In other words, there a lot of recognized scales to measure the innovation climate of a company. And most of these scales have intersections and similar approaches. The author will choose of the scales and discuss it with leading managers from a real pharmaceutical company. Perhaps, if you dive into the organization to the level of key departments and key managers, to those who have a direct impact on the creation and maintenance of this climate, it may turn out that their perception of the criteria of the innovation climate does not coincide with the main recognized benchmarks. It may turn out that in order to create an innovation atmosphere, they are guided by a fundamentally opposite approach. First of all, it is interesting to understand how the criteria put forward by the leaders of key areas of a large company are perceived in practice. Whether they agree with them or not. In particular, it is interesting to understand how close they are to the Russian realities of the pharmaceutical business (Martins & Martins, 2001).

Within the content of the analysis in the literature studied by the author, various formulations of criteria and their various fields of application were encountered. Some focused more on the psychological aspects, and some on the performance and functional features of the organization.

The results of the content analysis are shown in Table 3. It contains the main criteria for the innovation climate, which cover the key aspects of the organizational climate and take into account its features.

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



According to the content of the analysis, 8 main criteria for assessing the company's innovation climate were identified. Since the literature has not studied separately the pharmaceutical industry in the context of the innovation climate, therefore, the author takes this scale as the basis, considering it universal for companies representing any field of activity.

1.5 Gaps in Literature

Thus, there a lot of recognized scales to measure the innovation climate of a company. And most of these scales have intersections and similar approaches. The author will choose of the scales and discuss it with leading managers from a real pharmaceutical company. Perhaps, if you dive into the organization to the level of key departments and key managers, to those who have a direct impact on the creation and maintenance of this climate, it may turn out that their perception of the criteria of the innovation climate does not coincide with the main recognized benchmarks. It may turn out that in order to create an innovation atmosphere, they are guided by a fundamentally opposite approach. First of all, it is interesting to understand how the criteria put forward by the leaders of key areas of a large company are perceived in practice. Whether they agree with them or not. In particular, it is interesting to understand how close they are to the Russian realities of the pharmaceutical business.

After evaluating the innovation climate of the company, in most cases the researchers do not take into account the opinions of the key figures that create this climate. While analyzing the sources of weak or strong innovation potential, we do not take into account the fact that they can be precisely the differences in the definition and understanding of criteria by managers.

The relevance of the research topic is due to the strategic role of the innovation climate for building an innovative economy and related innovation activities. Nowadays there are no studies of this topic on the example of the Russian pharmaceutical market. And there is no information how created assessing methods could work in such a specific fields and sectors.

1.6 Research Questions

Thus, the general purpose of the study is to explore different existing scales and dimensions for measuring company innovation climate and find determinants for innovation climate for Russian pharmaceutical business.

The author of the paper is going to compare it with a real case of Russian pharmaceutical company.

As a result, the author will summarize a general benchmark list of dimensions. In the case study the author is going to concentrate on Russian pharmaceutical company in order to analyze how managers from different departments of the organization can determine the main features of innovation climate inside the company they work. As a result, the paper will answer the following question:

What are the determinants for innovation climate for Russian pharmaceutical business and how it compare with existing benchmark?

Within this broad aim the following objectives will be addressed:

1. Identify the benchmark list of dimensions for innovation climate measurement according to literature review.

2. Reveal main features/determinants for innovation climate for Russian pharmaceutical company.



2. Methodology and Approach

2.1 Sample

The study was based on the answers provided by the current employees of Russian pharmaceutical company. In order to get the most complete picture of the research, the employees were representatives of six different departments: management, business development & market research, R&D and medical, compliance & lawyers, finance & commerce, human resources. From each of the department were chosen 3 managers of the middle level without strict gender relation. However, the author tried to include respondents with different genders from one department, in case that there were both genders. As a result, the sample includes 18 managers from 6 business departments: 2 women and 1 man from Brand & Trade Management department, 1 woman and 2 men from Business Development & Market Research, 1 woman and 2 men from R&D & Medical, 2 women and 1 man from Compliance & Lawyers department, 1 woman and 2 men from Finance & Commerce and 3 women form Human Resources department.

