Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

[Введите текст]

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge

MASTER THESIS

Measuring Company Innovation Climate: Case Study from Pharmaceutical Company

Student: Ilona Alikulieva

Group: MYH 171

Supervisor: Dirk Meissner

Submission date: May 16th

Moscow 2019



Table of contents

List of abbreviations

List of tables

List of figures

Introduction

1. Literature review

1.1 Creativity and Innovation

1.2 Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate

1.3 The Role of Innovation Climate in Pharmaceutical Sector

1.4 Principal Methods of Measuring Company Innovation Climate

1.4.1 Main papers in the field of organizational climate measurement

1.4.2 Other significant works on organizational innovation climate

1.5 Gaps in Literature

1.6 Research Questions

2. Methodology and Approach

2.1 Sample

2.2 Face-to-Face Interview

2.3 Online Survey

3. Case Study Results

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix



List of abbreviations

SSSI - Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation

CCQ - Creative Climate Questionnaire

TCI - Team Climate Inventory

SOQ - Situational Outlook Questionnaire



List of tables

Table 1. Overview of constructs, dimensions and instruments of climate for creativity and innovation.

Table 2. KEYS survey questionnaire with dimensions scale, 1996.

Table 3. Rosabeth Kanter list of dimensions, 1992.

Table 4. Kanter's ten rules for the suppression of innovation, 2001.

Table 5. Ekvall's list of dimensions, 1996.

Table 6. Cameron and Quinn questioner for organizational cultural climate evaluating, 1999.

Table 7. Research propositions about elements related to organizational culture and innovation, 1986.

Table 8. Coetzee's list of dimensions, 1986.

Table 9. Tustins's list of dimensions, 1993.

Table 10. Martins & Martins's list of dimensions, 2001.

Table 11. Content analysis list of dimensions made by the author.

Table 12. Interview guide for face-to-face interviews.

Table 13. Questionnaire structure for online survey.

Table 14. Benchmark list of dimensions.

Table 15. Current climate characteristics based on face-to-face interviews.

Table 16. Current climate characteristics based on face-to-face interviews divided on positives and negatives.

Table 17. Current climate characteristics based on online survey divided on drivers and inhibitors for Innovation.

Table 18. Case study list of dimensions.



List of figures

Figure 1. Main stages of pharmaceutical sector economic development.

Figure 2. The sample structure for case study research.



Introduction

The development and effective use of the creative and innovative potential of the company is impossible without the creation of appropriate social psychological, organizational and economic conditions. The success of many well-known companies is associated with their continuous creation strategy (continuous creation), where not only serious, but also interesting innovation ideas or secondary innovation are stimulated and cultivated. Such ideas, according to the leaders of leading companies, are the main resource of competitiveness (Carr, 1994). climate innovation pharmaceutical culture

The development of the innovative potential of an enterprise can be carried out through the development of its internal environment components, therefore an analysis of the internal environment of the organization is necessary (Burns and Stalker. et al, 1961). In order to maintain economic independence, retain market share and timely meet the needs of its customers (which, due to information progress, are very demanding on products and market innovations), it is necessary to quickly master new methods and tools, as well as produce a unique final product.

It is important to have certain operating conditions for the company, which include not only the technological base and qualified personnel, but also the quality of functioning and interaction of employees within the team that determine life within the organization (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992). In other words, it requires a certain climate that will encourage employees to generate new ideas and create innovations. Climate of innovation and creativity is the climate that supports the development and further use of new approaches, practices and concepts. It is also the climate which promotes creation, consideration and use of new services, products and ways of working (Steklova et al, 2010).

Despite the fact that the topic of innovation climate is very relevant and has been studied and continues to be studied by a large number of researchers, today this topic has not been considered in the framework of the Russian pharmaceutical business.

The innovation climate is extremely rarely seen in the context of various countries and mentalities. And most often based on examples of Western countries with their own distinctive prerequisites (Patterson, West, Shackleton et al, 2005).

Before embarking on more narrow study of the topic of assessing the innovation climate within one country and one field of activity, it is necessary to put together all the significant works in this field. And merge them into one entire.

Thus, this study attempts to explore main works in the field of innovation climate of organization.

The author will try to collect the most significant studies that are devoted to the assessment of the innovation climate and analyze the criteria that the authors use to assess the climate. (Mahroum & Al-Saleh, 2013; Rothwell, 1992). Next, the author is going to try to bring them to one common list of criteria, which will be a benchmark for further research.

