G Model

SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in

professional sport organizations
Natalie L. Smitha,* , B. Christine Greenb
a
East Tennessee State University, Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology, Box 70671, E224 MHSA Athletic Center,
Johnson City, TN, 37614, United States
b
George Mason University, School of Recreation, Health and Tourism, 4400 University Drive, MS4D2, Fairfax, VA, 22030, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Increasingly, globalization and the adoption of a market economy have made innovation
Received 2 June 2019 fundamental for the success of professional sport organizations. Yet oligarchical league
Received in revised form 14 February 2020 structures, isomorphic and hyper-traditional cultures, and hierarchical organizational
Accepted 16 February 2020
structures can enhance or hinder organizational creativity, the beginning stage of the
Available online xxx
innovation process. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to determine the antecedents
of organizational creativity in professional sport organizations. Perception of organiza-
Keywords:
tional creativity is theorized to be influenced by employee creativity, work environment,
Organizational creativity
Work environment
and the social interactions of employees. The results, based on a survey of three
Creativity professional sport organizations’ front offices, indicated perceptions of a work environment
Innovation with a clear vision and better work processes were associated with greater perceptions of
Social network analysis organizational creativity. The lack of relationships between many of the factors theorized to
influence organizational creativity, such as an employee’s advice network, could indicate
the sport industry is unique in creativity management. This study is the beginning in
understanding the first step of innovation, and the processes that influence employees’
perceptions regarding the ways in which their work environment relate to organizational
creativity.
© 2020 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As competition for sport consumers increases due to a more global market and increasing entrants into the industry,
innovation is critical factor in creating and maintaining competitive advantage (Barnhill & Smith, 2019; Troilo, Bouchet,
Urban, & Sutton, 2016). When organizations innovate, they gain a competitive advantage through increased efficiencies and/
or new product development (Anderson, Poto9 cnik, & Zhou, 2014). Sport management researchers have embraced the need
for innovation, but have focused on limited aspects of the innovation process – adoption and implementation (Kellison &
Hong, 2015; Troilo et al., 2016; Wolfe Wright, & Smart, 2006). These are the last stages of the innovation process.
Consequently, less is known about the early stages of the process; after all, there is no innovation to adopt until it is created.
The early stages of the innovation process set the stage for adoption and innovation (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). That
first stage depends on organizational creativity (Anderson et al., 2014). All stages of the process are important, but

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: smithnl4@etsu.edu (N.L. Smith), bgreen21@gmu.edu (B. C. Green).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
1441-3523/© 2020 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

2 N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

understanding the factors that facilitate organizational creativity is a first step in assisting sport organizations to become
more innovative in developing products and processes or maintain competitive advantage.
Professional sport organizations do not seek competitive advantage in the traditional ways of standalone businesses. Like
other franchises, sport teams do not control their location; the league approves the number and location of all franchises. It is
rare for franchises to co-locate in the same market. Ergo they are the only firms selling their particular product in their
specific market (Chadwick, 2009). As such, there is less pressure to create a competitive advantage over other teams in the
league. Further, revenue-sharing systems although they vary by league, encourage cooperative behavior contrary to those of
a firm in manufacturing or technology, as financial gains are shared across organizations. Evidence suggests the work
environments of professional sport organizations tend to be isomorphic (O’Brien & Slack, 2004) and hyper-traditional (Wolfe
et al., 2006), both factors that can hinder organizational creativity (Dokko, Kane, & Tortoriello, 2014). Still, sport
organizations within a league compete with one another on the field. In fact, creative ideas in professional sport
organizations, such as sabermetrics, tend to focus on gaining on-field competitive advantage due to the oligarchical nature of
sport leagues (Wolfe et al., 2006).
There is evidence that these organizations also adopt innovations related to their off-field operations (Yoshida, James, &
Cronin, 2013). As the professional sport and entertainment marketplace becomes increasingly crowded, organizations seek
to carve out a larger share of the market. This is particularly true for newer entrants such as women’s sport leagues, sport
leagues without a long tradition in the market (e.g., soccer or lacrosse in the U.S.), and global leagues seeking to expand their
fan base. These market forces provide additional pressure on sport organizations to innovate. At the same time, the
cooperation within leagues minimizes the time frame that any innovation will provide a true competitive advantage.
Consequently, innovation in this context may be inconsistently embraced as a tool for competitive advantage.
Organizational creativity, like other stages of the innovation process, is influenced by individual, group, organizational
and environmental factors (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014). Individuals’
personal creativity helps make the organization more creative (Amabile et al., 1996). Yet, organizational creativity is not
simply the average or summation of individual creativity within an organization, it is also dependent upon the work
environment in which individuals are embedded (Sosa, 2011). Perceptions of a creative work environment can encourage
individuals to engage in creative processes and increase the likelihood that creativity will occur (Somech & Drach-Zahavy,
2013). As a result, both individual creativity and a climate supportive of creativity are necessary for organizational creativity
to occur (Woodman et al., 1993).
Recent research makes a case for understanding the creativity of an organization through individuals embedded in
clusters and networks to account for the multi-level factors influencing organizational creativity (Rigolizzo & Amabile, 2015).
There are complex top-down, bottom-up, and peer-to-peer relationships and interactions among colleagues that can
stimulate and support organizational creativity (Obstfeld, 2005; Sosa, 2011). The daily interactions of employees are part of
the work environment; they seek to reinforce norms and encourage behaviors (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). A focus on all
interactions of importance to an individual provides a deeper analysis of organizational creativity (Dokko et al., 2014; Perry-
Smith, 2006).
The purpose of this study is to understand the factors influencing employees’ perceptions of organizational creativity in
the professional sport industry. To fully consider the multi-level nature of the organizational creativity process, three
elements will be considered: (a) perceptions of individual-level employee creativity, (b) the degree to which individuals
perceive their work environment values and supports creativity, and (c) interpersonal relationships within that work
environment. The study extends the work on innovation in the sport management field by focusing on the initiation stage of
innovation – organizational creativity – rather than adoption and implementation of innovations.

