- Email: [email protected]
Climate for Creativity
Climate for Creativity T L Friedrich, C K Stenmark and M D Mumford, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA ã 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Glossary Autonomy The perception that one has independence in decision making and goal setting with regard to the accomplishment of work tasks. Climate The perceptions of environmental conditions that shape individuals’ beliefs about the work environment.
Introduction It is clear that creativity and innovation are critical to the longterm survival of most modern organizations. However, creativity, or the generation of ideas that are both novel and useful, and innovation, or the implementation of those ideas, are complex and multilevel phenomena. There is a multitude of factors that influence the creative process at the individual, group, and organizational levels, some of which are complex phenomena unto themselves. Climate is one such influence. As Denison pointed out in his 1996 Academy of Management Review article about organizational climate and culture, climate is defined generally as the perceptions of environmental conditions that shape individuals’ beliefs about the work environment. For instance, this may include perceptions of outcomes, expected behaviors, interpersonal interactions, requirements, and contingencies. Relative to organizational culture, which is a set of organizational values that influence individuals’ behaviors, climate is more localized, dynamic, and domain specific. In this article we will review the aspects of a team or organization’s climate that may influence creativity, outcomes of a creative climate, potential moderating factors, and ways to assess and develop a creative climate. Given the cognitive nature of the creative process, it is easy to see that an individual’s perceptions of environmental conditions relevant to the creative work will play a role in how the creative process proceeds. For instance, in their 2002 Harvard Business Review article ‘Creativity under the gun,’ Amabile, Hadley and Kramer discuss the negative impact that perceptions of time pressure have on the creative process. Additionally, in another 1998 Harvard Business Review article entitled ‘How to kill creativity,’ Amabile mentions that rewarding individuals for creativity may interfere with their intrinsic motivation and shift their focus to the reward, which decreases their creativity. Given that engaging in the creative process is incredibly cognitively demanding, perceptions of work pressure or being overly concerned about rewards contingent on creative production may overwhelm individuals and make it difficult to devote the cognitive resources needed to solving the creative problem. In this instance, work pressure and contingent rewards are examples of environmental elements that would create a poor climate for creativity.
208
Dispositions Underlying psychological processes that, in terms of creative climate, contribute to perceptions of support for creativity. Participative safety The perception by team members that there is no interpersonal threat for contributing ideas. Vision A clear, achievable mission that aligns team members toward a goal.
In their 2007 Creativity Research Journal meta-analysis on climate for creativity, Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford demonstrate that evaluating the components of a creative climate is an important endeavor for three main reasons; creative individuals and their creative process are particularly influenced by the conditions of their work environment, climate variables are effective predictors of creativity, and climate measures provide information for specific steps organizations may take to improve creativity. Given the importance of understanding the components of a creative climate, creativity scholars have taken a variety of approaches to interpreting the dimensions, antecedents and outcomes of a climate conducive to creativity. We turn now to a review of these approaches.
Frameworks and Dimensions of Creative Climate Motivation Although commonly thought to be a ‘light bulb’ moment, developing creative ideas is actually a quite difficult and involved process. For this reason, motivation plays a particularly important role in whether individuals are likely to engage in creative problem-solving and their capacity to be successful. In this vein, Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron reviewed the development and validation of their measure of organizational factors influencing motivation and creativity in a 1996 Academy of Management article entitled ‘Assessing the work environment for creativity.’ These researchers approached evaluating climate for creativity with regard to the influence aspects of the work environment have on individuals’ motivation to engage in the creative process. They identified five general dimensions of the work environment that may facilitate or inhibit individuals’ and teams’ engaging in creative problem-solving. These dimensions include: (1) encouragement for creativity (organizational encouragement, supervisor encouragement, work group support), (2) autonomy or freedom, (3) resources, (4) pressures (challenging work, workload pressure), and (5) organizational impediments. In general, these dimensions indicate that being encouraged, having control, and being presented with challenging yet personally fulfilling projects will positively influence an individual’s motivation to engage in a creative problem-solving endeavor.
Climate for Creativity
Specifically, to engage in the challenge of creative projects, studies indicate that individuals and teams must perceive that the organization is supportive of them spending time on the effort, it is acceptable to take risks, and that creative ideas are valued in the organization. Supervisor support is also critical in that leaders should provide clear, yet not overly restrictive, goals, should give fair and constructive evaluations of creative ideas, and should be willing to reward creativity, particularly with rewards that will not impede intrinsic motivation, such as recognition. For instance, a 1996 study conducted by Oldham and Cummings demonstrated that employees were most creative when they were engaged by challenging tasks, and were supported by their supervisors while not being overly restricted by them. The final element of encouragement involves support at the level of the work team. An individual working on a creative problem can perceive encouragement from his or her work team through a willingness to exchange ideas, sharing a goal to solve the creative problem, and willingness to provide fair and useful evaluations of generated ideas. Additionally, research indicates that individuals are better able and more inclined to be creative when given autonomy in how to interpret and develop creative problem-solutions. As Amabile notes in her aforementioned 1998 article, not only does autonomy reduce the limitations of how they might go about solving the problem and thus increases the potential for a creative solution, but it also increases the individual’s sense of ownership in the process. Perceptions of creative freedom and personal ownership have a positive impact on intrinsic motivation. In addition to autonomy, creative individuals also thrive when challenged. However, if the challenge and work pressure becomes too great, it may impede individuals’ ability to focus on the creative problem or will draw cognitive resources away from the resource intensive creative process. Along with cognitive resources, individuals, and project teams must perceive that they have the necessary physical resources that are required. Not only does knowing that adequate resources have been provided ease the cognitive burden of finding them, it also serves as an indicator that the project is valued which has direct implications for an individual’s willingness to engage in the project. On a related note, the final climate dimension suggested to influence motivation is organizational impediments. Often there are conditions affecting the entire organization that may have an impact on individuals’ and teams’ perceptions that creative problem-solving is possible and valued. These conditions may include turbulence in the market, an overly rigid structure, financial insecurity, or internal conflicts. For instance, individuals in a research and development team for a struggling organization may perceive that engaging in innovation would be fruitless because the organization will ultimately not be able to implement the ideas, thus creating a poor climate for creativity. Based on relevant research, Amabile and colleagues noted this relationship and included it in the development of their previously mentioned measure of organizational climate for creativity.
