Creativity Research Journal
2007, Vol. 19, No. 1, 69–90
Copyright © 2007 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
ARTICLE
Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review
Samuel T. Hunter, Katrina E. Bedell, and Michael D. Mumford
The University of Oklahoma
ABSTRACT: Creativity is commonly held to emerge
from an interaction of the person and the situation. In
studies of creativity, situational influences are commonly assessed by using climate measures. In the present effort, a meta-analysis was conducted to examine
42 prior studies in which the relationships between climate dimensions, such as support and autonomy, and
various indices of creative performance were assessed.
These climate dimensions were found to be effective
predictors of creative performance across criteria,
samples, and settings. It was found, moreover, that
these dimensions were especially effective predictors
of creative performance in turbulent, high-pressure,
competitive environments. The implications of these
findings for understanding environmental influences
on creativity and innovation are discussed.
Creativity, the generation of new ideas, and innovation,
the translation of these ideas into useful new products,
are commonly held to arise as a function of an interaction between the person and the situation (Amabile,
1997; Scott & Bruce, 1994). In recent years, the field
has made substantial progress in understanding the attributes of creative people with studies demonstrating
the importance of expertise (Ericsson & Charness,
1994; Rich & Weisberg, 2004), information processing
strategies (Lubart, 2001; Mumford, Supinski,
Baughman, Costanza, & Threlfall, 1997; Ward,
Patterson, & Sifonis, 2004), abilities (Sternberg &
O’Hara, 1999; Vincent, Decker, & Mumford, 2002)
and personality characteristics (Barron & Harrington,
1981; Feist, 1999). Other scholars have sought to understand how creativity and innovation are influenced
Creativity Research Journal
by environmental variables with studies examining
collaborations (Abra, 1994; Bullinger, Auernhammer,
& Gomeringer, 2004), group interactions (Rickards,
Chen, & Moger, 2001; West, 2002), leadership
(Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Howell
& Boies, 2004), and organizational structure (Cardinal
& Hatfield, 2001; Damanpour, 1996).
Although a variety of environmental variables have
been identified that might influence creativity and innovation, many scholars stress the importance of climate (e.g., Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Anderson,
De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2003; West, 2002). Climate studies examine peoples’ perceptions of, or experiences in,
their immediate work environment with respect to dimensions such as support and autonomy (Mathisen &
Einarsen, 2004). And, broadly speaking, the results obtained in these studies underscore the importance of
climate in that (a) creative people, people evidencing
the individual attributes related to creative achievement, appear especially reactive to climate variables
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996); (b) climate perceptions, at both the individual and group level, have been
found to be effective predictors of creativity and innovation (Tesluk, Farr, & Klein, 1997); and (c) climate
assessments have provided a basis for organizational
interventions that have proven useful in enhancing creativity and innovation (Basadur, 1997; Schneider,
Gunnarson, & Niles-Jolly, 1994; Van De Ven, 1986).
We would like to thank Ginamarie Scott, Lyle Leritz, and Jazmine
Espejo for their contributions to this effort.
Address correspondence to Michael D. Mumford, Department of
Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73014.
E-mail: mmumford@ou.edu.
69
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
Despite the apparent importance of climate in
shaping creative achievement, a number of questions
remain unanswered (Mathisen & Einarson, 2004).
For example, it is difficult to say with any certainty
which of the many dimensions of climate found in
the literature is the most important influence on creativity and innovation (Mumford & Hunter, 2005). It
is unclear what the limitations are on the generality of
these predictive relationships. And, we do not know
much about the occupational, group, organizational,
and environmental variables that might moderate
these relationships (Anderson et al., 2004). With
these points in mind, our intent in the present study
was to conduct a meta-analysis of prior studies that
examined the relationship between climate perceptions and creative achievement to establish overall effect size, dimensional effects, internal and external
validity, and significant moderators of the strength of
these relationships.
Climate
Climate has been defined in different ways by different investigators (Rousseau, 1988). Climate, however, is commonly held to be reflected in peoples’ perceptions of, or beliefs about, environmental attributes
shaping expectations about outcomes, contingencies,
requirements, and interactions in the work environment (James, James, & Ashe, 1990; Parker et al., 2003;
Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Thus climate, unlike culture, is a localized phenomenon reflecting experienced, environmental press at either the individual or
group level (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). Thus typical
climate questions (Lapierre & Giroux, 2003) ask
whether “employees feel free to express their ideas to
bosses” or whether “people are not afraid to take risks
around here.” As indicated by these questions, climate
is held to be a domain referenced phenomenon (e.g.,
climate for creativity, climate for service) in which
multiple variables, or dimensions, act to shape performance in the domain under consideration.
A number of different theoretical frames have been
used to specify the climate variables that might influence creative achievement. For example, a theory of intrinsic motivation was used by Amabile (Amabile &
Conti, 1999; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, &
Herron, 1996; Amabile & Grykiewicz, 1989) in devel-
70
oping the following eight dimension model: (1) work
group support, (2) challenging work, (3) organizational encouragement, (4) supervisory encouragement,
(5) organizational impediments, (6) freedom, (7)
workload pressure, and (8) sufficient resources. In
contrast, West and his colleagues (Anderson & West,
1988; Bain, Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001; Burningham
& West, 1985; West et al., 2003) used a theory of team
interactions to develop the following four dimensional
model: (1) participative safety, (2) support for innovation, (3) challenging objectives, and (4) task orientation. The dispositional model proposed by Ekvall and
his colleagues (Ekvall, 1986; Ekvall & Ryhammer,
1999; Isakson & Lauer, 2002; Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall,
& Britz, 2001) is based on a theory of underlying psychological processes that led to the development of a
nine dimension model: (1) challenge and involvement,
(2) freedom, (3) trust and openness, (4) idea time, (5)
playfulness and humor, (6) conflict, (7) idea support,
(8) debate, and (9) risk-taking. Other models of relevant climate dimensions have been proposed with approaches based on organizational reinforcers (Abbey
& Dickson, 1983), environmental appraisal (Tesluk et
al., 1997), engagement (Mossholder & Dewhurst,
1980), requirements for new product development
(Thamhain, 2003), and organizational learning theory
(Lapierre & Giroux, 2003).
In an initial attempt to integrate these varying perspectives, Lapierre and Giroux (2003) administered
climate questions formulated by using the organizational learning and dispositional models to 127 information technology professionals. They found that climate questions formulated by using these two
frameworks converged around a smaller set of underlying dimensions. In an extension of this work, Hunter,
Bedell, and Mumford (2005) reviewed the available
taxonomies of climate variables. They found that more
than 90% of the variables appearing in prior taxonomies could be accounted for by a 14 dimension model
that included (1) positive peer group, (2) positive supervisory relationships, (3) resources, (4) challenge,
(5) mission clarity, (6) autonomy, (7) positive interpersonal exchange, (8) intellectual stimulation, (9) top
management support, (10) reward orientation, (11)
flexibility and risk taking, (12) product emphasis, (13)
participation, and (14) organizational integration.
Although some evidence is available that points to
convergence of these varied approaches, application
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
of different models in specifying relevant dimensions
has given rise to differences in the nature of the instruments used to assess climate perceptions. Available inventories differ not only in the number of dimensions being assessed but also in the number and
type of questions being applied and the response format in use. In a recent review of the psychometric
properties of three of these inventories, Mathisen and
Einarsen (2004) found that the dimensional scales derived from these inventories evidenced adequate internal consistency—although within-group agreement
data were not available. In addition, Mathisen and
Einarson (2004) found that factor analytic studies
have provided some support for the hypothesized dimensional structure underlying these instruments.
More centrally, the evidence compiled by Mathisen
and Einarsen (2004) indicated that climate measures
can predict creativity and innovation in real-world settings. The validation strategy applied in most studies
involved examining the relationship between climate
dimensions and self- and/or supervisory ratings of creativity (e.g., Amabile & Conti, 1996; Bunce & West,
1995; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 2003; Mohamed, 2002).
However, evidence for the predictive validity of climate appraisals has been obtained by using a variety of
other criteria, including expert judgments of products
produced (Agrell & Gustafson, 1994), publications
(Ekvall & Ryhammer, 1999; McCarrey & Edwards,
1994), engagement in entrepreneurial activities
(Brendle, 2001), innovation adoption (Kitchell, 1995),
and return on investment (Baer & Freese, 2003). This
validation evidence, furthermore, has been accrued in
samples ranging from research and development personnel (Abbey & Dickson, 1983) to health care delivery teams (Borrill, West, Shapiro, & Rees, 2000). This
variability in criteria and sample characteristics, of
course, broaches the question as to the extent to which
validation findings bearing on these climate appraisals
generalize across criteria, samples, and settings.
Moderators
There is, moreover, reason to suspect that the relationship between climate variables and creativity may
vary as a function of a number of moderators—moderators related to the nature of the work being done
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996), the group (Curral,
Creativity Research Journal
Foster, Dawson, & West, 2001), the organization
(Russell & Russell, 2000), and the environment in
which the organization is operating (Anderson et al.,
2003). In one study along these lines, Bain et al.
