128 Brenner, W. & Uebernickel, F. (2016). Design thinking for innovation: Research and practice (p.219). Swit- zerland: Springer International Publishing AG Swit- zerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3 Demircioglu, M.A. & and Audretsch, D.B. (2017). Con- ditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research Policy, 46(9), 1681-1691. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.004 Demircioglu, M.A. & Audretsch, D.B. (2018). Conditions for complex innovations: evidence from public organi- zations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(3), 820- 843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9701-5 De Vries, H., Bekkers, V. & Tummers, L. (2015). Inno- vation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209 Dosi, C., Rosati F. & Vignoli M. (2018). Measuring design thinking mindset. DS 92: Proceedings of the Design-2018 15th International Design Conference, 1991-2002. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0493 Dzvinchuk, D, Orliv, M., Janiunaite, B. & Petrenko, V. (2021). Creating innovative design labs for the pub- lic sector: A case for institutional capacity building in the regions of Ukraine. Problems and Perspec- tives in Management, 19(2), 320-332. https://doi. org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.26 Dzvinchuk, D., Orliv, M. & Petrenko V. (2021). Ex- perimental verification of the possibility of using the Woodcock-Francis test to detect cognitive bias of applicants for executive positions in public authori- ties. Derzhavne upravlinnya: udoskonalennya ta roz- vytok, 2. doi: 10.32702/2307-2156-2021.2.4 https:// doi.org/10.32702/2307-2156-2021.2.4 Dzvinchuk, D., Ozminska, I., Orliv, M. & Petrenko V. (2021). Information potential of the leadership diamond model: Conditions of its detection and use in public administration. International Jour- nal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science, 1(29), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.31435/rsglobal_ ijitss/30032021/7451 Dzvinchuk, D., Petrenko, V., Orliv, M., Mazak, A. & Ozminska, I. (2020). Targeted change in the men- tality of communities through transformative adult learning. Advanced Education, 16, 9-17. https://doi. 45 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 org/10.20535/2410-8286.194771 European Commission (2019). European Innovation Scoreboard 2019. Retrieved February 18, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/inno- vation/scoreboards_en European Commission (2020). European Innovation Scoreboard 2020. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from file:///C:/Users/Acer/Downloads/ET-AY-20-002- EN-N%20Online.pdf GLOBE (2020). Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness: Overview. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from https://globe.bus.sfu.ca/studies Greve, C., Laegreid, P. & Rykkja, L.H. (2016). Public sector organizations. London (p. 236). London: Mac- millan Publishers Ltd. Kaivo-oja, J. & Lauraeus, T. (2018). The European mind-set, European opinion and economic develop- ments in 2007-2017: major changes of public opin- ion and the european mind-set in years 2004-2018. European Integration Studies, 12, 32-49. https://doi. org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.12.21870 Koestenbaum, P. (2000). Our leadership model. Phi- losophy-in-Business™. Retrieved November 26, 2020, from https://www.pib.net/model.htm Lapuente, V. & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of pub- lic services. Governance, 33, 461-475. https://doi. org/10.1111/gove.12502 Liedtka, J. (2018). Why Design Thinking Works. Har- vard Business Review, September-October Issue. https://hbr.org/2018/09/why-design-thinking-works Müller-Roterberg, С. (2018). Handbook of design thinking: Tips & tools for how to design thinking (p. 228). Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp Print Us. Nesta (2019). Skills, attitudes and behaviours that fuel public innovation: A guide to getting the most from Nesta's Competency Framework for Exper- imenting and Public Problem Solving. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from https://states-of-change. org/assets/downloads/Nesta_CompetencyFrame- work_Guide_July2019.pdf OECD (2017). Core Skills for Public Sector innovation. Retrieved March 10, 2021, from https://www.oecd. org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/opsi/contents/ files/OECD_OPSI-core_skills_for_public_sector_ innovation-201704.pdf Oikonomou, G. (2019). Variations in the quality of government within the European Union: a compar- ative approach of Northern and Southern public bu- reaucracies European Integration Studies, 13, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.13.24033 Orliv M. (2018). In-service training for senior execu- tives of public authorities: mechanisms for the mod- ern model formation (p.300). Kyiv - Ivano-Frankivsk: "Lileia NV". [in Ukrainian]. Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, pub- lic policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Administration, 89(4), 1335-1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9299.2011.01932.x Quality of Government Institute (2021). QoG Dataset. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://www.gu.se/ en/quality-government/qog-data/data-downloads/ standard-dataset Riabacke, A. (2006). Managerial decision making under risk and uncertainty. International Journal of Computer Science, 32(4), 1-7. Schmiedgen, J., Spille, L., Koppen, E., Rhinow, H. & Meinel, C. (2016). Measuring the Impact of Design Thinking, In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design Thinking Research (pp. 157-170). Springer In- ternational Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-19641-1_11 Teodoro, M. P. (2009). Bureaucratic Job Mobility and the Diffusion of Innovations. American Jour- nal of Political Science, 53(1), 175-189. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00364.x Tu, J.-C., Liu, L.-X., & Wu, K.-Y. (2018). Study on the Learning Effectiveness of Stanford Design Think- ing in Integrated Design Education. Sustainability, 10(2649). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082649 Tversky, A. & Fox, R. (1995). Weighing Risk and Uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102(2), 269-83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.269 Woodcock, M. & Francis, D. (1986). Unblocked man- ager. A practical guide to self-development. Wild- wood House Ltd, Missouri, USA. World Bank (2020). The Worldwide Governance Indi- cators. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from https://info. worldbank.org/governance/wgi/ The paper was prepared within the framework of the joint Ukrainian-Lithuanian R&D project “Competence Development of Lithuanian and Ukrainian Public Sector Employees Using De- sign-Thinking Methodology”. Agreement No. S-LU-20-5. E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 46 ORLIV MARIANA Associate Professor, Doctor of Science in Public Administration Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas Fields of interests Public administration, Human resources manage- ment, Design thinking, Innovation in public sector. Address Karpatska street 15, 76019 Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine +380 676503545 m.orliv@nung.edu.ua JANIŪNAITĖ BRIGITA Professor, Doctor in Social Sciences Kaunas University of Technology Fields of interests Social innovation, Educational innovation, Digital learning tools, Competence development in public sector. Address K. Donelaičio street 73, 44249 Kaunas, Lithuania +370 68608927 brigita.janiunaite@ktu.lt GOSHOVSKA VALENTYNA Professor, Doctor of Political Sciences National Academy for Public Administration under the President of Ukraine Fields of interests Public administration, Personnel management, In-service training for public servants, Parliamen- tarism, Political leadership. Address Antona Tsedika street 20, Kyiv, 03057 +380 674452011 v.goshovska@gmail.com About the authors This article is an Open Access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). DAUGĖLIENĖ RASA Associate Professor, Doctor in Social Sciences Kaunas University of Technology Fields of interests Public governance, EU development issues, Economics of European Integration, EU Policies. Address K. Donelaičio street 73, 44249 Kaunas 370 68608927 rasa.daugeliene@ktu.lt