Team Interactions While some creativity researchers focused on how perceived characteristics of the group and organization create a climate
209
for creativity based on their impact on individuals’ motivation, West and his colleagues have taken a second approach to evaluating creative climate that has focused on how teamlevel interactions create a climate for creativity. In their 1998 article describing the development and validation of a measure of team climate for innovation, Anderson and West indicate that members must interact regularly, that there should be an overall goal that focuses their efforts in collective action, and that their tasks are interdependent such that they have come to develop a shared understanding of how the group operates and the ways in which other members work. The specific elements of the team climate that are proposed to be relevant to creativity are (1) vision, (2) participative safety, (3) task orientation, and (4) support for innovation. A group’s vision is important to creativity because it both aligns the members of the group toward a specific goal, and is also motivating by providing focus and direction. In order for the vision to be useful, however, it should be clear, achievable, and agreed upon by all members of the team. Creative tasks are challenging unto themselves, but in a group setting, with multiple individuals working through the creative thought process individually, it becomes exponentially more complex. Along these lines, Pearce and Ensley’s 2004 study on shared vision in innovation teams demonstrated that a group’s shared vision of a goal was positively related to ratings of innovativeness. Thus, for individuals and groups to succeed, it is necessary that the individuals within the team share a common understanding of what is to be achieved. In addition, the goal must be clear to facilitate coordination of multiple individual efforts, and should also be achievable so that members stay motivated. In addition to having a shared understanding of the goal, another important aspect of the team’s climate for creativity is participative safety, or the perception by members that there is no interpersonal threat for contributing. Edmondson and Mogelof discuss the concept of psychological safety in a chapter in Thompson and Choi’s 2006 book entitled Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams, and indicate that individuals are more likely to contribute ideas or engage in necessary critiquing of others’ ideas if it is understood that they will not be judged for doing so. Not only does this result in more ideas being proposed, and a more thorough review of those ideas that are proposed, but it also increases engagement in the outcome of the creative process when the team members participate more in the development. A third element of team interactions that promotes a climate for creativity is a general orientation of the team towards improving the team’s performance on the given task. In this regard, team members are collectively committed to excellence by holding one another accountable, implementing a system for monitoring progress and establishing performance criteria, providing feedback and advice to one another, and maintaining an openness to adopting changes to improve the project outcome. In the dynamic interpersonal environments that are present within teams, it is critical to a creative effort that the focus on the task is maintained and the team be united in a desire to seek the best possible outcome. In his 2002 Applied Psychology: An International Review article on characteristics of work teams that promote creativity and innovation, West highlights many of these and other related factors as important for innovation success.
210
Climate for Creativity
The final element of team interactions relevant to creative climate is support for innovation. Support for innovation can take many formal and informal forms. Formally, the team, or organization more broadly, may clearly articulate expectations and support for innovation through mission statements, job descriptions, reward systems, among others. It is also critical to individual’s perceptions of team and organizational support that resources be made available. Specifically, if individuals do not feel that they have the time, technology, or financial support that they need to develop new ideas, they will be less likely to participate in innovative efforts. Informally, members of the team and organization may also create norms that indicate a general appreciation for creativity and innovation. Each of these four team processes, vision, participative safety, task orientation, and support for innovation, plays an important role in creating a team climate that will foster creativity.
Dispositional Factors The third main approach to evaluating climate for creativity takes into consideration the dispositions, or underlying psychological processes, that contribute to perceptions of support for creativity. Ekvall, in his 1996 article entitled ‘Organizational climate for creativity and innovation,’ focused on individual psychological factors that may influence these perceptions and identified nine different individual dispositions. Specifically, these are personal psychological factors that are influencing an individual’s willingness to act creatively. They include challenge, freedom, idea support, trust/openness, dynamism/liveliness, playfulness/humor, debates, conflicts, risk taking, and idea time. Similar to the motivational approach, the first two dispositional factors are challenge and freedom. Under challenging conditions, individuals are stimulated, engaged and obtain meaning from doing their work and are thus more likely to put forth additional effort and engage in creativity and innovation. If individuals are distancing themselves from their work or are disengaged because of apathy or lack of a challenge they are less likely to go the extra mile to be innovative. A 2000 study by Andriopoulos and Lowe published in Management Decision demonstrated that organizations could promote innovation by continually challenging employees to keep them engaged. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, individuals are more likely to be creative when their behavior is not overly restricted and they are given the freedom and autonomy to find new ways to accomplish their tasks. Individuals become active participants in the work, take ownership of it and are more likely to think of better, alternative ways to accomplish their goals. The next two dispositional factors overlap somewhat with the team interaction conditions mentioned earlier. Idea support and trust/openness are both critical to ensuring that individuals within the team and organization feel comfortable being creative. Idea support refers to the understanding that it is acceptable to question the status quo and that presenting new ideas is valued and encouraged. Trust or openness is, as mentioned before, paramount to creative climate because individuals should not worry about their contributions being ridiculed, nor should they be concerned about judgment should the new ideas fail. In a 1976 Journal of Applied Psychology study, Klimoski and Karol evaluated the relationship between perceived interpersonal trust and creativity and found that more
ideas were generated when individuals perceived higher levels of trust in the group. Both of these conditions create a climate that encourages individuals to voice new ideas and does not break them down for doing so. Two other dispositional conditions within the team environment that effect creativity are the degree to which it is dynamic, engaging and lively, and the level of playfulness or humor. In a team in which these conditions are present, individuals are stimulated because they must react to a rapidly changing environment and also because the sense of playfulness releases the psychological restrictions of an overly rigid environment. It is proposed that an environment that is designed to be stable, caters to the status quo and is void of humor and levity will hinder the flow of new ideas. Along those lines, it must also be acceptable within the group and organization to challenge the status quo and each other through constructive debate. Everyone should be given room to have an opinion. However, care must be taken to ensure that fostering debate does not lead to unnecessary and unconstructive conflict. The emotional and psychological turmoil caused by interpersonal conflict within the group can sap valuable cognitive resources and would likely lead to disengagement and a decrease in psychological safety, making it increasingly unlikely that new ideas would be shared. Chen’s study on the benefits and detriments of conflict during creative projects, published in 2006 in Creativity and Innovation Management, supported the proposition that conflict related to the task or solving the problem can be beneficial but interpersonal conflict is likely to be detrimental to team processes. Finally, groups and organizations that avoid uncertainty and risk will not be open to innovations. Organizations and groups must be able to respond rapidly to opportunities that call for innovation and thus must be able to accept the risk of responding quickly. All innovations are departures from the norm and thus are, in some way, risky. In addition to being allotted room to take risks, individuals must also be given the time to be creative. Innovation does not happen in an instant, so the organization and team must ensure that individuals are afforded the room to spend time considering alternative ideas. Although there has been substantial overlap in general concepts between the three approaches reviewed so far, they are not entirely comprehensive unto themselves.