(2001) used a number of different criteria, including
ratings of individual and team innovation, patent
awards, and project outcomes, to contrast people
working on research projects with people working on
development projects on the basis of the hypothesis
that opportunities for exploration on the job would
moderate the relationship between climate variables
and indices of creative achievement. In keeping with
this hypothesis, they found that climate was more
strongly related to indices of creativity and innovation on research projects as opposed to development
projects.
Ford and Sullivan (2004) have suggested that the
need for creativity, and thus the influence of climate on
innovation, may vary as a function of project demands—with creativity, and a creative climate, proving especially valuable in early cycle as opposed to late
cycle product development efforts. The nature and status of the project, however, are not the only work-based
variables that might moderate climate influences.
Mumford, Whetzel, and Reiter-Palmon (1997) have argued that the amount of discretion people are granted
on their jobs may also moderate the relationship between climate and creativity due to the potential for autonomous exploration. In addition to these objective
job characteristics, more subjective features of the job,
for example job satisfaction, vis-à-vis mood effects
(Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Zhou & George,
2001), may also act as moderators.
In addition to job characteristics, it appears that
characteristics of the group may also moderate the relationship between climate and indices of creativity
and innovation. One illustration of this point may be
found in a study by Curral et al. (2001). They found
that team size, by affecting group processes, can influence climate, and presumably, the relationship between climate and creative achievement, with large
teams leading to poor climate and a weak climate–creativity relationship due to process loss. Other variables
affecting group process, including trust and cohesion
(Howell & Boies, 2005), interdependence (Thamhain,
2003), and the need for cross-functional teams (Keller,
2001), might also act as moderators of the relationship
between climate measures and creativity.
71
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
In contrast to group size, organizational size appears to have a rather different pattern of effects on the
relationship between climate and creative achievement. Nystrom, Ramamurthy, and Wilson (2002) examined innovation adoption in health care organizations. They found not only that size and resources were
positively related to innovation but also that size and
resources interacted with climate by allowing organizations to act on the ideas flowing from a creative climate. In addition to size and resources, other organizational variables that might operate to moderate the
relationship between climate and creative achievement
include horizontal as opposed to vertical structuring
(Russell & Russsell, 2002), capital intensity (Mumford
& Hunter, in press), professionalization (Damanpour,
1991), and organizational learning with regard to innovation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Environmental influences that might moderate the
relationship between climate and creative achievement
have received less attention than group and organizational level variables. In a notable exception to this
general trend, Russell and Russell (2002) found that
environmental turbulence was positively related to
both creative climate and adoption of a corporate strategy stressing innovation. On the basis of the findings of
Borrill et al. (2002) concerning the influence of market
demands on the relationship between climate and innovation, Janssen, Van De Vliert, and West (2004) argued
that turbulence, production pressure, and competitive
pressure not only establish a need for innovation but
will lead climate to become a more important influence
on creative achievement.
Objectives
Clearly, a number of variables operating at the job,
group, organizational, and environmental levels might
moderate the relationship between climate and creativity. Our ultimate goal in the present study was to identify the job, group, organizational, and environmental
variables that may be noteworthy moderators of the relationship between climate and creativity in organizational settings. To provide a substantive foundation for
this moderators analysis, however, it was first necessary to demonstrate that across studies, climate dimensions in fact provide sizable relationships with measures of creativity and that these relationships are not
an artifact of study design characteristics (internal va-
72
lidity considerations) or the population and settings being studies (external validity considerations).
Method
Literature Search
To examine the effects of these moderators, and to
establish the internal and external validity of climate
measures in accounting for creative achievement, we
conducted a meta-analysis. Identification of the studies
to be included in this meta-analysis began with an examination of general review articles on climate and innovation in organizational settings (e.g., Anderson et
al., 2003; Mumford & Hunter, 2005; Tesluk et al.,
1997). Additionally, prior issues of journals that frequently publish articles on climate and creativity were
reviewed, including the Creativity Research Journal,
Journal of Creative Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior, R & D Management, and Creativity
and Innovation Management.
After reviewing likely publication sources, we
searched relevant databases to identify additional studies. This data base search, with the key words creativity
or innovation with climate or culture, included Psychological Abstracts, JSTOR, Business Source Elite,
Google Scholar, and Dissertation Abstracts. Following
this database search, we reviewed programs of relevant
conferences of the American Psychological Association, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and the Academy of Management to identify
any conference papers that might be included in this
meta-analysis.
Although application of these procedures resulted
in a reasonably comprehensive review of studies that
had appeared in print or in conferences, it could not ensure that studies that had not been publicly presented
were included in the meta-analysis. To address this
“file drawer” problem (Rosenthal, 1979; Rosenthal
1992)—failure to consider studies producing weak effects which would lead to overestimation of effect
size—an attempt was made to obtain unpublished studies that might be relevant to the present effort. Accordingly, the initial literature review was used to identify
scholars who had published two or more articles on
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
topics relevant to creativity and climate over the last 10
years or who were known to have been involved in, or
to be in the process of, initiating research programs in
this area. E-mails were sent to each of these scholars
describing the intent of the study and asking if they
could forward any unpublished manuscripts.
Application of these procedures resulted in the
identification of 88 articles, conference papers, or
manuscripts that might be considered for inclusion in
the meta-analysis. Each article, conference paper, or
manuscript was reviewed by a psychologist familiar
with the literature on climate and creative achievement and were eliminated if (a) they only presented
qualitative data, (b) they only examined organizational influences on climate as opposed to examining
the relationship between climate and creativity, (c)
the performance criteria applied were not described,
(d) the performance criteria applied did not expressly
examine creativity or innovation, (e) the sample and
setting in which the study (or studies) was conducted
were not described, (f) the specific climate dimensions examined were not described, and (g) the relationships between specific climate dimensions and
measures of creative achievement were not presented.
On the basis of the application of these criteria, 42 articles, conference papers, dissertations, or manuscripts, all using independent samples, were included
in the meta-analysis, which presented data drawn
from 14,490 participants.
Effect Size Estimates
To provide a basis for estimating effect size in
terms of specific climate dimensions, a psychologist
familiar with the literature on climate and creativity
was asked to review the definitions of, and markers
used to measure, each of the climate dimensions examined in a given study. On the basis of this information, he/she was then asked to assign each climate dimension under consideration in a study of one, or
more, of the 14 dimensions appearing in the general
taxonomy of climate dimensions developed by
Hunter et al. (in press). These 14 dimensions and
their operational definitions are presented in Table 1.
A reliability check, examining the percentage agreement among three judges, indicated greater than 90%
agreement in the assignment of climate dimensions
found in the literature to the 14 climate dimensions
included in this general taxonomy. If a climate di-
Creativity Research Journal
mension appearing in a study could not be assigned
to at least one of the 14 dimensions included in the
taxonomy, it was dropped from the study. Only 5%
of the dimensions identified in prior studies could not
be assigned to one or more of the 14 dimensions included in the general taxonomy of climate dimensions.
After reviewing and cross-classifying the climate
dimensions, a psychologist was asked to review the description of the criteria used to measure creative
achievement. After reviewing the description of the
criterion measure being applied, this judge was to indicate the level of criterion measurement (1 = individual,
2 = group, 3 = organizational, or 4 = mixed) and the
type of criteria applied (1 = ratings of creative performance or innovative achievement, 2 = new products or
services, 3 = patents or awards, 4 = publications, and 5
= other). Because a large proportion of the studies appearing in the literature are based on ratings, this judge
was also asked to indicate rating type, and, if ratings
were applied, to classify the ratings as to source (1 =
self, 2 = peer, 3 = supervisor, 4 = subordinate, 5 = researcher, or 6 = mixed).
Effect size estimates were obtained for each climate
dimension against each criteria measure under consideration in a given study. All of the studies selected for
inclusion in this meta-analysis used one of two basic
strategies to establish the relationship between appraisals of a climate dimension and performance; either (a)
the climate dimension was correlated with a criterion
or (b) differences in mean climate scores on the dimensions were presented contrasting more or less creative
groups as defined by a creative performance measure.
In the case of studies that used a group differences design, effect size was assessed by using Glass, McGaw,
and Cohen’s delta statistic ∆ as estimated with the
pooled within-group variation (Huberty, 2002). In the
case of studies that used a correlational design, ∆ estimates were obtained for each dimension with respect
to each criterion by using the procedure described by
McGaw and Glass (1980) for converting correlations
to deltas. After calculating these effect sizes, the average delta across dimensions was obtained for each criterion examined in each study to control for the differences in the number of climate dimensions being
examined. Then the average delta across studies examining multiple criteria was obtained to avoid overweighting data obtained from one sample in the overall
analysis.
73
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
Table 1. Summary of General Taxonomy Dimensions
Label
1. Positive Peer Group
2. Positive Supervisor
Relations
3. Resources
4. Challenge
5. Mission Clarity
6. Autonomy
7. Positive Interpersonal
Exchange
8. Intellectual
Stimulation
9. Top Management
Support
Example of Climate
Dimension
Operational Definition
Perception of a supportive and intellectually stimulating peer group.
Relationships are characterized by trust, openness, humor, and good
communication.
Perception that an employee’s supervisor is supportive of new and
innovative ideas. Supervisor also operates in a non-controlling
manner.