Thanks to employees from a Russian pharmaceutical company who will be responding to a case study, there will be developed a list of dimensions for assessing the innovation climate of the Russian pharmaceutical company in a practical way.

The author of the study will compare this list with the benchmark that was formed earlier as a result of literature review.

In this way, the general purpose of the study is to explore different existing dimensions for assessing company innovation climate and find determinants for innovation climate for Russian pharmaceutical business.

The additional aim of the paper is to discover if there are any significant differences between dimensions for innovation climate assessing that were formulated by international researchers and dimensions that were formulated itself by real employees of Russian pharmaceutical company.

The paper is organized as follows: first section provides background information on creativity, innovation and organizational climate that helps to develop it, then the section provides literature review of the most significant papers with different measurement techniques and approaches. Second chapter presents the methodology chosen for this study and the explanation of this choice. Third part contains the findings of the case study, followed by the final, fifth section containing conclusions with discussion of the results and limitation of the study with propositions for future research.



1. Literature review

It is interesting that, despite the importance and constant relevance of innovation in the organization, today there are few empirical studies in the field of organizational culture and innovation climate.

Thus, in 1996, Greg Oldham and Anne Cummings published the work “Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work” (Oldham & Cummings, 1996), in which the authors conducted a thorough study of all existing works in the field of organizational culture. The first publication in the field was made in 1961 by American scientists Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker “The Management of innovation” (Burns & G. M. Stalker, 1961). Further, several more works were published in popular science publications. These works did not have a solid evidence base and represented mainly theoretical reflections based on a small sample of companies (Amabile & Hennessey, 1998).

However, at the end of the 20th century, in the process of the rapid integration of innovations into our life and the life of organizations, the scientist began to more and more actively explore the topic of organizational structure and the innovation climate. Below we consider the most significant work in this area. (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992).

Before we proceed to the literature review, it is necessary to define the key terminology so that the information presented by the author is as clear and accessible as possible.

1.1 Creativity and Innovation

At the first glance, the distinction between creativity and innovation is not obvious. When we talk about the innovation climate, we often use the phrase creative climate as a synonym. As innovation and creativity are continuously linked and go hand in hand, the clear boundaries of their definition are blurred (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1997).

If we refer to the literature on creativity and innovation in organizations, we find the following definitions:

“Creativity is the production of a novel and appropriate response, product, or solution to an open-ended task. Although the response must be new, it cannot be merely different; the nonsensical speech of a schizophrenic may be novel, but few would consider it creative.” (Amabile, 2012).

“Innovation is defined as the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within institutional order.” (Van de Ven, 1986).

Innovation is, first of all, the process of introducing and implementing a new unique idea. This is a process during which a creative idea turns into a real product that is brought to life. Innovations are unique creative ideas that are implemented (Patterson, West, Shackleton et al, 2005).

The main difference between creativity and innovation is the end goal. The key goal of creativity is the development of intelligence to create and generate new ideas.

These ideas can be expressed in different ways: they become something that we can see, hear and feel. These are ideas that are born in a person's head and represent a theoretical description (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1997).

The product of creativity is difficult to measure on any objective scale or in numerical terms. However, innovation is a product that can be objectively and more accurately assessed and measured.

The theoretical calculation formula of innovation could be defined as:

Innovation is the transformation and creation of new processes or products within a real organizational structure (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992). Innovations are the fruits of creativity, embedded in real working mechanisms. Innovation is a unique new idea embodied in life. Creativity and innovation are integral parts of a whole. Innovations are born in the process of creative intellectual activity.

1.2 Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate

This work is devoted to innovation and creativity within the organizational structure of the company, therefore it is important to understand also such terminology as “organizational culture” and “organizational climate”. These phrases are often confused with each other, so you need to accurately understand their key differences between themselves.

According to German scientist focused on organizational structure in works, B. Schneider defines organizational climate as “the meanings people attach to interrelated bundles of experiences they have at work”. And organizational culture is “the basic assumptions about the world and the values that guide life in organizations” (Schneider, 2013).

Organizational culture is deeply rooted in assumptions and beliefs. This complex is the most stable and long-standing characteristic of the organization (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). Organizational culture combines the values ??and norms of the organization, styles of management procedures, the concept of technological social development (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992).

Organizational culture establishes the limits within which confident decision-making at every level of management is possible, opportunities for rational use of the organization's resources, determines responsibility, gives direction to development, regulates management activity and promotes identification of employees with the organization. Under the influence of organizational culture is the behavior of individual workers (Carr, 1994).