An Integrated Framework There are several other ways that researchers have gone about describing climate for creativity. In addition to the three approaches already discussed, others have focused on organizational learning, appraising the environment, employee engagement, and specific requirements for developing new products. More recently, there has been an effort to integrate the various ways that researchers have described climate factors. In a 2005 article entitled ‘Dimensions of creative climate: A general taxonomy,’ Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford reviewed available creative climate taxonomies and determined that nearly all of the variables included in the range of approaches could be encompassed within 14 dimensions. These dimensions include: (1) having a positive peer group, (2) having positive relationships with supervisors, (3) available resources, (4) challenging work, (5) having a clear mission or vision,
Climate for Creativity
(6) being given freedom or autonomy over one’s work, (7) positive exchanges with other members, (8) being intellectually stimulated by the work and those around you, (9) receiving support from top management, (10) being rewarded, (11) acceptance of risk taking and flexibility in thinking, (12) a focus on products, (13) encouragement of participation, and (14) integration of organizational processes. This final collection of factors seems most useful because it incorporates both interpersonal elements (e.g., positive peer group, positive supervisor relationships), and task elements (e.g., challenging work, clear goals) but is also multilevel. It demonstrates that developing a climate for creativity involves individual level processes (e.g., freedom or autonomy), group level processes (e.g., positive peer group), and organizational level processes (e.g., top management support). Having reviewed the dominant ways in which the literature has defined the components of a creative climate, we now turn to the critical outcomes of a climate for creativity.
Outcomes of Climate for Creativity Research on climate for creativity has made it clear that climate does, in fact, have a significant influence on critical creative outcomes. Additionally, these outcomes span all levels of the organization, from the individual to the organization as a whole, and also generalize across types of organizations, cultures, and focus of the work. When teams and organizations take care to establish a climate that facilitates creativity, it has been shown to have significant effects on the creative problemsolving of individuals, project adoption, project success, as well as long-term organizational outcomes. Much of the climate elements reviewed in the previous sections are focused on the conditions that will encourage individuals to engage in creative problem-solving and help them succeed should they do so. For instance, having challenging work, autonomy and a clear goal to work towards is likely to jump-start creativity. Trust, openness and constructive criticism will keep the creative process moving forward in a positive direction. Finally, having support from team members and supervisors, and the resources required to carry it out will fuel the individual’s creative process. Another significant, and less obvious, outcome of establishing a climate for creativity is the increased chance that a creative project will be adopted. There are several components of the creative climate taxonomy that are specifically relevant, including top management support, flexibility in risk taking, and organizational support for innovation. If it is clear through organizational documents, norms, and discussion that innovation is of value, members of the organization will be more likely to buy-in to supporting the innovation – a critical point due to the level of organizational disruption that innovation often causes. The organizational support is particularly effective if it is communicated by the top management team. Additionally, if the organization is not risk-averse, it will be more receptive to implementing new initiatives. Along similar lines, not only does a climate that supports creativity facilitate project adoption, it is also likely to increase the chances of project success. If the climate is such that all individuals feel comfortable contributing their ideas, it increases
211
the chances that a high quality idea will be presented. Additionally, a psychologically safe environment that encourages constructive conflict will increase the evaluation and adjustment of project ideas, resulting in more refined and higher quality solutions. In a study along these lines, Baer and Frese’s 2003 Journal of Organizational Behavior article on climates for initiative and psychological safety demonstrated the link between critical climate variables, innovation in the organization, and ultimate firm performance. Finally, by improving creativity and innovation, establishing a climate supportive of creativity will lead to long-term organizational outcomes such as competitive advantage, and survival. The critical role that innovation plays in the overall success of organizations has been regularly documented by organizational research and it is particularly critical in the current dynamic, technology-driven marketplace. Any organizational strategy that improves creative problem-solving and facilitates project adoption and success is a worthwhile intervention. However, while the organization or group may facilitate creativity by developing a climate that supports it, there are several intervening variables that may moderate the relationship between a creative climate and team and organizational outcomes.
Moderators Based on prior research, it is evident that there is a variety of work, group, organization and environmental variables that may moderate the relationship between creativity and the outcomes discussed in the previous section. Specifically, the effect that climate has on creative outcomes may vary as a function of task conditions, characteristics of the group, characteristics of the organization, or the environment in which the organization is operating. It is critical to understand these moderating variables so as to implement climate characteristics appropriately based on the given situation. With regard to work task conditions, research indicates that stage of the innovation process plays a role in how great of an impact climate has. For instance, a study published in Small Group Research in 2001 by Bain, Mann, and Pirola-Merlo indicates that climate has a stronger effect during research tasks than it does during development tasks and is more critical during the early stages of creative efforts rather than the later implementation stages. Additionally, other research indicates that task complexity or difficulty, and the autonomy that individuals are given may moderate the relationship as well. Specifically, the criticality of the climate variables may have a decreased impact for simpler innovations where engagement is not as critical, or for tasks in which individuals have little control over their work and thus can engage in little innovation regardless of the climate. Along with characteristics of the work being done, there may also be characteristics of the work group that moderate the relationship between climate and creativity. The findings of a 2001 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology study by Curral, Forrester, Dawson, and West supports this in that they found that larger groups had weaker team processes as measured by climate indices. Thus, in larger groups it may be more difficult to have a clear and strong climate that would influence individuals to be creative. Additionally, varying
212
Climate for Creativity
levels of cohesion, coordination and interdependence may impact the relationship between climate and creativity. For instance, in a group with low cohesion or coordination, it may make little difference that team members feel safe contributing ideas because the ideas will not be well integrated with the ideas of other members. In addition to work and group characteristics, there are also organizational characteristics that may have intervening effects in the climate and creativity relationship. Although a team’s climate may facilitate creativity, conditions within the organization may make it more or less likely that the product of the team’s creativity can be capitalized on. For instance, Nystrom, Ramamurthy and Wilson’s 2002 Journal of Engineering and Technology Management study on technological innovations indicated that an organization that is larger or has more available resources will be better equipped to support project ideas than a smaller firm could. In addition to size and resources, an organization’s learning orientation, structure and level of professionalization can also play a role. A positive learning orientation will make the organization more receptive to new ideas, horizontal and vertical structures may be differentially appropriate given the type and scope of an innovation, and encouragement of participation may play a bigger role in a highly professional organization where members have the capability to contribute to the creative process. Environmental factors that are external to the organization may also moderate the climate–creativity relationship. Some potential environmental moderators include turbulence, market demands, and competitive pressure. For instance, if the environment that the organization exists within is rapidly changing with ever-changing demands from customers or pressure from competitors to adapt, it is likely that enhancing a creative climate will be more critical than for an organization in a stable environment in which it is not critical that the organization develop new products or processes to satisfy customers or keep up with competitors. A meta-analysis conducted by Damanpour in 1996 supports the proposition that the environment that the organization is in plays a role such that environmental uncertainty moderated the relationship between organizational variables related to climate (i.e., structural complexity, size) and innovation. At this point it is clear that climate is a multi-faceted phenomenon that plays an integral role in organizational creativity and innovation, but that the influence of climate may vary depending on work, group, organizational and environmental factors. To determine what the effect is, exactly, it is necessary to evaluate the presence and effectiveness of the climate dimensions. Assessment of climate dimensions also proves important if we hope to ultimately intervene in organizational processes to create a climate that supports creative efforts.
