You are on page 1of 14

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2014;••(••):••–••

© 2014 Product Development & Management Association
DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12149

The Impact of a Creativity-supporting Work Environment
on a Firm’s Product Innovation Performance*
Jan Dul and Canan Ceylan

Many scholars and practitioners have suggested that a creativity-supporting work environment contributes to a firm’s
product innovation performance. Although there is evidence that such an environment enhances innovative behavior at
individual level, very few studies address the effect of a creativity-supporting work environment on product innovation
performance at firm level, and the results are inconsistent.
This paper examines the relationship between a firm’s creativity-supporting work environment and a firm’s product
innovation performance in a sample of 103 firms. For measuring a firm’s creativity-supporting work environment, a
comprehensive and creativity-focused framework is used. The framework consists of 9 social-organizational and 12
physical work environment characteristics that are likely to enhance employee creativity. These characteristics
contribute to the firm’s overall work environment that supports creativity. The firm’s product innovation performance
is defined by two distinct concepts: new product productivity (NP productivity), which is the extent to which the firm
introduces new products to the market, and new product success (NP success), which is the percentage of the firm’s
sales from new products. In most firms, different knowledgeable informants provided the data for the variables.
The results show that firms with creativity-supporting work environments introduce more new products to the market
(NP productivity), and have more NP success in terms of new product sales (NP success). NP productivity partly
mediates the relationship between creativity-supporting work environment and NP success. The mediation model shows
that the two paths from a creativity-supporting work environment to NP success are about equally important: the direct
path between creativity-supporting work environment and NP success has a coefficient of .22, and the coefficient of the
indirect path via NP productivity is .23.
The creativity-supporting work environment framework can be used in managerial practice to enhance employee
creativity for product innovation. It allows applying a flexible and broad approach by influencing both social-
organizational and physical characteristics of the work environment.

Introduction A work environment1 that stimulates employee cre-
ativity is generally believed to be beneficial for a firm’s

O
rganizations must constantly develop new prod- new product performance. People working in a creativity-
ucts (goods and services) that are successful in supportive environment may generate ideas that are
the market to ensure their survival. A firm’s useful for product innovation. Creativity is considered as
product innovation success depends on many factors that an antecedent of innovation because “all innovation
can at least be partly influenced by management. These begins with creative ideas” (Amabile, Conti, Coon,
factors relate to the characteristics of new products, the Lazenby, and Herron, 1996, p. 1154). It is claimed that
firm’s product development process, its strategy, and “creative ideas turn ordinary companies into market
its market (Henard and Szymanski, 2001). Successful leaders” (Pitta, Wood, and Franzak, 2008, p. 137) and
product innovation also depends on organizational char- lack of creativity is considered a deficiency in the new
acteristics such as the firm’s organizational climate product process (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1991).
(Evanschitzky, Eisend, Calantone, and Jiang, 2012).
1
In the literature both the terms “climate” and “work environment” are
used to refer to the organizational context to support employees for showing
desired behaviors and performance. These terms are often used inter-
Address correspondence to: Jan Dul, Rotterdam School of Manage- changeably although “climate” is often used for employee’s perceptions of
ment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA the context, and “work environment” for its objective reality, although
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: jdul@rsm.nl. Tel: 10-408-1719. many exceptions exist (e.g., “work environment for creativity,” Amabile
* We are grateful to the Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association et al., 1996). In the present paper, the term “work environment” is used to
of Bursa (BUSIAD) and its member companies for their support during denote both meanings of supporting context. The paper does not address
data collection. We would also like to thank Jan van den Ende for his organizational “culture” defined as the firm’s shared values, beliefs, and
comments on earlier drafts of this paper. norms.

supporting work environment at firm level and product tion performance at firm level (Çokpekin and Knudsen. Many scholars who focus on these and other social- organizational aspects of the work environment have sug- BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES gested that physical aspects should also be part of the Dr. Pace.. Gumusluog˘lu and 2001. Ekvall. 2002).g. 2004. 2004. and the few available studies show contra. Given these contradictions. Examples of findings. and Oldham. Amabile et al. Kuntze and Matulich. Other systems and organizational culture. The available Isaksen. Zien and Buckler. dictory results. DeRisi. Bedell. Woodman. and 3M invest (2009) studied the effect of a firm’s creativity-supporting heavily in work environments to support the creativity of work environment on a firm’s new product cycle time their employees (e. 1998. Çokpekin and cal evidence exists about the effect of a creativity. 2005. USA. and Scott and Bruce’s studies at firm level are scarce and report contradictory (1994) Climate for Innovation measure. Weerd-Nederhof. ments of creativity support (Mathisen and Einarsen. 2007. performance. 1993). 1993. Zhou. Ph. 2004). Shalley. These studies. 1994). best-selling book on human factors/ergonomics. and creativity. and Ekvall. rigor are added to this relatively new field of research by ative behavior of individual employees in different re-examining the relationship between a creativity- departments. and reject this link. innovation performance at firm level. and Mumford. and the design of the work environments for employee work environment to enhance employee creativity (Dul creativity. 2010. Thomke and Feinberg. Epstein.. 1996). from the same university. 2008. and Mumford. He has written more than 150 academic and organizational aspects of the work environment. the Netherlands. but do not address their impact on innova. Gardner. (2012). The second tional Journal of Human Resource Management.g. of plants (Shibata and Suzuki. George. Turkey. 1999). Canan Ceylan is an assistant professor of management and organi. George. DUL AND C. p. vation). Zhou and Shalley. HR 1977). and Nijstad. and its relationship with employee physical elements such as color. In a third study. 1997). However. Apple. job autonomy. and Karlin. recently in Human Resource Management and The Interna. and Griffin. a non- istration at Uludag University in Bursa. Most studies focus on the effect of the first contribution of this paper is that more data and creativity-supporting organizational climates on the cre. Bedell. Parry. and Visscher creativity-enhancing elements include challenging work. The second contribution relates to the elements of a ogy and organizational behavior. and Cummings. 2011. the Technology and Operations Management Department at the Rotter- dam School of Management. Brand. primarily in the field of psychol.. the generation of ideas (creativity) may works have been developed for combining different ele- not necessarily lead to the implementation of ideas (inno. Song. Department of Business Admin. Kelley and Littman. Despite these strong beliefs. Dr. contribution is that a comprehensive approach for a creativity-supporting work environment is employed to . and confirm the link. surprisingly little empiri. and window view (Stone and Irvine. 2005). 278). 2004.••(••):••–•• Companies such as Google. 2008. Lauer.D. Erasmus University. see Anderson. Ilsev (2009) studied the effect of a firm’s supporting work 2009. Amabile. and do professional publications and is the author of several books.2 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. Gilson. organizational culture and climate for supporting creativity also been included in an overall measure of the physical and innovation. Tennessee. Shalley and received his Ph. and rewards. De creativity-supporting work environment consisting of dif- Dreu. 2002. Egan. ferent elements of creativity. Shalley and Gilson. in terms of new product performance has only recently the similar Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ. 2004. Elements in the physical Dr. overall work environment support” (Pierce. Several frame- 2003). work environments and a firm’s innovation performance the Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ. Runco. workplace that stimulate creativity include the presence zation at the School of Social Sciences. become a topic of empirical research. leadership styles.. Most studies specific supporting elements of a work environment on an conceptualize such an environment as the firm’s overall individual’s creativity (for reviews. 1996). the current frameworks consider only social- employee performance. examine the effect of creativity-enhancing work environment. 1996. Knudsen (2012) found mixed results for the link between supporting climate on a firm’s product innovation a firm’s creativity-supporting work environment and its performance. from Vanderbilt University in Nashville. environment on a firm’s success of product innovation. and Ceylan. sound. satisfaction. IDEO. and (case study) research methodology. 2004.D. The link between a firm’s creativity-supporting 2004). His research interests include designing work environments for However. Jan Dul is a professor of technology and human factors and chair of creativity-supporting work environment (e. new product introductions. Her current research focuses on linking human resource (HR) systems to innovation and firm performance. Ceylan received her crowded workspace (Aiello. Rank. and odor have behaviors. Sawyer. Dunham. Examples include KEYS (Amabile et al. He 2013. and environment are “summed to provide an assessment of Frese. including a not address the physical work environment (Hunter. teamwork. Her research has been published in several peer-reviewed journals. CEYLAN 2014. McCoy and Evans. 2004. Different elements in the Hunter.