The organizational climate includes less stable characteristics, more susceptible to external and internal influences. With a general organizational culture of the organization of an enterprise, the organizational climate in its two departments can vary greatly (depending on the management style) (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992).

Under the influence of organizational culture, the causes of the contradictions between managers and subordinates can be eliminated.

Within the framework of a systems approach, three aggregated positions in the study of globalization can be distinguished, representing three different views on this phenomenon - revolutionary (globalization as a fundamentally new stage in the development of humanity); evolutionary (globalization as a process conditioned by an unprecedented level of globalism) and skeptical (globalization as the formation of powerful trade blocs and weaker global governance than in previous times). Agreeing with this approach, we can note a number of points that directly affect the topic of this article (Mason et al, 1997).

First, globalization is a complex and controversial process, a single definition of which does not exist, and cannot be due to the nature and complexity of the object being defined. Other things being equal, we can assume that globalization is a new qualitative stage in the development of mankind, which is directly related to the emergence of post-industrial relations, i.e. economy "new" type (or the economy of the information society) (Steklova et al, 2010). The global economy is an economy whose main components have the institutional, organizational and technological ability to act as a community (integrity) in real time or in a selected time on a planetary scale (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992).

Secondly, globalization is a process of profound qualitative changes in all spheres of human activity, without exception, and it is obvious that it has both positive and negative consequences (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1997).

Thirdly, we note the undoubted influence on the globalization process of a country such as the United States. As a rule, “Americanization” is associated with the formation of a culture of a mass consumer society and the dominance of neoliberal values. However, there is another aspect that allows the United States to claim the role of a leader in globalization processes. We are talking about the dominance of American companies in the areas of "new" economy (Internet technologies, software, nanotechnologies, space technologies, the most advanced technologies in the management of modern organizations, etc.) (McKenney et al, 1997).

Fourth, the question of the place and role of Russia in the process of globalization remains open. Is our country at the periphery of this 3-process? Is it active or passive? So far, domestic science does not give a clear answer to these questions.

Thus, in the modern conditions of the world economy, it is necessary to designate those characteristics of the organizational culture that will contribute to the effective adaptation of domestic firms and the entire system of Russian entrepreneurship to the realities of the “new” globalizing economy: a modern Russian entrepreneur, if he wants to achieve the highest peaks of world business, should "Think globally, act locally." (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992). Conducted a quantitative study of the connection between organizational culture and the efficiency of functioning of a number of domestic companies (Steklova et al, 2010). They used the Denison Organizational Culture Survey method. This method reflects the parameters of organizational culture that contribute to the prosperity of modern companies in a “new” economy: engagement; consistency; adaptability and mission. Performance indicators are: overall performance; market share; sales growth; profit; staff satisfaction; quality and product development (Zammuto & Spreitzer, 1991).

In modern organizations, a lot of effort is being made to form and study the organizational climate. There are special methods for his research. In an organization, it is necessary to form judgments among employees that work is difficult, but interesting (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992).

Organizational climate is a general feeling of unity and mutual understanding, which is also created by the physical organization of space, contributing to unimpeded communication flows, and information perception style, affecting the employee's subsequent behavior, and forms of information transfer, including the management style of the organization (Steklova et al, 2010). An unfavorable organizational climate is often the result of a manager's social or communicative incompetence, or the result of the existence of an informal leader in the group that disorientates employees and destroys unity (Kanter & Stein, et al, 1992).

1.3 The Role of Innovation Climate in Pharmaceutical Sector

In order to assess the innovative potential of a company, there is a need to assess, first of all, its innovation climate. Often the state of the innovation climate is the decisive factor in the results of the implementation of innovation ideas (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1997).

The innovation climate is part of the organizational climate of the enterprise and characterizes its external environment (Steklova et al, 2010).

Nowadays the role of the atmosphere and climate within an organization is becoming increasingly important in both Western and Russian companies. (Steklova et al, 2010).

Creating a favorable innovation climate implies an atmosphere of trust, identifying and overcoming factors “blocking” creative efforts and joint search work of staff, empowering innovators in the workplace, using organizational and psychological tools that can help to generate new ideas (McKenney et al, 1997).

Any motivating systems will be effective when they are interlinked and purposefully used to support innovators and the innovation climate of the organization as a whole (Krichmar, 2013). No support systems - no innovators, no innovators - no innovations.

An innovation climate is an important driver for the development of an organization. One of the industries in which the role of innovation and climate change is the key is pharmaceuticals (Steklova et al, 2010).

Indeed, the introduction of innovations in the pharmaceutical business is a key factor in the competitiveness of pharmaceutical companies today (Zammuto & Spreitzer, 1991).