The author decided to use middle managers as representatives of the most numerous level of business, which is engaged in the direct creation and implementation of projects.

The figure below is presented the sample composition:

Figure 2. The sample structure for case study research. Source: Author's proposal.

2.2 Face-to-Face Interview

In order to describe the current characteristics of the climate in the company are, the author decided to conduct a face-to-face interview with each of the 18 respondents. A personal meeting will provide a more accurate understanding of what kind of meaning every respondent invests in each of the characteristics. The augmented definition will allow to compare and match the answers of the respondents with each other.

The interview took place during the one month: on weekdays from February 11 till March 7, 2019.

Interviews of all respondents within a narrow period of time and within one financial quarter will provide a more accurate one-time perception of the innovation climate within the company through the eyes of different departments and different employees.

The main purpose of a personal interview is to understand the definition of the current working climate within the organization, according to the employees working in it.

All interviews were conducted in Russian and, subsequently, were translated into English language.

An Interview guide was developed for personal interviews as it allows to adhere to the necessary framework during the dialogue.

Table 12. Interview guide for face-to-face interviews. Source: Author's proposal.

Types of questions	Purpose of questions	Some examples
1. Introducing questions	To kick start the conversation and move to the main part	“I would like you to help me to specify a working organizational climate in the company…”
2. Direct question	To elicit direct responses	“Could you describe your current working climate? Please, use short and specific words”
3. Specifying questions	To develop more precise descriptions from general statements	“Could you give a full definition of the characteristics that you mentioned?”
4. Indirect questions	To get more precise responses	“Could you give an example of each of the characteristics?”
5. Direct question	To elicit direct responses	“How can you divide all the characteristics on negative and positive groups?”

After collecting answers of 18 managers, the author carefully analyzed each of the answer. Due to the fact that the respondents supplemented their answers with the help of examples and more detailed definitions, it was possible to more accurately determine the meaning the respondents put into their answers. This allowed us to have a better understanding of how they describe the current climate in the company.

Due to this, it was possible to compare the responses of all respondents with each other and exclude duplicate answers.

Moreover, in order to clarify the attitude of the respondents to each of the characteristics, the author asked them to break the mentioned characteristics into two groups: positive and negative.

The interviews were translated on the paper with the permission of the respondents. A full transcription of each interview was produced. To confirm the correctness of the information provided in the transcript, interview records were provided to each respondent for approval.

After complete verification of the transcript, each of the participants in the interview gave their consent to the processing and use of data from their answers within the framework of the study. A sample of consent to participate in the study and the processing of personal responses is presented in the Appendix-5.

As a result, face-to-face interviews allowed to develop a list of characteristics of the current climate within an organization, which, in consequence, can be compared with the considered benchmark. These characteristics divided into negatives and positives.

2.3 Online Survey

At first glance, it seems that it would be easier in the framework of personal interviews to immediately form a list of criteria for measuring the innovation climate within the organization. However, since the term innovation climate does not yet have a transparent understanding in Russia, even in a business environment, it was decided to start with simple characteristics of the climate. Further, after the respondents successfully completed this task, the author created a consolidated list of characteristics that most accurately reflected the climate in the company, according to the employees. Then, each characteristic from this list in a remote format was proposed to be disassembled into those that contribute to innovation and those that hinder it.

Thus, in order to define which current climate characteristics are inhibitors and which are drivers for innovation the author decided to use anonymous online survey. Online survey method allows to count the frequency of occurrence of opinions and attitudes to the question.

In the questionnaire the respondent had to indicate the department in which they work and their position. The survey was anonymous, so when deciphering and analyzing the answers, each respondent was assigned a number from 1 to 18.

Online survey is the fastest and most convenient instrument for quantitative research.

Respondents were asked to vote with or against of the chosen climate characteristics if any is any is considered and inhibitor to innovation.

The main body of the questionnaire panel for online survey is presented below:



Table 13. Questionnaire structure for online survey. Source: Author's proposal.