operations. p. and new product supporting work environment may be more successful in success (NP success). Eventually. 490). 2004). other studies in this domain of research that only use one organizational and the physical work environment. 2012. Im and Workman. product innovation performance is (Calantone. 2006. Because people at to novel ideas and risk taking. as part of new product development [NPD] team) or indirectly (not part of such a team) contribute H1: The more a firm’s overall work environment sup- to product innovation. 1992). are more appropriate and are more meaningful to the tion performance. The conceptualization of product inno- for creativity to enhance firm innovation performance: vation is more comprehensive compared with the three managers can improve aspects of both the social. 2009). and Cui. despite earlier claims funnel as new products in the market. Therefore. found between the number of ideas and the number of people in a company with a more creativity-supportive high-quality ideas (e. allowing more ideas to any level in the organization have creative capabilities enter the implementation stage of the innovation process.. members of these work environment may not only increase the number of teams may interact with other members of the organiza. 2005). The concept of NP of 21 creativity-supportive elements of the work environ.. When considering NP productivity. more new products may exit the innovation vation (Zien and Buckler. people that are process. Crespell and Hansen. Gumusluog˘lu and Ilsev. ideas. tions such as research and development (R&D). resource management (HRM). Therefore. Patterson et al. this would mean that there generating novel ideas that can be useful in a NPD are more high-quality ideas for products.. The framework allows applying a flexible and broad sales. they can contribute to inno. The concept of NP social-organizational and the physical environment to productivity is based on the OECD’s (2005) definition of estimate the effect of a creativity-supporting work envi. p. 1997). All organizational members can tivity). High correlations have been might be included in the NPD process as well. Both new products. 2008). This is reflected in the following hypothesis: directly (e. 1992). ideas that process. Creativity is required at all stages of the development Additionally. but also the quality of the ideas. the relative share of new products compared with total tice. This rather than both of these concepts of product innovation usually requires involvement of several business func. engaged in developing or improving products and ser- vices” (Thamhain. and their ideas quality” (Osborn. In a work environment are supposed to be more fluent in product innovation context. separate effects on NP productivity and on NP success. from the generation of new product ideas to their involved in the idea selection process may be more open commercialization (Pitta et al. 301). and facility A creativity-supporting work environment may have management. success is the market success of new products in terms of ment that can be readily influenced in management prac. NP success refers to the impact of innovations on approach when managing the organizational climate firm performance. 2004. the following hypothesis is concepts are product innovation performance measures at formulated: . defined by two distinct concepts: new product productiv.••(••):••–•• develop a framework that includes aspects of both the firm level (Griffin and Page. i. human 2009. as “quantity breeds tion who are not part of the NPD process. in such an environment. and this may result in enhanced product innova. new products that are developed in a creativity- introduces new products to the market. 1967. 1987).. people in a creativity- supporting work environment may produce a larger Theoretical Framework number of ideas such that more product ideas may enter the innovation funnel (Wheelwright and Clark.g.. (Çokpekin and Knudsen. product innovation: an innovative firm is one that has ronment on product innovation at firm level. a creativity- that “at the lower level of the organization the people can supporting work environment can result in more new introduce fewer and less radical types of innovations” products that are introduced to the market (NP produc- (Knight. “the entire workforce is ucts to the market (NP productivity). 2003. Diehl and Stroebe. market in a work environment that supports creativity In this paper. the more the firm introduces new prod- less structured organizations. Parry et al. which is the extent to which a firm Hence. implemented a new or significantly improved product The framework has managerial relevance as it consists during the period under review. ity (NP productivity). 1963). 2008. which is the percentage of the the market and generate a higher percentage of sales from firm’s sales from new products (Hansen. When considering NP success. Chan.CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT J PROD INNOV MANAG 3 2014.g. If larger and more struc. Hence. Especially in hierarchically ports creativity.e. a creativity-supporting tured organizations have NPD teams. (Shalley and Gilson. 1993)..

and Robben.4 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. and are involved in HR policies and and NP Success practices that can shape the firm’s climate and culture for .g. age of sales from new products (NP success). is considered to be an important characteristic of a theory ports creativity. key informant such as human resource (HR) manager or supporting NP NP success work H1 productivity H3 HR specialist who was knowledgeable about the compa- environment ny’s HRM system. industrial areas in Turkey. accompanied by an ucts and sales of new products can still exist. sales men’s Association. All variables are defined at firm level. and they gen- When companies bring more new products to the market eralize more reliably” (Schwab. Song. NP Productivity. Starbuck. 2009. This about issues at firm level (Kumar. DUL AND C. and “par- simonious models are easier to understand. the higher the firm’s percent. (NP productivity). 1963). The best firms are those start-up year. HR man- H2 agers or specialists receive information about work envi- ronments from a wide variety of staff at all levels and in Figure 1. A questionnaire was sent to hence. the model suggest such a link between the number of new products and related hypotheses are tested in a sample of 103 launched and the percentage of sales from new products.. (3) and have sales membership list of the Bursa Industrialists’ and Business- and profit success from new products.. Therefore. Stern. 2004). Barczak. a relationship between the number of new prod- members who represent their firms.9 years market (NP productivity). Davis and Daley (2008) predictive accuracy or insight. the higher the firm’s percentage of sales because “it keeps theories from becoming too complex from new products (NP success). The company was asked to select a Creativity. theoretical model is simple but parsimonious. and increase the percentage of sales independent variables) does not necessarily mean more from new products (NP success). and Kahn (2009) Sample and Procedures found that “the best” firms are not different than “the Two hundred seven firms that were at least four years old rest” in terms of the number of new products commer- (because of the review period of three years. common reflective indicators of a firm’s innovation per- Useful responses were obtained from 103 firms (response formance (e. Parry et al. The mean company age was 26. and other that NP productivity and NP success are positively cor- industries (22%). see below) were invited to participate in a that simultaneously (1) are in the top one third of their questionnaire survey. Hence. a number of new products introduced to the market (NP key informant approach was used to obtain information productivity) partially mediates the relationship between about the variables. 1974). Griffin. may also apply to product innovation at firm Methodology level: more new products breed more successful new products. In the invitation letter from the president of the association. the rest were large companies (range 250– H3: The more a firm introduces new products to the 7500 employees). Seidler. Similarly to others (e.g. to provide information about the firm’s creativity-supporting work environment. The Bursa region is one of the biggest from new products is only one of the success indicators.. More complexity (e. the textile industry (25%). Langerak. rate 49. these hypotheses imply that the Škerlavaj. and Lee. 2008. at least some of these are likely to and Fidler.” origi- nally proposed for idea generation in teams (Osborn. A Conceptual Model of the Relationships among Creativity-supporting Work Environment. p. the food industry (8%). the notion that “quantity breeds quality.8%) from various industrial sectors: the automo- both the number of new products and the percentage of tive industry (29%). (2) have program success. 1047). 2012. Hultink. The firms were taken from the industry. However. and incomprehensible” (Wacker. all units of the firm. which suggests service industry (17%). In this paper. more become successful. About 56% of the companies were related. 2011. and a cialized over the last five years. firms. Crespell and Hansen. the sales from new products are included.. As shown in Figure 1. Çokpekin and Knudsen. (range 4–83 years). p. a creativity-supporting work environment and the per- and selected informants were supposedly knowledgeable centage of sales from new products (NP success). 1998.g. the third hypothesis is formulated as small or medium sized with fewer than 250 employees follows: (range 3–249). However. 365). Parsimony 1993.••(••):••–•• H2: The more a firm’s overall work environment sup. Abrahamson. CEYLAN 2014. 2010) in the present study. and Anderson. These were usually senior managers or company owners in smaller companies and specialists in larger companies.