The result of the company depends not only on an effective management system and decision-making, but also on the degree of modernization of internal processes (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992). This concerns not only technological innovations and competent employees, but also operational management of personnel and resources of the company, in general.

In the 21st century, the role of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is rapidly gaining momentum. New technologies are a major factor in the economic development of the company (Tomas, 2010).

Figure 1. Main stages of pharmaceutical sector economic development. Source: Tomas S., Basic Economics: A common sense guide to the Economy, Fifth edition, 2010.

According to the figure above, we can see four main stages of economic development of pharmaceutical companies. The innovation driven stages is one of them. It is not possible to skip this stage if the company wants to strengthen its competitiveness. (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992). Thus, it is really important to be ready to produce innovations. Innovation climate could be the main factor the can motivate company to innovate and development (Tomas, 2010).

As for the pharmaceutical market in Russia, it appeared relatively recently - in the early nineties, it is ready, and is just beginning to gain momentum (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). Due to the innovation process, a clear segmentation of pharmaceutical companies on the basis of innovation is noticeable: dominant foreign manufacturers concentrate almost 100% of innovative products (Krichmar, 2013). Of the thousands of drugs manufactured by Russian factories, units can be considered original, the majority of domestically produced drugs registered are generics, i.e. reproduction already known (Zammuto & Spreitzer, 1991).

That is, the innovative potential of the Russian pharmaceutical market is concentrated, to a greater extent, in the hands of foreign manufacturers. Objective economic factors, such as financial and personnel shortages, features of the regulatory framework, the state of the material base of enterprises, universities and clinics, features of the Russian economy and the Russian market also contributed to this (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992).

It is worth noting that the lack of financial resources and the specifics of Russian legislation are not unique problems of innovation activity. The same can be said about the features of the Russian market. Of course, the risk of very fast reproduction of innovation in the Russian pharmaceutical market is very high: the existing legislation does not protect the manufacturer of a new drug, because the protection of intellectual property rights may concern the method of obtaining a substance, but not its structural formula (Steklova et al, 2010).

We should also take into account the structure of drug consumption, which differs significantly from the "usual" for most Western countries; We have the largest market share with medicines with a long history of existence on the market, inspired by the traditions of generations of doctors and patients (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992). In addition, the system of market incentives for pharmaceutical research does not always take into account the needs of health care (Zammuto & Spreitzer, 1991).

Given the presence of a strong market and a lack of understanding of the need for innovation, it is necessary to invest in basic research and promote the process of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry directly within the organization. Pharmaceutical companies should take a course towards an innovative approach and in the organizational structure (Steklova et al, 2010). The atmosphere of innovation within an organization has a very important and proven value for motivating employees to propose and create innovative solutions (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004).

1.4 Principal Methods of Measuring Company Innovation Climate

Today, there are a number of surveys and approaches for assessing the innovation climate of an organization. These methods are based on various criteria and factors for assessing the organizational climate, which reflect the feelings of the employee within the organization and show how the atmosphere corresponds to the one in which employees can successfully create and implement innovative solutions (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992).

In 2004, Mathisen and Einarsen conducted a survey on the most common and frequently used tools for measuring the innovation climate of a company (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). According to the results of this study, the authors identified four of the most famous tools that are widely used in practice:

Table 1. Overview of constructs, dimensions and instruments of climate for creativity and innovation. Source: Author's comparative analysis based on literature review.

The tools presented above have been highly appreciated by many researchers. However, the SSSI and TCI methods were not considered as tools for assessing the technological innovation climate. At the same time, KEYS method requires a more thorough review and more evidence on a large sample, since the effectiveness of this tool has not been confirmed (Ekvall, 1996). CCQ measures the psychological perception of an employee and his willingness to make innovative decisions within an organization (Amabile, 1996). This tool has the most impressive evidence base, since it was used on a large sample of companies and included a survey of more than 4,000 people (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992).

There is also a SOQ (Situational Outlook Questionnaire) model, which is the English version of CCQ, it is based on the same model and includes the same number of questionnaire items (Ekvall, 1996). But in fact these are different tools, since a direct translation from one language to another is impossible from the point of view of both linguistic and sociocultural realities. Translating a measuring instrument into another language results in a new instrument (Amabile, 1996). According to the measurement theory, a change in any item of a questionnaire can change its quality indicators; therefore, additional testing of the validity and reliability of the instrument is required.

