The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Creative climate and learning organization factors: their contribution towards innovation
Meriam Ismail
Private Education Department, Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of two independent variables, creative climate and learning organization, on innovation separately and simultaneously. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology used was multiple regression analysis executed on the data collected. Apart from that, the study also used T-tests to compare the means of variables between the randomly selected local organization and MNCs. ANOVA was also conducted to compare the means of the variables between three different employee categories of job levels, namely the top, middle/lower management and supporting staff. Findings – The results indicated that both learning culture and creative climate contributed 58.5 percent to the explanation of the observed variances in the innovation construct. The learning organization culture separately was found to have a significantly stronger relationship with innovation (r ¼ 0.733) than did the organizational creative climate (r ¼ 0.473). This implied a larger contribution from the learning organization variable towards innovation. The findings also showed that there were no significant differences in the mean scores (P . 0.05) among the three organizational job levels included, namely the top management, middle/lower management and staff, in the members’ perceptions of innovation, creative climate and learning culture. The study also found no significant differences in the mean scores (P . 0.05) among the small, medium, large and very large organizational population sizes in the members’ perceptions on innovation, creative climate and learning culture. Originality/value – The study involved a sample of 18 private organizations selected at random from a list of 165 organizations across various core businesses. The instrument used for innovation is developed by the researcher, validated by post hoc factor analysis involving 259 respondents. Keywords Creative thinking, Working practices, Learning organizations, Strategic leadership Paper type Research paper

Creative climate and organization factors 639
Received November 2003 Revised July 2005 Accepted July 2005

Introduction Having a creative working climate (or environment) within an organization which relates to a suitable working culture facilitating an environment that will enhance organizational power is an idea that has been put forward during the middle 1980s and late 1990s by several scholars such as, Ekvall et al. (1983), Ekvall and Tangeberg-Anderson (1986), Zain (1995), Zain and Rickards (1996) and Amabile and Conti (1999). Organizational climate is regarded as an attribute of the organization, a conglomerate of attitudes, feelings and behaviors which characterize life in organizations and exists independently of the perceptions and understandings of the members of the organizations (Ekvall, 1996, p. 105). It is conceived as an organizational reality in an “objective” sense. Creativity on the other hand, is a thinking process which helps generate ideas (Majaro, 1992).

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 26 No. 8, 2005 pp. 639-654 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730510633719

according to Damanpour and Evans cited by Van de Ven and Angle (1989). it is learning by organizations as a whole (diffusion of knowledge to a broad range of key individuals within them) which is critical to an organization’s innovative capabilities. p. It is included together with technological innovation (TI) since organizational innovation occurs as part of TI. Technological transfer is “the transmission of technology from those who possess it to those who do not (within an organization)”. Innovation on the other hand is the process of creating commercial products (or services) from inventions. It includes both technological and non-technological innovation. social and cultural factors which are crucial for effective operation of innovation at the organizational level (OECD. This stream of research. 47). the idea of learning at the organizational level and knowledge management had been closely linked to innovation (Argyris and Schon. The non-technological innovation discussed in the present study is focused on organizational innovation. The term “implemented” here means introduced on the market (product/service innovation) or used within a production process (process innovation). 1995. to observe their relationships and examine any contribution of those factors to the explanation of the observed variances in innovation within the organizations concerned. Watkins and Marsick. 91). 1997. organization and global (Watkins. 1993. 1996. 1997). group. p. Garvin. It is one in which learning and work are integrated in an ongoing and systematic fashion to support continuous improvement. By the end of the 1990s.LODJ 26. this learning will have to occur at all levels within an organization. A learning organization is a system in the organization that is capable of changes that require members to act upon the change and which needs learning to do so. It involves the acquisition of technological knowledge or know-how generated by one group or institution to be embodied in the operations of the recipient organization. These included local organizations and multinational corporations (MNCs). 1996). Drucker. These factors according to OECD (1997) are mostly centered around learning. Nonaka and Takeuchi. Definition of terms Technological innovation comprises of implemented technologically new products and processes and significant technological improvements in products and processes (OECD. 1978.8 640 Research on innovation has also identified a number of human. individual. The sub factors within this TI component are related to technology transfer (which includes technology assimilation) and diffusion of innovation which facilitate TI. The technology could be tangible goods or processes such as component parts or machinery or intangible know-how such as advance knowledge of road building techniques and must be embodied into the operations of the recipient organization. Objective of the study The general objective of the present study was to determine the levels of creative climate factors and learning organization factors based on the perceptions of the employees from participating organizations. . also called the neo-Schumpeterian approach. stems from earlier scholars such as Polyanyi (1966) and Nonaka (1991) who view innovation in terms of an interaction between market opportunities and the organization’s knowledge base and capabilities. 1988.