Do you consider this characteristics as a Driver for Innovation?
Positive Characteristics	Strongly agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
1.
…
Do you consider this characteristics as an Inhibitor for Innovation?
Negative Characteristics	Strongly agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
1.
…



3. Case Study Results

According to the results of the literature review, a list of dimensions was compiled, which is a benchmark for the study research.

Benchmark innovation climate dimensions scale was based on the most cited and large studies. There were taken the most frequently and successfully used characteristics that didn't meet criticism from researchers.

In addition, the scale covers the main categories of dimensions: personal, organizational and resources.

Table 14. Benchmark list of dimensions. Source: Literature review analysis.

Following face-to-face interviews with 18 managers and various departments, a list of the current climate characteristics within the company was determined.

The answers of each respondent were carefully analyzed, subsequently, repetitive answers and synonyms were excluded. Moreover, the final analysis took into account only those characteristics that were mentioned two or more times in order to exclude random answers.

The first result of face-to-face interviews is the list of following characteristics:

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

Also, as part of the face-to-face interviews, respondents were asked to indicate what organization's characteristics they named earlier, which he/she considers negative and which are positive.

The result of the answers to this question was the following table:



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

If we look at the results of face-to-face interviews in the context of departments, then we get a rather interesting picture.

The vast majority of respondents from the department of management, most of whom are marketers, called the “Lack of a common goal” as a negative characteristic of the current climate. This can be explained by the fact that marketers are fully responsible for key brand indicators (such as sales and net income). These indicators are laid down in the KPIs of employees of this department. The actions of staff in other departments have a strong direct impact on these key product indicators, but are not included in their KPIs. Therefore, the goals and objectives of employees of other departments often do not just do not coincide with the goals of marketers, but also go against them. The management department is particularly sensitive to these differences, since its performance indicators include performance indicators from other departments.

It is also interesting that, precisely because of the fact that marketers are responsible for the key indicators of brands, the activities of employees of other departments often remain in the shadow and underestimated. Therefore, the only employees of the management department did not mention “Poor recognition” as negative characteristics of the current climate of the company. While in all other departments, except Human Resources, at least one respondent mentioned this characteristic.

Moreover, 3 out of 3 employees of the R&D and Medical department called “Playfulness inside team” and “Teambuilding” as positive features of the current climate inside the organization. It can be explained by the fact that in this department, except for one woman, all other employees are men, whose temperament is characterized by a quieter existence within the working group.

While respondents from Human Resources and Compliance & Lawyers departments, in which women mostly work, indicated negative current climate characteristics as conflicts, gossips and disrespect.

According to the results of the online survey, in which all respondents had to vote, which of their negative characteristics are barriers for creating innovations, and which of the positive characteristics are drivers.

Employees needed each of the characteristics presented in the survey to assign one of the answers: “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, “Disagree”, “Strongly disagree”. The scale of more than two answers allows you to make more accurate conclusions.

More detailed results you can find in Appendix at the end of the work.

The summarized results are presented in the Table 17 below:

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

Do you consider this characteristics as an Inhibitor for Innovation?
CCCs (cons)	Agree	Disagree
	Abs	%	Abs	%
Lack of clear strategy	11	61%	7	39%
Conflicts (gossip, disrespect)	6	33%	12	67%
Lack of trust/openness	13	72%	5	28%
Pressure by top management	14	78%	4	22%
Poor communication between departments	8	44%	10	56%
High level of misunderstanding	14	78%	4	22%
Lack of a common goal	8	44%	10	56%
Non-acceptance of failures	17	94%	1	6%
Poor recognition	7	39%	11	61%

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

Do you consider this characteristics as a Driver for Innovation?
CCCs (pros)	Agree	Disagree
	Abs	%	Abs	%
Fast moving internal processes	11	61%	7	39%
High professional skills	13	72%	5	28%
Dynamism	7	39%	11	61%
Playfulness inside teams	8	44%	10	56%
Financial motivation	17	94%	1	6%

As we can see, as inhibitors for innovation, respondents identified such characteristics as: Lack of clear strategy, Lack of trust/openness, Pressure by top management, High level of misunderstanding and Non-acceptance of failures.