In terms of the scale and level of distribution in practice, KEYS and SOQ are notable among the mentioned instruments. The first tool has received wide practical use in the business sphere and has a very good empirical base confirming its quality (before being launched into “industrial” use, it was tested on more than 12,500 employees of 50 companies in various business areas) (Ekvall, 1996). The tool is provided with very detailed guidance on data processing, including statistical indicators on the various characteristics of the organizational climate of companies in different business areas (Amabile, 1996).

SOQ has a less pronounced business orientation, so it is more common in research practice than in the business field. In particular, it is used to assess the organizational climate in non-profit and government organizations, schools, institutes, etc (Amabile, 1996). On its basis, various studies are carried out related to the problems of creativity (for example, the study of the connection between the organizational climate and individual styles of solving non-standard problems) (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

Subsequently, CCQ was translated into English and called SOQ (Situational Outlook Questionnaire) (Ekvall et al, 1996). The principal difference of the modernized version was the absence of the Dynamism scale and a slightly different number of statements in certain scales. In 2000 Ekvall attempted to validate it, as well as determine the degree of mutual correlation of the two questionnaires (Ekvall, 2000).

The indisputable advantages of CCQ are simplicity and convenience of its application in practice, which largely explains its high popularity.

The disadvantages of CCQ include the following points (Ekvall et al, 1996). First, it rather measures not the actual organizational climate, but the subjective feelings of the employees about it. Secondly, there is a discrepancy between the stated and the actual extent of its use. The fact is that CCQ was conceived as a tool for measuring climate at the organization level, but later Ekvall for unknown reasons limited its use to the level of a department or division, which led to a mismatch between what was postulated in theory and what was actually measured (Ekvall, 2000).

OCAI includes scales for classifying organizational culture. Respondents need to assign a score to each of the answers. As a result, all answers within one block should be summed up.

Initially, the test included one block, which was a list of dimensions that needed to be chosen to describe the innovation climate within the company (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

However, the authors of the model decided to revise its structure and develop a better classification system for the organizational climate. As a result, in 1999, the model was upgraded to the form presented in the Table 6.

The authors of the model emphasize that there is no single unique system for climate assessment. Moreover, it is impossible to develop a universal typology for each organization to describe its corporate culture. The assessment is individual and unique for each company (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

The key goal of the OCAI was to determine the organization's climate as precisely as possible, having first understood its unique organizational culture. In addition, the model questionnaire contains generalized questions so that it can be used absolutely for various companies representing different areas of activity.

KEYS today is the most perfect tool for measuring the creative climate in an organization, primarily because of the huge amount of work done by T. Amabile and her colleagues. Further improvement of the questionnaire may concern improvement of its factor structure, as well as additional experiments with the aim of more thorough validation (Amabile, Conti & Coon et al, 1998).

We propose to consider in more detail the key works of scientists in the field of innovation climate. We will consider those works that laid the foundation for modern research and have a significant contribution to the organizational climate of companies.

1.4.1 Main papers in the field of organizational climate measurement Teresa M. Amabile Work

In 1996, American professor from Harvard Business School Teresa Amabile released the first major work on measuring the innovation climate within the company. This work became the starting point for deeply researching tools for assessing the innovation climate and motivating creativity.

In her work entitled “Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity,” Teresa and her colleagues developed and approved the KEYS tool for measuring the company's innovation climate (Amabile, Conti & Coon et al, 1998). This tool was created to help managers see a more objective picture of the climate for innovation within the organization. A climate that has a significant impact on employees and motivates them to creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1996).

KEYS is a survey based on a number of criteria/dimensions that allow to assess the atmosphere of the working environment inside the organization for creative activity.

In the 1996 publication, the authors proposed using 6 basic parameters that reflect the positive aspects of the atmosphere within the organization (Amabile, 1996). However, in 1998, in her work “Reward, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity” Teresa and her colleague also discovered the effect of negative parameters of the organizational environment on innovation and creativity of employees (Amabile & Hennessey et al, 1998).

Since the innovation activity of employees is influenced by both the support and limitations of the organization, this tool incorporates both of these aspects. KEYS is a scale of ten key dimensions: 6 of them reflect stimulation, 2 - obstacles and 2 - result. In total, this tool has 24 questions that cover all the dimensions (Amabile, Conti & Coon et al, 1998).

The KEYS survey questionnaire has the following list of questions:

Table 2. KEYS survey questionnaire with dimensions scale.

Source: Amabile, T. M. and others "Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity." 1996.

Each of the questions was evaluated from 0 to 4, then it is necessary to calculate the median and standard deviation for each dimension. Subsequently, parameters were determined that stimulate creativity and that kill it (Amabile, 1996).