Hence. Maria (2000) and Khairuddin (1999). MASTIC. the term innovation which is widely referred to in this paper includes the two major constructs of innovation namely TI and organizational innovation. effective management system/process such as ISO 9000 program. . innovation practices in Malaysian private organizations still remain relatively under-researched (Zain and Rickards. . 1997. Creative climate and organization factors 641 . (2000) contend that there is a large literature on creativity in general. Thus the present study addresses the need for more work on linking creative climate factors in order to analyze their influence on innovation within the Malaysian organizational context. The basic pillars of TQM are: . This statement is also supported by Sta. absorption and adaptation of technologies developed (through R&D or otherwise) outside of the firm (Wong et al.. good models and principles on innovation have yet to be developed (Zairi. Justifiably. 1999). teamwork practice. International Standard for Organization (ISO 9000) or basic elements of TQM within the organization for the purpose of developing significant improvement in the production or delivery of goods or services (OECD. creative climate and learning culture on innovation separately and simultaneously. 54-5). 1996). Apart from multiple regression analysis. With that. This analysis also made it possible to identify which individual factors of the independent variables have significant influence on innovation. The study also used analysis of variance (ANOVA) in an attempt to compare the means of the variables between the three different employee categories of job levels within the organizations concerned. namely the top management. but little relating to innovation per se. including different regions and to different industries/market and organizations (OECD. satisfying the customer. Even though there has been a huge volume of research on innovation. TI in this study is assessed by technology transfer and diffusion factors. middle/lower management. improvement tools for continuous improvement.297 are empirical works (Rogers. Diffusion is the way TI is spread through market or market channels. Organizational innovation is a managerial innovation which includes the implementation of advanced management techniques such as the quality assurance program. Axtell et al. 1983). and . pp. and supporting staff.085 publications on the diffusion of innovation out of which 2. 1997). It gives TI economic value. a multiple regression analysis was executed on the data collected. Methodology This particular study aimed to explore the effects of two independent variables.Technology assimilation is the acquisition. The component is being assessed by statements in the questionnaire relating to the ISO 9000 program implementation and its procedures. 1994). also for ease of use. surprisingly. 1996. Statement of the problem It is widely acknowledged despite achieving considerable success economically. the study used T-test to compare the means of the variables between the randomly selected local organization and MNCs. with 3.

The section measuring organizational climate factors was the creative climate questionnaire (CCQ) developed by Ekvall et al. It was also selected because the factors were said to explain effects on productivity. (5) playfulness/humour. Research instrument A self report questionnaire was used for this study which consisted of four component sections. The four-point scale representing each statement was from 0 to 3. . The “0” represented a degree equivalent to “not at all applicable”. The CCQ has also previously been applied in research both in Europe and Asia. and well-being which in turn would give performance impact on the organizational resources both human and non-human (Ekvall. (7) trust/openness. Finally the fourth section sought biographical information from respondents. The items consisted of statements which required respondents to determine the degree to which the statements were true of the organizational creative climate occurring in their organization. middle/lower management/supervisory. The respondents comprised of employees having at least an A-level or equivalent academic qualification were selected through convenient sampling by the organizations’ representatives. There were 43 items covering the seven dimensions. quality. (9) risk taking. the “2” represented “fairly applicable” and the “3” represented “applicable to a high degree”. (8) conflicts. innovation. in particular in a study involving Swedish. The CCQ was selected for usage in this case study over other instruments because of the range of factors covering creative climate within an organization. (1983). Usable responses were obtained from 259 respondents (56. The third section contained items measuring the respondents’ perceptions of the extent of innovation construct.LODJ 26. profit. The second section contained items measuring the perceptions of respondents to the learning culture dimensions. contained statements regarding respondents’ perceptions of organizational creative climate factors.5 percent). the “1” represented “applicable to some extent”. and the technical/administrative support staff were selected. and (10) idea time. (6) debates.8 642 Sample Eighteen sample organizations were obtained through random selection from a list of 165 private organizations within the city of Kuala Lumpur which had acquired ISO 9000 series. (4) liveliness/dynamism. both stimulating and hampering innovation. German and Spanish organizations. A total of 467 employees from three major levels of employment namely top/senior management. The ten factors of the CCQ were: (1) challenge/motivation. 1996). (2) freedom. The first section which included a total of 50 items. This construct contained a total of 32 items. (3) idea support. job satisfaction.