Perception that the organization has, and is willing to use, resources to
facilitate, encourage and eventually implement creative ideas.
Perception that jobs and/or tasks are challenging, complex, and
interesting—yet at the same time not overly taxing or unduly
overwhelming.
Perception and awareness of goals and expectations regarding creative
performance.
Perception that employees have autonomy and freedom in performing
their jobs.
Employees perceive a sense of “togetherness” and cohesion in the
organization. Employees experience little emotional or affectively
laden conflict in the organization.
Perception that debate and discussion of ideas (not persons) is
encouraged and supported in the organization.
Perception that creativity is supported and encouraged at the upper
levels of the organization.
10. Reward Orientation
Perception that creative performance is tied to rewards in the
organization.
11. Flexibility and
Risk-Taking
Perception that the organization is willing to take risks and deal with
uncertainty and ambiguity associated with creative endeavors.
12. Product Emphasis
Perception that the organization is committed to quality as well as
originality of ideas.
Perception that participation is encouraged and supported.
Communication between peers, supervisors and subordinates is clear,
open, and effective.
Perception that the organization is well integrated with external factors
(e.g., outsourcing) as well as internal factors (e.g., use of
cross-functional teams).
13. Participation
14. Organizational
Integration
Variable Coding
To examine overall effect size, taking into account
relevant internal and external validity considerations
and potential moderators of these effects operating at
the individual, group, organizational, and environmental levels, we conducted a content analysis. In this content analysis, three judges, all doctoral candidates in
industrial and organizational psychology were asked to
74
Cooperation (Abbey &
Dickson, 1983)
Supportive supervision
(Oldham & Cummings,
1996)
Resources (Amabile,
Conti, Coon, Lazenby,
& Herron, 1996)
Job complexity (Oldham,
& Cummings 1996)
Clear organizational
objectives (Thamhain,
2003)
Freedom (Ekvall, 1996)
Conflict harmonization
(Ayers, Dahlstrom, &
Skinnner, 1997)
Debate (Ekvall, 1996)
Support for Innovation
(Anderson & West,
1988)
Reward orientation
(Tesluk, Farr, & Klein,
1997)
Flexibility (Ayers,
Dahlstrom, & Skinner,
1997)
Quality orientation (Sethi
& Nicholson, 2001)
Participative safety
(Anderson & West,
1988)
Cross-functional
cooperation and
support (Thamhain,
2003)
review the description of each study providing a basis
for effect size estimates. These judges were blind to the
hypotheses underlying the present effort but were familiar with the creativity and climate literature. Prior to
starting work coding the relevant variables, these
judges were exposed to a 40-hr training program. In
this training program, they were familiarized with the
nature of the variables to be coded and the coding
scheme to be applied to each variable. In making these
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
evaluations, judges were instructed to code a variable
only if the description of the study explicitly considered material relevant to the appraisal—otherwise a
missing data code was to be applied. After this initial
training, judges were asked to code five studies. Once
they had made their study ratings, they met as a panel
to discuss their ratings and to resolve any discrepancies. Subsequently, these judges were presented with
10 studies, selected to represent a range of material
likely to be encountered, and were asked to evaluate
these studies by using the coding scheme. A reliability
check examining percent agreement across the three
judges indicated 92% agreement in the coding of the
relevant variables.
population, and setting. The population variables examined gender: (a) 80% or more of the sample men, (b)
80% of the sample women, or (c) mixed; age: (a) 80%
of more of the sample over 40, (b) 80% of the sample
under 40, or (c) mixed; educational background: (a)
professional, (b) nonprofessional, or (c) mixed; country type: (a) industrial or (b) nonindustrial; and country
culture: (a) individualistic or (b) collectivist (Hofstede,
1996). The setting variables considered whether the
study was conducted in a for-profit or in nonprofit organization and the major kind of work conducted in the
organization using sample members—(a) research and
development, (b) manufacturing, (c) service, or (d)
mixed (Florida, 2003).
Internal Validity
Moderators
The internal validity of these studies was assessed by
using indices of study quality commonly applied in
meta-analytic efforts (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004).
More specifically, these evaluations of internal validity,
or study quality, considered (a) sample size, either above
or below average; (b) whether the study appeared in a
peer reviewed journal; (c) the educational level, doctorate or nondoctorate, of the principal investigator; (d)
whether reliability estimates were presented for scores
on the climate dimensions; and (e) whether the criterion
data were collected anonymously.
In addition to these general indices of study quality,
two additional variables were examined uniquely relevant to studies of climate and creative achievement. As
Mathisen and Einarsen (2004) have pointed out, many
climate studies are based on well-researched, standardized instruments, whereas other studies are based on
locally developed, exploratory instruments. Accordingly, studies were coded as to whether standardized or
local exploratory measures were applied. Moreover, as
Mumford and Hunter (2005) have pointed out, these
measures differ with respect to underlying assumptions about key climate variables. As a result, each
study was assessed as to the approach used in developing climate measures, that is (a) psychological/dispositional, (b) motivational, (c) team, (d) organizational, or (e) mixed.
Job. The job moderators examined attributes of
the work being done that might moderate the relationship between climate and creative achievement. The
first set of moderators pertained to the work being
done. Here judges were asked to evaluate (a) whether
the generation of new ideas was required for employment; (b) the kind of innovations, product innovations
(e.g., new designs), process innovations (e.g., new services), or both, that were sought on the job; (c) the
stage of the innovation process involved—early (generation), middle (refinement), late (fielding; Ford &
Sullivan, 2004; Mumford 2000). Additionally, on the
basis of the observations of Mumford et al. (1997),
judges were asked to rate, on a 3-point scale, the
amount of discretion people were given in performing
their work.
The second set of job level moderators examined
motivation and emotional reactions. Judges, on the basis of the material presented in the study description,
were asked to indicate whether rewards were provided
for creativity and innovation and whether the rewards
provided were primarily intrinsic or extrinsic in nature.
They were also asked to rate, on a 3-point scale, the
overall level of job satisfaction.
External Validity
External validity was to be assessed taking into account three key considerations: generality of findings,
Creativity Research Journal
Group. The first group-level moderator was
whether the task at hand required people to work in
teams. Additionally, on the basis of the observations of
Curral et al. (2001), judges were asked to record team
size with team size being coded as very large (15+),
large (10–14), medium (6–9), and small (2–5). Judges
were also asked to use the descriptive material pro-
75
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
vided and to rate, on a 3-point scale, the degree of interdependence in team work and the cohesion of team
members.
Organization. The observations of Damanapour
(1991), Nystrom et al. (2002), and Subramanian and
Nilakanta (1996) were used to specify the organizational moderators. After reading through the description of the organization being studied, judges were
asked to rate, on a 3-point scale, the (a) wealth of the
organization as reflected in size and resources, (b) the
degree of professionalization, (c) and capital intensity.
Additionally, judges were asked to indicate whether
their organization used a vertical structure, a horizontal
structure, or a mixed vertical and horizontal structure.
It is of note that these ratings were made only for studies examining climate–creativity relationships in a single organization. Studies that examined multiple organizations were treated as missing data.
Environment. In the case of environment,
judges were to make ratings only if a single type of organization was being studied. With regard to these environmental variables, judges were asked to indicate
whether competition in this industrial sector was based
on fielding innovative new products. They were also
asked to rate, again on a 3-point scale, the amount of
turbulence in the environment, the amount of competitive pressure, and the performance pressure placed on
organizations operating in this market sector by competitors.
Results
Effects
Table 2 presents the average, cross-criteria delta obtained for each of the 14 climate dimensions included
in Hunter et al.’s (in press) general taxonomy of climate dimensions. Additionally, the cross-dimension
average overall delta is presented. This table also presents the number of studies providing data for each effect size estimate, the standard error for these delta estimates of effect size, and the 90% upper and lower
bound confidence intervals. Additionally, Orwin’s
(1983) fail-safe N statistic is presented to provide information pertaining to the number of null studies that
would be required to reduce this effect size estimate
below .20.
As may be seen, all of the dimensions commonly
examined in the climate studies produced sizable effects with respect to measures of creativity and innovation. The overall, cross-dimension delta was .75
Table 2. Overall Effects of Climate Within and Across Climate Dimensions
Overall
Positive Peer Group
Positive Supervisor Relations
Resources
Challenge
Mission Clarity
Autonomy
Positive Interpersonal Exchange
Intellectual Stimulation
Top Management Support
Reward Orientation
Flexibility and Risk-Taking
Product Emphasis
Participation
Organizational Integration
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
42
27
24
14
12
18
15
10
11
30
9
24
13
22
20
.75
.69
.73
.51
.85
.62
.48
.91
.88
.75
.55
.78
.59
.61
.62
.10
.12
.12
.19
.14
.09
.09
.39
.18
.10
.19
.12
.12
.11
.13
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.70
0.47
0.36
0.35
1.24
0.66
0.57
0.56
0.59
0.43
0.52
0.57
0.62–0.94
0.48–0.89
0.57–0.93
0.18–0.84
0.61–1.09
0.47–0.77
0.32–0.64
0.19–1.63
0.56–1.21
0.57–0.92
0.56–0.89
0.59–0.99
0.43–0.80
0.52–0.80
0.57–0.84
122
66
77
22
39
38
21
36
37
83
16
70
25
45
42
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
76
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
whereas the associated standard error was .10. The
fail-safe N statistic indicated that more than 120 null
studies would be required to change this conclusion.