Assessment and Interventions There are a number of ways in which climate for creativity is assessed within organizations including standardized, validated measures and localized measures used for specific organizations. On the whole, it is clear that climate can be measured; however, it is also apparent that standardized instruments, such as the KEYS: Assessing climate for creativity,
Creative Climate Questionnaire, Situational Outlook Questionnaire, Team Climate Inventory, and the Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation, are the most reliable ways to evaluate creative climate. A recent Creativity Research Journal metaanalysis conducted by Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford in 2007 compared the relationship between these measures, localized measures and creative outcomes and found that the standardized measures produced stronger effects sizes in their measurement of creative climate than did locally developed measures. It was thus recommended that standardized instruments be utilized when evaluating climate for creativity. In discussing the evaluation of creative climate it is also critical to understand the measurement of the outcomes by which the influence of climate is assessed as the differences between the criteria may play a critical role in the overall evaluation of the interventions. At the individual level, creative problem-solving is often evaluated via self or supervisor ratings of creative output. Clearly both of these methods are prone to biases and, whenever possible, should be utilized in conjunction with objective measures of creativity, or at the very least be made with clearly benchmarked rating scales. A more objective criterion measure would be expert assessments of products produced (e.g., professional reviews, publication). At the organizational level, some of the criteria used to assess the contribution of climate to creativity have included innovation adoption rates, return on investment, organizational profits, and market share, among others. When evaluating the relationship between climate interventions and creative performance, it is critical that the criteria be taken into account and ideally selected to be appropriate to the climate element being focused on. Following an evaluation of a team or organization’s creative climate, it may be necessary to improve the climate or to intervene to create a climate for creativity in the first place. Given the multifaceted nature of climate, it may only involve an intervention for one element of the climate (e.g., resource availability) or one level of influence (e.g., the leader). Based on the available research and the dimensions of climate reviewed in the first part of the chapter, recommendations can be made for interventions at the leader, group process, and organizational level. For a leader of creative efforts, the research on elements of creative climate indicates that he or she should demonstrate support for the creative effort and innovation in general and demonstrate that taking risks and shifting the status quo is something that is desired. Interpersonally, the leader should establish a positive relationship with the subordinates, and engage in a positive interpersonal exchange. In terms of the tasks being accomplished and the structure of the work, the leader should establish a clear goal, but also give individuals the autonomy and freedom to develop unique ways of achieving the goal. The work should be challenging to keep them engaged but also achievable so as to maintain motivation. Finally, if the leader is rewarding creativity, it should be rewards focused on recognition rather than concrete benefits (e.g., bonus) and somewhat distanced from the immediate creative output so that intrinsic motivation is not diminished. Project teams, themselves, must also take steps to create and maintain a climate supportive of creativity. Although the leader may initiate certain processes, the group members should also seek to establish positive relationships with one another, create
Climate for Creativity
a psychologically safe environment, and encourage participation among team members. Given that much of the creative work in organizations is conducted in teams, it is critical that team processes not interfere with individual creative problem solving, or discourage individuals from engaging in the creative process. Members must perceive that their ideas will be heard without unnecessary ridicule from other members, but should also understand that feedback and constructive criticism should be accepted without any perceived threat. Finally, the organization as a whole may take steps to improve the creative climate. Senior leaders within the organization can demonstrate support for creativity and appropriate levels of risk taking by discussing it, modeling it and infusing it into the culture of the organization. The organization can be structured such that work flow and management structures allow for autonomy and freedom. Additionally, the organization must provide the necessary time, technology, and human resources necessary to engage in creative efforts. These organizational interventions will give individuals the perception that creativity and innovation are valued, supported, and that they will have what they need to be innovative. As we mentioned earlier in the article, climate is a function of individuals’ perceptions of environmental characteristics that play a role in how they behave. Thus, these interventions that the leader, team and organization engage in are only influential if they are perceived as legitimate and genuine.
Conclusions There are several important conclusions that should be drawn with regard to the influence of climate on creativity. First, it should be noted that climate is a complex phenomenon with multilevel factors playing a role. It can be evaluated through multiple lenses, such as motivation, team processes, or individual dispositions. Additionally, not only does research consistently indicate that climate plays a role in the encouragement, facilitation and success of creative efforts, but it is also an
213
organizational process that can be manipulated relatively easily to foster innovation. There are, however, moderating factors with regard to the work task, and group, organization and environmental characteristics that should be taken into consideration when determining the potential impact of climate interventions. Finally, it is clear that the elements of climate can be successfully measured and that organizations can use these evaluations to intervene in establishing a climate that will foster creativity and innovation – a worthwhile endeavor in the current dynamic and technology-driven market.
See also: Attitudes and Creativity; Barriers to Creativity and Creative Attitudes; Creative Environments, Conditions, and Settings; Group Creativity; Leadership; Motivation; Organizational Culture; Teams.
Further Reading Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazerby J, and Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39: 1154–1184. Anderson NR and West MA (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 235–258. Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34: 555–590. Ekvall G (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5: 105–123. Flamholtz EG and Kannan-Narasimhan R (2007) The role of effective organizational culture in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship. In: Davila T, Epstein MJ, and Shelton R (eds.) The Creative Enterprise: Managing Innovative Organizations and People, Vol. 2. Westport, CT: Praeger Perspectives. Hunter ST, Bedell KE, and Mumford MD (2007) Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal 19: 69–90. Mathiesen GE and Einarsen S (2004) A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal 16: 119–140. Sternberg RJ (2005) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. West MA (2002) Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review 51: 355–424.