83). and the length of organization establishment in years and total organization population size.92). embedded systems (0.72). Each statement was measured on a scale of 1-6 ranging from “1” representing “almost never” to “6” representing “almost always”. empowerment (0. (5) empowerment. The overall reliability of the learning organization variable Creative climate and organization factors 643 . dialogue/inquiry (0. There were 32 items to cover the two constructs.68). The third section focused on innovation and contained two main constructs namely: (1) TI (technological transfer. The original estimates of the CCQ were determined by Ekvall (1996). This section contained eight items.89). and (7) provide leadership.78). and strategic leadership (0. team learning (0. The DLOQ was selected for usage in this study because it had been widely used in innovation research in Malaysia and in the USA besides other parts of the world. (3) team learning.94. freedom (0. risk taking (0. liveliness/dynamism (0.87). The overall reliability for 50 items of the CCQ was 0.81). job category. It has proved to be a reliable measure of learning culture.83).61).74). idea support (0.The section measuring learning organization dimensions used the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ) developed by Watkins and Marsick (1996). This included gender. The seven dimensions of learning organization with the relevant items were: (1) continuous learning. the instrument requires the respondent to determine the degree to which the statement reflects the approach practiced in the organization. The Cronbach as for each of the CCQ factors obtained from the pilot test in the present research were challenge/motivation (0.68). The reliability estimates for the seven DLOQ dimensions were continuous learning (0.88). trust/openness (0.55). tenure of service with the organization. (2) dialogue and inquiry. playfulness/humour (0. and (2) organizational innovation focusing on basic elements of TQM and quality assurance program such as ISO 9000 certification. debates (0. Within this. and conflicts (0. age in years. In total there were 43 items for the seven dimensions. and diffusion of innovation). Measures The following presents reliability estimates for each of the ten factors of the CCQ and each of the seven dimensions of the DLOQ based on the pilot tests. idea time (0. education background. systems connection (0.78). The final part of the questionnaire contained biographical information on the respondents. (6) system connections. (4) embedded systems. All the items used rating scales on a continuum of 1-6. The 32 items on the two constructs of TI (24 items) and organizational innovations (8 items) were developed for this study based on the guidelines provided by OECD (1997) and MASTIC (1996).The statements required the respondents to determine the degree to which a statement is true.76).90).

Following this. Varimax with Kaiser Normalization are presented in Appendix. closely related to “diffusion of innovation”. learning organization culture and innovation between small. The research questions posed are as such: RQ1. Finally.70 (Nunally.45). 1978). among the employees compare between the local organizations and the MNCs? RQ4. a post hoc factor analysis was conducted on the items using the overall respondents’ (N ¼ 259) responses to the instrument. the learning organization culture and innovation. What are the differences in the members’ perceptions on creative climate. collinearity diagnostics were conducted to examine whether the two independent predictor variables. the analysis revealed that the two predictor variables have low collinearity (r . an exploratory data analysis EDA was conducted. From the EDA it was found that both assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were met for all the three variables. large and very large sized organizations within the sampled organizations? RQ6. Before the data were analyzed. organizational climate for creativity and learning organization dimensions were highly correlated. These 24 items appropriately came into the TI category as was earlier decided.97.98. The factor analysis shows that the items were categorized into three components where 13 items in component 1 were related to “technology transfer” followed by 11 items in component 2. The overall reliability estimate for the overall innovation was 0. Analysis The analysis procedures conducted were in line with the research questions being posed. The results of the analysis using the rotation method.LODJ 26. To what extent do the factors of both creative climate and learning organization variables jointly explain members’ perceptions on the observed variances in innovation in the sampled organizations? 644 . How do the differences in the members’ perceptions on creative climate. How does each of the ten factors of the creative climate variable relate with the innovation construct in the sampled organizations? RQ2. The three constructs have proved consistently reliable with all the scales above the recommended 0. Post hoc factor analysis for the innovation items To test whether the 32 items were appropriately constructed and used in the study based on the reliability indices of the pilot test as well as based on the validation by the two experts. 0.8 was 0. medium. the last eight items which fell into component 3 were justifiably representing organizational innovation. How does each of the seven dimensions of the learning organization variable relate with the innovation construct in the sampled organizations? RQ3. learning culture and innovation among the three levels of employee groups in the sampled organizations? RQ5. Is there any difference in the members’ perceptions on creative climate. In examining the data for collinearity for N ¼ 259.