To ensure that these effects could not be attributed to a
few outliers, these analyses were replicated after eliminating outliers—specifically studies yielding deltas
above +2 or below -2 for each dimension. The resulting average, cross-dimension, effect size obtained after
eliminating outliers (∆= .61, SE = .06) was comparable
to that obtained in our initial analysis. Thus, it appears
that our general conclusion concerning the positive effects of climate on creativity and innovation cannot be
attributed to a few studies producing atypical results.
The results presented in Table 2, however, also indicate that some variability was observed in the magnitude of the effects associated with different climate dimensions. The effect sizes obtained for the 14 general
dimensions ranged from .51 to .91. The dimensions
producing the largest deltas were positive interpersonal
exchange (∆ = .91, SE = .39), intellectual stimulation
(∆ = .88, SE = .18), and challenge (∆ = .85, SE = .14).
Apparently, an intellectually stimulating environment
in which people have challenging work, and colleagues
with who they can exchange ideas, is critical to creativity and innovation.
The dimensions producing relatively small effect
sizes are also of some interest. Although autonomy is often considered critical for creativity and innovation, the
autonomy dimension produced the smallest delta (∆ =
.48, SE = .09). Although this finding may at first glance
seem surprising, it is consistent with Trevelyan’s (2001)
observation concerning the need for some direction and
interpersonal exchange in most real-world creative efforts. Relatively small effect size estimates were also
obtained for the resources (∆ = .51, SE = .19) and reward
orientation (∆ = .55, SE = .14). Apparently though it is
desirable, and perhaps necessary, to provide requisite
resources and recognize creative work, resources and
recognition are not as important as providing challenging work in an intellectually stimulating environment.
The question that arises at this juncture, of course, is
whether these effects were contingent on the kind of
criteria used to assess creativity and innovation. Table
3 presents the results obtained in the examination of
the generality of our findings across criterion types, in
which the various objective indices (e.g., patents, publications) were aggregated to provide a more stable
comparison of effects vis-à-vis ratings. As may be
seen, studies that used ratings as a basis for assessing
creative achievement (∆ = .78, SE = .09) produced effect size estimates comparable to those obtained in
studies that used more objective measures of creative
achievement (∆ = .77, SE = .24). Thus, it appears that
conclusions about climate effects on creativity generalize across subjective and objective measures of performance.
Table 3. Overall, Cross Dimensional Effects of Climate by Criterion Type
Criterion Type
Ratings
Nonratings
Rating Type
Self
Peer
Supervisor
Subordinate
Researcher
Mixed
Criterion Level
Individual
Group
Organizational
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
29
13
0.78
0.77
.09
.24
.51
.86
0.62–0.94
0.35–1.20
84
37
13
2
9
–
3
6
0.97
0.37
0.55
–
1.08
0.56
.16
.08
.10
–
.25
.14
.59
.12
.29
–
.43
.35
0.68–1.26
–0.16–0.90
0.37–0.73
–
0.37–1.80
0.27–0.86
50
2
16
–
13
11
15
15
9
0.44
1.04
1.02
.08
.15
.30
.31
.58
.89
0.30–0.58
0.78–1.31
0.46–1.58
18
63
37
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
Creativity Research Journal
77
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
The relatively large number of studies that used
ratings as a basis for assessing creative achievement
permitted an examination of the effects of rater type.
The data presented in Table 3 indicate that studies
based on supervisory (∆ = .55, SE = .10), peer (∆ =
.37, SE = .08), and multiple source (∆ = .56, SE =
.14) ratings typically provide smaller effect size estimates than do studies based on self-ratings (∆ = .97,
SE = .16). Although this difference in effect sizes
might be attributed to the inflationary bias commonly
observed in self ratings, the sizable effects obtained
for experimenter ratings (∆ = 1.08, SE = .25) suggest
that the relatively small effects obtained for supervisory and peer evaluations may be due to range restriction in that supervision and peer evaluations are often
obtained in samples in which most people evidence
above average creativity.
Not only were differences observed as a function of
rater type, the level at which creative achievement was
evaluated also resulted in differences in the obtained
effect size estimates. Although climate exerted sizable
effects when measures of creative achievement were
obtained at the individual level (∆ = .44, SE = .08),
larger climate effects were obtained in studies that assessed creative achievement at the group (∆ = 1.02, SE
= .30) level. Apparently, climate is an especially important influence on creative achievement when performance is contingent on interactions among individuals and their collective perceptions of the work and
work environment. Nonetheless, even at an individual
level, climate was still found to exert nontrivial effects
on creative achievement.
Internal Validity
Although it seems clear that climate can exert noteworthy effects on creative achievement, effects that apparently evidence some generality across different
measures of creativity and innovation, the question remains as to whether these effects might be an artifact of
study design. Some initial answers to those questions
may be found in the results obtained in the internal validity analyses. Table 4 presents a summary of the results obtained in these analyses.
In keeping with the observations of Scott et al.
(2004), it was found that publication source was related to differences in observed effect size with larger
effect sizes being reported in peer reviewed (∆ = .86,
78
SE = .11) than in nonpeer reviewed (∆ = .59, SE = .15)
publications. This difference, of course, may reflect
the tendency of authors to submit manuscripts to peer
reviewed journals and the tendency of editors to accept
manuscripts that produce relatively strong effects.
Along similar lines, studies that provided reliability estimates (∆ = .83, SE = .13) tended to produce larger effects than did studies that failed to report reliability estimates (∆ = .69, SE = .14). Apparently, larger effects
are obtained when investigations are more careful with
regard to the conduct of analyses.
Although these effects are of some interest, a
broader point should be borne in mind. Sizable climate
effects were obtained in nonpeer reviewed studies and
studies that failed to provide reliability coefficients.
This point is reiterated by the failure of large differences in effect size to emerge in contrasting studies on
the basis of author education, doctorate (∆ = .77, SE =
.11) versus nondoctorate (∆ = .82, SE = .16), and
data-collection method, anonymous (∆ = .77, SE = .21)
versus nonanonymous (∆ = .66, SE = .09). Examination of effect sizes broken down by sample size revealed a somewhat larger difference, however, with
studies based on larger samples producing a smaller effect size (∆ = .67, SE = .13) than did studies based on
smaller samples (∆ = .89, SE = .15). Although these
differences in effect size by sample size are notable, it
appears, taken as a whole, that poor study design does
not provide a complete explanation for the apparent effects of climate on creative achievement.
In this regard, however, it is important to bear in
mind the results obtained in contrasting studies based
on standardized climate inventories such as Amabile’s
KEYS (Amabile et al., 1996) West’s TCI (Anderson &
West, 1996) and Ekvall’s CCQ (Ekvall, 1996) with locally developed inventories. Studies based on well-developed standardized instruments (∆ = 1.00, SE = .22)
of the sort described above typically produced far
larger effects than did studies that were based on locally developed instruments (∆ = .63, SE = .09). Not
only does this finding recommend the use of well-developed, well-researched instruments in studies of climate, it suggests that the widespread use of locally developed inventories may have induced a conservative
bias in studies seeking to assess the relationship between climate and achievement.
It was also found that differences across studies in the
theoretical approach used to develop the climate inven-
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
Table 4. Internal Validity Influences on the Effects of Climate
Sample Size
Above Average
Below Average
Source
Peer Reviewed
Nonpeer Reviewed
Author Education
Doctorate
Nondoctorate
Data Collection
Anonymous
Nonanonymous
Analyses
Reliability Estimates Provided
Reliability Estimates Not Provided
Nature of Climate Measure
Standardized Inventory
Locally Developed Inventory
Approach Used in Measure Development
Psychological/Dispositional
Motivational
Team
Organizational
Mixed
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
21
21
.67
.89
.13
.15
.58
.67
0.45–0.89
0.64–1.14
49
72
37
5
.86
.59
.11
.21
.65
.48
0.62–0.98
0.14–1.05
111
10
35
7
.77
.82
.11
.16
.66
.43
0.55–0.96
0.51–1.15
100
2
10
15
.77
.66
.21
.09
.65
.36
0.40–1.15
0.49–0.82
24
35
27
15
.83
.69
.13
.14
.59
.53
0.61–1.06
0.44–0.98
85
37
14
27
1.00
.63
.22
.09
.81
.47
0.62–1.39
0.48–0.79
56
58
4
11
11
8
8
1.07
1.01
.85
.34
.65
.46
.20
.22
.06
.12
.93
.66
.77
.18
.35
–0.02–2.17
0.65–1.38
0.45–1.25
0.27–0.46
0.42–0.88
17
45
36
6
18
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
tory resulted in differences in effect size. Studies that
used a psychological/dispositional model (∆ = 1.07, SE
= .46), a motivational model (∆ = 1.01, SE = .20), or a
team performance model (∆ = .86, SE = .22) in developing climate questions typically produced stronger effects than did studies that used an organizational (∆ =
.34, SE = .06) or mixed (∆ = .65, S.E = .12) model. Apparently, creative achievement is more strongly related
to individual perceptions of personally significant local
events than did general organizational influences such
as reward structures or organizational learning.
