Innovation management

Topics: Validity, Creativity, Environment Pages: 64 (12589 words) Published: February 19, 2014
Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity
Author(s): Teresa M. Amabile, Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey Lazenby and Michael Herron
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 1154-1184 Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256995 .
Accessed: 22/01/2014 21:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111.187.80.238 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:37:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

?

Academy of Management Journal
1996, Vol. 39, No. 5, 1154-1184.

ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT
FOR CREATIVITY
TERESA M. AMABILE
Harvard University
REGINA CONTI
Colgate University
HEATHER COON
University of Michigan
JEFFREY LAZENBY
University of Southern California
MICHAEL HERRON
Personnel Decisions International
We describe the development and validation of a new instrument, KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity, designed to assess perceived stimulants and obstacles to creativity in organizational work environments. The KEYS scales have acceptable factor structures, internal consistencies, test-retest reliabilities, and preliminary convergent and discriminant validity. A construct validity study shows that perceived work environments, as assessed by the KEYS scales, discriminate between high-creativity projects and low-creativity projects; certain scales discriminate more strongly and consistently than others. We discuss the utility of this tool for research and practice.

All innovation begins with creative ideas. Successful implementation of new programs, new product introductions, or new services depends on a person or a team having a good idea-and developing that idea beyond its initial state. Departing from the traditional psychological approach to creativity, which focuses on the characteristics of creative persons (e.g., Barron, 1955; MacKinnon, 1965), we assume that the social environment can influThe reported research was conducted while Teresa Amabile, Regina Conti, and Heather Coon were at Brandeis University, and Michael Herron was at the California School of Professional Psychology. This study was supported in part by a grant to Teresa M. Amabile from the Exxon Education Foundation ("Creativity in R&D Laboratories"), and preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by her grant from the National Institute of Mental Health ("Creativity and Motivation," #1-RO1-MH-44999).

We wish to acknowledge the generous help of Dean Whitney, Mary Ann Collins, Sylvester Taylor, and Nur Gryskiewicz with data analysis and the helpful comments of several colleagues who read earlier drafts of the manuscript: Kim Appelmans, Margaret Baillio, Mary Ann Collins, Beth Hennessey, Karl Hill, Herminia Ibarra, Elise Phillips, Martha Picariello, Dean Whitney, and three anonymous reviewers.

1154

This content downloaded from 111.187.80.238 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:37:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1996

Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron

1155

ence both the level and the frequency of creative behavior. Like other researchers (e.g., Stein, 1974; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), we define creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain. We define innovation as the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization....

References: Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. 1983. R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 362-368.
Albrecht, T. L., & Hall, 1991. Facilitating talk about new ideas: The role of personal relationships in organizational innovation. Communication Monographs, 58: 273-288.
Allen, T. J., Lee, D. M., & Tushman, M. L. 1980. R&D performance as a function of internal
communication, project management, and the nature of the work
Amabile, T. M. 1979. Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37: 221-233.
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw &
L
Amabile, T. M. 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in the workplace
Amabile, T. M. 1995. KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity. Instrument published by the
Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Amabile, T. M., & Gitomer, J. 1984. Children 's artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10: 209-215.
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S. 1990. Social influences on creativity: Evaluation,
coaction, and surveillance
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. 1989. The Creative Environment Scales: The Work Environment Inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2: 231-254.
Amabile, T. M., Gryskiewicz, N., Burnside, R., & Koester, N. 1990. Creative Environment
Scales: Work Environment Inventory
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. 1987. Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Technical report
no
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. 1986. Social influences on creativity: The
effects of contracted-for reward
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. 1994. The Work Preference Inventory:
Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations
Amabile, T. M., Phillips, E. D., & Collins, M. A. 1994. Creativity by contract: Social influences
on the creativity of professional artists
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.
Andrews, F. M. 1979. Scientific productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. 1972. Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8:
185-200.
Bailyn, L. 1985. Autonomy in the industrial R&D laboratory. Human Resource Management,
24: 129-146.
Barron, F. 1955. The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51: 478-485.
Bartko, J. J. 1966. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological
Reports, 19: 3-11.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation
Conti, R., Coon, H. M., & Amabile, T. M. 1993. Effects of expected evaluation on task persistence and artistic creativity. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological
Association, Arlington, VA.
Cummings, L. L. 1965. Organizational climates for creativity. Journal of the Academy of Management, 3: 220-227.
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination
ior
Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J., & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, I. 1983. Creative organizational climate:
Construction and validation of a measuring instrument
Ettlie, J. E. 1983. Organizational policy and innovation among suppliers to the food-processing
sector
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. 1990. Individual innovation. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: 63-80. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
development
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1976. The creative vision: A longitudinal study of
problem-finding in art
Hage, J., & Dewar, R. 1973. Elite values versus organizational structure in predicting innovation.
Harter, S. 1978. Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human
Development, 21: 34-64.
Hays, W. L. 1981. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Martinage, M. 1989. Immunizing children against the
negative effects of reward
Insel, P. M., & Moos, R. H. 1975. Work Environment Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Joreskog, K. G., & S6rbom, D. 1986. LISREL VI user 's guide: Analysis of linear structural
relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods
Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Innovation Management- Innovation vs Creativity Essay
  • Innovation Management Essay
  • Innovation Management
  • Innovation Essay
  • Stategic Management of Technological Innovation Essay
  • Practice for Contents of Innovation Management Essay
  • Innovation Essay
  • Essay about Innovation

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free