KEYS includes, first of all, the psychological context of innovation. The tool has proven a close relationship between the work environment and the result of innovation (Amabile, Conti & Coon et al, 1998). However, this tool has been tested in relation to American schools and universities only, but has not proven its effectiveness for companies (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

Thus, KEYS tool contains detailed information about how people perceive the work environment and its impact on their work.

KEYS today is the most perfect tool for measuring the creative climate in an organization, primarily because of the huge amount of work done by T. Amabile and her colleagues. Further improvement of the questionnaire may concern improvement of its factor structure, as well as additional experiments with the aim of more thorough validation (Amabile, Conti & Coon et al, 1998).

According to Amabile, uncritically high challenge for a short period time can stimulate creative employee abilities (in one of Experiments Department Perspectives developments have created more creative products under insufficient temporary resource). On the other hand, if constantly throw an employee too high load (excessive workload), it is literally burn out all the creative beginning in it (Amabile, 1996).

Rosabeth M. Kanter Work

Rosabeth Kanter is also an American professor at Harvard Business School. Unlike Amabile, Rosabeth relied in her research not on quantitative, but on qualitative data. In 1983, she published the work “The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation”, which is based on six studies involving more than 100 American companies representing different fields of activity (Kanter et al, 1983). According to the results of the study, high-quality, detailed data were obtained that covered, among other things, the organizational culture and its innovation climate.

In the book “The Challenge of Organizational Change: A Guide to Companies”, Kanter also offered to use the innovation climate (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992).

Similar to the Amabile study, the sheet includes both positive motivating factors and barriers (Amabile, 1996).

Kanter identified the following criteria for assessing the innovation climate:

Table 3. Rosabeth Kanter list of dimensions, 1992.

Source: Kanter, R. M. and F. Hesselbein. “Leading for Innovation: And Organizing for Results”, 2001.

With regard to barriers, the author, first of all, emphasizes such dimensions that affect the reputation of employees and prevent them from taking the initiative to develop innovative solutions (Kanter et al, 1983).

Unlike Amabile, Kanter relies more qualitative factors, not psychological ones (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992).

Kanter has formulated ten rules for the suppression of innovation, in which the key attention is paid to the lack of support and encouragement from the head (Kanter & Hesselbein, 2001):

Table 4. Kanter's ten rules for the suppression of innovation, 2001.

Source: Kanter, R. M. and F. Hesselbein. “Leading for Innovation: And Organizing for Results”, 2001.

All the rules above was used for assessing the innovation climate. Respondents were required to vote each question with a 5-point scale (Kanter & Stein et al, 1992). Respondents needed to rate 10 points presented in the table above on a scale from 1 to 5. 1 - the lowest degree of satisfaction, 5 - the highest degree of satisfaction (Kanter & Hesselbein, 2001).

However, such factors may lead to the organization being perceived as more politically sensitive, since managers will have to use perseverance and clear reasoning to maintain their goals. But at the same time, communication will be more open and straightforward.

Go?ran Ekvall Work

Swedish researcher Go?ran Ekvall published the work “Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation” in 1996 (Ekvall et al, 1996). The key idea of his work is that the independence and freedom of people in the organization allows the employee to unleash their creative potential and help to introduce innovative ideas. Like Amabile, Ekvall holds the view that psychological factors are the main components that need to be considered to measure an organization's innovation climate (Amabile, 1996). Speaking about freedom, he means, first of all, the freedom of experiment and the opportunity to try new tools in his work (Ekvall et al, 1996).

The ability to express oneself and the ability to risk are important attributes for introducing new ideas into the organization. A structure that accepts risk and encourages, rather than punishes, bold ideas has more opportunities for innovative solutions, in the opinion of the author.

In his work “Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation” based on a deep system analysis of empirical data accumulated over many years and his own theoretical hypotheses, Ekvall presented for the first time and most fully his own concept of the influence of the organizational climate on the development of human creativity, which served as the basis for his the most famous creative climate assessment questionnaire - The Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) (Ekvall et al, 1996).

Ekvall formulated a list of dimensions. The list includes 10 criteria: 9 of them are positive and one - Conflict - negative, which is a barrier to the development of an innovation climate and is taken into account with a negative correlation.

Table 5. Ekvall's list of dimensions, 1996.

Source: Ekvall, G. “Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation”, 1996.

His conception has been validated by repeated studies in the United States and internationally (Ekvall et al, 1996).