group spirit and and Aytac. consisting of several sources of and Staw. production. colors management friendliness). 2003). the outer natural environment (e.e. Parry blue violet) (Ceylan et al.. visual access from the work environment to cally focuses on creativity is used. environmental psychology. 2008. Ceylan. in the Clitheroe. are likely to enhance employee creativity were selected: tivity) were gathered from people knowledgeable about challenging job (the complexity of the job. yellow..e. e. Davis. Harman’s one-factor of rewards. and Killerby. or a senior manager or company owner in smaller with each other). Information about the extent to which 2004.. time for thinking (the availabil- was not the case. pay raises. Information on the percentage of sales from new different tasks to be performed simultaneously). 2004). pro- test (Podsakoff and Organ. Hunter et al. 2002).. measure at firm level. the work environment (Knez. studies in ergonomics.g. colors that provide a et al. creativity-supporting characteristics of the physical work porting climate.. and other fields were ues greater than 1. a work environment measure that specifi. and Evans. 2005. creative goals (the situation that the Common method variance appears to be not a major employee must produce new ideas according to goals. nature. the possibility of being secluded from the that should be defined according to the type of perfor. the amount of light in George. any window view (i.CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT J PROD INNOV MANAG 5 2014.g.. NP success). plants) (McCoy From several review studies that discuss creativity. such as R&D. creative ideas (the recognition. Kuenzi and Schminke (2009) distinguish Nowicki.. i.. ronment that are likely to support creativity. autonomy (decision latitude in the job. pal component analysis with all items that make up the Next for the physical work environment empirical main variables showed that the unrotated principal com.. 2009. e. Studies on the effect of physical characteristics on creative task per- Measures formance and research on the effect of physical elements of the environment on positive mood were included Independent variable. both con. Daubman. 2009) use a more specific conceptualization focus. Shalley et al.. 1977. whereas others (Çokpekin and that provide a relaxing experience (e. by having interactions firms. 2002). of supporting work environment) and the other main vari. Runco. and pro- follow-up telephone interview with the company. 2000). bonuses. environment: furniture in the workplace (e. p. 2004..g. Mueller. Ball. 2008. Amabile. 2007. 1994). Stokols. 2009.g. Dul. 2004. orange. Stone. Because a supportive red violet) (McCoy and Evans. motions. presence or view of others) (Aiello et al.. Egan. 2002. For example. work environment is a “domain referenced phenomenon” privacy (i.g... and creativity. job products (NP success) was collected from a firm’s finan. ceptualizations have been employed. Rank et al. different people answered and with the expectation of evaluation). ponents solution extracted six components with eigenval. e. cupboards) (Ridoutt. trees. red. or ing on creativity and innovation.. 1987).. 2005. market.g. and Jaspers. If this vides positive feedback). and incentives for creative results (possibility ables (NP productivity. Zhou and Shalley. builds mutual trust and commitment. and how the firm’s innovation. or Knudsen.g... the presence of . and that the first component accounted reviewed to find characteristics of the physical work envi- for only 39% of the variance. 2004. new ideas).. Barsade. 2011.g.. problem because in most firms. recognition of the questions about the independent variable (creativity.e. support in terms of social support (e. teamwork (working in a group of ing or quality assurance managers or specialists in larger people toward a common goal. pink. praise. Gumusluog˘lu and Ilsev. with respect cial specialist in larger firms. Dul. coaching company owner in smaller firms. 2003). This resulted in the selection of 12 between general and specific conceptualizations of sup. blue. having visual supporting characteristics of the social-organizational access from the work environment to any outer environ- work environment (Anderson et al. Shalley and Gilson. 2007.••(••):••–•• creativity (e. of everyday work). green. 2008). 1995). awards. 1986) confirmed this: princi. chairs. 2002. an appropriate informant was asked to ity of time for idea generation without the time pressure re-answer specific parts of the questionnaire. 70). stimulating experience (e. Mumford. or a senior manager or to deciding about the order of work tasks). and Morgan (2004) formulate an organization’s general natural plants or flowers in the workplace (Ceylan. Creativity-supporting work because a positive mood may facilitate the generation of environment is defined as an overall work environment a large number of ideas (e. window views to present study. 2012. In product innovation research. and Zmuidzinas. 2002). profit sharing. task rotation (a schedule with a set of firms. Shibata and Suzuki. Isen. Wei tables.g. ment) (Stone and Irvine. It was verified whether supervisor (a supervisor who supports and encourages the appropriate people answered the questions during a employees.g. mance that is desired (Hunter et al. nine characteristics that new products were introduced to the market (NP produc. after reaching creative results).. 2004. demanding the job is). architecture/indoor design.

Window view to nature 3. formance. 2004). 2009. the present paper considers only overall rectly involved in the innovation activities of your firm. knowledgeable infor. marketing.9 1.7 . The informant (e.7 .1 .g. Employee creativity also refers to the genera. Standard Deviations.4 2.73 Teamwork 5. because the item scores cause the latent variable. rather than psychological percep. the physical work environment. Çokpekin and Creative goals 4.61 Recognition of creative ideas 5.e. Element M SD 1 2 3 4 absence of bad smell) (Knasko..3 1. the HR spe. Managers and specialists can have a Any window view 3.68 individual employees about the work environment are Job autonomy 4.g. 2001).7 2.1 . work environment support. in a reflective scale. The work environment refers to the social work therefore defined as a formative index consisting of the environment.0 1.g. on Indoor (physical) climate 5. Jung.4 1. Incentives for creative results 4.1 1. According to Informants (Means. Dul et al.91 more direct influence on organizational sources than on Quantity of light 4. variable (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer. the temperature. 2008.7 . This index ranges from 21 (all separate sources tion: “During the last three calendar years.0 . common test methods for assessing . A present (realized) for stimulating employee creativity formative index differs from a traditional reflective scale (1 = very little.7 1..79 Knudsen.54 . the ques. Parry et al.2 1.50 are shown.8 1.5 1. whereas low mean scores indicate that the support- environment for creativity were introduced as follows: ing element is commonly less present (e. or organizational (Choi. 1985). 2011). as the focus is on the effect of The work environment of these employees could have the overall work environment on product innovation per- stimulated or hindered their creativity for innovation.5 .7 . 1993). which is Employee creativity for innovation is the generation of formed by these 21 additive creativity-supporting sources ideas for product. However. 1992).3 1. last three calendar years under review. positive sounds (e. process. In the second approach.57 employee perceptions. standard deviations.6 J PROD INNOV MANAG J.8 . and composi. Glick. extent were the following work environment elements The mean value in the sample is 90 (range 30–145). and sum of the scores of the separate elements (Pierce et al.55 cialist or managers.. 2011.3 . see above) was asked to indicate.83 2003.g.8 . velocity. In the first approach.7 2.72 Wei and Morgan. perceptions of Task rotation 4. Daylight 4.e. innovation. 2002). Time for thinking 4. the light coming from the sun into the work Table 1.. inspiring “Employees in your firm may have been directly or indi.8 . 2010. The second approach was used Indoor plants/flowers 3. silence with Factors and Factor absence of noise) (Alencar and Bruno-Faria.. 7 = very much)” was asked. and Factor Structure) tion of the air in the work environment) (Hygge and Knez..66 organizational sources. Creativity-supporting Elements That Are environment (Ceylan et al. need to correlate.. i.51 score at firm level.6 . To ensure that the informant focused on support for creativity when evalu- ating the sources. whereas Table 1 shows the mean scores. High mean scores indicate that the given supporting Because the separate scores of a formative index do not element is commonly present in this sample.. In the present study.g. questions about the supporting work work. In the literature.0 .5 2. colors).62 Privacy 4.. 1997. CEYLAN 2014.6 1. 2008. Škerlavaj et al. the organizational work environment.75 and Wu.69 aggregated to the firm level (e. 2001). the tion of ideas for solving problems during innovation concept of a creativity-supporting work environment is activities.6 . Coaching supervisor 4. DUL AND C.4 2. and positive odors (e. team. Only factor loadings ity had been present (realized) in the company during the above .7 1. Loadingsa Stokols et al.g. 2004.8 . 2003. Chow..4 1.1 . the Sound (positive sound) 3.7 .58 mants provide the firm score (e.56 . the item scores are caused by a latent and factor structure of each source for creativity. Gumusluog˘lu and Ilsev.66 a 7-point scale (from “very little” to “very much”).g.2 1.5 1. 2008). fresh air.. e.8 1.86 Smell (positive smell) 3..6 . to which have value 1) to 147 (all separate sources have value 7)..9 .53 because the work environment is defined in terms of Calming colors 3.83 extent to which each of the 21 social-organizational and physical work environment sources for employee creativ- a Factors with eigenvalues > 1 extracted by principal component analysis with varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization.. Furniture 4. A higher-order construct is defined.. Inspiring colors 3. the physical climate Present (Realized) in the Firm’s Work Environment (i. humidity.” Subsequently. two approaches are used to obtain a Challenging job 4.••(••):••–•• daylight. Crespell and Hansen. Crespell and Hansen.66 tions of employees about these sources (Baer and Frese. 2012.51 2009).8 . music. Isaksen and Akkermans.