External Validity
It seems clear that climate is related to creative
achievement, especially when climate assessments are
based on well-developed measures examining perceptions of the local environment. What is unclear at this
point is the generality of these effects across populations and settings. Table 5, however, presents the re-
Creativity Research Journal
sults obtained in contrasting obtained effect size estimates with respect to variables bearing on population
and setting. Broadly speaking, the results obtained in
the analysis indicate that the effects of climate on creative achievement evidence some generality across
population and setting.
Because the majority of the studies used samples of
mixed age and gender, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about the generality of climate effects across
men and women or younger and older workers. With
this caveat in mind, however, it should be noted that
unusually large effects were obtained in the three studies examining older (over 40) workers (∆ = 1.20, SE =
.48) rather than a typical mixed sample study (∆ = .76,
SE = .10). One explanation for these effects is that
older workers, by virtue of experience and the availability of broader frames of reference, are especially
sensitive to climate. However, it is possible that these
effects are an artifact of the relatively small number of
studies that focus on older workers. A somewhat stron-
79
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
Table 5. External Validity Influences of the Effects of Climate
Gender of Sample
80% Male
80% Female
Mixed
Age of Sample
80% Over 40
80% Under 40
Mixed
Educational Level
Professional
Nonprofessional
Mixed
Country Type
Industrialized
Nonindustrialized
Organization Type
For Profit
Not for Profit
Setting
Research and Development
Manufacturing
Service
Mixed
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
7
1
34
0.75
0.41
0.80
.24
–
.11
.64
–
.64
0.28–1.22
–
0.61–0.98
19
–
102
3
1
38
1.20
0.26
0.76
.48
–
.10
.82
–
.61
–0.18–2.60
–
0.59–0.93
15
–
106
26
4
12
0.82
0.41
0.80
.14
.06
.15
.71
.12
.52
0.58–1.06
0.27–0.56
0.54–1.07
81
4
36
38
3
0.77
1.03
.10
.29
.64
.50
0.59–0.94
0.18–1.87
108
12
34
7
0.77
0.75
.11
.19
.66
.51
0.58–0.96
0.37–1.12
97
19
16
12
3
11
0.58
0.74
0.40
1.21
.10
.14
.11
.27
.40
.49
.18
.89
0.40–0.75
0.49–0.99
0.09–0.70
0.74–1.70
30
32
3
56
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
ger pattern of effects was obtained for educational
level with studies conducted in professional (∆ = .82,
SE = .14) and mixed professional and nonprofessional
(∆ = .80, SE = .15) samples producing stronger effects
than studies conducted in non-professional (∆ = .41,
SE samples. This pattern of findings is, of course, consistent with greater value placed on creativity and climate in professional settings.
With regard to country and culture, it is apparent
that most climate studies have been conducted in Western, industrialized countries evidencing an individualistic cultural orientation. Although studies conducted
in individualistic (∆ = .74, SE = .12) and collectivist (∆
= .76, SE = .11) cultures produced similar effects, it
was found that stronger relationships were obtained
between climate and creative achievement in
nonindustrialized (∆ = 1.03, SE = .24) as opposed to
industrialized (∆ = .77, SE = .10) countries. However,
some caution is necessary in interpreting these effects
given the small number of studies conducted in
nonindustrialized countries. In this regard, however, it
80
should be borne in mind that regardless of country or
culture, climate was again found to be related to creative achievement.
Not only do the effects of climate appear to generalize across populations but also they were found to generalize across settings. Similar effect sizes were obtained for climate studies conducted in for-profit (∆ =
.77, SE = .11) and nonprofit (∆ = .75, SE = .14) organizations. Moreover, sizable, and nontrivial, effects were
obtained for studies conducted in research and development (∆ = .58, SE = .10), manufacturing, (∆ = .74,
SE = .14), service (∆ = .40, SE = .11), as well as mixed
(∆ = 1.21, SE = .40) settings. The relatively small effect size observed in service settings is not simply a
function of the number of available studies, it is possible that these effects may be due to restrictions on the
range of feasible innovations (Florida, 2003). The relatively strong effects obtained for studies conducted in
mixed settings, in service sector jobs, may reflect the
importance of local climate in large diversified organizations.
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
Job Moderators
Taken as a whole, it appears that climate is related to
creative achievement with these effects evidencing
some generality across population and setting. Nonetheless, it is possible that the effects of climate on creative achievement might be moderated by a number of
variables operating at the job, group, organizational, and
environmental levels (Anderson et al., 2003). Table 6
presents the results obtained in examining job-level
moderators of the relationship between climate and creative achievement.
Not all studies provided information that permitted
coding of the job-level moderators—a finding that held
across all of the various types of moderators under consideration. For example, relatively few studies indicated the stage of innovation under consideration. It is
interesting to note, however, that even late stage efforts
produced nontrivial effects (∆ = .64, SE = .13). Studies
were more likely to report the type of innovation than
the innovation stage. However, sizable effects were ob-
tained for product (∆ = .63, SE = .12), process (∆ = .84,
SE = .17), and mixed product-process efforts (∆ = .96,
SE = .30). The especially large effect size obtained
from mixed product-process studies may reflect the
fact that climate becomes more important in complex,
multifaceted creative efforts.
In keeping with this observation, it was found that
two key job characteristics influenced the relationship
between climate and creative achievement. More specifically, larger effect sizes were obtained when the
generation of new ideas and products was a fundamental requirement for the job (∆ = .71, SE = .10) than
when the generation of new ideas and products was not
a fundamental requirement of the job (∆ = .42, SE =
.09). Additionally, when the job was structured to allow people substantial discretion into how to go about
accomplishing the work (∆ = 1.51, SE = .58) stronger
climate effects were obtained than when the job was
structured such that only moderate (∆ = .75, SE =.15)
or low (∆ = .44, SE = .003) levels of discretion were al-
Table 6. Job Level Moderator Variables Influences on Effect Size
Creativity Required
Generation Required
Generation Not Required
Kind of Innovation
Product
Process
Mixed
Stage of Innovation
Early
Mid
Late
Amount of Discretion on Job
Low
Medium
High
Rewards for Creative Performance
Yes
No
Type of Rewards Provided
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Job Satisfaction
Low
Medium
High
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
27
4
0.71
0.42
.10
.09
.51
.19
0.54–0.87
0.20–0.65
69
4
16
13
9
0.63
0.84
0.96
.12
.17
.30
.50
.63
.91
0.41–0.85
0.57–1.14
0.40–1.53
34
42
34
1
–
3
0.52
–
0.64
–
–
.13
–
–
.22
–
–
0.27–1.02
–
–
7
2
11
4
0.44
0.75
1.51
.03
.15
.58
.05
.58
1.16
0.24–0.64
0.53–1.04
0.14–2.87
2
47
26
7
2
0.40
0.54
.13
.38
.33
.54
0.15–0.64
–1.87–2.96
7
3
3
2
0.51
0.27
.22
.13
.39
.19
–0.15–1.16
–0.57–1.12
5
1
2
5
2
1.47
0.96
0.60
.67
.38
.32
.95
.85
.45
–2.76–5.66
0.16–1.77
–1.43–2.63
13
14
4
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
Creativity Research Journal
81
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
lowed. Thus, when creativity and innovation are required on a job, and people are granted the discretion
needed to do creative work, climate measures are more
strongly related to creative achievement.
Although only a rather small number of studies indicated the availability and type of rewards provided
for creative efforts, these moderators produced a consistent pattern of effects. More specifically, stronger effects were obtained when a) rewards were not provided
(∆ = .54, SE = .38) than when rewards were provided
(∆ = .40, SE = .13) and when intrinsic rewards were
provided (∆ = .51, SE = .22) than when extrinsic rewards were provided (∆ = .27, SE = .13). These findings are, of course, broadly consistent with the observations of Collins and Amabile (1999) concerning the
inhibitory effects of extrinsic rewards on motivation in
creative efforts. However, it is also possible that by
calling attention to contingencies rather than to interactions, extrinsic rewards undermine the relationship
between climate and creative achievement.
At first glance, the results obtained in contrasting
studies providing information about job satisfaction
levels may seem surprising. More specifically, low (∆
= 1.47, SE = .67) and medium (∆ = .96, SE = .38) levels
of satisfaction were associated with stronger effect size
than were high levels (∆ = .60, SE = .32) of satisfac-
tion. Bearing in mind the findings of Zhou and George
(2001) concerning the motivational effects of dissatisfaction on creativity, however, it seems likely that this
pattern of findings reflects an increase in motivation
such that the investment in creativity arising from dissatisfaction results in the emergence of a stronger relationship between climate and creative achievement.
Group Moderators
Table 7 presents the results obtained in examining
the group level moderators. As may be seen, a requirement for people to work with others did not appear to
moderate the relationship between climate and creative
achievement. Thus studies in which people were (∆ =
.70, SE = .13) or were not (∆ = .73, SE = .13) required
to work with others produced similar effects. Moreover, studies indicating the degree of interdependence
involved in the work, low (∆ = .71, SE = .23), medium
(∆ = .64, SE = .04), and high (∆ = .60, SE = .20), all
produced similar effects.