Immediately after the publication, Ekvall's work caused a rather ambiguous reaction in the scientific community, which was largely promoted by the fact that a year later Teresa Amabile's work on a similar topic was published. The question naturally arose - whose work should be considered the best? J. Moultrie and A. Young tried to find an answer to it in their work “Exploratory Study of Organizational Creativity in Creative Organizations” (Moultrie & Young, 2009), in which both concepts were subjected to thorough comparative analysis. As a result, the authors came to the conclusion that the Ekvall theory, despite its popularity and a number of other advantages, has, nevertheless, a more generalized, abstract character than the concept of Amabile (Amabile, 1996).

Subsequently, CCQ was translated into English and called SOQ (Situational Outlook Questionnaire) (Ekvall et al, 1996). The principal difference of the modernized version was the absence of the Dynamism scale and a slightly different number of statements in certain scales. In 2000 Ekvall attempted to validate it, as well as determine the degree of mutual correlation of the two questionnaires (Ekvall, 2000).

The indisputable advantages of CCQ are simplicity and convenience of its application in practice, which largely explains its high popularity.

The disadvantages of CCQ include the following points (Ekvall et al, 1996). First, it rather measures not the actual organizational climate, but the subjective feelings of the employees about it. Secondly, there is a discrepancy between the stated and the actual extent of its use. The fact is that CCQ was conceived as a tool for measuring climate at the organization level, but later Ekvall for unknown reasons limited its use to the level of a department or division, which led to a mismatch between what was postulated in theory and what was actually measured (Ekvall, 2000).

Immediately after publication Ekvall's work caused a very mixed reaction in the scientific community, which was largely facilitated by the fact that a year later Teresa Amabil's work was published on similar topics (Ekvall, 2000). If we look at both models in more detail, then we can conclude that Ekvall's theory, despite its popularity and a number of other advantages, has, nevertheless, a more generalized and abstract character than the concept of Amabile (Amabile, 1996).

K.S. Cameron & R.E. Quinn Work

Researchers K. Cameron and R. Quinn proposed their own model for assessing innovation organizational climate (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The model was based on the design of competing values and some scientists claim that this model is one of the most effective methods used in evaluating organizational culture. At the core are two measurement scales: internal - external focus, flexibility - control. Their combination forms 4 ideal types of culture: clan, adhocratic, market and hierarchical. In addition, each organization combines several types of cultures, only the proportions differ.

As part of this model, respondents are asked to answer six questions to determine the innovation climate within the organization. In each question there are four possible answers, which are statements that characterize a certain type of culture. Since there are several types of culture in existing organizations, several answers may be correct. Therefore, the answer is expressed in the distribution of 100% between the four options. Answering questions is necessary two times, the first time based on the current state of the organization, the second time - describing the preferred characteristics. This model is called Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

In the table below you can see test questions for OCAI model:

Table 6. Cameron and Quinn questioner for organizational cultural climate evaluating, 1999.

Source: Cameron, K. M. & Quinn, R. E. “Diagnosing and changing organizational culture”, 1999.

OCAI includes scales for classifying organizational culture. Respondents need to assign a score to each of the answers. As a result, all answers within one block should be summed up.

Initially, the test included one block, which was a list of dimensions that needed to be chosen to describe the innovation climate within the company (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). This list included the following criteria for evaluation:

· Trust/Openness,

· Challenge,

· Support,

· Space for ideas,

· Conflicts,

· Debates,

· Risk taking,

· Freedom.

However, the authors of the model decided to revise its structure and develop a better classification system for the organizational climate. As a result, in 1999, the model was upgraded to the form presented in the Table 6.

The authors of the model emphasize that there is no single unique system for climate assessment. Moreover, it is impossible to develop a universal typology for each organization to describe its corporate culture. The assessment is individual and unique for each company (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

The key goal of the OCAI was to determine the organization's climate as precisely as possible, having first understood its unique organizational culture. In addition, the model questionnaire contains generalized questions so that it can be used absolutely for various companies representing different areas of activity.

Minnesota Innovation Research Program: Van de Ven, Angel and Pool

The research program of innovation and creativity, which was conducted by the University of Minnesota, is one of the largest and most potential in this field. The authors of this program were three scientists: Van de Ven, Angel and Pool. In 1989, researchers published a book dedicated to this program (Van de Ven et al, 1986).. It describes the elements and factors of organizational culture that have had the greatest value and influence on the innovation component of this culture of the organization, and more precisely on its innovation climate (Van de Ven et al, 1986).