and Chen (2010) were followed. extent to which the firm has introduced new or signifi- For partial mediation.23 and p < . Hoskisson. Firm age. NP productivity is defined as the must have a significant effect on the dependent variable. Jung et al. and correla- new to the firm. In the first environment. test if there is an indirect effect using Preacher and index was obtained by adding the two separate item Hayes’s (2008) bootstrapping approach. In model 3. supporting work environment is regressed on NP success. and finally. variable. Control variables. If both the indirect and the direct effect are significant.9– able (i. leaders also set more variable must have a significant effect on the dependent creative goals. It is a formative index that includes two items: goods and In the second approach. Hitt.e. firm size. and NP (OECD. The related questions were based on the Com- by Zhao. Gumusluog˘lu and for creativity-supporting work environment differs sig- Ilsev. Multicollinearity was not a major problem approach. . the present (realized). NP productivity. there is complementary media- or significantly improved products (goods and services) tion (partial mediation). centage of the firm’s sales in the previous year from new and have the same sign. On the pendent.e.. They munity Innovation Survey questionnaire 2008 (OECD. nificantly from zero. Then for mediation. It is a formative index that includes two items: Results percentage of sales from products that are new to the market and percentage of sales from products that are Table 2 shows means.. 2009. The theoretical and observed range was 2–10 with the mediation depending on the presence of a direct an observed mean score of 6. NP success is defined as the per. This result Data Analysis confirms H1: The more a firm’s overall work environ- ment supports creativity. regressed on the dependent variable (i. 2006. This means that there is a positive 2003). creativity-supporting work environment) is 6. (2) the independent variable must have a signifi- cant effect on the mediator variable. Such an analysis was performed only to illustrate mediator is regressed on the dependent variable. All control variables and a selection of inde. then there is full mediation. NP productivity). the variable. standard deviations. and (3) the mediator Mediator variable. the independent vari- were below the commonly recommended level of 10 (1. and industrial Table 3 shows the results of the regression analyses. and that younger firms have more NP success than older firms. The hypothesized do not represent distinctive aspects of the supporting work partial mediation was tested in two ways.7). the more the firm introduces Several regression analyses were conducted to test the new products to the market. For example. control- that several elements are apparently simultaneously ling for the independent variable.. mediator. 2002). Dependent variable. The absence of a latent variable that causes multi.5. more recent recommendations services.e.••(••):••–•• construct reliability do not apply (Rossiter. NP success). The first. and dependent variables were contrary. The original dichotomous (“yes/no”) interval scale sive for mediation effects. 1997. effect. two percentages. and on the sign of that effect (positive or negative). creativity-supporting work environment is studies have reported their relationship with innovation regressed on NP productivity. third regression. The related questions were adapted from tions for all variables. younger firms. creativity- hypotheses. introduced during the last three calendar years under review. in organizations where following conditions must be met: (1) the independent employees have more job autonomy. multicollinearity would mean that the elements included in each regression model. Furthermore. The regression coefficient (Evangelista and Mastrostefano. The correlations among creativity- the Community Innovation Survey questionnaire 2008 supporting work environment. suggest that Baron and Kenny’s approach is not conclu- 2005). the traditional recommendations by Baron and as the variance inflation factor (VIF) values of the items Kenny (1986) were followed: first. The theoretical and observed range was the correlations show that older firms are larger than 0–100% with an observed mean score of 53%.. the natural logarithm effect of creativity-supporting work environment on NP was used to reduce skewness of the distribution.CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT J PROD INNOV MANAG 7 2014. and Kim. collinearity in a formative scale is also the reason that a second. sector were included as control variables since prior In model 1. and propose an alternative: was adapted into a more sensitive 5-point scale. productivity (coefficient: . If not. the independent variable should cantly improved products (goods and services) to the have a significant effect on the dependent variable in the market during the last three calendar years under review. the independent variable is regressed on the factor analysis is not useful for identifying this latent mediator variable (i. For firm age and firm size. The index was obtained by adding the success are consistent with the hypotheses. and then classify scores. 2005).05). Lynch.