2. Organizational creativity

Damanpour and Schneider (2006) posited organizational innovation is a process with three-stages: idea initiation, idea
adoption decision, and idea implementation, with the ultimate goal of successfully implementing innovations as an
organization. Without creative ideas being initiated in some way, organizations would have nothing to adopt, ergo no
adoption decision and no innovation (Woodman et al., 1993). Thus, organizational creativity was the linchpin in the
innovation process. Without creative ideas, adoption could easily be confused with isomorphism and implementation would
lack consideration of new and useful ideas (Amabile et al., 1996). An important definitional point, organizational creativity
was defined as the creation of an idea new and useful relative to the organization (Rigolizzo & Amabile, 2015). This was vital
in understanding organizational creativity, as it differentiated organizational creativity from societal-level or individual-
level conceptualizations of creativity or innovation. Organizational creativity was complex, and new and useful ideas
initiated within an organization could be encouraged or inhibited by factors across these levels: individual creativity, the
work environment, and the structure of relationships within the work environment (Woodman et al., 1993).

2.1. Employee creativity

Without employee creativity, new ideas useful to that specific organization would not likely come into play. Although
employee creativity had not been explicitly studied in a sport management context, individual creativity and openness to
new ideas had been examined (Bowers, Green, Hemme, & Chalip, 2014; Winand & Anagnostopoulos, 2017). Sport volunteers

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 3

and employees demonstrated positive attitudes toward newness in a study of service innovation adoption in community
sport (Winand & Anagnostopoulos, 2017). Although Bowers et al. (2014) did not study organizational or workplace creativity,
they did study creativity among young adults training for the sport management profession. Interestingly, more time spent
in structured youth sport, experience commonly valued by sport industry employers, was negatively associated with
creativity as an adult. Those who spent half their youth sport experience in structured and half in unstructured experiences
were the most creative as adults.
Employee creativity involves employees producing creative, original and novel ideas. These ideas have substantially
contributed to the creativity of the organization through individual efforts toward improvements of products, services and
processes (Amabile et al., 1996). When employees brought their ideas to their organization, whether formally or informally
to their colleagues, supervisors, or teams, the organization as a whole becomes more creative (Woodman et al., 1993).
Therefore, we hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1. Employee creativity would be positively related to perceptions of organizational creativity.

2.2. Creative work environment

Generally, the perception of a creative work environment had been associated with greater organizational creativity
(Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009). Few studies in sport have examined any aspects of workplace creativity. Those that had (e.g.,
Cunningham, 2011; Fink, Pastore, & Riemer, 2003) found that a combination of workplace diversity and support for
workplace diversity were positively related to perceptions of a creative work environment, at least in intercollegiate athletic
departments. These projects used a simplified conception of a creative work environment by only asking one question, how
creative employees felt their work environment to be. The work environment encouraging of creativity has been empirically
shown to be more complex than can be encapsulated in a single question (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Rasulzada
& Dackert, 2009; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013).
Theorists of innovation and creativity considered the creativity-supportive work environment to be a multi-dimensional
construct (Anderson & West, 1998). While work environment can be examined as culture or climate, climate referred to the
patterns of behavior that emerge daily in an organization, and how individuals in an organization experience, understand, and
interpret those patterns of behavior (Newman, Round, Wang, & Mount, 2019). Its emphasis on how the social environment was
experienced by the actors, and how the climate could be manipulated was a helpful perspective for creativity researchers
interested in managerial change (Amabile et al., 1996). In keeping with the body of work on organizational creativity, this study
considered work environment through the lens of organizational climate (Newman et al., 2019).
Specifically, an innovative work environment has been theorized and empirically tested as a four-factor construct that
includes vision, support for innovation, participative safety, and group task orientation (Anderson & West, 1998). Anderson
and West (1998) referred to a work environment for innovation, but empirical manifestations of the theory incorporated
both innovation and creativity (e.g., Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009). The Vision factor has four essential elements: clarity of goals
and objectives, valuation of vision, attainability, and level of sharedness among employees. Clarity of goals and objectives
allows employees to engage in the creativity process by focusing on new and useful ideas for specific problems or contexts
(Anderson & West, 1998). For example, conflicting perceptions of organizational goals can be common in sport, as teams
compete and collaborate with other teams in their league (Troilo et al., 2016). Also, employees who value the shared vision
have a greater commitment to organizational goals. When the vision was unattainable for employees, they were
demotivated to engage with the problem-solving process. Finally, the more widely accepted the shared vision was, the more
likely employees engaged in the problem-solving process (Anderson & West, 1998).
Support of innovation addresses the overall support and expectation for new and improved mechanisms and ideas in a
work environment (Anderson & West, 1998). This can include policy or personnel documents and word-of-mouth, as well as
structural encouragement, such as allowing time for innovative behavior (Anderson & West, 1998). Clegg, Unsworth,
Epitropaki, and Parker (2002) found employees who perceive the work environment to be supportive and accommodating
will engage in creativity. Several sport management researchers have asked employees whether their organization were
supportive of innovation (Winand & Anagnostopoulos, 2017; Winand, Vos, Zintz, & Scheerder, 2013). For example, Winand
et al. (2013) found that organizations were most innovative when the organization encouraged involvement of professionals
and positive attitudes toward change and innovation. They did not specifically explore the role of, or support for creativity,
but it is important to note the relevance of involvement. While support for creativity or innovation was necessary, it was not
sufficient for a creative work environment to occur.
The third factor, participative safety addressed employees’ perceptions of the degree to which the work environment
encouraged or discouraged new ideas (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). For example, in sport organizations where
individuals did not feel comfortable sharing ideas due to hyper-traditionalism (Wolfe et al., 2006), employees did not share
their creative ideas in meetings. Empirical evidence indicated a positive relationship between participative safety and team
creativity (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Yet there may be ceiling effects in the relationship between safety and
perceptions of support for creativity. Strong intra-group support have led to conformity and groupthink through a lack of
conflict and constructive critique (Hülsheger et al., 2009). The final factor, task orientation, referred to the shared concern for
achieving the goals and objectives set out before the organization. That concern helped organizations overcome initial
obstacles to new ideas, as well as increased feedback and cooperation (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013).

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

4 N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Although conceptually appealing, the evidence for the four-factor theory was equivocal. Others (e.g., Hülsheger et al., 2009;
Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013) have shown support for alternative factor structures ranging from 1
to 4 dimensions. The basic conceptualization and inclusion of items measuring the four elements has been consistent. It was the
underlying structure that has been inconsistent. What constituted a creative work environment has been shown to be multi-
faceted and inadequately measured via a single item or a measure solely focused on support of innovation. Previous research
outside of the sport context has indicated all four factors influence organizational creativity and innovation (Somech & Drach-
Zahavy, 2013). Indeed, there has been evidence that a creative work environment is associated with a more creative organization
(Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009). Therefore, based on this evidence, it was expected that:
Hypothesis 2. Perceptions of a workplace climate supportive of innovation, including a clear vision (H2a), an environment
supportive of creativity (H2b), an environment with participative safety (H2c), and a task-oriented work climate (H2d),
would be positively related to perceptions of organizational creativity.