The remained were medium sized with more than 100 but less than 1. telecommunication.5) to high (r . the respondents from the local organizations. 0. education services. Relationship between creative climate and innovation From the correlation analysis carried out. As a check and balance. 0.000 employees. How do the factors from the creative climate.3 percent) were those whose tenure of work were less than five years.5 percent were males while 47.9 percent were male while 83 or 46. French. How do the factors from the creative climate. 39 or 49. less than 1 percent or only 2 persons of the respondents were more than 51 years of age while the remainder were below 50 years old.1 percent were female.05) but low relationship with innovation (r . a post hoc factor analysis using the rotation Varimax was conducted involving 43 items of the learning organization variable (seven dimensions) and 32 items (three constructs) of the innovation construct Creative climate and organization factors 645 . property developer. Relationship between learning organization dimensions and innovation In addressing RQ2. consulting.475).4).999 people and one very large sized with more than 2. The overall relationship of the creative climate variable was r ¼ 0.6 percent were females. Out of the sampled population of 259. Thirteen organizations were locally owned (and registered) while the rest were MNCs (Japanese. In addition almost half of the total respondents (46. learning organization culture jointly explain observed variances in the members’ perceptions on innovation in the local organizations? RQ9. When the factors are regressed with innovation it was found that about 35 percent significant contribution on innovation was accounted for by the creative climate factors alone.5 percent females. with the factor “Challenge” having the strongest relationship (r ¼ 0. population size and status. it was found that all of the seven dimensions have significant moderate (r . US and British owned). finance and insurance. learning organization culture jointly explain observed variances in the members’ perceptions on innovation in the MNCs? Findings The sampled organizations vary according to core businesses (from manufacturing. This address RQ1. it was observed that each of the ten factors of the creative climate variable shared a significant ( p . 0. 97 or 53. one large with the number of employees between 1. 52. More than half of the total respondents (52.000 employees.473.000 but less than 1.RQ7.1 percent) have acquired bachelors degrees and above. Three organizations were small sized with 100 or less total employees. How much of the observed variances in the overall innovation construct are explained by the highly predictive factors identified under the reduced model and how good is the reduced model compared to the full model? RQ8. When the dimensions of the learning organization were regressed with innovation. 0. While in the foreign MNCs organizations.7) relationships with innovation. and engineering). From the total 259 respondents. it was observed that about 57 percent of the contribution towards innovation were accounted for by the learning dimensions.4 percent were males and 40 or 50.

This give indications that the creative climate. learning culture and innovation between local organizations and MNCs Three T-test analyses were conducted to compare the members’ perceptions of organizational creative climate between local organizations and MNCs.8 646 to observe whether the high correlation between the two variables (r ¼ 0.266). Results from the ANOVAs indicated that the creative climate. learning culture and innovation. large and very largely populated organizations. whether they either of the 93 items share similarities. The other analysis was carried out to determine any significant differences in members’ perceptions of creative climate. One was to determine any significant differences among the three groups of employee job levels. medium. i.753) as well as innovation (P ¼ 0. in learning culture (P ¼ 0. it can be inferred from the findings that the 43 LO items and the 50 CCQ items did not share similarities and were not highly correlated with each other. members’ perceptions of learning organization between local organizations and MNCs. Comparing creative climate. large and very large sized organizations in creative climate (P ¼ 0.LODJ 26.934) between the local organizations and MNCs.e. Thus.332). TI (technology transfer and diffusion of innovation) and organizational innovation. A similar factor analysis was conducted involving the 50 items of the CCQ and the 32 items of the innovation questionnaire and the findings showed that the 50 items of the CCQ fell into different components from the two components of the innovation items. The results showed that there was no significant difference in perceptions of creative climate (P ¼ 0. Similarly.347) and in innovation (P ¼ 0. At the same time all the 93 items (43 of LO and 50 of the CCQ variables) were again analyzed using factor analysis in order to observe the grouping of the items.733) had anything to do with the items of either variables are actually similar in nature. learning culture and innovation were equally perceived by the three groups which indicated that all employees share similar ideas on creative climate. middle and staff in their perceptions of creative climate. and the members’ perceptions of innovation between the local organizations and MNCs. Comparing creative climate.545). top. The factor analysis showed that the 32 items of the innovation construct were grouped into two components.793). Findings from the analyses revealed that there were no significant differences among the three employee job levels in creative climate (P ¼ 0.267) and in innovation (P ¼ 0. This addresses RQ3. learning culture and innovation among the small. learning culture and innovation among the three organizational job levels and organizational size Two ANOVAs were conducted. Similarly no significant differences were observed in members’ perceptions on learning culture (P ¼ 0.703). there were no significant differences among the small. The findings from the analysis using rotation Varimax with Kaiser Normalization showed that 43 items were grouped into one large component while the 50 items of the CCQ were grouped into another different large component. the learning culture and innovation in the local organizations were more or less the same with those in the MNCs. learning culture . medium. undoubtedly. in the learning organization (P ¼ 0. While the 43 items of the learning organization variable fell into another seven components but each component having different number of items (details of the analysis are provided in Appendix).