The analysis of the factors influencing the innovation climate of a company is based on the psychological aspects that have been studied on a large sample of data and which make the greatest contribution to the topic of organizational culture. These data are based on a wide range of literature and make it possible to emphasize the relationship between variables that are important for an organizational culture and its innovation climate (Utterback et al, 1971).

As a result, researchers suggested the propositions that are most closely related to organizational culture and its innovation culture. It can be found in the table below:

Table 7. Research propositions about elements related to organizational culture and innovation, 1986.

Source: Van De Ven, “Ventral Problems in the Management of Innovation”, 1986.

The authors of the research program, one of the first, drew attention to the literature on the importance and necessity of motivation for creativity and innovation. They noted that internal motivation for innovation and creativity is more important and stronger than extrinsic motivation (Utterback et al, 1971).

The authors proved the importance of information flows for successful innovation. Feedback and the frequency of communication within the team turned out to be statistically significant variables among the factors influencing the construction of a strong innovation climate (Van de Ven et al, 1986). However, it was also found that the importance of external communication, that is, communication with customers and suppliers has no statistical significance and influence on the effective creation of innovations (Utterback et al, 1971).

As a result, the authors argue that the feedback and frequency of communication within the organization are important factors for creating the innovation climate of the company. At the same time, the exchange of information with sources outside the organization did not show its importance in innovation activities.

This conclusion is contrary to the study of Utterback, who established in 1971 that for creating an innovation climate for an organization, it is not so important where information is exchanged -- inside or outside the organization (Utterback et al, 1971). And what is important is the frequency with which people communicate with different belief systems. Since the exchange of ideas and different points of view allows you to create new ideas and creative innovative approaches (Van de Ven et al, 1986).

Also, during the University of Minnesota's research innovation program, it was found that in order to successfully create an innovation climate for an organization, decentralized decision-making is necessary for the company. That is, it is important that within the company there are open sources of communication with management positions. When employees have the opportunity to communicate openly with upper level managers, they are more aware of their importance in making decisions. Thus, employees have a more powerful motivation to create innovative solutions for the company.



1.4.2 Other significant works on organizational innovation climate

Today there are quite a lot of scales for assessing the innovation climate. Since the main reason for disputes between scientists is the question of exactly how climate is measured, which parameters and criteria for its assessment should be used.

Thus, Coetzee in 1986 year suggested the following list of dimensions for measuring innovation climate (Coetzee, 1986):

Table 8. Coetzee's list of dimensions, 1986.

Also, Tustin suggested his own dimensions scale for innovation climate assessing in 1993 (Tustin et al, 1993):

Table 9. Tustins's list of dimensions, 1993.

Then, in 2001 Martins & Martins published the work with the following list of dimensions (Martins & Martins, 2001):

Table 10. Martins & Martins's list of dimensions, 2001.

The need for this condition to create a successful innovation has been proven by many scientists from all over the world. As a result, there were defined different criteria that could determine the innovation climate of a company (Martins & Martins, 2001).

First of all, when it comes to the innovation climate, scientists begin to argue not only about how to measure climate, but also about what needs to be measured, what criteria.

Nowadays there are a large number of innovation climate indicators that do not always match with organizational aspects.

The author of this paper has analyzed several key works in the field of organizational climate.

There are still a spread variety of dimensions for creative climate and a lot of scales for measuring it. The most common methods to assess a creative climate are: Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) presented by Swedish research Gцran Ekvall at the work «Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation» (1996) and Assessing the climate for creativity (KEYS) that was described by Teresa Amabile at here study «Motivating Creativity in Organization: on doing what you love and loving what you do» (1997) (Ekvall, 1996; Amabile et al, 1997). These methods include basic dimensions for innovation climate such as Freedom, Detailed Feedback, Risk Taking and more others. Dimensions was assessing according to rating and, as a result, reflected an accordance of the company's climate to chosen benchmark. Over the period of time modern researchers created new more practical dimension benchmarks. For example, in the paper «A Review if Instruments Assessing Creative and Innovation Environments within Organization» (2004) its authors G. Mathisen and S. Einarsen tested climate criteria that was suggested by T. Amabile in 1997 (Amabile et al, 1997; Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). As a result, they created its own scale to measure perceptions about climate for creativity. Their scale also included some negative factors as Conflicts and Layoff rate. In addition, J. Moultrie and A. Young in the study «Exploratory Study of Organizational Creativity» (2009) created questionnaire combining CCQ and KEYS scales since they convinced that these two methods cover complementary aspects of the climate. As a result, their study showed that all these dimensions play an important role in creativity, therefore, authors included all the dimensions but assigned them different weights (Moultrie & Young, 2009).

...