2.3. Interpersonal relationships within the work environment

Although the multi-level models of organizational creativity (i.e., Amabile et al., 1996; Woodman et al., 1993) have taken
into account both individual and group level factors, they observed organizational level factors as averages of the individual
responses within an organization. These failed to account for the variation present in relationships among individuals within
the work environment. By analyzing the interpersonal relationships, a more complex view of the organization could be
understood. In fact, there have been specific calls to examine the embeddedness of individuals within a work environment
because of these complexities (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014; Rigolizzo & Amabile, 2015). These interactions provided critical
information, with colleagues serving as resources from which information can be accessed and creativity supported.
In terms of organizational creativity, the very nature of creating novel ideas often involved connecting different
employees and their ideas and expertise. The more different ideas employees were exposed to, the more likely they were to
come up with new and useful ideas for their own specific tasks (Obstfeld, 2005; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014). These
relationships greatly enhanced (or squelch) employees’ creativity, their perceptions of the creativity of their own work
environment, and consequently their perceptions of the creativity of the overall organization. Thus, a more complete
understanding of creativity in the workplace would include an examination of the extent and influence of employees’
networks.
One specific component of creativity that may be influential in these networks is engagement in creativity-related
processes. Researchers defined these processes as problem identification (e.g., framing and reframing of problem),
information search and encoding (e.g., consulting and combing information from different sources) and finally, idea and
alternative generation (e.g., producing alternative solutions to problems) (Rigolizzo & Amabile, 2015). When engaged with
creativity-related processes, employees produced more creative ideas (To, Herman, & Ashkanasy, 2015). Jiang and Yang
(2015) noted the importance of leader-member exchange in this engagement, suggesting that engagement may be socially
interactive. For example, as employees sought out advice about work problems, their connections provided new information
about the problem or alternative considerations (Perry-Smith, 2006). If the employee’s connections provided advice based
on their engagement in creativity-related processes, the potential for individual creativity would be amplified by the
interaction, thus increasing the potential for organization-level creativity.
In this way, employee creativity would be expected to have a relationship with organizational creativity. But without key
structural pieces in the environment, employees’ creativity does not necessarily translate immediately or automatically to
the organizational level. Perry-Smith (2006) theorized the further out a person is within the relationship structure of an
organization, the less likely their creativity would influence that of the organization. Yet one would also expect that
employees that regularly interacted with other employees who were engaged in creativity-related processes would use
those connections to enhance their own creativity (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Therefore, it was expected:
Hypothesis 3. The frequency at which an employee’s connections engage with creativity-processes would moderate the
relationship between individual employee creativity and organizational creativity. Specifically, as the frequency of
creativity-processes engagement by one’s alters increases, the relationship between individual employee creativity and
organizational creativity would strengthen.
Though employees in the workplace likely interacted with at least one or two coworkers each day, they would not interact
with the same people, in the same ways, or for the same amount of time. Thus, each person’s work environment would be
distinct. Who employees interacted with on a daily basis, and how they interacted, influenced their perceptions of their work
environment. Further, individuals exchanged information about the norms and values of the organization in conversation
with coworkers (Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009). If an individual was surrounded by coworkers who engage with creativity-
related processes, that person was likely to perceive the work environment as creative. Indeed, the daily interactions of
employees were part of organizational climate; they sought to reinforce norms and encourage behavior (Newman et al.,
2019). Therefore, we hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4. The frequency at which an employee’s connections engage with creativity-processes would be positively
associated with perceptions of a creative work environment.

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 5

3. Method

We combined social network analysis with survey research to examine perceptions of individual-level factors, work
environment, and organizational creativity. This answered the call to consider organizational creativity as a multi-level and
socially-influenced outcome, even if analyzed at the individual level (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014). To capture the creativity-
process engagement of each individual’s connections and thus provide new theoretical implications regarding the social
aspect of organizational creativity, a bounded network (i.e., a pre-defined network based on those employed in the
organization) was required. This bounded network approach has been common among creativity and social network analysis
researchers (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014), and thus provided a different theoretical approach than has been used in sport
management research on this topic. By exploring the factors influencing organizational creativity in professional sport, this
research focused on the beginning of the innovation process rather than the adoption of an innovation. This was to suggest
ways in which organizations could stimulate initial creativity that could lead to an innovative climate and provide
competitive advantage via innovative outcomes (Troilo et al., 2016).

3.1. Participants and procedure

Employees at three professional sport teams from two American professional sport leagues, Major League Soccer (MLS)
and National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), participated in the study. The teams were selected to represent the complex
competitive environment facing professional sport organizations that do not currently dominate their market. These leagues
maintain a fixed membership (i.e., no promotion-relegation), similar to the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB. Although the popularity
of soccer is growing, neither men’s nor women’s soccer could be considered one of the “Big Four” sports in the American
sport market. Neither faced significant competition from other soccer teams in their market; both faced competition from
other sport leagues at home and abroad. Thus, these sport organizations represented professional teams facing complex
strategic decisions regarding competitive advantage.
Full-time front office employees were invited to participate in the online survey after the research was approved by their
respective general managers. This resulted in 65 responses with an average return rate of 67.71 % (Organization 1 = 72.73 %;
n = 8; Organization 2 = 67.57 %; n = 53; Organization 3 = 63.64 %; n = 7). When using ego-centric variables, the network-level
metrics are not important to the analysis. Thus, the standard 80 % participation threshold was unnecessary, with typical
organizational response rates between 65 and 90 % (Perry-Smith, 2006). Therefore, this sample size was sufficient for
analysis. The overall sample was 57.6 % men with most employees having 5 years of work experience or less (< a year = 15.2 %;
1–2 years = 21.2 %; 3–5 years = 25.5 %; 6–10 years 13.7 %; 10+ years = 12.5 %) while their tenure at that organization skewed
lower (< a year = 34.8 %; 1–2 years = 22.7 %; 3–5 years = 30.3 %; 6–10 years = 9%; 10+ years = 3%). Gender has previously been
shown to affect creativity through its influence on processes within an organization (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013);
therefore, it was included in the hypothesis testing for organizational creativity.