All the characteristics that the respondents chose as barriers are related to each other, but rather follow each other. For example, a clear and understandable strategy of the company, each of the department and employees depends on how communication is established between departments. If there is no misunderstanding between the department, then this may indicate that there is a clear overall strategy in which each employee and the department he represents understands his or her task and role in the implementation of this strategy. Also, an understanding of one's role and value in a company is directly related to how the management perceives its employees. For example, an employee feels responsible for his role only if he/she is able to make independent decisions, without pressure and imposing opinions, and can be heard by managers. Such relationships should be built on trust, since trust is the guarantee that the employee's competencies correspond to the formal role assigned to him in the implementation of the strategy. Thus, the characteristics that the respondents chose the dough are related to each other. And these characteristics often can arise as a result of each other.

The study showed that 94% of respondents call such a factor as “Non-acceptance of failures” as the main barrier of innovation. The majority of employees limit their innovation activities because of the fear of making a mistake and, as a result, of being punished for it and losing confidence in the management. The current organizational culture, represented in Russian companies, is just beginning to develop and improve the employee incentive mechanism; therefore, in most companies, there are no such tools for motivating innovation, therefore, often deviations from the usual formal responsibilities can lead to negative consequences.

Conflicts, Poor communication between departments, Lack of a common goal and Poor recognition were not included in this analysis though their influence on employees were not enough when it comes to innovation performance.

At the same time, respondents pointed the following characteristics of the organizational climate as drivers for innovation: Fast moving internal processes, High professional skills, Financial motivation.

Since employees from a young and actively growing pharmaceutical company participate in the Case study, the innovation drivers they listed are reasonable. The company has not yet managed to cover all therapeutic areas and is just beginning to enter the market. This is accompanied by high investments that will be justified in the long run. Investment not only in business processes and products, but also in human resources. Most of the business areas are at the level of active start and entry into the market, this process is usually accompanied by a high speed of business and the creation of new projects.

Dynamism and Playfulness inside teams were excluded from the analysis as the majority or employees voted “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree”.

It is worth noting that in most cases the respondents chose the characteristics that relate to personal barriers, rather than structural, as barriers to innovation.

That is, these are barriers that, in the first place, impede the innovation activities of individuals within an organization, and not barriers that concern more global structures. First of all, these are such barriers as: Conflicts, Pressure, Lack of trust and misunderstanding.

Thus, we have a list of dimensions for an innovation climate based on the results of a case study of Russian pharmaceutical business.

The research author proposes to compare this result with the benchmark list, which was formed on the basis of the literature review.

Table 14. Benchmark list of dimensions.

Table 18. Case study list of dimensions.

In comparison with theoretical benchmark list of dimensions, case study list includes more practical criteria that obstruct or drive individual motivation to innovate.

Nowadays, the corporate culture of Russian organizations is not as progressive as the culture represented in European and American companies. Russian organizations do not yet have strong tools for motivating employees and have not learned to fully create a corporate internal environment.

To a large extent, this is typical of companies in those areas that not so long ago came to the Russian market and those industries that have just begun to actively develop in Russia. Including the pharmaceutical business.

In connection with such features of the development of the corporate culture of Russian pharmaceutical companies, the employees who participated in the survey focused more on those characteristics that concerned the respondents personally and directly affected their personal motivation rather than the work and direction of the company as a whole. .

These employees are just beginning to get used to the fact that they are part of a large organizational structure. And still not fully associate themselves with the company as with something united and whole. This may be due to the fact that the organizational culture is just beginning to develop in Russia.

Moreover, the company is new to the pharmaceutical market and is only gaining momentum in its development, therefore, the speed of development of internal processes differs from other companies (both international and Russian). This feature was reflected in the respondents' responses: 9 out of 18 employees indicated one of the main characteristics of the current climate of the organization “Fast moving internal processes” and called this factor one of the main drivers for innovation.