Glossary Autonomy The perception that one has independence in decision making and goal setting with regard to the accomplishment of work tasks. Climate The perceptions of environmental conditions that shape individuals’ beliefs about the work environment.
Introduction It is clear that creativity and innovation are critical to the longterm survival of most modern organizations. However, creativity, or the generation of ideas that are both novel and useful, and innovation, or the implementation of those ideas, are complex and multilevel phenomena. There is a multitude of factors that influence the creative process at the individual, group, and organizational levels, some of which are complex phenomena unto themselves. Climate is one such influence. As Denison pointed out in his 1996 Academy of Management Review article about organizational climate and culture, climate is defined generally as the perceptions of environmental conditions that shape individuals’ beliefs about the work environment. For instance, this may include perceptions of outcomes, expected behaviors, interpersonal interactions, requirements, and contingencies. Relative to organizational culture, which is a set of organizational values that influence individuals’ behaviors, climate is more localized, dynamic, and domain specific. In this article we will review the aspects of a team or organization’s climate that may influence creativity, outcomes of a creative climate, potential moderating factors, and ways to assess and develop a creative climate. Given the cognitive nature of the creative process, it is easy to see that an individual’s perceptions of environmental conditions relevant to the creative work will play a role in how the creative process proceeds. For instance, in their 2002 Harvard Business Review article ‘Creativity under the gun,’ Amabile, Hadley and Kramer discuss the negative impact that perceptions of time pressure have on the creative process. Additionally, in another 1998 Harvard Business Review article entitled ‘How to kill creativity,’ Amabile mentions that rewarding individuals for creativity may interfere with their intrinsic motivation and shift their focus to the reward, which decreases their creativity. Given that engaging in the creative process is incredibly cognitively demanding, perceptions of work pressure or being overly concerned about rewards contingent on creative production may overwhelm individuals and make it difficult to devote the cognitive resources needed to solving the creative problem. In this instance, work pressure and contingent rewards are examples of environmental elements that would create a poor climate for creativity.
208
Dispositions Underlying psychological processes that, in terms of creative climate, contribute to perceptions of support for creativity. Participative safety The perception by team members that there is no interpersonal threat for contributing ideas. Vision A clear, achievable mission that aligns team members toward a goal.
In their 2007 Creativity Research Journal meta-analysis on climate for creativity, Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford demonstrate that evaluating the components of a creative climate is an important endeavor for three main reasons; creative individuals and their creative process are particularly influenced by the conditions of their work environment, climate variables are effective predictors of creativity, and climate measures provide information for specific steps organizations may take to improve creativity. Given the importance of understanding the components of a creative climate, creativity scholars have taken a variety of approaches to interpreting the dimensions, antecedents and outcomes of a climate conducive to creativity. We turn now to a review of these approaches.
Frameworks and Dimensions of Creative Climate Motivation Although commonly thought to be a ‘light bulb’ moment, developing creative ideas is actually a quite difficult and involved process. For this reason, motivation plays a particularly important role in whether individuals are likely to engage in creative problem-solving and their capacity to be successful. In this vein, Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron reviewed the development and validation of their measure of organizational factors influencing motivation and creativity in a 1996 Academy of Management article entitled ‘Assessing the work environment for creativity.’ These researchers approached evaluating climate for creativity with regard to the influence aspects of the work environment have on individuals’ motivation to engage in the creative process. They identified five general dimensions of the work environment that may facilitate or inhibit individuals’ and teams’ engaging in creative problem-solving. These dimensions include: (1) encouragement for creativity (organizational encouragement, supervisor encouragement, work group support), (2) autonomy or freedom, (3) resources, (4) pressures (challenging work, workload pressure), and (5) organizational impediments. In general, these dimensions indicate that being encouraged, having control, and being presented with challenging yet personally fulfilling projects will positively influence an individual’s motivation to engage in a creative problem-solving endeavor.
Climate for Creativity
Specifically, to engage in the challenge of creative projects, studies indicate that individuals and teams must perceive that the organization is supportive of them spending time on the effort, it is acceptable to take risks, and that creative ideas are valued in the organization. Supervisor support is also critical in that leaders should provide clear, yet not overly restrictive, goals, should give fair and constructive evaluations of creative ideas, and should be willing to reward creativity, particularly with rewards that will not impede intrinsic motivation, such as recognition. For instance, a 1996 study conducted by Oldham and Cummings demonstrated that employees were most creative when they were engaged by challenging tasks, and were supported by their supervisors while not being overly restricted by them. The final element of encouragement involves support at the level of the work team. An individual working on a creative problem can perceive encouragement from his or her work team through a willingness to exchange ideas, sharing a goal to solve the creative problem, and willingness to provide fair and useful evaluations of generated ideas. Additionally, research indicates that individuals are better able and more inclined to be creative when given autonomy in how to interpret and develop creative problem-solutions. As Amabile notes in her aforementioned 1998 article, not only does autonomy reduce the limitations of how they might go about solving the problem and thus increases the potential for a creative solution, but it also increases the individual’s sense of ownership in the process. Perceptions of creative freedom and personal ownership have a positive impact on intrinsic motivation. In addition to autonomy, creative individuals also thrive when challenged. However, if the challenge and work pressure becomes too great, it may impede individuals’ ability to focus on the creative problem or will draw cognitive resources away from the resource intensive creative process. Along with cognitive resources, individuals, and project teams must perceive that they have the necessary physical resources that are required. Not only does knowing that adequate resources have been provided ease the cognitive burden of finding them, it also serves as an indicator that the project is valued which has direct implications for an individual’s willingness to engage in the project. On a related note, the final climate dimension suggested to influence motivation is organizational impediments. Often there are conditions affecting the entire organization that may have an impact on individuals’ and teams’ perceptions that creative problem-solving is possible and valued. These conditions may include turbulence in the market, an overly rigid structure, financial insecurity, or internal conflicts. For instance, individuals in a research and development team for a struggling organization may perceive that engaging in innovation would be fruitless because the organization will ultimately not be able to implement the ideas, thus creating a poor climate for creativity. Based on relevant research, Amabile and colleagues noted this relationship and included it in the development of their previously mentioned measure of organizational climate for creativity.