3.2. Measures

Eleven variables were measured in this study. Seven were collected via existing scales: employee creativity, three
dimensions of creativity-related process engagement, four dimensions of work environment, and employees’ perceptions of
organizational creativity. Three variables were determined via social network analysis: An aggregation, based on Dokko et al.
(2014) was created for each of the three creativity-related process engagement dimensions of an individual’s connections.

3.2.1. Employee creativity measures

Employee creativity was measured with three items that asked individuals to rate the level of creativity of their own work
(Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). They were asked about each of the statements: “The work I produce is creative,” “The work I
produce is original,” and “The work I produce is novel.” Responses were captured using a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Previous research found the scale to be a reliable measure of employee
creativity (α = .78) (Shalley et al., 2009). Item scores were averaged to create an overall measure of employee creativity.
Creativity-related process engagement was measured using an 11-item scale (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). This scale measured
the frequency of employees’ engagement in three creativity-related processes: problem identification, information
searching and encoding, and idea generation. Items were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very
frequently). The three dimensions of the scale, problem identification, information searching and encoding, and idea generation
have been shown to be internally consistent with Cronbach’s α of .77, .77, and .81, respectively (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). For
each subscale, item scores were averaged to create an overall measure of each of the three dimensions.

3.2.2. Work environment measures

Work environment was measured using the 14-item, 4-dimension Team Climate Inventory (Somech & Drach-Zahavy,
2013). The four subscales included measures of: (A) vision, (B) support for innovation, (C) participative safety, (D) task
orientation. Four items measured vision (e.g., “Team’s objectives clearly understood,” “Team’s objectives achievable”), three
items measured support for innovation (e.g., “Search for new ways of looking at problems,” “Cooperation in developing and
applying ideas”), four items measured participative safety (e.g., “People feel understood and accepted,” “We are together’

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

6 N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

attitude”), and three items for task orientation (e.g., “Critical appraisal of weaknesses,” “Preparedness to basic questions”).
All items were measured on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much). All subscales showed good internal
consistency with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .80 for task orientation to .90 for support for innovation.

3.2.3. Social network analysis measures

The relationships among employees within an organization was measured based on who individuals go to for work
advice. Advice was the main focus of these relationships because advice is central to the diffusion of new knowledge and
information (Obstfeld, 2005). In social network analysis, Alters refer to the connections an employee has with other
employees in their network (i.e., organization). The individual is referred to as a Node (Obstfeld, 2005). The relationships
were measured as directed ties, a one-way measurement, because the information flows from an advice giver to an advice
seeker (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014). Frequency of communication with their advisors was measured as a proxy for
relationship strength using a scale ranging from 1 (once per year) to 6 (several times a day; Dokko et al., 2014).
To measure the overall relationship of creativity-related processes engagement of an individual’s connections (i.e., alters’
relationship with a node measured through tie strength), an aggregated variable for each of the creativity-related processes
engagement dimensions was calculated for each individual. Tie strength was important, as it measures the relative influence
of each alter on the node, someone the individual speaks to frequently would likely to have more influence (Dokko et al.,
2014). Mathematically, the aggregated variable was the arithmetic weighted mean of their alters’ scores. Therefore, the
aggregated variables were calculated as such for each of the three creativity-related processes:
Problem ID of Alters = S (Problem Identification of Alter x Tie Strength)/ S (Tie Strengths). (1)

Information Searching & Encoding of Alters = S (Information Searching & Encoding of Alter x Tie Strength)/ S (Tie Strengths).
(2)
Idea Generation of Alters = S (Idea Generation of Alter x Tie Strength)/ S (Tie Strengths). (3)
Not every alter had a creative process engagement score, but to more accurately reflect the influence of all alters on a
node, scores for those alters were imputed. Based on the principle of homophily (the tendency for people to seek out those
who are similar to them) each alter would be roughly an average of their connections (Dokko et al., 2014). To test Hypothesis
3, the dimensions of Employee Creativity and Creativity Related Processes Engagement of Alters (Problem Identification of
Alters, Information Search & Encoding of Alters, and Idea Generation of Alters) were transformed to avoid issues regarding the
change in sign. Employee creativity was mean-centered, whereas the creativity-related processes engagement of alters’
variables were transformed by adding the minimum value.

3.2.4. Organizational creativity measure

Employees’ perceptions of their organization’s creativity were measured by adapting Shin and Zhou’s (2007) scale
(α = .82) of organizational creativity. Four items were measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
6 = strongly agree. Item scores were averaged to create an overall score of employees’ perceptions of the organization’s
creativity. The items included “Overall, this organization takes risks in terms of producing new ideas in achieving the
organization’s goals,” “Overall, this organization tries out new ideas and approaches to problems,” “Overall, this organization
generates novel, but operable work-related ideas,” and “Overall, this organization identifies opportunities for new products/
processes” (α = .76). The scale was modified from a 7- to a 6-point scale to remove the neutral point. Thus respondents were
asked to choose to agree or disagree with the statements, as recommended to eliminate potential misuse of the midpoint as a
“dumping ground” for unsure responses (Kulas, Stachowski, & Haynes, 2008, p.1). Instead, respondents could choose not to
answer an item.

3.3. Data analysis

Before the hypotheses were tested, descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated for all scales and subscales.
Additionally, principal components analysis was conducted for the Team Climate scale as the previous literature indicated a
lack of consensus on the dimensionality of the measure (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). A Kruskal-Wallis test indicated no
significant differences (p > .05) among the organizations for any of the key variables. Therefore, data were aggregated across
the three organizations.

3.3.1. Analysis of employee creativity and work environment on organizational creativity

To test hypotheses 1 and 2, Limited Information Maximum Likelihood (LIML) analysis was conducted. LIML is used to
estimate simultaneous equations consistently, while also accounting for endogeneity (Gujarati & Porter, 2009). As a
simultaneous equations model, LIML is based on three assumptions: appropriate instrumental variables, homoscedasticity,
and the absence of multicollinearity among independent variables.
First, with LIML, an instrumental variable (or variables) is needed to satisfy the condition that the independent variable
must not be correlated with the dependent variable’s error term. An instrument variable satisfies two assumptions: it must