Although requirements for team work did not moderate the relationship between climate and creative
achievement, certain characteristics of the group and
its pattern of interaction did produce some potentially
interesting moderator effects. In keeping with the ob-
Table 7. Group Level Moderator Variable Influences on Effect Size
Teamwork Required
Work in Teams
Do Not Work in Teams
Team Size
Small (2–5)
Medium (6–9)
Large (10–14)
Very Large (15+)
Degree of Interdependence
Low
Medium
High
Degree of Cohesion
Low
Medium
High
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
20
6
.70
.73
.13
.13
.56
.31
0.48–0.92
0.48–0.98
50
16
3
4
4
1
.53
.86
.72
.14
.14
.13
.29
–
.25
.24
.58
–
0.12–0.94
0.51–1.89
0.04–1.41
–
5
12
10
–
4
12
6
.71
.64
.60
.46
.33
.49
.46
.33
.49
0.17–1.25
0.47–0.81
0.20–1.00
10
26
12
1
5
1
.93
.55
.16
–
.14
–
–
.14
–
–
0.4–0.69
–
–
9
–
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
82
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
servations of Curral et al. (2001), it was found that climate effects were weaker in the single study examining very large groups of 15 or more (∆ = .14) than in the
small (∆ = .53, SE = .14), medium (∆ = .86, SE = .13),
and large (∆ = .72, SE = .29) groups. The findings obtained for cohesion are also consistent with the earlier
observations of Allen and Cohen (1964) indicating that
high levels of cohesion can induce a “not invented
here” syndrome. Because this syndrome leads people
to discount creativity, it was not surprising that climate
produced stronger relationships with creative achievement in groups of low (∆ = .93) and moderate (∆ = .55,
SE = .06) cohesion than in highly cohesive (∆ = .16)
groups. Although these findings must be interpreted
cautiously given the number of studies involved, they
do point to the value of studies examining group process as a moderator of climate effects.
Organizational Moderators
A somewhat stronger pattern of relationships
emerged in examining the influence of organizational
variables on the relationship between climate and creative achievement. Table 8 summarizes the results obtained in these analyses. As might be expected on the
basis of the findings obtained in earlier studies (Russell
& Russell, 2002), climate produced stronger relation-
ships with indices of creative achievement in organizations evidencing a horizontal (∆ = 1.17, SE = .66) as
opposed to a vertical (∆ = 29, SE = .14) structure. Apparently, centralized control undermines the effects of
local climate and perhaps restricts creativity and innovation. In keeping with this observation, stronger effects of climate on creative achievement were observed in low (∆ = 1.15, SE = .43) capital intensity
organizations as opposed to organizations of moderate
(∆ = .66, SE = .20) and high (∆ = .73, SE = .13) capital
intensity—a finding which suggests that prior investments may limit the feasibility of pursing new ideas
and thus restrict, albeit not eliminate, the effects of a
creative climate.
The effects observed for organizational wealth,
however, remind us that size and resources should not
be arbitrarily associated with capital intensity. In fact,
high levels of organizational wealth (∆ = .84, SE = .10)
were associated with stronger climate effects than were
medium levels (∆ = .61, SE = .10) and low levels (∆ =
.75, SE = .21) of wealth. Apparently, the availability of
resources allows people to pursue the ideas arising
from a creative climate. Given the need for ideas, and
the tendency of creative achievement to arise from, and
to be recognized in, organizations relying on knowledge-based work, it was not surprising that climate was
more strongly related to creative achievement in orga-
Table 8. Organizational Level Moderator Variable Influences on Effect Size
Organizational Wealth
Low
Medium
High
Degree of Professionalism
Low
Medium
High
Capital Intensity
Low
Medium
High
Structure
Vertical
Horizontal
Mixed
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
4
15
15
0.75
0.61
084
.21
.61
.84
.43
.39
.76
0.24–1.26
0.43–0.78
0.50–1.19
11
31
48
4
6
25
0.50
0.75
0.81
.04
.15
.15
.07
.37
.73
0.41–0.59
0.45–1.06
0.50–1.06
6
17
76
5
11
20
1.15
0.66
0.73
.43
.20
.13
.87
.65
.59
0.22–2.08
0.31–1.02
0.50–0.96
24
25
53
2
3
3
0.29
1.17
0.76
.14
.66
.16
.20
1.15
.27
–0.63–1.20
–0.76–3.10
0.30–1.21
1
15
8
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
Creativity Research Journal
83
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
nizations evidencing high (∆ = .81, SE = .15) or medium (∆ = .75, SE = .15) levels of professionalization
than those with low (∆ = .50, SE = .04) levels of
professionalization.
mate, under conditions of change and performance
pressure.
Discussion
Environmental Moderators
Table 9 presents the results obtained for the environmental moderators. As expected, a stronger relationship was observed between climate and creative
achievement when success in the market required the
development and fielding of innovative new products
(∆ = .73, SE = .14) than when it did not (∆ = .53, SE =
.14). More centrally, high turbulence (∆ = 1.66, SE =
.76), as opposed to conditions of medium (∆ = .70, SE
= .24) and low (∆ = .86, SE = .14) turbulence, high
competitive pressure (∆ = 1.24, SE = .42), as opposed
to conditions of medium (∆ = .63, SE = .21) and low (∆
= .75, SE = .21) competitive pressure, and high production pressure (∆ = .92, SE = .34), as opposed to
conditions of medium (∆ = .66, SE = .14) and low (∆ =
.58, SE = .14) production pressure, resulted in a stronger relationship between climate and creative achievement. Thus there appears to be some support for
Janssen et al.’s (2004) observations concerning the tendency of organizations to place more value on creative
ideas, and thus to act on the outcomes of a creative cli-
In considering the conclusions flowing from the
present study, the reader should bear in mind certain
limitations. To begin, in the present study we have examined effect size in terms of the average correlations
produced by the climate dimensions examined. This
point is of some importance because the joint effects of
the climate dimensions under consideration were not
examined, and these multivariate relationships can be
expected to be larger than the univariate relationships
of interest in the present effort. Although it would have
been desirable to examine these multivariate relationships, the tendency of prior studies to focus on
univariate relationships in reporting results effectively
prohibited an analysis along these lines.
It should also be noted that the present study was
based on traditional meta-analytic procedures
(Rosenthal and DiMatteo, 2001). Thus no attempt was
made herein to correct observed relationships for unreliability or to account for range restriction. Although
these corrections might have resulted in a better estimate of the true relationship between climate dimen-
Table 9. Environmental Level Moderator Variable Influences on Effect Sizes
Competition Based on
Innovation
No
Yes
Turbulence
Low
Medium
High
Competitive Pressure
Low
Medium
High
Production Pressure
Low
Medium
High
NE
∆
SE
SD
CI
FSN
5
19
0.53
0.73
.19
.14
.43
.62
0.12–0.94
0.45–0.94
8
48
5
6
2
0.86
0.70
1.66
.14
.29
.76
.31
.72
1.07
0.57–1.16
0.11–1.30
–3.13–6.43
17
15
15
4
4
5
0.75
0.63
1.29
.21
.21
.42
.43
.64
.93
0.24–1.26
0.23–1.03
0.40–2.17
11
14
27
3
18
5
0.58
0.66
0.92
.14
.14
.39
.33
.59
.88
0.02–1.14
0.43–0.90
0.08–1.75
6
41
18
Note. NE = number of effect size estimates; ∆ = average effect size estimates using Cohen’s delta; SE = standard error of effect size estimate; SD =
standard deviation in effect sizes across studies; CI = 90% lower and upper bound confidence interval; FSN = fail-safe N or number of studies
needed to decrease effect size below .20.
84
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
sions and creative achievement after factoring out error (Mendoza, Bard, Mumford, & Ang, 2004; Schmidt
& Hunter, 1996), they would not have provided an estimate of climate effects as they are evident in measures
of varying quality—a point of some concern in the
present study. More centrally, the within-group agreement measures needed to make these corrections are
not commonly reported.
In this study, we made an attempt to draw relatively
strong conclusions about the likely effects of climate.
As a result, relatively stringent criteria were applied in
selecting studies that included dimensional level reporting and application of criteria directly relevant to
creative achievement. Although application of relatively stringent selection standards is recommended if
strong conclusions are to be drawn in a meta-analysis,
application of these criteria did result in the loss of
some studies—typically studies that (a) reported only
overall findings without dimensional level relationships or (b) applied criteria not explicitly tied to creativity and innovation. Thus the findings obtained in
the present effort were based on only 42 studies. Although 42 studies is not an atypically small sample in
meta-analytic investigations, it is also true that some
changes in our overall findings might occur as more
studies become available.
Unlike studies conducted in other areas, for example training and evaluation (Scott et al., 2004), climate
studies vary widely in the nature and amount of material reported, which bears on the context in which the
study was conducted. As a result, moderators were
coded only if information bearing on a variable was explicitly reported in the study description. Although application of this kind of coding procedure reduces inferential errors, in some instances it limited the number
of studies available that might have been used to draw
conclusions about the effects of a potential moderator
variable. As a result, in cases in which relatively few
pertinent studies were available, or could be coded on
the basis of the study description, some caution is
called for in drawing strong conclusions about the
likely effects of these moderators.