23* −.11 −.38*** Creativity-supporting work environment . a n = 103.17 NP productivity .18* Firm size .06 −. a n = 103. Firm age 3.07 −.19* −. Creativity-supporting work environment 90.20 .. all. the effect of creativity-supporting work envi.42** .07 −. 4. Sector 4: Automotive versus services .32 and 4. empirical support is found for the parsimonious ronment on NP success) is significant.70 29.11* Sector 1: Automotive versus textile −. mediation confirms that NP productivity mediates the ficient: . Table 3. 1.11 . 7.36** 4. 5.54*** 2. Sector 1: Automotive versus textile . In model 2.7% 19.14 .42 −.1% 16.01. and Correlations of the Study Measuresa Variable M S. ** p < .19 −.11 .••(••):••–•• Table 2. and performance. Firm size 5.13 −.14 9.54 2.23* −.20* 3. Furthermore.70 −. b Standardized regression coefficients are reported for a one-sided test.D. supporting work environment on product innovation ment has a significant effect on NP productivity.04 −.05.18 .08 −.06 . Also Zhao et al.07 .21* 7. DUL AND C.04 .16 Sector 3: Automotive versus food −.44 −.31** −.02 −. 2.26 .00 −. ** p < .08 −. bootstrap confidence interval between . model 3 shows that “the effect that may be medi.23* −. model 4 shows that NP productivity has a significant ment has a positive effect on NP success (coefficient . In ated” (i.27** .10 −.12 −.00 25.72).19* −.19* −. CEYLAN 2014. partial mediation model on the effect of a creativity- model 1 shows that creativity-supporting work environ.b NP Productivity NP Success Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 (H1) (H3) (H2) (H2.26** * p < .13 −.43*** . Standard Deviations.05.16 .5% 9.22* R2 10. ment for creativity and NP success: the indirect and direct the higher the firm’s percentage of sales from new effects of creativity-supporting work environment on NP products.23* .01). creativity-supporting work environment is not absent in NP productivity is regressed on NP success.e. Sector 2: Automotive versus other .02 . NP productivity 6. Means. . 8.23 .56 4.31 . Results of Regression Analyses Predicting NP Productivity and NP Successa.70 2.21* −. success are both significant and positive.33 .60* 4.07 . This confirms H2: The more a firm’s overall creativity-supporting work environment.9% 23. *** p < .001).19 −.43 and p < .13 −.22* Sector 2: Automotive versus other −.08 .06 .02 . The results show that creativity-supporting work environ. NP success 52.50 −.31** .1% 29.3% 25.85*** * p < .13 .’s (2010) approach for testing NP productivity has a positive effect on NP success (coef.01 (two-tailed).01 −.10 −.04 Sector 4: Automotive versus services . It shows that model 4. This result confirms H3: The relationship between creativity-supporting work environ- more a firm introduces new products to the market.03 . 95% test.31 effect on NP success controlled for the effect of and p < .2% Model F 1.06 −. 6. Sector 3: Automotive versus food . 3.05 . H3) Firm age −.01 −.24 1.8 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. This means that work environment supports creativity.12 5.001. indicating According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation complementary mediation (5000 bootstrap samples.13 8.33** 6.2% Adjusted R2 3.00 −.10 −. the higher the partial mediation is confirmed because the effect of firm’s percentage of sales from new products.02 −. 1.04 .

27). (2009) found support also enhances the success of new products in the market. general manage. Çokpekin and Knudsen (2012) found supporting work environment introduces more new prod. Gumusluog˘lu (adapted) items of the KEYS and CCQ/SSQ instruments. environment on product innovation. employee scores of selected items from Scott and Bruce’s organizational work environment on NP productivity in (1994) Innovation Climate Questionnaire to firm level 108 Danish small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). on the market: the degree to which new products were Gumusluog˘lu and Ilsev (2009) offer two interpretations launched on time in 164 firms selected from the World for this result: (1) the effect of a creativity-supporting Business Directory. a work environment that sup.••(••):••–•• Discussion interval scale as Çokpekin and Knudsen (2012) did. whereas Gumusluog˘lu and Ilsev work environment on NP success in terms of a firm’s (2009) studied effects on NP success. financial. supporting work environment on NP productivity (corre- ports creativity not only boosts product innovation. The results also show that the number “resources” (correlation coefficient . illustrated by the correlation coefficient of different backgrounds (HR. Çokpekin and In the present study. . It is concluded that firms with order to avoid common method bias. from new products. substantial positive effects of a creativity-supporting ucts to the market (NP productivity). hypothesis as they found a small negative effect of a ment on one specific aspect of new product introductions creativity-supporting work environment on innovation. They rejected their creativity-supporting social-organizational work environ. and a be overestimated in the literature. as this may inflate creativity-supporting work environments have more NP effect sizes. Two studies employed the key informant approach of their study) as they found a high correlation (correla- to obtain measures of all study variables at firm level. the present study work environment on employee innovative behavior may used a sample of 103 Turkish companies. in the present studies. 2005) as the measure for NP productivity. and (2) the effect may creativity-supporting work environment is conceptual.CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT J PROD INNOV MANAG 9 2014. and used one informant per firm (“leader”) to estimate and Parry et al.30). environment to this NP success that are about equally naire (Community Innovation Survey) on product inno.31 in ment) to measure the main variables independently in model 3 of Table 3. it was adapted to a 5-point scale to make The present study shows that a firm with a creativity. and has more NP work environment on NP productivity for the dimensions success in the market in terms of the percentage of sales “organizational motivation” (correlation coefficient . . it ments and product innovation performance at firm level. Using a selection of market share of new products was found. and “idea time” of new products partially mediates the relationship (correlation coefficient .24). can be concluded that firms with creativity-supporting The present study can be compared with the three studies work environments introduce more new products to the that consider the effect of a creativity-supporting work market. Çokpekin and Knudsen’s (2012) and the success in the market. and Ilsev (2009) also studied this link with 43 small Çokpekin and Knudsen (2012) analyzed the effect of software companies in Turkey. also a substantial total effect Knudsen (2012) and Parry et al.26). (2009) studied the effect of an overall sales generated by new products. it more sensitive.81) between the leadership style predic- Çokpekin and Knudsen (2012) and Parry et al.27) of a creativity-supporting on NP productivity. The used one key informant per firm (innovation manager. tion coefficient . present study had only one organizational support predic- chief executive officer. They aggregated seven dimensions of a creativity-supporting social. The present study found between creativity-supporting work environment and NP similar effect sizes for the effect of an overall creativity- success. and an indirect path via . (2009) examined effects (correlation coefficient .22 in model 4). for their hypothesis that a creativity-supporting work The first contribution is that new data and findings are environment helps companies to introduce new products added to the relatively small body of existing knowledge to the market in a timely fashion (correlation coefficient on the link between creativity-supporting work environ. important: a direct path between a creativity-supporting vation (OECD. or manager involved in NPD) tor and found that it had a substantial positive effect on whereas the present study used several informants with NP success. work environment and NP success (standardized regres- Instead of using the original dichotomous (“yes/no”) sion coefficient . The mediation model shows that present study both used questions from the Organisation there are two paths from a creativity-supporting work for Economic Co-operation and Development question. By combining the results of these three studies. By comparison. In other words. but lation coefficient .27 and the standardized regression coefficient of . (2009) tor and the supporting work environment predictor. have been obscured by another predictor of NP success in ized as an overall social-organizational and physical con. Parry et al. their study: leadership style (which was the prime interest struct.50).