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 7

be relevant (i.e., partially correlated with the endogenous regressors) (Gujarati & Porter, 2009), and the variable has to be
exogenous (i.e., uncorrelated with the dependent variable beyond its influence on the endogenous regressor). Creativity
theory identifies the three dimensions of creativity-related processes as potential predictors of employee creativity (Zhang &
Bartol, 2010). Therefore, these variables were considered as possible instrumental variables. Of the three dimensions, the
Problem Identification dimension was correlated with the error values of the structural model (r = .30, p < .01), and the Idea
Generation dimension was not significantly correlated with Employee Creativity (r = .17, p = .17); therefore, neither were
appropriate instrumental variables. The Information Searching and Encoding dimension is an appropriate instrumental
variable; it is correlated (r = .45, p < .001) with Employee Creativity and not correlated with the error values of the structural
model (r = .01, p = .92). According to the diagnostics test, this dimension is within range of the instrumental variable “rule of
thumb” F = 10 (F = 9.533, p = .003). With these instrumental variables, LIML is considered most appropriate for accurate
model testing (Puhani, 2000).
Second, simultaneous equation models assume independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) errors. If this assumption is
violated, the power needed to produce efficient estimates breaks down. Although the Team Climate Inventory dimensions of
vision and process were correlated with employee creativity (r = .26, p = .03; r = .27, p = .03 respectively), multicollinearity
testing indicated VIF was less than 2 for all the dependent variables, indicating a lack of multicollinearity, thus LIML
estimator may be used (Puhani, 2000). Finally, heteroscedasticity is the non-constant of the variance. LIML assumes the
variance of the error is constant. Based on the results of the Breusch-Pagan’s test, it is not present in this research (F = 0.55, p =
.651). Abridged White’s test was also conducted to confirm the variance of error is constant (F = 0.46, p = .631) (Gujarati &
Porter, 2009). Heteroscedasticity biases the standard errors of our estimates and therefore makes correct hypothesis testing
impossible. As all three assumptions for LIML were met, the model tested using LIML is shown in Fig. 1.

3.3.2. Creativity-related processes engagement of alters analysis

To test the hypotheses 3, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. Employee creativity was mean centered and
creativity-related processes engagement of alters dimensions were transformed by adding the minimum value. In this way,
the interaction of negative numbers was avoided without changing the associations between the variables. These
transformed variables and the interactions of Employee Creativity and the three dimensions were regressed on the
dependent variable, Organizational Creativity. Prior to conducting a hierarchical multiple regression, the relevant
assumptions were tested. None of the independent variables were correlated statistically significantly with each other
(Coakes, 2005). Residual and scatter plots indicated assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were all met
(Coakes, 2005). A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with organizational creativity as the dependent
variable. To test Hypothesis 4, the correlations between work environment variables and the creativity-related processes
engagement of alters variables were analyzed.

4. Results

Only one of the four hypotheses was supported. Employee Creativity was not related to Organizational Creativity,
therefore Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Work Environment had a positive relationship with Organizational Creativity,
therefore Hypothesis 2 was supported. The more specific tests of the relationship of each of the four dimensions of work
environment with organizational creativity were not tested as only two dimensions of Team Climate were obtained in this
study (see Section 4.1). Both dimensions were positively associated with Organizational Creativity. The creativity-related

Fig. 1. Hypothesized Organizational Creativity Model.

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

8 N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

process engagement of an individual’s connections did not moderate the relationship between employee creativity and
organizational creativity; therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Finally, the creativity-related process engagement of
an individual’s connections was not related to their perceptions of their work environment; therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not
supported.

4.1. Dimensionality of the team climate inventory

As there has been some disagreement on the dimensionality of the Team Climate Inventory (Hülsheger et al., 2009;
Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013), a principal component analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization was
conducted on the 14-item Team Climate Inventory. Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which tests for overall significance of all the
correlations in the correlation matrix, was significant (χ2 (91) = 742.63, p < .001) and sample adequacy using the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin test was above the acceptable value of > .60 (KMO = .89). Therefore, the data were deemed adequate for
principal component analysis. Two components with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. The first component had
an eigenvalue of 6.67, and explained 47.65 % of the variance. The second component had an eigenvalue of 2.78, with 19.86 % of
the variance explained. Examination of the factor scores showed a number of multidimensional items.
Five multi-dimensional items were eliminated sequentially through iterative factor analyses. The original vision
dimension maintained its distinctiveness as a dimension, but was reduced from four to two items. The items, “I am in
complete agreement with the objectives of my work group” and “My work group’s objectives are clearly understood by all
members of the group” loaded highly on both factors and were removed. The remaining four dimensions from the original
scale failed to differentiate themselves in this sample. Instead, these dimensions represented a single factor. Due to multiple
loadings, two items from the original participative safety dimension, “We (my work group) have a strong, “we are in it
together” attitude” and “People feel completely understood and accepted by each other in the work group,” and the
innovation item, “In this work group we always take the time needed to develop new ideas” were removed. The resulting two
dimensions for Team Climate Inventory were Vision and the remaining items, which were assigned the name Process, based
on their similarity as process-focused items. The resulting factor analysis is shown in Table 1, and seems to represent a hybrid
version of the unidimensional and four-factor versions of the scale. The final, nine-item, two component Team Climate
Inventory explained 70.16 % of the variance (see Table 1). Both dimensions showed good reliability with Cronbach’s alphas of
.92 for Process and .80 for Vision. Factor scores for each of the two dimensions were used in all further analyses.

4.2. Descriptive statistics

As seen in Table 2, Information searching and encoding was the only creativity-related processes engagement dimension
correlated with employee creativity. The mean for organizational creativity (M = 4.38, SD = .86) indicated the average
employee more than slightly agreed the organization was creative. Even the lowest mean score, for Idea Generation creative
process (M = 3.71, SD = .57), indicated a frequency of engagement in idea generation nearly at “frequently.”

4.3. Hypothesis testing of the organizational creativity model

The overall Limited Information Maximum Likelihood model was statistically significant, F (5, 59) = 4.37, p < .002 (see
Table 3). The model explained 27 % of the variance in perceptions of organizational creativity. The main effect of gender was
controlled for, and the creativity-related process engagement dimension of information search and encoding was used as an
instrumental variable for Employee Creativity.
Hypotheses 1 was not confirmed as employee creativity and its instrumental variable were not associated with
perceptions of organizational creativity. However, perceptions of the work environment, represented by the two dimensions,
Vision and Process, were shown to have statistically significant relationships with perceptions of organizational creativity
(p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was confirmed, but as Hypothesis 2a and 2b-d, rather than four separate sub-hypotheses.
For every unit increase in work environment processes, there was a 26 % increase in the probability of greater perceptions of

Table 1
Final Team Climate Inventory Dimensions Rotated Component Matrix.

Items Process Vision

All members of the work group build on each other’s ideas .89 .15
Group members fully prepared to question the basis of tasks .86 .13
Group cooperates to help develop new ideas .83 .24
There are real attempts to share info within whole group .81 .18
Whole group critically appraise weaknesses to achieve best possible outcome .78 .11
Group keeps each other well-informed about work-related issues .78 .18
Group always searching for fresh new ways of looking at problems .77 .34
My group’s objectives make a valuable contribution to the organization .13 .84
I strongly believe that my group’s objectives can be achieved .22 .78
Variance accounted for (VAF) 52.3 % 17.9 %
Eigenvalue 4.7 1.61

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 9

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.

Org’l Creativity TCI Vision TCI Process Empl. Creativity Problem ID Idea Search & Idea Generation
Encoding

TCI Vision .25*

TCI Process .15 .15
Employee Creativity .29* .34** .33**
Problem ID .20 .01 .07 .04
Idea Search & Encoding .23 .13 .19 .45** .03
Idea Generation .02 .15 .09 .17 .01 .02
Mean 4.38 5.00 4.59 4.44 3.98 4.06 3.71
SD 0.86 0.76 0.96 0.88 0.64 0.69 0.57
Min 2.25 2.50 1.00 2.67 2.50 2.50 2.00
Max 5.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Note: *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3
Organizational Creativity Model with Parameter Estimates.

Variable Parameter Estimates SD

Intercept 3.48** 1.092
Gender 0.11 0.10
Team Climate Inventory Process 0.29** 0.10
Team Climate Inventory Vision 0.27** 0.10
Employee Creativity 0.19 0.24
Idea Searching & Encoding 0.02 0.14
R2 0.24
F 4.37*

Note: K-Class Estimation with K = 0.7521384204.

organizational creativity. For every unit increase in work environment vision, there was a 28.56 % increase in the probability
of greater perceptions of organizational creativity. This indicates that both dimensions of work environment, process and
vision, have relatively equal strength of relationship with organizational creativity. Despite the low sample size, the overall
fit diagnostics, specifically the Q-Q plot, indicated an accurate fit of the model (see Fig. 2).

4.3.1. Creativity-related processes engagement of alters

Organizational creativity was regressed on the three dimensions of creativity-related processes engagement of alters and
the interaction variables of employee creativity and the three dimensions. None of the interaction variables predicted
organizational creativity. The frequency with which employees’ connections engage with creativity does not influence the
relationship between perceptions of their own creativity and that of their organization’s creativity (see Table 4). Therefore,
Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
The results indicated creativity-related processes engagement of alters was not correlated with the work environment;
therefore, that relationship was dropped from the model as well. Creativity-related processes engagement of alters did not
correlate with the work environment (r = .002, 0.17, .11 for Vision and –.07, .03, and .04 Process respectively). Therefore,
Hypothesis 4 was not confirmed.

5. Discussion

In this study, employees’ perceptions of the creativity of their organization was driven by the degree to which they
perceived the work environment to support creative vision and the processes of creativity. Surprisingly, one’s own creativity
did not affect perceptions of organizational creativity, nor did the creative engagement of one’s connections. In terms of work
environment, the results reflected previous creativity and innovation research (Hülsheger et al., 2009). In sport, non-profit
regional organizations in Belgium were most innovative when the work environment encouraged change and innovation
(Winand et al., 2013). Sport organizations have been characterized as conservative, hierarchical organizations focused on
traditions (Wolfe et al., 2006). These characterizations were not consistent with an image of a creative organization (cf.
Anderson et al., 2014). Although these perceptions of sport organizations may not be true across all sport organizations or
within some functional units within sport organizations, a conservative, tradition-focused culture was unlikely to embrace
innovation as a competitive strategy. For those seeking to innovate, it is important they provide a strong vision and support
creative processes break the traditions that mitigate against innovation. Organizations that desire to be more innovative
should enhance creative processes; they should enhance support for innovation, increase participative safety, create strong
task oriented teams, and communicate a clear vision.

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

10 N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Fit Diagnostics for Organizational Creativity.

Table 4
Examination of Alters Engagement in Creativity Related Processes on the Relationship between Employee Creativity and Organizational Creativity (N = 65).

Perceptions of Organizational Creativity

Model 1 Model 2

Variable B B SE β B B SE β 95 % CI for B
Constant 2.45 0.54 2.65 0.63 ( 5.05, 1.63)
Problem ID of alters 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.24 1.40 ( 0.20, 0.75)
Info. S&E. of alters 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.37 0.37 2.96 (-0.37, 1.12)
Idea Gen. of alters 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.17 0.26 2.59 ( .70, 0.36)
Employee Creativity 0.43** 0.12 0.43 0.38** 0.14 0.38 (0.15, 0.65)
Problem ID of alters X Empl. Creativity 0.02 0.02 2.89 ( 0.05, 0.01)
Info. S&E of alters X Empl. Creativity 0.03 0.03 1.40 ( 0.08, 0.03)
Idea Gen. of alters X Empl. Creativity 0.01 0.02 2.59 ( 0.03, 0.05)
R2 .18 0.22
F 3.24* 2.31*
DR2 0.04
DF 1.07

Note. Note. N = 65. CI = confidence interval. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

The descriptive statistics indicated generally positive perceptions of organizational creativity. The relationship between
work environment and organizational creativity within the sport context was consistent with research in the general
management literature that employees’ perceptions of a work environment that supports creativity-related processes was
related to their views of the organization as creative (Anderson et al., 2014). Although this study relied on individuals’
perceptions, previous research has shown that perception of a creative work environment spurs actual engagement in
creativity (Amabile et al., 1996). Although employees’ perceptions of their workplace are important, future research should