Finally, it should be recognized that not all potential
moderators of the relationship between climate and
creative achievement could be examined in the present
study. For example there is reason to suspect that leadership might moderate climate’s effects on creative
achievement (West et al., 2003). However, the study
descriptions commonly provided in climate studies do
Creativity Research Journal
not permit an adequate assessment of leader behavior.
Thus not all, and perhaps a number, of the moderator
variables that might influence the relationship between
climate and creative achievement were, or could be,
examined. Moreover, interactions among these moderators both within and across levels were not examined.
Even bearing these caveats in mind, we believe that
the results obtained in the present study have some
noteworthy implications for understanding the relationship between climate and creative achievement.
Perhaps the most straightforward, and most important,
conclusion that can be drawn from the present effort
pertains to the relationship between climate and creative achievement. Climate assessments were found to
evidence a sizable, nontrivial relationship with creative
achievement across studies. These effects were found
to hold for both subjective appraisals and for more objective appraisals focusing on the production of innovative products. Moreover, though the various job,
group, organizational, and environmental moderators
accounted for variance in the magnitude of obtained effect sizes, in no case was it found that the operation of a
given moderator reduced the effect size below the level
of practical significance. Given these findings, and the
obtained effect size estimates, which were substantial
in the overall analysis, it seems reasonable to conclude
that climate is, in fact, strongly related to creative
achievement across a number of contexts and criteria.
This conclusion concerning the strong, apparently
rather general, relationships between climate and creative achievement should be evaluated in light of another finding that emerged in the present effort. In contrasting measures with respect to the quality of
development, a comparison implied by our contrast of
standardized and locally developed measures, it was
found that studies based on well-developed standardized measures produced stronger effects, substantially
stronger effects, than did studies based on locally developed measures. This finding is important not only
because it underscores the importance of applying
well-developed measures in climate studies (Mathisen
& Einarsen, 2004), it indicates that our estimates of the
relationship between climate and creative achievement
may be somewhat conservative.
The strong general relationship between climate
and creative achievement, however, brings to fore a
substantive question. Exactly what dimensions, or aspects, of climate are especially important? Given the
plethora of dimensions found in the climate literature
85
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
(Hunter et al., 2005), and the differences in the underlying models used to specify these dimensions
(Hunter et al., 2005), it has, in the past, proven difficult to answer this question with any real certainty.
The results obtained in the present study, however,
do appear to provide at least an initial answer to this
question.
More specifically, in contrasting the effect sizes obtained for different dimensions, we found that challenge, intellectual stimulation, and positive collegial
exchange produced particularly strong relationships.
Apparently, a work environment that presents people
with meaningful engaging work that stimulates thinking and an exchange of thoughts around significant issues is critical if one wishes to encourage creativity
and innovation (West, 2002). In fact, this observation
seems consistent with two other findings obtained in
the present study. First, because a creative climate requires interpersonal intellectual exchange around challenging tasks, or missions, it is not surprising that climate, shared perceptions bearing on the nature of these
exchanges, would exert stronger effects on group- and
organizational-level measures than would individual-level measures of creative achievement. Second,
because a creative climate entails engaging people in
an intellectual exchange with respect to challenging
tasks, it is not surprising that climate measures based
on psychological/dispositional (e.g., Ekvall, 1996),
motivational (e.g., Amabile & Conti, 1999), and team
(e.g., Anderson & West, 1996) concepts typically produced sizeable relationships.
These observations about interpersonal intellectual
engagement in challenging missions have some noteworthy implications for understanding the kind of climate models most likely to prove useful in accounting
for environmental influences on creativity. More specifically, these findings suggest that motivationally
based systems such as Amabile’s (e.g., Amabile et al.,
1996; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989), dispositionally
based systems such as Ekvall’s (e.g., Ekvall, 1996;
Ekvall & Ryhammer, 1999), and team-based systems
such as West’s (e.g., Anderson & West, 1988; West et
al., 2003) are more likely to provide viable climate assessments than are organizationally based systems
such as those proposed by Abbey & Dickson (1983)
and Mossholder & Dewhurst (1980).
These observations with respect to the importance
of interpersonal engagement in intellectually challenging missions, however, should not be taken to imply
86
that dimensions such as support, resources, and autonomy are not of concern in attempts to understand the
kind of environment that makes creative achievement
possible. In the present study these dimensions, in fact,
produced nontrivial, actually sizable, relationships
with regard to indices of creative achievement. Rather,
these observations suggest that we should not lose
sight of the fundamental importance of interpersonal
intellectual engagement in challenging tasks, or missions, even as we extend this core to take into account
environmental attributes, such as support, resources,
and autonomy, that lead people to believe that creative
work is possible and, in fact, valued.
Of course, one reason climate dimensions such as
resources and autonomy stand out in our minds is that
they represent attributes of the environment that managers can easily, or at least reasonably easily, do
something about. Managers can make a decision
about how much time and resources they will allocate
to a given effort. They can take actions to encourage
participation and to avoid overly close supervision.
Although actions of this sort may well prove valuable
in encouraging creativity (Amabile, Hadley, &
Kramer, 2002; Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993),
the importance of interpersonal intellectual engagement suggests that in applying climate assessments to
guide organizational change efforts, we may need to
consider a broader range of interventions—for example, building concepts of creative self-efficacy
(Tierney & Farmer, 2002), assembling teams of requisite intellectual diversity (Dunbar, 1995), and defining missions that both challenge people and bring together different interests (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, &
Strange, 2002).
In considering interventions along these lines, however, it is important to bear in mind the effects obtained
in the various moderator variable analyses. Given the
effects of the moderators, interventions of the sort described above are most likely to prove effective in professional populations or in settings in which people are
(a) given some discretion about how they go about doing their work and (b) dissatisfied with “business as
usual.” Moreover, although caution is called for in
drawing inferences with respect to the group-level
moderators, the obtained effects suggest that these interventions are most likely to prove effective when undue size and a lack of openness have not induced
dysfunctionality in the day to day pattern of team interactions.
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
In addition to indicating the kind of local conditions in which climate interventions are likely to
prove effective in enhancing creative achievement,
the results obtained in the present study indicate that
broader organizational and environmental variables
will moderate the relationship between climate and
creative achievement. If prior investments or a lack of
resources make it difficult to respond to creative
ideas, the effects of climate on creative achievement
will be attenuated (Nystrom et al., 2002; Sharma,
1999). Moreover, structures that block the flow of
ideas and effective evaluation of these ideas will also
attenuate the impact of climate on creative achievement (O’Connor, 1998)—a point attested to by our
findings with respect to the use of vertical as opposed
to horizontal structures and professionalization. Thus,
although climate may be a local phenomenon, the
outcomes of climate, and climate interventions, will
be contingent on the nature of the organization in
which ideas must be developed, appraised, and implemented (Anderson et al., 2003; Janssen et al., 2004).
Not only do the effects of climate appear to depend
on certain characteristics of the organization but also
the organization’s external operating environment appears to be a relatively powerful moderator of the effects of climate on creative achievement. More specifically, climate proved to be more strongly related to
creative achievement when innovation was necessary
for organizational success, and perhaps survival, in a
turbulent environment characterized by high competitive pressure and substantial production pressure. As
Janssen et al. (2004) have pointed out, external demand
places a premium on innovation leading climate to
have a more powerful influence on creative achievement. The problem here, however, lies in the fact that
under these conditions it may prove particularly difficult to develop and to maintain the kind of climate
likely to promote creativity and innovation. This paradox, and paradox is common in studies of organizational innovation (Sternberg, 2005), points to the need
for studies examining cross-level and multilevel influences on creative climate and creative achievement
(Anderson et al., 2003), especially studies examining
the development and maintenance of a creative climate
under conditions of high demand.
In studies along these lines, however, it would be
useful to take climate research a step further. Traditionally, climate studies (e.g., Abbey & Dickson, 1983;
Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall & Ryhammer, 1999;
Creativity Research Journal
Lapierre & Giroux, 2003) have applied correlational or
group contrast methods in which climate is assumed to
cause creativity. Systematic causal modeling studies
and “field” experiments that would provide a more unequivocal demonstration of the causal effects of climate on creativity and innovation have been rare. It is
hoped that the present study—through identification of
moderators operating at the job, at the group, organizational, and environmental levels—will provide a foundation for the kind of experimental and causal modeling studies that would allow development of more
sophisticated theories specifying exactly how a climate for creativity emerges and operates to shape creativity and innovation in organizational settings.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies
included in the meta-analysis.
*Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 25,
362–368.
Abra, J. (1994). Collaboration in creative work: An initiative for investigation. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 205–218.
Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. (1994). The team climate inventory
(TCI) and group innovation: A psychometric test on a Swedish
sample of work groups. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 143–151.
*Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. (1994). The team climate inventory
(TCI) and group innovation: A psychometric test on a Swedish
sample of work groups. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 143–151.
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and
development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly,
14, 12–19.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On
doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40, 39–58.
*Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630 –641.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research
Journal, 2, 231–253.
*Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M.
(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80, 52–61.
Amabile, T. M., Shatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J.