It is also interesting that 94% of respondents called “Financial motivation” as a positive characteristic and a driver for innovation. Of course, this is an important factor for employees of any company, however, in my opinion, in the pharmaceutical industry this factor is more significant, since the average wage level of employees is 18% higher than in other areas (HeadHunter recruitment agency, 2019). And often, employees go to the pharmaceutical field in order to get more income.

Thus, according to the case study results, the author obtained a result that affected more personal motivation and personal characteristics than organizational and corporate ones. Moreover, in comparison with the benchmark, the criteria based on the results of the case study largely reflect the cultural characteristics of the company, or rather the specifics of the country in which it operates. The mentality of the employees of the organization under study is also reflected in the results of the study. Also, the factors that influenced the respondents' answers were the specifics of the company (the scope of its activities) and the level of development at which the organization is currently located.



Conclusion

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.

Nowadays there are large number of scales and dimensions for measuring the innovative climate of an organization. In most cases, these scales and measurement systems are universal and suitable for companies in different countries and different fields of activity. They are suitable for organizations that are at different levels of their development and can be both new companies and mature monopolists.

In the most cases, existing systems for measuring innovation climate do not take into account such features of the organization as: the country in which the companies operate, the mentality of employees, the field of activity and the level of development.

In this paper, key works in the field of organizational culture, innovation climate and organizational environment were analyzed. As a result, the author managed to compare a large number of different lists of dimensions for measuring the innovation climate within the company. In the process of the literature review, a list of dimensions was created, which was also a generalization by consensus of the works under consideration. This sheet was used by the author as a benchmark for comparison with the list of criteria, which we managed to form in a case study.

In a case study, it was possible to interview 18 managers of a Russian pharmaceutical company and, thanks to their answers during face-to-face interviews, form the main characteristics of the current climate within the company.

The list of characteristics well reflected the specifics of the company and the country in which it is represented.

The results of the case study showed that the factors listed above are very important in assessing the innovation climate of any organization. Universality of methods can lead to inaccuracy of the analysis results.

During the online survey, respondents identified characteristics that are key drivers and barriers to innovation within the company. These characteristics are included in the list of dimensions for measuring innovation climate.

The list of dimensions that was developed jointly with employees of a Russian pharmaceutical company includes such criteria that are particularly pronounced, firstly, specifically for Russian companies, and, secondly, for companies that have recently appeared on the pharmaceutical market and are newbies.

To a large extent, this is typical of companies in those areas that not so long ago came to the Russian market and those industries that have just begun to actively develop in Russia. Including the pharmaceutical business.

In connection with such features of the development of the corporate culture of Russian pharmaceutical companies, the employees who participated in the survey focused more on those characteristics that concerned the respondents personally and directly affected their personal motivation rather than the work and direction of the company as a whole.

These employees are just beginning to get used to the fact that they are part of a large organizational structure. And still not fully associate themselves with the company as with something united and whole. This may be due to the fact that the organizational culture is just beginning to develop in Russia.

Also, the company is new to the pharmaceutical market and is only gaining momentum in its development, therefore, the speed of development of internal processes differs from other companies (both international and Russian). This feature was reflected in the respondents' responses: 50% of employees indicated one of the main characteristics of the current climate of the organization “Fast moving internal processes” and called this factor one of the main drivers for innovation.

It is worth noting that in most cases the respondents chose the characteristics that relate to personal barriers, rather than structural, as barriers to innovation.

These are barriers that, in the first place, impede the innovation activities of individuals within an organization, and not barriers that concern more global structures. First of all, these are such barriers as: Conflicts, Pressure, Lack of trust and misunderstanding.

Moreover, all the dimensions turned out to be directly related to each other and in most cases were the result of each other.

For example, a clear and understandable strategy of the company, each of the department and employees depends on how communication is established between departments. If there is no misunderstanding between the department, then this may indicate that there is a clear overall strategy in which each employee and the department he represents understands his or her task and role in the implementation of this strategy.

Moreover, an understanding of one's role and value in a company is directly related to how the management perceives its employees. For example, an employee feels responsible for his role only if he/she is able to make independent decisions, without pressure and imposing opinions, and can be heard by managers. Such relationships should be built on trust, since trust is the guarantee that the employee's competencies correspond to the formal role assigned to him in the implementation of the strategy. Thus, the characteristics that the respondents chose the dough are related to each other. And these characteristics often can arise as a result of each other.