Team Interactions While some creativity researchers focused on how perceived characteristics of the group and organization create a climate
209
for creativity based on their impact on individuals’ motivation, West and his colleagues have taken a second approach to evaluating creative climate that has focused on how teamlevel interactions create a climate for creativity. In their 1998 article describing the development and validation of a measure of team climate for innovation, Anderson and West indicate that members must interact regularly, that there should be an overall goal that focuses their efforts in collective action, and that their tasks are interdependent such that they have come to develop a shared understanding of how the group operates and the ways in which other members work. The specific elements of the team climate that are proposed to be relevant to creativity are (1) vision, (2) participative safety, (3) task orientation, and (4) support for innovation. A group’s vision is important to creativity because it both aligns the members of the group toward a specific goal, and is also motivating by providing focus and direction. In order for the vision to be useful, however, it should be clear, achievable, and agreed upon by all members of the team. Creative tasks are challenging unto themselves, but in a group setting, with multiple individuals working through the creative thought process individually, it becomes exponentially more complex. Along these lines, Pearce and Ensley’s 2004 study on shared vision in innovation teams demonstrated that a group’s shared vision of a goal was positively related to ratings of innovativeness. Thus, for individuals and groups to succeed, it is necessary that the individuals within the team share a common understanding of what is to be achieved. In addition, the goal must be clear to facilitate coordination of multiple individual efforts, and should also be achievable so that members stay motivated. In addition to having a shared understanding of the goal, another important aspect of the team’s climate for creativity is participative safety, or the perception by members that there is no interpersonal threat for contributing. Edmondson and Mogelof discuss the concept of psychological safety in a chapter in Thompson and Choi’s 2006 book entitled Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams, and indicate that individuals are more likely to contribute ideas or engage in necessary critiquing of others’ ideas if it is understood that they will not be judged for doing so. Not only does this result in more ideas being proposed, and a more thorough review of those ideas that are proposed, but it also increases engagement in the outcome of the creative process when the team members participate more in the development. A third element of team interactions that promotes a climate for creativity is a general orientation of the team towards improving the team’s performance on the given task. In this regard, team members are collectively committed to excellence by holding one another accountable, implementing a system for monitoring progress and establishing performance criteria, providing feedback and advice to one another, and maintaining an openness to adopting changes to improve the project outcome. In the dynamic interpersonal environments that are present within teams, it is critical to a creative effort that the focus on the task is maintained and the team be united in a desire to seek the best possible outcome. In his 2002 Applied Psychology: An International Review article on characteristics of work teams that promote creativity and innovation, West highlights many of these and other related factors as important for innovation success.
210
Climate for Creativity
The final element of team interactions relevant to creative climate is support for innovation. Support for innovation can take many formal and informal forms. Formally, the team, or organization more broadly, may clearly articulate expectations and support for innovation through mission statements, job descriptions, reward systems, among others. It is also critical to individual’s perceptions of team and organizational support that resources be made available. Specifically, if individuals do not feel that they have the time, technology, or financial support that they need to develop new ideas, they will be less likely to participate in innovative efforts. Informally, members of the team and organization may also create norms that indicate a general appreciation for creativity and innovation. Each of these four team processes, vision, participative safety, task orientation, and support for innovation, plays an important role in creating a team climate that will foster creativity.
Dispositional Factors The third main approach to evaluating climate for creativity takes into consideration the dispositions, or underlying psychological processes, that contribute to perceptions of support for creativity. Ekvall, in his 1996 article entitled ‘Organizational climate for creativity and innovation,’ focused on individual psychological factors that may influence these perceptions and identified nine different individual dispositions. Specifically, these are personal psychological factors that are influencing an individual’s willingness to act creatively. They include challenge, freedom, idea support, trust/openness, dynamism/liveliness, playfulness/humor, debates, conflicts, risk taking, and idea time. Similar to the motivational approach, the first two dispositional factors are challenge and freedom. Under challenging conditions, individuals are stimulated, engaged and obtain meaning from doing their work and are thus more likely to put forth additional effort and engage in creativity and innovation. If individuals are distancing themselves from their work or are disengaged because of apathy or lack of a challenge they are less likely to go the extra mile to be innovative. A 2000 study by Andriopoulos and Lowe published in Management Decision demonstrated that organizations could promote innovation by continually challenging employees to keep them engaged. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, individuals are more likely to be creative when their behavior is not overly restricted and they are given the freedom and autonomy to find new ways to accomplish their tasks. Individuals become active participants in the work, take ownership of it and are more likely to think of better, alternative ways to accomplish their goals. The next two dispositional factors overlap somewhat with the team interaction conditions mentioned earlier. Idea support and trust/openness are both critical to ensuring that individuals within the team and organization feel comfortable being creative. Idea support refers to the understanding that it is acceptable to question the status quo and that presenting new ideas is valued and encouraged. Trust or openness is, as mentioned before, paramount to creative climate because individuals should not worry about their contributions being ridiculed, nor should they be concerned about judgment should the new ideas fail. In a 1976 Journal of Applied Psychology study, Klimoski and Karol evaluated the relationship between perceived interpersonal trust and creativity and found that more
ideas were generated when individuals perceived higher levels of trust in the group. Both of these conditions create a climate that encourages individuals to voice new ideas and does not break them down for doing so. Two other dispositional conditions within the team environment that effect creativity are the degree to which it is dynamic, engaging and lively, and the level of playfulness or humor. In a team in which these conditions are present, individuals are stimulated because they must react to a rapidly changing environment and also because the sense of playfulness releases the psychological restrictions of an overly rigid environment. It is proposed that an environment that is designed to be stable, caters to the status quo and is void of humor and levity will hinder the flow of new ideas. Along those lines, it must also be acceptable within the group and organization to challenge the status quo and each other through constructive debate. Everyone should be given room to have an opinion. However, care must be taken to ensure that fostering debate does not lead to unnecessary and unconstructive conflict. The emotional and psychological turmoil caused by interpersonal conflict within the group can sap valuable cognitive resources and would likely lead to disengagement and a decrease in psychological safety, making it increasingly unlikely that new ideas would be shared. Chen’s study on the benefits and detriments of conflict during creative projects, published in 2006 in Creativity and Innovation Management, supported the proposition that conflict related to the task or solving the problem can be beneficial but interpersonal conflict is likely to be detrimental to team processes. Finally, groups and organizations that avoid uncertainty and risk will not be open to innovations. Organizations and groups must be able to respond rapidly to opportunities that call for innovation and thus must be able to accept the risk of responding quickly. All innovations are departures from the norm and thus are, in some way, risky. In addition to being allotted room to take risks, individuals must also be given the time to be creative. Innovation does not happen in an instant, so the organization and team must ensure that individuals are afforded the room to spend time considering alternative ideas. Although there has been substantial overlap in general concepts between the three approaches reviewed so far, they are not entirely comprehensive unto themselves.