(2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–33.
87
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
*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, 235–258.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The
routinization of innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.
*Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates
for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and
firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,
45–68.
*Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation
imperative: The relationship between team climate, innovation,
and performance in research and development teams. Small
Group Research, 32, 55–73.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
Basadur, M. (1997). Organizational development interventions for
enhancing creativity in the workplace. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 59–72.
*Bommer, M., & Jalajas, D. (2002). The innovation work environment of high-tech SMEs in the USA and Canada. R & D Management, 32, 379–386.
Borrill, C. S., Carletta, J., Carter, A. J., Dawson, J., Garrod, S., Rees,
A., et al. (2000). The effectiveness of health care teams in the
National Health Service. Birmingham, England: Aston Centre
for Health Service Organization Research
Borrill, C., West, M. A., Shapiro, D., & Rees, A. (2000). Team working and effectiveness in health care. British Journal of Health
Care, 6, 364–371.
*Brendle, M. G. (2001). Personality and company culture: Important contributions to innovation and a source of competitive advantage for small businesses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Bullinger, H. J., Auernhammer, K., & Gomeringer, A. (2004). Managing innovation networks in the knowledge-driven economy.
International Journal of Production Research, 42, 3337–3344.
*Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1995). Self perceptions and perceptions
of group climate as predictors of individual innovation at work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44, 199–215.
*Burningham, C., & West, M. A. (1995). Individual, climate, and
group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research, 26, 106–117.
*Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (2003). The determinants of
team-based innovation in organizations: The role of social influence. Small Group Research, 34, 497–517.
Cardinal, L. B., & Hatfield, D. E. (2000). Internal knowledge generation: The research laboratory and innovative productivity in the
pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Engineering Technology
Management, 17, 247–271.
*Choi, J. N. (2004). Person-environment fit and creative behavior:
Differential impacts of supplies-values and demands-abilities
versions of fit. Human Relations, 57, 531–552.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A
new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
88
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 245–273.
Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001).
It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team
size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187–204.
Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation:
Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42, 693–722.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis
of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How do scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E.
Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–396). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
*Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,
5, 105–124.
*Ekvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. (1999). The creative climate: Its determinants and effects at a Swedish University. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 303–310.
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, W. (1994). Expert performance: Its
structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.
*Ettlie, J. E. (1983). Organizational policy and innovation among
suppliers to the food processing sector. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 27–44.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 273–296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Florida, R. (2003). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic
Books.
Ford, C., & Sullivan, D. M. (2004). A time for everything: How the
timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 279–292.
*Hashem, A. A. S. (1999). The effects of work climate on process innovation in the Saudi Arabian petrochemical industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Hofstede, G. (1996). Gender stereotypes and partner preferences of
Asian women in masculine and feminine cultures. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 533–546.
*Holahan, P. J., Aronson, Z. H., Jurkat, M. P., & Schoorman, F. D.
(2004).
Implementing
computer
technology:
a
multiorganizational test of Klein and Sorra’s model. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 31–50.
Howell, J. M., & Boies, K. (2004). Champions of technological innovation: The influence of contextual knowledge, role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotion on champion emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 130–149.
Howell, J. M., & Boies, K. (2005). Resolving some paradoxes of innovation: A cross-level interpretation. In F. J. Yammarino & F.
Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Volume IV
(pp. 75–92). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Creativity Research Journal
Climate
Huberty, C. J. (2002). A history of effect size estimates. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 62, 227–240.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Dimensions
of creative climate: A general taxonomy. Korean Journal of
Thinking and Problem Solving, 15, 97–116.
*Hurley, R. F., & Hult, T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation,
and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54.
*Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (2002). The climate for creativity and
change in teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11,
74–86.
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., Ekvall, G., & Britz, A. (2001). Perceptions of the best and worst climate for creativity: Preliminary
validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire.
Creativity Research Journal, 13, 171–184.
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider
(Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 40–84). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E.V., & West, M. (2004). The bright and
dark sides of individual and group innovation: A special issue
introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and
new product development: Diversity, communications, job
stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
547–553.
*Kim, J. (2000). A study of relationships among work motivation.
Problem-solving style, leadership style, and team climate on
creative behavior in the South Korean workplace. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation.
*Kitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation,
and innovation adoption: A qualitative/quantitative approach.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 195–205.
*Lapierre, J., & Giroux, V. (2003). Creativity and work environment
in a high-tech context. Creativity and Work Environment, 12,
11–23.
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present,
and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295–308.
*Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place
like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity
support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.
Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119–140.
*McCarrey, M.W., & Edwards, S. A. (1973). Organizational climate
conditions for effective research scientist role performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 439–459.
McGaw, B., & Glass, G. (1980). Choice of the metric for effect size
in meta-analysis. Educational Research Journal, 17, 325–337.
Mendoza, J. L., Bard, D. E., Mumford, M. D., & Ang, S. (2004). Criterion-related validity in multiple-hurdle designs: Estimation
and bias. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 418–441.
*Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199.
Creativity Research Journal
*Mohamed, M. A. K. (2002). Assessing determinants of departmental innovation: An exploratory multi-level approach. Personnel
Review, 31, 620–641.
Mossholder, K. W., & Dewhurst, H. D. (1980). The appropriateness
of management by objectives for development and research
personnel. Journal of Management, 6, 145–156.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and
tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review,
10, 1–29.
Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J.
Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Volume IV (pp. 11–74). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002).
Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P.,
& Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative
problem-solving skills: I. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 77–85.
Mumford, M. D., Whetzel, D. L., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1997).
Thinking creatively at work: Organizational influences on creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 7–17.
*Nystrom, P. C., Ramamurthy, K., & Wilson, A. L. (2002). Organizational context, climate and innovativeness: Adoption of imaging technology. Journal of Engineering Technology and
Management, 19, 221–247.
O’Connor, G. C. (1998). Market learning and radical innovation: A
cross case comparison of eight radical innovation projects.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 151–131.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 607–634.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A.,
Lacost, H. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between
psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,
389–416.
*Phelan, S. G. (2001). Developing creative competence at work: The
reciprocal effects of creative \thinking, self-efficacy and organizational culture on creative performance. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.
*Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257.
*Porter, C. (1984). Organizational climate and creative output in
two excellent research and development divisions. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation.
*Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee
“Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605–626.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. J. (1993). Putting
creativity to work: Leader influences on subordinate creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55,
120–151.
89
S. T. Hunter, K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford
Rich, J. D., & Weisberg, R. W. (2004). Creating all in the family: A
case study in creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 16,
247–259.
Rickards, T., Chen, M., & Moger, S. (2001). Development of a
self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership and
performance relationships. British Journal of Management, 12,
243–251.
*Robben, M. A. (1998). A study of the determinants of individual innovative behavior in a high-technology product development
organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null
result. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
Rosenthal, R. (1992). Effect size estimation, significance testing,
and the file-drawer problem. Journal of Parapsychology, 56,
57–58.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2000). Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.
Rousseau, D. M. (1988). The construction of climate in organizational research. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 139–146.
Russell, R. D., & Russell, C. J. (2002). An examination of the effects
of organizational norms, organizational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management, 18, 639–656.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1, 199–223.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates.
Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.
Schneider, B., Gunnarson, S. K., & Niles-Jolly, K. (1994). Creating
the climate and culture of success. Organizational Dynamics,
17–29.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness
of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
*Sethi, R., & Nicholson, C. Y. (2001). Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams. The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 154–168.
Sharma, A. (1999). Central dilemmas of managing innovation in
large firms. California Management Review, 41, 65–85.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). “We want creativity! No we don’t!” In F. J.
Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Volume IV (pp. 93–104). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational
innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organiza-
90
tional determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and
measure of organizational performance. International Journal
of Management Science, 24, 631–647.
*Suliman, A. M. T. (2001). Are we ready to innovate? Work climate-readiness to innovate relationship: The case of Jordan.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 10, 49–59.
*Tannenbaum, S. I., & Dupuree-Bruno, L. M. (1994). The relationship between organizational and environmental factors and the
use of innovative human resource practices. Group & Organizational Management, 19, 171–202.
Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., & Klein, S. R. (1997). Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 31, 27–41.
*Thamhain, H. J. (2003). Managing innovative R&D teams. R&D
Management, 33, 297–311.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.
Trevelyan, R. (2001). The paradox of autonomy: The case of academic research scientists. Human Relations, 54, 495–525.
*Troy, L. C., Szymanski, D. M., & Varadarajan, P. R. (2001). Generating new product ideas: An initial investigation of the role of
market information and organizational characteristics. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 84–101.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607.
Vincent, P. H., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent
thinking, intelligence, and expertise: a test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178.
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., & Sifonis, C. M. (2004). The role of
specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 1–9.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in
work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,
355–387.
*West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693.
West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F. C., Shapiro,
D. A., & Howard, B. (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 393–410.
*West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F. C., Shapiro,
D. A., & Howard, B. (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 393–410.
*Zain, M., Richardson, S., & Adam, M. N. K. (2002). The implementation of innovation by a multinational operating in two different environments: A comparative study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, 98–106.
*Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to
creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 682–696.
Creativity Research Journal