the concept of “technical hybrid approach in which several informants per con- innovation” usually combines product innovation and struct per firm attempt to reach consensus on scoring process innovation. Therefore. can be a source of creativity (e. (Kumar et al. and Just like other “single shot” studies. evi. clusions are based on only one specific sample of firms. On the other hand. Other data collection Ceylan.. Studies on the effect of paring the two firms. Çokpekin and Knudsen (2012) excluded. Stone and Irvine. observation. at individual level. The authors report that firms and that is more focused on creativity support rather than with the highest scores for a creativity-supporting work on general support. The environment (Ceylan et al. the concept (Kumar et al. For example.••(••):••–•• NP productivity (standardized regression coefficient . 1993). high to find different informants to measure different concepts.g.. the con- environment is a useful theoretical concept to study orga. In particular. single source bias cannot be mance. studies are needed to check whether the results hold for 1989. 1993). 2004. 2003. activity. which may have contributions from the physical work environment and hampered measurement reliability. DUL AND C. and 2002) have shown that. In studies with general constructs as in the present study (Baer and Frese. Because of lack of research with very few studies at firm level. Several studies have shown (e.23 the link between a creativity-supporting work environ- in model 1). 2004). 2013. both general innovation and NP productivity. Gunday. other firm populations as well. CEYLAN 2014. the other with a low level of innovation activity. although Harman’s one-factor test did not indi- found that work environments may have different effects cate that this was a problem. it was not possible to analyze separate one key informant per concept was used. and Alpkan. Therefore. 1994) and research they found that these companies did not differ with into the effect of an overall supporting physical work respect to a creativity-supporting work environment. They measured “innovation activity. and Dunham. Data collection with the social-organizational environment.” which includes Amabile et al. George.g. product innovation is mixed with other types Wei and Morgan. Kilic. This is particularly true for this field of innovation performance at firm level. Stone. further replication Dawley.. Woodman et al. Porzse elements is a valuable extension as creativity researchers et al. nizational performance (e. the explained environment on general innovation performance report variance of the regression models is up to about 25%. Third. present study focuses on product innovation alone. levels of general innovation performance may not neces. One of and focused measure of a firm’s creativity-supporting the 15 firm changes dealt with the introduction of new work environment that also includes physical elements products (NP productivity). This could be a topic for future research. 2010. work environment and product innovation performance is ative behavior. 2003. 2008. physical environment and 9 elements of the social- organizational environment were included for the con. Houghton. When com- 2004. a supporting the expected relationship between a creativity-supporting physical work environment can enhance employees’ cre. 2011. 2002.g. attempts could be made to have different sources to able studies on the effects of a creativity-supporting work measure the main study variables.10 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. Shalley and Gilson. Gardner. 1993). Finally. Limitations and Future Research ceptualization of an overall creativity-supporting work environment at firm level. Hubbard and creativity-supporting work environment and product Armstrong.. in several smaller firms. Avail. 1996. one with a high level of innovation specific physical elements (Shibata and Suzuki. 12 elements of the found. only statistical power. Ulusoy. only one informant could answer sarily mean high levels of product innovation perfor. 1993). 1994). Second. In future studies. several studies This paper focuses specifically on product innovation. document analysis. Mohamed and Rickards (1996) evaluated Although this is not uncommon in research about . Pierce et al. “Overall” or “total” supporting The present study has several limitations. In the present study. mixed results... Cummings.g. 2008. Pierce. Future studies could employ a of innovation. 2011) methods (e.... nor from distinct multiple informants per concept can improve reliability elements. DiLiello. further on product innovation and on process innovation. Amabile. ment (using an overall CCQ score) and overall “imple- The second contribution is the use of a comprehensive mentation of changes” in eight firms in Malaysia. inter- that there is a complex interrelationship between product viewing) could also be considered. the inclusion of physical environment were the most innovation active. (2012) used a similar measure of a creativity- have repeatedly suggested that the physical environment supporting work environment in two Hungarian firms. McCoy and Evans. have found acceptable inter-rater reliability for similar not on innovation in general. despite efforts innovation and other types of innovation. First. before any generalization dence was found for the link between an overall can be made (Hak and Dul. all the questions. Furthermore. With this overall measure. 2013. innovation..

The description of these market. G. E. such correlation (Cooper and Kleinschmidt.. 2005. and the involved in the product innovation process. Hence. T. change. work environment on NP success consists of a direct designers) or groups (e. Componential theory of creativity. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 367–403. How can this be realized? Because the conceptualiza- social-organizational. Crowding new products that is . increases are realistic and the effects on product innova. which shows that the cor- than the creativity-supporting work environment affect relation coefficient between creativity-supporting work product innovation performance. Barsade. Y. J. Affect Another indication for the practical relevance of the find. The effect of a creativity-supporting focusing on the creativity of specific individuals (e. 2011). with a creativity-supporting work environment score of 90 and a NP success score of 50 were able to reach the References maximum observed work environment score of 145.31. colors) may be smaller than the creativity-supporting work environments. In Encyclopedia of management theory. Yang and Hsu. sions of the creativity-supporting work environment (e. but the effect sizes ment are relatively easy and cost-effective with immedi- also appear to have practical relevance (Cumming. these companies could achieve a percentage of sales from Aiello.. In model focuses on the overall work environment that may affect 3. product. Future research could environment and NP success is .. ed. Rather than just Schwab et al.59]). M. L.. higher (i. Such a work environment may not only help corresponding unstandardized regression coefficient is to improve product innovation performance in the short . Guidice. plants. and M. and R. 2003.g. the percentage of sales from new products Alencar. 2010.32] units and the role of interpersonal distance preference. E.. R.. e. medium. and market environment factors large effect sizes in the social sciences. physical) or even separate elements tion of overall creativity-supporting work environment within these dimensions. “average” company can become a “high performer. such Journal of Creative Behavior 31: 271–81. Wang. . and elements in the Methods section provides a starting timing measures (Langerak et al.36 external orientation. Epstein. 2013. Karlin. 2010. and B. D. that support creativity and innovation (Martins of sales from new products). Sanz-Valle. future 1988). 1977. firm and Terblanche.g. 1997. Staw. This means that run. S. CA: tion success can be considered important in practice: the Sage Publications..CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT J PROD INNOV MANAG 11 2014... consists of separate elements that add up.” Amabile. S. J. According to Cohen’s include more factors such as strategic factors. (possibly disputable) classification of small. Thousand Oaks. M. NPD teams) that are directly effect and an indirect effect via NP productivity. exploiting opportunities. Amabile.e. rectly involved in NPD. ate visible results (Dul et al. and ment process factors. F. M. tional cultures (values. M. customer acceptance. Kessler. 2011). point for possible practical actions.27.. obviously many factors other ings can be found in Table 2. T. this approach total effect can be considered to be substantial. each single mance. T. M. 2013). and scores for creativity-supporting work environment range Jiménez-Jiménez. 2010). The hypoth. taking risks units in the score of NP success (which is the percentage etc. 82%]).g. and creativity at work. with tional design and management.g. the creativity-supporting role of the environment. effects of specific social-organizational elements eses about the effects of a creativity-supporting work (Amabile. A. beliefs) of flexibility. H. 2012.13. In the present sample. Mueller. . the standardized regression coefficient of creativity.36 × (145 − 90) = 20 [7. Tansky. Sociometry 40: 271– 82. It is suggested that firms make their work environments more creativity- Practical Implications supporting by focusing both on social-organizational ele- ments as well as on physical elements of the work The present study shows that firms can enhance their environment. Such large N studies could also include more element could be manipulated separately by organiza- details about product innovation performance. and from 30 to 145. financial. on product innovation perfor. For example. 135–40. Although the effects of separate physical product innovation performance by developing elements (e. To better understand can be considered as a medium large effect (Cohen. supporting work environment results in an increase of . but may also help to shape longer lasting organiza- an increase of one unit in the score of creativity. The variations that were observed in the sample. DeRisi. Bruno-Faria.. Naranjo-Valencia.••(••):••–•• multicausal phenomena. people that are both directly and indirectly involved in supporting work environment on NP success is . changes of the physical work environ- environment are not only confirmed.. 2004). Given the organizational environment which stimulate and inhibit creativity. 1995). firms should offer a work environment that research could employ large N studies (with a large supports creativity to people who are directly or indi- number of firms) to study the effects of separate dimen. if “average” companies Wang. Characteristics of an increases from 50% to 70% [57%.36 (95% confidence interval [. S.g. develop. The this process.