As a further study of this topic, it would be interesting to analyze a larger number of Russian pharmaceutical companies and a larger number of respondents. An increase in the sample of the research will make it possible to understand whether the proposed criteria for assessing the innovation climate are so specific for such companies. A large sample will make it possible to see even greater differences and a greater systematic approach in measuring the innovation climate in comparison with the universal scales that Western researchers offer us.



Bibliography

Amabile T. M. and Hennessey, B. A. Reward, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity. American Psychologist 53, no. 6 (June 1998): 674-675.

Amabile T. M. Componential Theory of Creativity. p. 3, Harvard business school, 2012.

Amabile, Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do, California Management Review, 39-58, 1997.

Amabile, T. M., R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby, and M. Herron. Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39, no. 5 (October 1996): 1154-1184.

Burns T. and Stalker G. M. The Management of Innovation 403, 1961.

Coetzee, LD. 1986. The organization diagnosis (ODQ) questionnaire. Unpublished manual.

Dunnette & Hough. Leading for Innovation, 2nd, Vol. 3, Consulting Psychology, 1992.

Ekvall, G. Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 105, 1996.

Ekvall, G. et al. Organizational Culture as the Factor of Innovation Development. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 1997.

Ekvall, G. Creativity and Innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, p. 14, 1999.

Kanter, R. M. and F. Hesselbein. Leading for Innovation: And Organizing for Results, Business Enetrpreneurship, 2001.

Kanter, R. M. The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.

Kanter, R. M., B. Stein, and T. D. Jick. The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York: Free Press, 1992

Krichmar V.A. Diagnosis of organizational culture of enterprises using OCA method. Vestnik Samarskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta, 2013.

Lewin, A. & Kim, J. The nation-state and culture as influences on organizational change and innovation" in Handbook of organizational Change and Innovation, eds. M.S. Poole & A.H. Van de Ven, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004.

Martins, EC & Martins, N. Organizational Surveys as a tool for change. Part two: A case study. HR Future, 1 (4): 46-49, 2001.

Mathisen & Einarsen, A Review of Instruments Assessing Creative and Innovative Environments Within Organizations, Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119 - 140, 2004.

Mathisen & Einarsen, Methods for Measurement Company Organizational Climate, Creativity Research Journal, 21, 2006.

Moultrie & Young. Exploratory Study of Organizational Creativity in Creative Organizations, Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 2009.

Oldham G. R. and Cummings A. Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1996.

Ott, S. The Organizational Culture Perspective, Brook/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, 1989.

Paton, R. & McCalman, J. Change Management: A guide to effective implementation, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, London. 2001.

Patterson, West, Shackleton and others, Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379-408, 2005.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697-713, 2011.

Podsakoff & MacKenzie, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903, 2003.

Porras & Robertson. Organization development: Theory, practice and research. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1998.

Schein, E. H. What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, Reframing organizational culture (pp.243-254). Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1991.

Siegel & Kaemmerer. Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York: Free Press, 1997.

Simonton, D. K. Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Singhapakdi, Vitell and Leelakulthanit. Cross-cultural Study of Moral Philosophies, Ethical Perceptions and Judgments: A Comparison of American and Thai Marketers. International Marketing Review, Vol. 11, No. 6, p. 65-78, 1994.

Steklova O.E. Organizational culture. Ulyanovsk: Ulyanovsk State Technical University, 2010.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1-31, 1991.

Tustin, CM. A consensus approach to the measurement of organizational climate. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 1993.

Van De Ven A. H. Ventral Problems in the Management of Innovation, Management science Vol. 32, No. 5, p. 590, May 1986.

Yeung, A. K. O., Brockbank, J. W. & Ulrich, D. O. Organizational culture and human resources: An empirical assessment. In R. W. Woodman, & Pasmore W. A. (Eds.) Research in Organizational Change and Development, pp.59- 61, 1991.

Zammuto, R. F. & Spreitzer, G. M. Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 83-115, 1991.