the equation of the model obtained is: Innovation ¼ 29:370 þ 2:055ðEmbedded systemÞ þ 1:608ðSystem ConnectionÞ þ 0:622ðContinuous learningÞ: In determining whether the reduced model is as good as the full model. and “Continuous Learning” (b ¼ 0.6 94096.76 Table I.000) to the explanation of the observed variances in innovation.580. Three factors from the learning organization were identified as the factors having high predictive powers. This result was obtained by conducting stepwise multiple regression analysis. 0. The findings showed that the 13 factors contributed as much as 58. P ¼ 0.980 Sig. This addresses RQ7. P ¼ 0. P ¼ 0.035).2 Df 17 241 258 Mean square 7800.765 R2 0.585 Adjusted R 2 0. “Systems Connection” (b ¼ 0. Using the stepwise multiple regression results. error of the estimate 19.980. This explanation addresses RQ4 and RQ5. Similarly. respectively. Note: Model summary of the multiple regression analysis of both sets of the independent variables.313. P ¼ 0.and innovation in each organization.120. multiple regression analyses were conducted.005.000). Creative climate and organization factors 647 Model Factors from both sets of CCQ and LO variables R 0. all employees in either the small. A test was conducted to confirm that the reduced model was almost as good as the full model. The analysis revealed that the 17 factors together have significant contribution of 58.000) to the observed variances in innovation. P ¼ 0. large or very large sized organizations seemed to perceive creative climate. creative climate and learning organization with innovation Model CCQ and LO factors Regression Residual Total Sum of squares 132616. learning culture and innovation similarly in their organizations. medium. This addresses RQ6. Interaction of creative climate and learning culture factors on overall organizations In addressing RQ6-RQ9.000 Table II. A regression analysis was conducted involving both sets of the independent variable and their 17 factors together to determine the joint contribution of both variables on the observed variances in innovation.553 226713. ANOVA – creative climate factors and learning organization dimensions with innovation . F ¼ 19.000).556 Std. F ¼ 26. the three factors with high predictive powers together with the ten factors of the creative climate were regressed with innovation variable. With this finding. The results are shown in Tables I and II.0 percent (R 2 ¼ 0.5 percent (R 2 ¼ 0.125.442 F 19.585. the regression equation for the full model is obtained.979 390. A similar result was obtained when a forward multiple regression was conducted where the three factors identified in hierarchical order were “Embedded Systems” (b ¼ 6.