An Integrated Framework There are several other ways that researchers have gone about describing climate for creativity. In addition to the three approaches already discussed, others have focused on organizational learning, appraising the environment, employee engagement, and specific requirements for developing new products. More recently, there has been an effort to integrate the various ways that researchers have described climate factors. In a 2005 article entitled ‘Dimensions of creative climate: A general taxonomy,’ Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford reviewed available creative climate taxonomies and determined that nearly all of the variables included in the range of approaches could be encompassed within 14 dimensions. These dimensions include: (1) having a positive peer group, (2) having positive relationships with supervisors, (3) available resources, (4) challenging work, (5) having a clear mission or vision,
Climate for Creativity
(6) being given freedom or autonomy over one’s work, (7) positive exchanges with other members, (8) being intellectually stimulated by the work and those around you, (9) receiving support from top management, (10) being rewarded, (11) acceptance of risk taking and flexibility in thinking, (12) a focus on products, (13) encouragement of participation, and (14) integration of organizational processes. This final collection of factors seems most useful because it incorporates both interpersonal elements (e.g., positive peer group, positive supervisor relationships), and task elements (e.g., challenging work, clear goals) but is also multilevel. It demonstrates that developing a climate for creativity involves individual level processes (e.g., freedom or autonomy), group level processes (e.g., positive peer group), and organizational level processes (e.g., top management support). Having reviewed the dominant ways in which the literature has defined the components of a creative climate, we now turn to the critical outcomes of a climate for creativity.
Outcomes of Climate for Creativity Research on climate for creativity has made it clear that climate does, in fact, have a significant influence on critical creative outcomes. Additionally, these outcomes span all levels of the organization, from the individual to the organization as a whole, and also generalize across types of organizations, cultures, and focus of the work. When teams and organizations take care to establish a climate that facilitates creativity, it has been shown to have significant effects on the creative problemsolving of individuals, project adoption, project success, as well as long-term organizational outcomes. Much of the climate elements reviewed in the previous sections are focused on the conditions that will encourage individuals to engage in creative problem-solving and help them succeed should they do so. For instance, having challenging work, autonomy and a clear goal to work towards is likely to jump-start creativity. Trust, openness and constructive criticism will keep the creative process moving forward in a positive direction. Finally, having support from team members and supervisors, and the resources required to carry it out will fuel the individual’s creative process. Another significant, and less obvious, outcome of establishing a climate for creativity is the increased chance that a creative project will be adopted. There are several components of the creative climate taxonomy that are specifically relevant, including top management support, flexibility in risk taking, and organizational support for innovation. If it is clear through organizational documents, norms, and discussion that innovation is of value, members of the organization will be more likely to buy-in to supporting the innovation – a critical point due to the level of organizational disruption that innovation often causes. The organizational support is particularly effective if it is communicated by the top management team. Additionally, if the organization is not risk-averse, it will be more receptive to implementing new initiatives. Along similar lines, not only does a climate that supports creativity facilitate project adoption, it is also likely to increase the chances of project success. If the climate is such that all individuals feel comfortable contributing their ideas, it increases
211
the chances that a high quality idea will be presented. Additionally, a psychologically safe environment that encourages constructive conflict will increase the evaluation and adjustment of project ideas, resulting in more refined and higher quality solutions. In a study along these lines, Baer and Frese’s 2003 Journal of Organizational Behavior article on climates for initiative and psychological safety demonstrated the link between critical climate variables, innovation in the organization, and ultimate firm performance. Finally, by improving creativity and innovation, establishing a climate supportive of creativity will lead to long-term organizational outcomes such as competitive advantage, and survival. The critical role that innovation plays in the overall success of organizations has been regularly documented by organizational research and it is particularly critical in the current dynamic, technology-driven marketplace. Any organizational strategy that improves creative problem-solving and facilitates project adoption and success is a worthwhile intervention. However, while the organization or group may facilitate creativity by developing a climate that supports it, there are several intervening variables that may moderate the relationship between a creative climate and team and organizational outcomes.
Moderators Based on prior research, it is evident that there is a variety of work, group, organization and environmental variables that may moderate the relationship between creativity and the outcomes discussed in the previous section. Specifically, the effect that climate has on creative outcomes may vary as a function of task conditions, characteristics of the group, characteristics of the organization, or the environment in which the organization is operating. It is critical to understand these moderating variables so as to implement climate characteristics appropriately based on the given situation. With regard to work task conditions, research indicates that stage of the innovation process plays a role in how great of an impact climate has. For instance, a study published in Small Group Research in 2001 by Bain, Mann, and Pirola-Merlo indicates that climate has a stronger effect during research tasks than it does during development tasks and is more critical during the early stages of creative efforts rather than the later implementation stages. Additionally, other research indicates that task complexity or difficulty, and the autonomy that individuals are given may moderate the relationship as well. Specifically, the criticality of the climate variables may have a decreased impact for simpler innovations where engagement is not as critical, or for tasks in which individuals have little control over their work and thus can engage in little innovation regardless of the climate. Along with characteristics of the work being done, there may also be characteristics of the work group that moderate the relationship between climate and creativity. The findings of a 2001 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology study by Curral, Forrester, Dawson, and West supports this in that they found that larger groups had weaker team processes as measured by climate indices. Thus, in larger groups it may be more difficult to have a clear and strong climate that would influence individuals to be creative. Additionally, varying
212
Climate for Creativity
levels of cohesion, coordination and interdependence may impact the relationship between climate and creativity. For instance, in a group with low cohesion or coordination, it may make little difference that team members feel safe contributing ideas because the ideas will not be well integrated with the ideas of other members. In addition to work and group characteristics, there are also organizational characteristics that may have intervening effects in the climate and creativity relationship. Although a team’s climate may facilitate creativity, conditions within the organization may make it more or less likely that the product of the team’s creativity can be capitalized on. For instance, Nystrom, Ramamurthy and Wilson’s 2002 Journal of Engineering and Technology Management study on technological innovations indicated that an organization that is larger or has more available resources will be better equipped to support project ideas than a smaller firm could. In addition to size and resources, an organization’s learning orientation, structure and level of professionalization can also play a role. A positive learning orientation will make the organization more receptive to new ideas, horizontal and vertical structures may be differentially appropriate given the type and scope of an innovation, and encouragement of participation may play a bigger role in a highly professional organization where members have the capability to contribute to the creative process. Environmental factors that are external to the organization may also moderate the climate–creativity relationship. Some potential environmental moderators include turbulence, market demands, and competitive pressure. For instance, if the environment that the organization exists within is rapidly changing with ever-changing demands from customers or pressure from competitors to adapt, it is likely that enhancing a creative climate will be more critical than for an organization in a stable environment in which it is not critical that the organization develop new products or processes to satisfy customers or keep up with competitors. A meta-analysis conducted by Damanpour in 1996 supports the proposition that the environment that the organization is in plays a role such that environmental uncertainty moderated the relationship between organizational variables related to climate (i.e., structural complexity, size) and innovation. At this point it is clear that climate is a multi-faceted phenomenon that plays an integral role in organizational creativity and innovation, but that the influence of climate may vary depending on work, group, organizational and environmental factors. To determine what the effect is, exactly, it is necessary to evaluate the presence and effectiveness of the climate dimensions. Assessment of climate dimensions also proves important if we hope to ultimately intervene in organizational processes to create a climate that supports creative efforts.