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 11

include observational data or other forms of external measurement beyond self-reported perception of organizational
creativity to confirm employees’ perceptions or highlight gaps between perceptions and evidence.
Previous research has indicated that creativity is a socially influenced process (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014; Sosa, 2011).
Yet the engagement of one’s connections were not related to perceptions of the work environment in this study. Thus,
behaviors other than engagement in creative processes may have been the influential actions in building a creative work
climate. Although a person seeks advice from his or her coworkers, the coworkers may not be sharing creativity-related
information or indicating their own engagement in these processes. Their engagement in creativity-related processes may
remain a private behavior rather than an integral part of the work environment.
While this study indicated there was support for innovation, support for innovation vs. support for engagement in
creative processes are not the same. It seems that organizations are telling people to be innovative without giving them the
tools of creative processes engagement to achieve the end result of innovation. This is concerning, as social interactions
regarding creativity have been shown to increase group creativity (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014).
Alternatively, size of the organizations may come into play in the lack of relationship. Even as coworkers engage in the
creative process, if their content expertise is unrelated to that of their coworkers (i.e., sales versus legal), that individual may
not perceive the overall work environment as creative. While many professional sport organizations are small to medium-
based enterprises (Barnhill & Smith, 2019), future research should examine larger sport organizations, such as those in the
NFL or MLB, as their distinctive departments may provide more clear-cut boundaries in their advice-seeking and perceptions
of their work environment. In any case, future research should examine alternative social influences on perceptions of
creativity, support for creativity, and innovative outcomes.
Work environment was theorized to have four distinct dimensions, but this research highlighted the complicated nature
of climate as a construct (Newman et al., 2019; Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009). It was likely that participants did not make these
fine distinctions as they interpret the processes in real-life settings. In this study, the four original elements represented just
two underlying dimensions: vision and process. This seems to make conceptual sense as distinct experiences – those that set
the agenda (i.e., vision), and those that affect the ways in which the vision is enacted (i.e., process). A number of the original
items failed to load on any single dimension suggesting the need to further examine the construct and its dimensionality. For
example, keeping coworkers well informed may be linked to an action that also could be experienced as cooperating in order
to help develop and apply new ideas. Future work should examine this construct and its dimensionality more fully, possibly
through qualitative methods such as laddering interviews and observation of the work environment.
Beyond the work environment, these results deviate from previous research on organizational creativity in technology
and manufacturing firms. The relationship between employee creativity and organizational creativity was not found in these
professional sport contexts (cf. Jiang & Yang, 2015). Nor was creativity found to be influenced by one’s social connections.
Since the relationship between work environment and organizational creativity in this study aligned with findings in other
management settings, it is interesting to note the potential distinctiveness of sport employees. Research on creativity in early
adulthood showed that individuals who spent a majority of their youth in highly structured sport have lower levels of
creativity as adults (Bowers et al., 2014). Work in the sport industry is attractive to many athletes. Depending on who in the
organization had highly structured sport experiences, this could affect the relationship of employees’ creativity and overall
organizational creativity. Previous research has found managerial differences specifically related to sport, related to the
manager’s personal sporting experience (Swanson & Kent, 2014). Certainly, a potential qualitative study could unpack the
perceptions of individual creativity vs. organizational creativity within a sport organization, as well as measuring the
sporting experience of front office employees as it relates to their organization’s creativity could provide more insight.
Further, employees’ creativity could be measured using a tool such as the Torrance Test (cf. Bowers et al., 2014) rather than
depending on individuals’ perceptions of creativity.
Beyond individual sporting experiences, the structure and competitive environment of professional sport itself may have
played a role. Within a league, teams operate essentially as a cooperative (Troilo et al., 2016). They share revenues, and
cooperate with one another to enhance the competitive position of the league. This is not to say that teams do not seek a
competitive advantage over other teams in the league. Rather, any off-field competitive advantage may be short-lived as a
result of the close cooperation between teams. Still, teams compete with other leisure-time opportunities for consumers
(and for the loyalty of fans). They even compete for employees. Thus, innovation, in the broader competitive environment,
can be a critical strategy for creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Our results suggested clear differences in the
perceptions of organizational creativity in the professional sport industry and those in the technology and manufacturing
industries. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of particular innovation strategies for organizations
situated in environments that require them to both cooperate and compete.
Whereas a technology firm may want to be first in creating, adopting, and implementing an innovation to gain a
competitive advantage, a sport firm may choose to wait until another team creates and tests an innovation, knowing any
increase in firm value or revenue for that team will increase all teams’ values and revenue. So, while an employee may feel
creative, the lack of organizational motivation may constrain the impact of employee creativity within the organization. An
analysis of creativity levels in comparison to external metrics, such as firm value or increased attendance, would be useful.
This would provide utility to practitioners, as well as validate or invalidate theories of creativity within the oligarchical
league setting.
The creativity-related behaviors of the employees in this study were expected to moderate the relationship between
perceptions of one’s own creativity and that of the organization. These group behaviors had no significant impact on this

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

12 N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

relationship. As mentioned previously, perhaps sport organizations are open to innovation adoption but still lack acceptance
or understanding of the creative process. The engagement of an individual’s network in idea generation was the only process
associated with an individual’s own engagement in idea generation. Idea generation is a practice that is more commonly
engaged in with others via activities such as brainstorming (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). As social interactions regarding creativity
have been shown to increase both individual creativity and group creativity (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014; Sosa, 2011), it is
important for sport managers to provide opportunities and resources for employees to better understand and implement the
processes involved in creativity.
Although there was no evidence of colleagues’ engagement in creative processes influencing an employee’s work
environment or their perceptions of the relationship between their own creativity and that of their organization, the model
only captures the influence of colleagues within one’s organization. External influences could also have influenced
engagement in these processes. Previous evidence indicated that external influences play a role in creative process
engagement (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014) and innovation in sport (Hoeber, Doherty, Hoeber, & Wolfe, 2015; Seifried, Katz, &
Tutka, 2017). Because these are smaller organizations, individuals may interact more with professionals in their area of
expertise working for other teams within a league, across stakeholder groups, or even publicly over social media. It may be
that employees used their professional networks for problem identification, idea searching and encoding, and idea
generation. Future research is needed to explore the relative influence of external relationships to facilitate creativity and
engagement in creative processes for sport professionals, which could be done using unbounded networks.

6. Implications, limitations, and conclusion

While managers cannot mandate perceptions, they can focus their activities on improving the perceptions of employees
that will influence organizational creativity. Based on these results, managers in the sport industry seeking to increase their
employees’ perceptions of organizational creativity should focus on their work environments. When employees perceived
the organization to have a clear vision and better processes, they perceived the organization to be more creative. The
engagement of an individual’s network in idea generation was the only process associated with an individual’s own
engagement in idea generation. This is problematic for sport organizations if the problem identification is inaccurate. While
brainstorming ideas may be acceptable conversation within sport, moving the whole creative process to have at least some
social influence could help reduce problem misidentification (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). For example, sport organizations could
host problem identification workshops or information seeking and encoding training. By making more of the creativity-
related process public and shared, managers can signal the value of the ‘hidden’ processes, and focus employees on the
importance and relevance of shared problem identification and information seeking.
This research was not without limitations. The size and scope of the sample size limited the power available, therefore
limited the array of statistical analyses possible. While this study provided analyses not previously considered within sport
management research, future research should attempt to access all connections of employees and attempt to collect data
from all of those connections to address potential influences of the leagues setting. As with previous research in this area,
data were cross-sectional (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Shalley et al., 2009). Future work would benefit from a longitudinal and or
an ethnographic approach, which could provide powerful insights into the processes for individual, group, and
organizational creativity.
The organizations selected for this study are similar, and represent small to medium organizations striving to increase
their fanbase. Future work should examine a broader array of organizations, and could embed comparisons based on size or
market share. Finally, similar to other sport management literature (Kellison & Hong, 2015; Winand et al., 2013) there was an
underlying assumption that increasing innovation and creativity is beneficial. Although the research reported here did not
explicitly assume that innovation is always positive, it did aim to determine the potential for innovation through perceptions
of an organization’s creativity.
In conclusion, the results revealed a work environment focused on general processes, such as participative safety and task
orientation, and a clear vision results in higher perceptions of organizational creativity, but there was no relationship
between an employee’s creativity and organizational creativity. Engagement in creative processes by individual’s
connections seemed to have little effect on perceptions of one’s work environment nor in the relationship between an
individuals’ creativity and organizational creativity. For sport management, this research extended the literature by
measuring a more complex conception of creative work environment, addressing the lack of focus on the beginning stages of
the organizational innovation process, and adds a new element to the theoretical models related to creativity and innovation,
with the addition of an examination of social connections’ creativity-related processes engagement. This study was a first
step in understanding the creation of innovation for professional sport organizations, and the processes that affect workers’
perceptions of the ways in which their work environment is related to organizational creativity.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003
G Model
SMR 607 No. of Pages 13

N.L. Smith, B.C. Green / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 13

References

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
1154–1184.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.
Anderson, N., Poto9 cnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding
framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
Barnhill, C. R., & Smith, N. L. (2019). Psychological contract fulfilment and innovative work behaviours of employees in sport-based SBEs: The mediating role
of organisational citizenship. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 19(1-2), 106–128.
Bowers, M. T., Green, B. C., Hemme, F., & Chalip, L. (2014). Assessing the relationship between youth sport participation settings and creativity in adulthood.
Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 314–327.
Chadwick, S. (2009). From outside lane to inside track: Sport management research in the twenty-first century. Management Decision, 47(1), 191–203.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
75(4), 409–422.
Coakes, S. J. (2005). SPSS: Analysis without anguish: Version 12.0 for windows. John Wiley & Son Australia, Ltd..
Cunningham, G. B. (2011). Creative work environments in sport organizations: The influence of sexual orientation diversity and commitment to diversity.
Journal of Homosexuality, 58(8), 1041–1057.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top Managers. British
Journal of Management, 17(3), 215–236.
Dokko, G., Kane, A. A., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). One of us or one of my friends: How social identity and tie strength shape the creative generativity of
boundary-spanning ties. Organization Studies, 35(5), 703–726.
Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2003). Managing employee diversity: Perceived practices and organisational outcomes in NCAA Division III athletic
departments. Sport Management Review, 6(2), 147–168.
Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics, (5th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hoeber, L., Doherty, A., Hoeber, O., & Wolfe, R. (2015). The nature of innovation in community sport organizations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15
(5), 518–534.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades
of research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.
Jiang, J., & Yang, B. (2015). Roles of creative process engagement and leader–member exchange in critical thinking and employee creativity. Social Behavior
and Personality an International Journal, 43(7), 1217–1231.
Kellison, T. B., & Hong, S. (2015). The adoption and diffusion of pro-environmental stadium design. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2), 249–269.
Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning in Likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business and Psychology,
22(3), 251–259.
Newman, Round, Wang, & Mount (2019). Innovation climate: A Systematic review of the literature for future research. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12283.
O’Brien, D., & Slack, T. (2004). The emergence of a professional logic in English Rugby Union: The role of isomorphic and diffusion processes. Journal of Sport
Management, 18(1), 13–39.
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.
Perry-Smith, J. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85–
101.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2014). A social composition view of team creativity: The role of member nationality-heterogeneous ties outside of the
team. Organization Science, 25(5), 1434–1452.
Puhani, P. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 53–68.
Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity
Research Journal, 21(2-3), 191–198.
Rigolizzo, M., & Amabile, T. (2015). Entrepreneurial creativity: The role of learning processes and work environment supports. In C. E. Shalley, J. Zhou, & M.
Hitt (Eds.), Oxford handbook of organizational creativity, innovation, & entrepreneurship, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Seifried, C., Katz, M., & Tutka, P. (2017). A conceptual model on the process of innovation diffusion through a historical review of the United States Armed
Forces and their bowl games. Sport Management Review, 20(4), 379–394.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative
performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 489–505.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational
leadership as a moderator. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation.
Journal of Management, 39(3), 684–708.
Sosa, M. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1–21.
Swanson, S., & Kent, A. (2014). The complexity of leading in sport: Examining the role of domain expertise in assessing leader credibility and prototypicality.
Journal of Sport Management, 28(1), 81–93.
To, M. L., Herman, H. M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). A multilevel model of transformational leadership, affect, and creative process behavior in work teams.
The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 543–556.
Troilo, M., Bouchet, A., Urban, T. L., & Sutton, W. A. (2016). Perception, reality, and the adoption of business analytics: Evidence from North American
professional sport organizations. Omega, 59, 72–83.
Winand, M., & Anagnostopoulos, C. (2017). Get ready to innovate! Staff’s disposition to implement service innovation in non-profit sport organisations.
International Journal of Sport Policy, 9(4), 579–595.
Winand, M., Vos, S., Zintz, T., & Scheerder, J. (2013). Determinants of service innovation: A typology of sports federations. International Journal of Sport
Management and Marketing, 13(1-2), 55–73.
Wolfe, R., Wright, P. M., & Smart, D. L. (2006). Radical HRM innovation and competitive advantage: The Moneyball story. Human Resource Management, 45(1),
111–145.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.
Yoshida, M., James, J. D., & Cronin, J. J. (2013). Sport event innovativeness: Conceptualization, measurement, and its impact on consumer behavior. Sport
Management Review, 16(1), 68–84.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic
motivation, and creative process engagement. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.

Please cite this article in press as: N.L. Smith, B.C. Green, Examining the factors influencing organizational creativity in
professional sport organizations, Sport Management Review (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.003