Std.3 Df 17 61 78 Mean square 2060.60 Note: Model summary of the multiple regression analysis of both sets of the independent variables. ANOVA-creative climate factors and learning organization dimensions with innovation (local organizations) R 0.882 R2 0. while “Strategic Leadership” (b ¼ 0.338.72 Model Factors from both sets of CCQ and LO variables Table III.380 F 14.000) followed by “Embedded Systems” (b ¼ 2. P ¼ 0.8 648 Interaction of creative climate and learning culture factors on local organizations and MNCs A third regression analysis followed by the fourth regression were conducted to determine the extent of the joint contribution of both sets of the independent variables to the explanation of the observed variances in innovation for the 13 local organizations and for the five MNCs. error of the estimate 20.030 69559.045.676.046).000 .427.472 275. there were two creative climate factors as well.2 percent (R 2 ¼ 0. Table VI.495 174866.302. Additionally. P ¼ 0.961.007) followed by “Team Learning” (b ¼ 0. Table IV.602.495 174866.520 429.585 Std. respectively.000 Model Factors from both sets of CCQ and LO variables Table V.037) and “Debates” (b ¼ 0.427 Sig. P ¼ 0.6 percent (R 2 ¼ 0. P ¼ 0. namely “Challenge” (b ¼ 0. P ¼ 0.044) were identified to be highly predictive of innovation for the MNCs. The findings are shown in Tables III-VI. The factors “Systems Connection” (b ¼ 0.476.476 Sig.676 Adjusted R 2 0.287. P ¼ 0.6 69559. F ¼ 7. P ¼ 0. creative climate and learning organization with innovation in the local organizations Model CCQ and LO factors Regression Residual Total Sum of squares 132616. creative climate and learning organization with innovation in the MNCs Model CCQ and LO factors Regression Residual Total Sum of squares 35028.422.000) of the factors have significant contribution to the explanation in the observed variances in innovation for the local organizations and 67.3 Df 17 162 179 Mean square 6194.004) were identified as having high predictive powers on innovation for the local organizations.000) to the explanation for the MNCs. error of the estimate 16.602 Adjusted R 2 0. It is interesting to note that none of the creative climate factors have influence on innovation in the local organization but in the MNCs the situation was more balanced.620 F 7. ANOVA – creative climate factors and learning organization dimensions with innovation in MNCs R 0. It was found that 60. 0. F ¼ 14.776 R2 0.LODJ 26. P ¼ 0.560 Note: Model summary of the multiple regression analysis of both sets of the independent variables. 0. respectively.

The MNCs provided a challenging climate for their members and this suggests that the MNCs provided sufficient scope for members to generate novel solutions and the members in return. the learning organization variable with its seven dimensions makes a more significant contribution towards explaining innovation than the ten factors of the organizational creative climate. as shown by the results above. 1996). The learning dimensions of “Embedded Systems”. This creativeness was mostly generated by having a challenging environment (challenge) and a climate of trust and openness (trust) present in the organizations. it can be concluded that for this particular study. The members were intrinsically rewarded by their need to seek achievements. learning organization culture and innovation between MNCs and local organizations. “Continuous learning” means putting Creative climate and organization factors 649 . about 35 percent when the multiple regression analysis was done separately involving just the climatic factors. 1996). In summary. A climate of trust and openness provides emotional safety in relationships where everyone in the organization dares to put forward ideas and opinions in the presence of high level of trust (Ekvall. A climate of challenge and motivation provides emotional involvement of the members of the organizations in the operations and goals as what Ekvall (1996) has described. “Embedded Systems” means a systematic effort implemented by the organizations to capture the intellectual capital of the individuals in a permanent manner and is best done by capturing learning in the organizational memory (Watkins. This addresses RQ8 and RQ9. 1996). In other words a climate of “Debates” seemed to occur concurrently with the presence of “Team Learning” which involved mastering the practices of dialogue and discussions. A climate of “Debates” was also present where the MNCs were practicing the exchanging of ideas verbally or otherwise and interact into conversations more often among individual members or teams (Ekvall. This is a common feature for innovation. This showed that there was a certain amount of creativity present within participants which contributed to innovation. Conclusions The results reported above show that there were no differences observed in members’ perceptions of creative climate. 1978) for the improvement of the organizations’ core business. learning organization culture and innovation among the small. or any match or mismatch identified by the individuals in the organization (Argyris and Schon. However. Additionally there were no differences in participants’ perceptions of creative climate. By embedding knowledge and information into the organizational memory is to take actions (without restructuring the norms) on any detection of errors. learning organization culture and innovation among the three job levels in the sampled organizations. respond positively towards this environment (Ekvall. there was a considerable amount of significant contribution from the creative climate factors towards innovation. Finally. “Systems connection” means scanning the organizations’ markets in the internal and external environments and be able to adjust the working systems within the organization (make necessary changes) to suit with the inside and outside requirements. large and very large sized organizations. medium. This climate of “Debates” is expected to have a positive influence on “Team Learning” and this was obviously so. there were no differences in participants’ perceptions on creative climate. “Systems Connection” and “Continuous Learning” were also identified as having significant predictive powers on innovation activities occurring within the organization as compared to the other four learning factors. 1996). Giving employees opportunities to find and solve challenging problems and implement solutions intrinsically rewards their need for achievement.