Assessment and Interventions There are a number of ways in which climate for creativity is assessed within organizations including standardized, validated measures and localized measures used for specific organizations. On the whole, it is clear that climate can be measured; however, it is also apparent that standardized instruments, such as the KEYS: Assessing climate for creativity,
Creative Climate Questionnaire, Situational Outlook Questionnaire, Team Climate Inventory, and the Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation, are the most reliable ways to evaluate creative climate. A recent Creativity Research Journal metaanalysis conducted by Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford in 2007 compared the relationship between these measures, localized measures and creative outcomes and found that the standardized measures produced stronger effects sizes in their measurement of creative climate than did locally developed measures. It was thus recommended that standardized instruments be utilized when evaluating climate for creativity. In discussing the evaluation of creative climate it is also critical to understand the measurement of the outcomes by which the influence of climate is assessed as the differences between the criteria may play a critical role in the overall evaluation of the interventions. At the individual level, creative problem-solving is often evaluated via self or supervisor ratings of creative output. Clearly both of these methods are prone to biases and, whenever possible, should be utilized in conjunction with objective measures of creativity, or at the very least be made with clearly benchmarked rating scales. A more objective criterion measure would be expert assessments of products produced (e.g., professional reviews, publication). At the organizational level, some of the criteria used to assess the contribution of climate to creativity have included innovation adoption rates, return on investment, organizational profits, and market share, among others. When evaluating the relationship between climate interventions and creative performance, it is critical that the criteria be taken into account and ideally selected to be appropriate to the climate element being focused on. Following an evaluation of a team or organization’s creative climate, it may be necessary to improve the climate or to intervene to create a climate for creativity in the first place. Given the multifaceted nature of climate, it may only involve an intervention for one element of the climate (e.g., resource availability) or one level of influence (e.g., the leader). Based on the available research and the dimensions of climate reviewed in the first part of the chapter, recommendations can be made for interventions at the leader, group process, and organizational level. For a leader of creative efforts, the research on elements of creative climate indicates that he or she should demonstrate support for the creative effort and innovation in general and demonstrate that taking risks and shifting the status quo is something that is desired. Interpersonally, the leader should establish a positive relationship with the subordinates, and engage in a positive interpersonal exchange. In terms of the tasks being accomplished and the structure of the work, the leader should establish a clear goal, but also give individuals the autonomy and freedom to develop unique ways of achieving the goal. The work should be challenging to keep them engaged but also achievable so as to maintain motivation. Finally, if the leader is rewarding creativity, it should be rewards focused on recognition rather than concrete benefits (e.g., bonus) and somewhat distanced from the immediate creative output so that intrinsic motivation is not diminished. Project teams, themselves, must also take steps to create and maintain a climate supportive of creativity. Although the leader may initiate certain processes, the group members should also seek to establish positive relationships with one another, create
Climate for Creativity
a psychologically safe environment, and encourage participation among team members. Given that much of the creative work in organizations is conducted in teams, it is critical that team processes not interfere with individual creative problem solving, or discourage individuals from engaging in the creative process. Members must perceive that their ideas will be heard without unnecessary ridicule from other members, but should also understand that feedback and constructive criticism should be accepted without any perceived threat. Finally, the organization as a whole may take steps to improve the creative climate. Senior leaders within the organization can demonstrate support for creativity and appropriate levels of risk taking by discussing it, modeling it and infusing it into the culture of the organization. The organization can be structured such that work flow and management structures allow for autonomy and freedom. Additionally, the organization must provide the necessary time, technology, and human resources necessary to engage in creative efforts. These organizational interventions will give individuals the perception that creativity and innovation are valued, supported, and that they will have what they need to be innovative. As we mentioned earlier in the article, climate is a function of individuals’ perceptions of environmental characteristics that play a role in how they behave. Thus, these interventions that the leader, team and organization engage in are only influential if they are perceived as legitimate and genuine.
Conclusions There are several important conclusions that should be drawn with regard to the influence of climate on creativity. First, it should be noted that climate is a complex phenomenon with multilevel factors playing a role. It can be evaluated through multiple lenses, such as motivation, team processes, or individual dispositions. Additionally, not only does research consistently indicate that climate plays a role in the encouragement, facilitation and success of creative efforts, but it is also an
213
organizational process that can be manipulated relatively easily to foster innovation. There are, however, moderating factors with regard to the work task, and group, organization and environmental characteristics that should be taken into consideration when determining the potential impact of climate interventions. Finally, it is clear that the elements of climate can be successfully measured and that organizations can use these evaluations to intervene in establishing a climate that will foster creativity and innovation – a worthwhile endeavor in the current dynamic and technology-driven market.
See also: Attitudes and Creativity; Barriers to Creativity and Creative Attitudes; Creative Environments, Conditions, and Settings; Group Creativity; Leadership; Motivation; Organizational Culture; Teams.
Further Reading Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazerby J, and Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39: 1154–1184. Anderson NR and West MA (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 235–258. Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34: 555–590. Ekvall G (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5: 105–123. Flamholtz EG and Kannan-Narasimhan R (2007) The role of effective organizational culture in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship. In: Davila T, Epstein MJ, and Shelton R (eds.) The Creative Enterprise: Managing Innovative Organizations and People, Vol. 2. Westport, CT: Praeger Perspectives. Hunter ST, Bedell KE, and Mumford MD (2007) Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal 19: 69–90. Mathiesen GE and Einarsen S (2004) A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal 16: 119–140. Sternberg RJ (2005) Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. West MA (2002) Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review 51: 355–424.