ativity: A quantitative review. J. pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5 (1): 105–23. Euro- of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of. A. Psycho- Psychology 53: 497–509. (3): 304–14. Psychology 52: 1122–31. J. Human Resource Manage. Effects of noise. Kelley. A. and M. R. 2008. Industrial Marketing Management 20 (2): firms. Hoskisson. R.. A. and H. J. Henard. De Dreu. K. J.. R. Narrowing the Isen. Economics 133 (2): 662–76. M. The moderator-mediator variable ment Annals 1: 439–77. G. and I. Organisational Behavior and Human Deci. C. 2006. Herron. and W. 2012. R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. turing 18: 589–602. M. Index construction with Isaksen. Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes. Nijstad. and E. The Academy of Manage- Baron. Thousand tial impacts of supplies–values and demands–abilities versions of fit. and E. Creative climate: A leadership formative indicators. Anderson. Situational outlook ques- Toward the solution of a riddle. Person-environment fit and creative behaviour: Differen. Journal of Knowledge Management 2 (1): 17–22.. K. International Journal Innovation Management 12: 374–91. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 269–77... C. and H. 2001. 2008. J.. Journal of drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best Product Innovation Management 29 (Suppl S1): 21–37. Kahn. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 45–68. Small Business Eco- Cohen. and H. M. The routinization Ekvall.. America’s leading design firm. B. Ilsev. Ö. 1998. E. M. and firm Hunter. J. M. and G. P. process innovations. M. Can the office environment stimulate tion types on firm performance. T.. innovativeness and its effects on new product success. 2003. Positive affect creativity gap: The moderating effects of perceived support for creativ. Effects of innova- Ceylan. D.. NJ: Erlbaum. Lauer.. S. Davis. A. innovation. Cui.12 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. and E. . M. 804–6. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 147–73. Lazenby. D. 1994. A. Houghton. Why some new products are Çokpekin. Human Resource Develop. from IDEO. G. T. D. and S. the-science.. Gunday. J. J. Kleinschmidt. Hitt. T. Conti. A. K. Page... J. G. Hansen. Alpkan. Journal of Marketing 68 sion Processes 108: 25–38. (April): 114–32. Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (1): 208–26. and C. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: 264– vation activities and firm innovation performance. Eisend. R. Calantone. D. Dul. 1987. Bedell. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd nomics 1: 37–44. 2005. confi.. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and statistical considerations. Dul.. Szymanski. S. Kilic. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23 (5): 408–21. research. Human Relations 57: 531–52. and D. Journal of Product marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary.. 2011. cognitive performance and self-reported affect. and J. Egan. N. Mills. International diversifica- Cooper. 1992. Economics of Innovation and initiative and psychological safety. Kenny. 2012. Armstrong. ed. C. R. J. 1993. A. and A. Ceylan. The Leadership Quarterly 14: 525–44.. leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and Dul.. logical Reports 85: 665–74. Jaspers. 2012. Frese.. ed. Akkermans. Knowledge workers’ creativity and some preliminary findings. I. S. and D. T. Coon. firm size. different types of inno. and Glick.. C. Cooper. lever for innovation. distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual. Advances in ment Journal 39 (5): 1154–84. New York: Currency. Academy of Management Journal 40: 767–98. and A. M. 1991. DUL AND C.. Academy of Manage. H. Does organizing for creativity more successful than others. Crespell.. Aytac. A. P. 1999. Diehl. M. J. Creativity Research Journal 19: 69–90. H. J. K. The role of transformational Ergonomics 54: 12–20. 1987. Gumusluog˘lu. Developing Human Resources 7: 160–81. 2004. 2011. S. Factors influencing individual creativity in the work- Assessing the work environment for creativity. Daley. Mumford. Hygge. facilitates creative problem solving. Littman. S. of Research in Marketing 11: 233–48. J. and B. and J. Journal of Personality and Social ity. S. 2001. S. Work climate. and firm per. K. Kim. J. Success Barczak. and A. J. and Y. K. and J. 2008. and V.. Journal of Personality and Social tionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and change. Nowicki. E. Ceylan. T. and E. Transformational leadership and organizational innovation: The roles of internal and external support for Ceylan. The International 77. Journal of Product Innovation Man- Calantone. and M. 2011.. 2006. The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity ment 50 (6): 715–34. 2009. and Problem Solving 15 (2): 97–116. Understanding the relationship between mood and Im. and M. innovativeness. Replications and extensions in critical success factors in new product development. 2009. Journal of Environmen- ment International 11 (1): 51–66. Replication. George. Wiebe. Daubman. R. Bedell. sectors and coun- Baer. and meta-analysis. T. Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. Mastrostefano. Innovation is not enough: Climates for tries as sources of variety in innovation. P. Decomposing product agement 10 (4): 291–308. New York: Routledge. and firm age. J. Climate for cre- dence intervals. and J. D.. An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. Jung. Knudsen. 2007. L. Hansen. 1997. formance. agement Review 10: 601–16. 2005.. and B. Evanschitzky. and new creativity: A meta-analysis. In Encyclopedia of case study Choi. Davis. 2001. 1996. Dul. the role of the physical work environment. A. creativity.. CEYLAN 2014. D. 2001. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 362– really lead to innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management 21 75. R.. C. and D. New product processes at tion: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified leading industrial firms. G. Jiang. T. 2008. Chow. place: An examination of quantitative empirical research. L. Benchmarking the firm’s Hubbard. and G. and F. R. Diamantopoulos. Winklhofer. G. C.). Knowledge management and innovation at 3M. Knez. P. and M.. Evangelista. 2004. M. Chan. 2013. A. strategic. International Journal of Production a manager’s creativity? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufac. A. Mumford. Hak. G. Cumming. DiLiello.. G.. Academy of Man- ogy 51: 1173–82. Hillsdale. Ekvall.••(••):••–•• Amabile. CA: Sage. 1988.. 2011. G. 1996. Canadian Journal creative climate: A general taxonomy. M. 1986. 137–47. 2003. Innovation. G. heat and indoor lighting on sions as key factors in firms’ performance. The Korean Journal of Thinking of Forest Research 38: 1703–15. 2011. product performance in high technology firms. The Journal of Creative Behavior 45 (3): 161–87. and A. 2004. Wu. 1985. 2009. 1995. Workman. E. Hunter. Ulusoy. Dimensions of performance: In search of a conceptual framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: 3–23. Kleinschmidt. K. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Isaksen. Creativity in organizations. H. The Journal of Psychology 145 (3): 151–72. Griffin. Work environments for employee creativity. PERSPECTIVE: Trends and factors of product innovation: An updated meta-analysis. Dawley.. Griffin. practices study. W. Oaks. Brand. The learning organization and its dimen. G. N. tal Psychology 21: 291–99. Stroebe. and M.. W. Commitment-based HR practices. Market orientation. H. New Technology 15 (3): 247–70. and K. M. Firm size. S. Durepos. 2010.. and L.

E. Rank. review. New York: Charles Research Journal 14: 137–47. M. B. and J. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed. Zmuidzinas. K.. innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Paris: OECD.. and M. The effects of personal environment in fostering creativity. R. Google: Searching for value. S.. 2010. Lawthon. and NPD process on per- ceived cycle time.. 2004. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in Kumar. Guidice. theory-building research methods in operations management. Mumford. Asympotic and resampling proce- ceived health. D. P. Organ. Morgan. The Academy of Man- agement Journal 36 (6): 1633–51. R. Z. impact of NPD strategy. and N.. A. Boston. 2005. Ambient odor’s effect on creativity. Human Resource Management 49 (4): 767–92. Leadership Quarterly 15: 33–53. The Creativity Research 16: 119–40.. Dawson. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition. Nurturing an effective creative Wei. Lee. J. Journal of Schwab. D. Journal of Business 40: 478–96. Creativity Osborn. S. Y. Sawyer.. Griffin. J. and F. C. Rossiter. Einarsen. Building organizational culture Seidler. Preacher. P. 2004.. American Sociological Review 39: 816–31. Toward a theory of medical devices manufacturing firms in Hungary. . Scribner’s Sons. Dunham. and T. S.. dures for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator Knez. 2005. 1993. K. 2009.). Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–91. R. 1994. G. 2008. R. and S. J. Pace. Direct and indirect window access. Apple. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21: 375–88. 2009. tivity and innovation. L. Journal of Innovation Management 13 (4): 466–80. F. 321. Bruce. 2004. The Free Press. S. Terblanche. Supportiveness of organizational climate. and L. 265–72. Z. Rickards. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: Stone. Research- Case Research in Business and Economics 2: 1–10. Academy of Management Review 18: 293– Business and Management 4 (13): 1–11. Validating the Thamhain. Abrahamson. G. G. J. culture within a marketing organization. L.. J. Weerd-Nederhof. and K. Berta. work climate literature. 1993. Langerak. M. Patterson. J. Hayes. A.). MA: Harvard Business School. Takacs. European Škerlavaj. F. Wacker. 2002. S. 2010. type. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 63–78. Stern. A. V. E. Managing innovative R&D teams. E. Conducting inter- marketing. K. mood. and per. and E. and S. N. 2002. Martins. and A. Design thinking and innovation at Pierce. Robinson. and F. 1986. Clitheroe. D. Naranjo-Valencia. B. M. 1963. and new product performance in Chinese firms. L. H. performance and mood. process. 1994. Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for Shibata. measurement. L. Kuntze.. Sanz-Valle. G. and R. M. Wallace. 2008. and performance. A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation national Review 53: 518–28. V. E.. M. and K. J.. J. New York: Porzse. A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different and validation. Creativity. Matulich. Stone. product strategy. E. Self-reports in organizational research: Wheelwright. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14: 57–63. OECD. A review of instruments assessing Shalley. J. Human Resource Management Review 10: 1–29. Gardner. J.. E. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 45: 373– 81. J. Fejes. Three avenues for future research on creativity.. E. Wood. Mathisen. Journal of models. G. Expert Systems with Applications 37 (9): 6390–403. Environmental Psychology 15: 39–51.. W. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 657–87. First impressions of Kuenzi. J. Journal of of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. and N. tive data and controlling for measurement error in organizational analy- tion Management 6 (1): 64–74. Song. and H. G. J. produc. efficiency and quality. R. J. Anderson... Organization Science 22 (4): 1105–20. 2010. Frese. Runco. opment: Quantum leaps in speed. Gardner. and M. Stokols. and D. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19: 305–35. M. and N. C. W. S. 1967. Z. Hultink. H. Evans. S. ing 25 (3): 137–48. Oldham. W. Schminke. and F. F. Revolutionizing product devel- Problems and prospects. and L. want to innovate. Thomke. D. J.. 2011. B. 1992. J. Z.. Sara. Effects of indoor lighting on mood and cognition. 2004. Suzuki. S.. 1974. H.. When R&D employee response relationships. 2004. Ball. Gilson. R&D Manage- organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices. Journal of path model of individual innovation in the workplace. and R. G. 2004. Chemical Senses 17: 27–35. C. and Y. market orientation. European Journal of organizational creativity. Irvine. Scandinavian Journal of performance and mood. A. Journal of Management 12: 531–44. M. E. B. 1989. Oslo manual. Wang. Podsakoff. M. and A.. 1992. here? Journal of Management 30: 933–58. Tansky. 2003. I. ers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Maitlis. impact of creative organizational climate on the innovation activity of Woodman. McCoy. L. Starbuck. E. Environmental view and color for a simulated telemar- Parry.. of Operations Management 16: 361–85. W. task 627–39. S.. 2002. Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition. L. 1995. Creativity Research Journal 14: and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from 409–26.. G. 2004. The potential role of the physical Shalley. Effects of an indoor plant on creative task innovation. M. 2004. and M. and G. sis.. 2002. Cummings. Visscher.CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT J PROD INNOV MANAG 13 2014. and R. A. and Z. and J. Song. D. Qualities of work environments that promote perceived support for creativity.••(••):••–•• Knasko. Academy of Management Journal 32: 622–48. organizational research using key informants. Shackleton. J. Pitta. Fidler. Academy of Management Journal 36: spending is not enough: The critical role of culture when you really 271–88. What leaders need to know: A review creative and innovative environments within organizations. A. C. D. R. The keting task. Journal Pierce. Feinberg. Effects of the foliage plant on task innovativeness and creative climate of firms. Killerby. F. Mohamed. Wang. C.. Organizational learning culture. 2002. European Journal of Innova. N. R. critique. 2003. M. Ridoutt. M. 1996. and J. 2000. S. Dunham. The impact of market orientation.. Applied imagination (3rd ed. Assembling fragments into a lens: A organizations and the qualities connoted by wood in interior design. 1998. J. Suzuki.. N. 2009. L. Franzak. 2012. Management Journal 37: 580–607. M. ment 33 (3): 297–311. Applied Psychology: An Inter- Knight. J. C. J. R. Zhou. Csedo. Orga- nizational culture as determinant of product innovation. J. Determinants of innovative behavior: A product performance and organizational performance. C. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 379–408. C. Journal of Consumer Market. Cummings. On using informants: A technique for collecting quantita- that stimulates creativity and innovation. R.. V. L. Jiménez-Jiménez. and proposed research agenda for the organizational Forest Products Journal 52: 30–36. 2010. West. and G. Assessing and comparing the Shibata. W. and launch proficiency on new Scott.. 2003. and D. Robben. Clark. Journal of Management 35 (3): 634–717. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: Management 12: 109–21. W. M. product advantage.. innovation. and initiative. Academy of Product Innovation Management 21: 79–94. L. D. and B. 1993.

Quantity of light Appendix A 18. During [the last three calendar years]. 5 = great extent) ideas for product. and S.. CEYLAN 2014. Job autonomy calendar years] that were new to your firm. Lynch. and J. In Research in per- sonnel and human resource management. . X. Organizational process alignment. Chen. Task rotation goods and services. to which extent 1. Martocchio. ed. Any window view 17. Time for thinking Zhao. 6. A. and Q. K. Inspiring colors of innovation. introduced during [the last three little. 2003. introduced during [the last three 4. the organizational work environment. Creative goals Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14: 274–87. 1. Indicate the percentage of your firm’s turnover in [the 2. or organizational 2. Sound (positive sound) Creativity-supporting Work Environment 21. Coaching supervisor culture and innovation. Y. did your firm introduce new or significantly improved tion of ideas for solving problems during innovation services to the market? (1 = no extent. England: Elsevier. African Journal of Business Management 4 (11): 2231–40. J. 5. 2010. 9. Teamwork last calendar year] from new or significantly improved 3. J. process. marketing. DUL AND C. Hsu. The work environment refers to the social work extent) environment. to which extent innovation. Daylight Questionnaire 19. The Journal of Consumer 8. did your firm introduce new or significantly improved Employee creativity for innovation is the generation of goods to the market? (1 = no extent. Research on employee creativity: A 10. and C. Indoor (physical) climate 20. to which extent stimulated or hindered their creativity for innovation. Employee creativity also refers to the genera.. and the physical work environment. 5 = great activities. 12. 1997. Indoor plants/flowers Oxford.••(••):••–•• Yang. NP Success During the last three calendar years. Furniture critical review and directions for future research. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: 7.. Shalley. Privacy 15. During [the last three calendar years]. Window view to nature 16. 11. Calming colors Zien.14 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. Incentives for creative results Zhou. 165–217. Buckler. A. Challenging job 2. Indicate the percentage of your firm’s turnover in [the were the following work environment elements present last calendar year] from new or significantly improved (realized) for stimulating employee creativity (1 = very goods and services. Dreams to market: Crafting a culture 13. G. 14.-C. 7 = very much): calendar years] that were new to your market. The work environment of these employees could have 1.-M. J.. E. Smell (positive smell) Employees in your firm may have been directly or indi- NP Productivity rectly involved in the innovation activities of your firm. Recognition of creative ideas Research 37 (2): 197–206. 2010.