8 650 emphasis on continuous individual learning of employees to upgrade their skills in order to perform better at the tasks at hand. There was no influence of creative climate factors on the local organizations which indicated that the 13 local organizations did not precipitate the necessary creativity in individual employees which was necessary for generating innovation. C. P. the organizations should be improving learning on these areas: by giving emphasis in giving more empowerment to its members.. 1-20.. and the lack of influence of four other learning dimensions (besides embedded systems. J. Creative Organizational Climate: Construction and Validation of a Measuring Instrument. Discussions and recommendation The findings reflect the lack of influence of the eight organizational creative climate factors (besides challenge and trust/openness) on innovation in the sampled organizations (particularly in the local organizations). This suggests that the local organizations should be looking into ways of improving organizational climate which would encourage more creativity among employees by emphasizing the ten creative climate factors. G. C. Although the learning culture seemed to be contributing substantially towards the innovation in the organizations. and by encouraging dialogue and inquiry to occur among the members. “Working climate and creativity: a study of an innovative newspaper”. Argyris. MA. Ekvall. Vol. Drucker. (1983). 1. “Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 5 No. R. pp.J. pp. I. pp. D. D.M. “The coming of the new organization”. K. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Wall. T. Journal of Creative Behavior. Reading. “Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas”.M. Swedish Council for Management and Work Life Issues.. and Conti. 630-41. 265-86. . 3.LODJ 26. 215-25. (1986). pp. is one of the most difficult task to do for top management according to Majaro (1988) and Roffe (1999). Y. 73 No. (1978). Vol. It is argued that the present study can be developed further by examining the effects of the two sets of independent variables on separate innovation constructs. Axtell. However. P. 42 No. Vol. Holman. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Academy of Management Journal.A. and Schon. T. 105-23. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. Inc. while only the learning organization factors of “Embedded Systems” and “Systems Connection” have significant influences on innovation in the local organizations. pp. the local organizations should make efforts towards it. G. (1996). G.D. Stockholm. The local organizations were in general lacking in the presence of creative climate compared to the MNCs. Ekvall. (1988).. Ekvall. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. and Waldenstrom-Lindblad. and Waterson. systems connection and continuous learning) on innovation among employees in the organization. Changing the climate to one which is creative. (2000). January-February. The two creative climate factors “Challenge” and “Debates” and two learning factors which were “Strategic Leadership” and “Team Learning” have considerable significant influences on innovation in the MNCs. (1999). References Amabile.E. 6. Arvonen. TI and organizational innovation. Unsworth. “Organizational climate for creativity and innovation”. and Tangeberg-Anderson.L..