Zammuto, R. F., & O'Connor, E. Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies' benefits: the roles of organization design and culture. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore. Research in organizational change and development, pp. 83-144, 1992.



Appendix-1. Current Climate Characteristics Questionnaire, online survey results, abs

Negative Characteristics	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
Lack of clear strategy	2	5	2	9
Conflicts (gossip, disrespect)	3	9	4	2
Lack of trust/openness	2	3	7	6
Pressure by top management	1	3	6	8
Poor communication between departments	4	6	5	3
High level of misunderstanding	2	2	5	9
Lack of a common goal	3	7	5	3
Non-acceptance of failures	0	1	8	9
Poor recognition	4	7	5	2
Positive Characteristics	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
Fast moving internal processes	2	5	5	6
High professional skills	0	5	2	11
Dynamism	3	8	5	2
Playfulness inside teams	3	7	6	2
Financial motivation	0	1	4	13



Appendix-2. Current Climate Characteristics Questionnaire, online survey results, %

Negative Characteristics	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
Lack of clear strategy	11%	28%	11%	50%
Conflicts (gossip, disrespect)	17%	50%	22%	11%
Lack of trust/openness	11%	17%	39%	33%
Pressure by top management	6%	17%	33%	44%
Poor communication between departments	22%	33%	28%	17%
High level of misunderstanding	11%	11%	28%	50%
Lack of a common goal	17%	39%	28%	17%
Non-acceptance of failures	0%	6%	44%	50%
Poor recognition	22%	39%	28%	11%
Positive Characteristics	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
Fast moving internal processes	11%	28%	28%	33%
High professional skills	0%	28%	11%	61%
Dynamism	17%	44%	28%	11%
Playfulness inside teams	17%	39%	33%	11%
Financial motivation	0%	6%	22%	72%



Appendix-3. Current Climate Characteristics Questionnaire, online survey summarized results, abs

Negative Characteristics	Disagree + Strongly Disagree	Agree + Strongly Agree
Lack of clear strategy	7	11
Conflicts (gossip, disrespect)	12	6
Lack of trust/openness	5	13
Pressure by top management	4	14
Poor communication between departments	10	8
High level of misunderstanding	4	14
Lack of a common goal	10	8
Non-acceptance of failures	1	17
Poor recognition	11	7
Positive Characteristics	Disagree + Strongly Disagree	Agree + Strongly Agree
Fast moving internal processes	7	11
High professional skills	5	13
Dynamism	11	7
Playfulness inside teams	10	8
Financial motivation	1	17



Appendix-4. Current Climate Characteristics Questionnaire, online survey summarized results, %

Negative Characteristics	Disagree + Strongly Disagree	Agree + Strongly Agree
Lack of clear strategy	39%	61%
Conflicts (gossip, disrespect)	67%	33%
Lack of trust/openness	28%	72%
Pressure by top management	22%	78%
Poor communication between departments	56%	44%
High level of misunderstanding	22%	78%
Lack of a common goal	56%	44%
Non-acceptance of failures	6%	94%
Poor recognition	61%	39%
Positive Characteristics	Disagree + Strongly Disagree	Agree + Strongly Agree
Fast moving internal processes	39%	61%
High professional skills	28%	72%
Dynamism	61%	39%
Playfulness inside teams	56%	44%
Financial motivation	6%	94%



Appendix-5. Consent form to participate in interview.

Project: Measuring Company Innovation Climate: Case Study from Pharmaceutical Company

Method of data collecting: Face-to-face interview

Research period: 11.02.2019 - 7.03.2019

1. I agree to participate in the research.

2. I am willing for the interview to be transcripted on the paper.

3. I confirm that the information in transcript is presented correctly.

______________ ________________ ___________

Respondent name Signature Date

______________ ________________ ___________

Respondent name Signature Date

Declaration in lieu of oath

By (Alikulieva Ilona)

This is to confirm my Master Thesis was independently composed / authored by myself, using solely the referred sources and support. I additionally assert that this thesis has not been part of another examination process.

Moscow _______________________

(Date) (Signature)

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...