Nonaka.Garvin. The Tacit Dimension. and Rickards. Managing Ideas for Profit: The Creative Gap. New York. and Takeuchi. pp. 3rd ed. (1995). M. concerns about the innovation. V. Maria. Harper & Row Publishers. K. A. S. Scandinavian Journal Management. doctoral dissertation. Polyanyi.). The Creative Gap: Managing Ideas for Profit. Diffusion of Innovations. (Ed. OECD/GD.M. 21-45. NY. (1989). 78 No. 27-45. NY. 78-91.E. J. Majaro. (1996). . The Free Press. Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. Zairi. “An introduction to the Minnesota innovation research program”. Journal of European Industrial Training. 12 No. (72). (November-December). “Of course organizations learn!”. Roffe. July-August. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Foster Creativity and Innovation for Competitive Advantage. Paris. and their influence on use of an on-going innovation in the Malaysian public sector”..A.E. Partners of the Learning Organization. Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (1996). McGraw-Hill. “Cracking the code of change”. H. Davis. “Innovation or innovativeness? Results of a benchmarking study”. NY. (1995). Nunally. A. 5th ed. (1996). Khairuddin. Rogers. University of Georgia. H. R. 23 Nos 4/5. pp. CA. “Building a learning organization”. Malaysia. (1991). Angle. and Nohria. (2000). 133-42.. E. Van de Ven. Vol. Harvard Business Review. (1978). 191-207. New York. NY. Total QualityManagement. 2. I. “The knowledge creating company”. K. H. New York. D. T. Vol. GA. OECD Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. R. “Perception of learning culture. M. Zain. I. (1999). 1. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. doctoral dissertation. (Eds). Sta. pp. New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education: Workplace Learning. and Angle. 3-30. 3. Lehman. (1988). New York. and Poole. pp. Vol. Psychometric Theory. (2000). (1995).. Creative climate and organization factors 651 Further reading Beer. (2000). (1999). pp. pp. (1966). 1994 National Survey of Innovation in Industry. (1992). University of Georgia. 2nd ed. 3. Innovation and Change. N. M. Athens. “Competitiveness of Malaysian firms: an investigation into the implementation of continuous improvement”. D. RI. (1996). New York. “Organizational learning experiences in Malaysian firms moving toward globalization”. R. Majaro. S. and Marsick. Ministry of Science. “Innovation and creativity in organizations: a review of the implications for training and development”. Harvard Business Review. London. I. NY. in Van de Ven. Duxbury. (1994). Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. 89-96. Entrepreneurship. 5 No. Nonaka. Technology and the Environment. Anchor Day. Zain. I. Watkins.W. M. Oxford University Press. Longman. pp.S. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. in Rowden. Vol. Watkins. McGraw-Hill. pp. NY.. M. OECD (1997).F. Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences: A Conceptual Introduction. (1983). 109-21. pp. “Assessing and comparing the innovativeness and creative climate of firms”. Warwick. New York. Pacific Grove. London. Business Research for Decision Making. (1993). 224-41. M.

702E-02 0.701 8.139 Organizational innovation Factor 3 0.384 30.520 1.209 0.301 0.Absorpcap15 0.786 0. (1999).280 9. Absorpcap9 0.Absorpcap19 0.392 0. Mohanty.Diffussion5 0.624 0.823 0.715 7. 1-10.250 9. Vol.Absorpcap13 0.ISO1 0. (1979). pp.377 0.284 26. pp.Absorpcap14 0. 15.347 0.794 0. Vol.170 9.323 0.Diffussion4 .317 31.P. Extraction method: principal component analysis.585 0.677 10. (Ed.722 6.437 2.325 0.ISO4 0. Absorpcap7 0.ISO7 0. Absorpcap10 0.LODJ 26.294 0. rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization .Diffussion3 0.311 0.723 5.666 12. Absorpcap3 0.749 0.392 22.114E-02 0.204 0.Diffussion1 .184 0.614 0.207E-02 0.486 0.642 0.Absorpcap1 0.819 0. Absorpcap2 0. (1994).Absorpcap16 0. “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”.653 13. 5 No.182 Table AI.333 Eigenvalue 17.379 23.ISO6 0. p.577 Diffusion of innovation 14. Frances Pinter (Publishers). Organization Science.285 0.308 27.8 Mensch. Absorpcap8 0.Absorpcap12 0.197 0. in Rickard. I. Appendix 1 652 Items Technological innovation Factor 1 Factor 2 0.416 0.192 0.358 0.ISO3 0.ISO2 0. London.271 29.239 0.256 0.Absorpcap11 0.978 6. Absorpcap4 0. 4.ISO8 0.ISO5 0.238 0.255 0.136 17.279 18.387 0.780 0.121 Cumulative percent variance 53.Absorpcap18 0. Absorpcap6 0. Nonaka.791 0.728 3.727 4.363 0. Participation and Empowerment: An International Journal.790 2.396 0.Absorpcap17 0. T. Absorpcap5 0. Stimulating Innovation.225 0. R.338 19.406 21. “Statement in technology (translation)”.201 0.200 20.776 0.607 0.259 15. Results of post hoc factor analysis of the innovation construct Technological transfer (assimilation) 1.669 11.216 0. 1.242 0.Diffussion2 3. 7 No.683E-02 16.436 Organizational innovation 25.548 0.305 0.349 0.502 Notes: N=259.566 0.759 0.284 7.283 28. “Value innovation perspective in Indian organizations”.277 32.322 0.744 0. 14-37.109 0.230 0. G.160 0.264 0.265 0.).277 0.751 0.678 9.402 24.346 0.

Appendix 2 Creative climate and organization factors 653 Table AII. Results of the post hoc factor analysis for learning organization (LO) and innovation items (N ¼ 259) .

8 654 Table AII. .LODJ 26.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful