INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
Vietnam is now a developing country with remarkable speed in economic development We are witnessing the rapidly changing in the business environment and increasing competition in Vietnam According to the Ministry of Science and Technology (2010), innovation is a critical factor for Vietnam in order to achieve the target of becoming an industrial economy by 2020 At the organizational level, it is no argued that innovation is the key to maintain competitive advantages for companies
France, Mott, and Wagner (2007) assert that innovation is the key for the organization to gain a competitive advantage Meanwhile, all innovation comes from creative ideas (Scott & Bruce, 1994), the person who develops, promote, discuss, modify, and ultimately implement ideas are employees (Van de Ven, 1986) Therefore, employee’s innovative behaviors play an important role in achieving organizational effectiveness and maintain organization’s survival (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Richter, & Shipton,
2004) Especially for companies in innovative industries such as IT, marketing, media, etc., the role of employee innovative behaviors become more critical
Therefore, most organizations are striving to hire the highly creative people (Sternberg et al., 1997) However, research has shown that having creative people in the organization is not enough; the organization must create the environment that fosters and bring out the creativity within the employees (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron,
1996) Therefore, it is critical to know how to create an organizational climate that actively develops innovation among employees (Patterson et al, 2004) Knowing what organizational climate factors promote employee’s innovative behaviors will help the organization adjust themselves to better foster innovative behaviors to enhance its competitiveness and business performance Moreover, currently, Vietnam is ranked 45 th in Global innovation index, among 127 economies and the country is making an effort to become an innovative economy The government has taken many decisive actions to foster innovation such as launching Vietnam innovation network to connect Vietnamese scientist worldwide, provide an attractive policy to solicit talents overseas, provide technological innovation support for business, etc Organizations themselves also take several initiatives to improve innovation Thus, understanding employee’s innovative behaviors will contribute some implications to attain this goal at an individual level
However, currently in Vietnam, the research on innovation is still rare and factors that affect innovative behaviors at the individual level are still not clearly explored Until now, there have been very few academic publications on employee’s innovation in Vietnam The research will provide some propositions on employee’s innovative behavior and to test these propositions through real data in Vietnam
As employees' innovative work behavior is assumed to have a positive contribution to innovation in the organization, many researchers have dedicated efforts in identifying potential factors that could develop innovative behaviors (Fairness et al., 2015; Janssen, Van De Vliert, & West, 2004; and Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, &Strange, 2002)
According to J De Jong & Den Hartog (2010), although there is a positive relationship between innovative climate and innovation, most empirical research examined effects of organizational climate on innovation at the team level and organizational level Some studies (e.g Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996) at the organizational and team level have indicated that climate positively affected the innovation However, there are still very limited empirical work study about the influences of climate on innovative behavior of the employee Scott and Bruce (1994) found a positive but weak relationship between employee’s perceptions of organizational climate and their innovative behavior
Moreover, while most of the previous studies have investigated the link between organizational creativity climate and innovative work behavior in general, there are constructs (Shanker, Bhanugopan, van der Heijden, & Farrell, 2017) Furthermore, the current literature about the effects of organizational climate is mainly come from researches conducted in western countries and have not been tested widely in Asian settings (Sellgren, Ekvall & Thomas, 2008) Finally, a review by Amabile et al., (1996) suggested there is a bias toward creativity supportive factors that seem to enhance creativity while paying little attention to impediment factors In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of creativity climate factors, this research will include both positive and negative climate factors that might be important for creativity In addition, this research plan to fill these gaps by investigating the relationship between creativity climate and employee’s innovative behavior using the real data in Vietnam
The cross-level relationship between dimensions of the two constructs will also be tested.
Research objectives and research questions
Research objectives: To test the effect of factors of organizational creativity climate on employee’s innovative behaviors
Based on the results, suggest useful managerial implications for companies in Vietnam
Q1: Which factors of organizational creativity climate affect employee’s innovative behaviors?
Subject and scope of the study
The subject of study are employees who are working in Vietnam and doing various types of jobs, including both high and low creativity intensive works
The scope of the study: The research is conducted in Vietnam, data collection is conducted from 5th Apr to 24Apr Respondents are employees who are working in companies in Vietnam.
Outline of the thesis
Regardless of the Abstract, references, and appendices, the thesis has five main parts as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction: briefly introduce research background, research objective, research scope, and outline
Chapter 2: Literature review: presents the literature about organizational creativity climate and employee’s innovative behavior
Chapter 3: Research Methodology: provide detail research method from preparing for collecting data to analyzing data
Chapter 4: Research analysis and results: descriptive information about the sample characteristics are presented, results from SPSS software is shown
Chapter 5: Discussion conclusion: chapter gives answers to the research question on organizational creativity climate and relationship with employee innovative behavior
Some suggestions for further improvement and study are also given.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Organizational Creativity Climate
“Studies on work-related environmental features have been brought together under the general heading of climate” (Patterson et al., 2004) “Climate has been defined as a set of shared views regarding individuals’ perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures (Patterson et al., 2004)” According to Litwin et al (1968), organizational climate is defined as “a set of measurable properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live and work in this environment and assumed to influence their motivation and behavior”
Similarly, Denison (1996) pointed out that climate is defined as “the perceptions of environmental conditions that shape individuals’ beliefs about the work environment
For instance, this may include perceptions of outcomes, expected behaviors, interpersonal interactions, requirements, and contingencies”
Literature review shows that there are many researchers interested in specific types of organizational climate such as safety climate, ethical climate, service climate, procedural justice climate, etc In the last 20 years, there has been an increasing interest in research about creativity climate (or the climate for innovation) Creativity climate is a specific type of climate Amabile (1996) refers to “climate for creativity as a stimulating working environment which elicits flows of creativity in organizations”
There are many authors proposed models of creativity climate which compose of different dimensions A review by (Gro Ellen Mathisen & Stale Einarsen, 2004) summarized tools for measuring organizational creativity climate or climate for innovation There are five qualified measurements being reviewed including KEYS,
CCQ, SOQ, TCI, and SSSI According to the reviewer, CCQ and SOQ are the same because SOQ an English translated version of the CCQ The table below summarizes the dimensions of each measurement
Table 2.1: Measures for assessing the climate for innovation
(1978) Organizational encouragement Challenge Vision Leadership
Supervisory encouragement Freedom Participative safety Ownership
Idea support Task orientation Norms for diversity Sufficient resources Trust/openness Support for innovation
Continuous development Challenging work Dynamism/liveliness Consistency Freedom/Autonomy Playfulness/humor
Risk-taking Idea time According to the authors of this review, there are only two useable instruments for assessing climate factors for creativity, which are TCI & KEYS Until now, in order to assess the work environment for creativity, KEYS is still one of the most suitable instruments (Gro Ellen Mathisen & Stale Einarsen, 2004)
Moreover, the TCI instrument developed by Anderson & West (1998) was designed to evaluate climate for innovation within the workgroup Meanwhile, this research intends to investigate at an organizational level Therefore, this research adopted dimensions of creativity climate from the KEYS of Amabile
KEYS and the underlying model concentrate on perceptions of individuals and how those perceptions affect the creativity of their work The model includes 6 stimulants and
2 obstacles factors which are: “organizational and supervisory encouragement, workgroup support, freedom, sufficient resources, challenging work, workload pressure, and organizational impediments” According to the KEY’s authors, these environmental factors were identified through review of previous researches and an critical-incidents study with 120 R&D scientists and technicians in both high and low creativity events
KEYS (1996) was validated with 3,708 participants from 26 organizations from various industries According to Amabile, stimulants scales are hypothesized to promote creativity while obstacle scales are hypothesized to prohibit creativity Below is conceptual model developed by Amabile (1996)
Figure 2.1 Conceptual model of KEYS
Source: Amabile et al (1996) Effect of creativity climate:
As reviewed by Lin & Liu (2012), the studies about organizational climate with the main objective are to identify the factors which promote the employees and in turn, enable the organization to enhance performance and achieve business goals The relationship between organizational climate and outcome has been studied by prior researches The studies conducted by Amabile (1996), Ekvall (1996), Shanker et al.,
(2017) suggested that creativity climate was an important factor that affects organizational performance Some researches (Ismail, 2005; Yeh‐Yun Lin & Liu, 2012;
Abdullah, Wahab, & Shamsuddin, 2015) found creative climate influence a firm’s innovation Below is the table that summarizes some researches about organizational creativity climate:
Table 2.2 Summarized researches about organizational creativity climate
Author/ year Title Type of research
“Assessing The Work Environment For Creativity”
12,525 cases KEYS scales with 8 factors
“Organizational Culture, Creativity climate, and Organizational Innovativeness:
Empirical 32 small firms Organizational culture+ creativity climate
=> organizational innovativeness Creativity climate => Organizational culture
“Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior”
Empirical 202 managers working in government companies in Malaysia
OCI => IWB=> OP Years in service &ages=> OCI & IWB
“A cross-level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived innovation: The mediating effect of work motivation”
5 among 8 dimensions: “organizational encouragement, supervisory encouragement, workgroup support, sufficient resource and challenging work”=> work motivation=> innovation
“The effects of individual creativity and organizational climate on firm innovativeness”
Empirical 181 employees in Turkey individual creativity =>firm innovativeness
“the creative climate is shadowing the effect of individual creativity on firm performance”
“Drivers of organizational creativity: a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D”
Empirical 453 managers and researchers in Sweden, the
Information sharing => learning culture=> creative climate Information sharing => (-) creative climate, intrinsic motivation
Exploratory 10 companies in the creative industries
“There is a strong and mutually reinforcing relationship between dominant models posed by Amabile and Ekvall Several of the factors, whilst appropriate in a context where creativity is non-routine, are less applicable in an environment where creativity is an everyday activity”
“Influences of Organizational Culture and
“The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior” organizational climate=> safety climate => safety performance
Employee innovative behavior
De Jong & Den Hartog defined “employee’s innovative work behavior typically includes exploration of opportunities and the generation of new ideas (creativity related behavior), but could also include behaviors directed towards implementing change, applying new knowledge or improving processes to enhance personal and/or business performance (implementation oriented behavior)”
According to Parker et al (2007), Parker & Collins (2010), employees’ innovative behaviors are actions that are originated by the employees with the objective is to enhance the current conditions or building new conditions for the organization and for employees
Many studies (Abstein & Spieth, 2014; Janssen, 2000; West & Farr, 1989) asserted that employee’s innovative behavior is a critical factor that contributes to the success of the organization, especially in the rapidly changing business environment Moreover, studies by Janssen et al., (2004), Scott & Bruce (1994), and Yuan & Woodman (2010) also affirm the role of employee’s innovative behavior in sustaining competitive advantage of the organization Understanding that the foundation for achieving organizational performance is employees’ innovative behavior, Scott & Bruce (1994) pointed out that it is very critical to find out factors that initiate and promote these behaviors
In this research, the term employee’s innovative behavior (EIB), employee’s innovative work behavior (EIWB), and innovative work behavior (IWB) will be used interchangeably
To date, most researches on measurements of individual level innovative behavior have paid attention to the generation of new ideas (creativity) rather than the behaviors involved in championing or implementing these creative ideas Only a handful measures of IWB including all of these behaviors are available And even if these behaviors are included, they are often treated as a single-dimensional measurement There are only three studies considered multi-dimensions measurements which are proposed by Krause
(2004), Dorenbosch, Engen, & Verhagen (2005), and Den Hartog & De Jong (2008)
Both Krause and Dorenbosch et al, proposed 2 dimesional measurement which include creativity and implementation Meanwhile, Dejong & Den Hartog proposed 4- dimensional measurement which linked to 4 stages of innovation: Opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing, and idea implementation These stages based on the reasoning that idea generation is a broad definition which includes both generating ideas and the recognition of problems Moreover, in the entrepreneurship literature the exploration of opportunities is considered as a behavior preceding idea generation, and have distinct personality and environmental determinants After coming up with creative ideas, employee will seek sponsorship for that idea and through coalition building tries to gain support for it (championing) Finally, the employee contributes to idea implementation by working on the execution of the idea in different ways
This research adopted the 4-dimensional measurement by De Jong & Den Hartog to measure employee’s innovative behaviors which include 4 scales: Opportunity exploration, Idea generation, Championing, and Idea Implementation
Research about factors that affect innovative work behavior:
There are several types of research studies about factors within the organizations that may facilitate employee’s innovative work behavior Some typical factors were studied such as rewards, organizational culture and resources by Woodman et al (1993), internal and external communication, attitude of manager toward change by Damanpour (1991), leadership styles by Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio (2003), Tsai & Tseng (2010), Akram, Lei,
& Haider (2017) Another research by Ramamoorthy, Flood, Slattery, & Sardessai
(2005) found the relationship between psychological contract, job autonomy, pay, and employee’s innovative behavior
Table 2.3 Summarized researches about innovative behavior
“The impact of relational leadership on employee innovative work behavior in IT industry of China”
Empirical 279 managers in an IT Company in Shanghai, China relational leadership => + idea generation relational leadership => + idea promotion relational leadership => + idea realization relational leadership => + EIWB
“Determinants of Innovative Work Behavior: Development and Test of an Integrated Model”
Empirical 204 employee’s from Irish manufacturing organizations psychological contract, job autonomy, pay =>
IWB Pay, job autonomy => psychological contract
=> IWB meritocracy, equity perceptions, procedural justice perceptions => psychological contract=> IWB
Empirical 148 machine operators in the
“Idea suggestion is more strongly related to personal/job characteristics than to group/ organizational characteristics Implementation of ideas is more strongly predicted by the
2000) implementation of ideas” group and organizational characteristics
There are interactions between the number of suggestions made and group and organizational characteristics.”
Empirical 85 production employees in the
UK changes in management support=> change in idea implementation to job control changes => changes in suggestion making changes in team support for innovation => changes in idea implementation (De Jong &
“Determinants Of Co- Workers’ Innovative
Investigation Into Knowledge Intensive Services”
Empirical 360 employees in knowledge- intensive companies
“Job challenge, autonomy, strategic attention, and external contacts=> + coworkers’ EIB
Operating in a market where firms compete on differentiation positively affects EIB
An innovation-supportive firm climate and high variation in demand do not directly affect IIB”
“Performance-based rewards and innovative behaviors”
The weak relationship between performance- based rewards and innovative behaviors
“How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior” exploratory 12 managers of knowledge- intensive service firms
13 relevant leadership behaviors which stimulate employees’ idea generation and/or application efforts (Janssen,
“The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behavior”
Empirical 170 employees of a Dutch company
Perceived supervisor supportiveness => perceived influence=> innovative behavior
“Determinants of employees’ innovative behavior”
Empirical 328 hotel employees in the UAE
Workplace happiness +IB Co-worker support+IB Co-worker support mediates the relationship between Workplace happiness and IB
Hypothesis development and research framework
Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford (2007) asserted that employee’s creativity and innovation in the organization are affected by the surrounded climate in the organization However, according to Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou (2014), creativity is mainly about idea generation while idea implementation is also very important They pointed out that previous studies still have not yet explained the underlying process
After conducting comprehensive interviews with managers in knowledge-intensive companies in the service industry, De Jong (2006) proposed the link between creativity climate and employee’s innovative work behavior However, a study carried out by De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) could not find evidence to confirm this proposition
Research by Moghimi & Devi Subramaniam (2013) conducted in Malaysia found that Resource, leader support, and mission clarity affect employees’ creative behavior
Amabile (1996) found extreme workload pressure have a negative impact on creativity; meanwhile, Ekvall (2010) & Hunter et.al (2007) suggested that the challenge could initiate innovative behavior among employees Another research by Ren & Zhang
( 2015) discovered job stressors moderate the relationship between creativity climate and innovative behaviors Creativity climate is found to have positive effects on both idea generation and implementation but job stressors have different effect on these two stages of innovative behaviors However, their research considered creativity climate as an overall factor without looking into its dimensions
The purpose of this thesis is to study into detailed dimensions of both creativity climate and innovative behaviors to find out how each dimension related to each other
As this thesis adapted creativity climate factors from a componential model of Amabile et al., (1996) and innovative behavior dimensions from De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), the relationship between each climate factor and innovative behaviors will be studied
2.3.1 Organizational encouragement and employee’s innovative behavior
Organizational encouragement is expressed through fair and constructive evaluation of ideas, rewards & recognition for creativity, mechanisms for developing new ideas
The organizational encouragement normally comes from the highest levels of management such as CEO, chairman, and President The relationship between organizational encouragement and innovative behaviors is based on social exchange theory in which rewards and a supportive mechanism are factors that drive the relationship decisions A review by Amabile et al., (1996) shows that the psychology research on creativity from Parners (1964) demonstrated that people will contribute more creative ideas if they are allowed to do so by the situation or by explicit instructions
Some experiments also provided evidence that constructive and informative evaluation positively enhance employee’s intrinsic motivation to creative Rewards and recognition can be considered a source of extrinsic motivation and Amabile (1986) asserted that engaging in activity just for exchanging rewards may hinder creativity However, if employee considering rewards as the recognition of their competencies and a signal of enabling them the opportunity to do more interesting and challenging works in the future, then it can promote creativity within employees Moreover, Scott & Bruce (1994) also asserted that when employees believe that creativity is valued and supported by an organization, they may try to be creative Given the above discussions, this study proposes:
H1: Organizational encouragement is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Opportunity exploration, Idea generation, Championing, Idea Implementation)
2.3.2 Managerial encouragement and employee’s innovative behavior
How supervisor/manager interact with their employees may have a significant impact on the creativity of employees Supervisor supports are activities that convey the respect, compliment for employee’s outstanding performance, and open communication with the employees (Madjar, 2008) In this setting, supervisors provide “goal clarity, give support of the team’s work and ideas, and engage in open interactions with subordinated and supervisory”
Employee’s curiosity and ability to concentrate on tasks may increase if there are the understanding and support from the supervisor/manager This support reduces their fear of making a mistake and more willing to take the risk (Shin and Zhou, 2003; Madjar,
2008) With this confident, employees are open to discover and examine new ideas freely (Madjar, 2008)
There are many pieces of research have shown the decisive linkage between managerial support and employee’s creativity For example, Amabile et al (1996) highlighted that despite failures, employees can be inspired by their supervisor/manager to keep trying In other words, supervisor support makes the employees more creative
Frese et al (1999) discovered that the greater encouragement from supervisors, the more creative ideas employee submitted to an idea suggestion program of the organization
Based on the review above, it is hypothesized that:
H2: Managerial encouragement is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Opportunity exploration, Idea generation, Championing, Idea Implementation)
2.3.3 Workgroup support and employee’s innovative behavior
Until now, support from co-workers has received the least attention among literature about the influence of contextual factors With the encouragement of their colleagues, an employee’s can be inspired to be more creative through support, open interaction, constructive and informational feedback (Jing Zhou & Jennifer M George, 2001)
Moreover, diversity in workgroup has long been considered as a promoting factor of creativity and innovation through diversity in backgrounds, source of knowledge, shared commitment and constructive challenging of ideas (Austin, 1997; Bantel & Jackson,
1989) All these challenging and shared commitment are a great sources of intrinsic motivation for creativity Moreover, interaction within the work group encourages the other employees to introduce freely any new ideas they have (Cummings and Oldham,
1997) Therefore, this thesis proposes below hypothesis:
H3: Workgroup support is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Opportunity exploration, Idea generation, Championing, Idea Implementation)
2.3.4 Freedom/Autonomy and employee’s innovative behavior
Among organizational factors that affect employees' creativity and innovation, work autonomy/freedom is one of the frequently mentioned factors Work autonomy is freedom at work and freedom in decision making Andrews and Farris (1967) found that significant level of freedom at work and decision making In other words, freedom at work helps improve creative performance of employees (Sia & Appu, 2015) Oldham and Cummings (1996) highlighted that there is a negative link between controlling the work environment and creative task performance of employees Similarly, an organization gives the employees higher work autonomy will increase the generation of new ideas during their task performance (Zhou, 1998) From this review, this thesis hypothesized that:
H4: Freedom is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Opportunity exploration, Idea generation, Championing, Idea Implementation)
2.3.5 Sufficient resource and employee’s innovative behavior
The resource (financial resource, information, data, materials, human…) allocate to a project or work can affect creativity Amabile (1989) assessed that because the necessity of resources is too obvious so that there are not so many research pay attention to this factor A review by Amabile et al., (1996) showed that there are still some researches (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Damanpour, 1991) proposed positive linkage between the allocation of resource and creativity of projects It is clear that extreme restriction of resource will significantly restrain what people can achieve In addition, if a company does not allocate enough resources for the work or project, related employees may imply this scarcity as a signal that the work they are doing is not appreciated or considered important by their company
H5: Sufficient resource is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Opportunity exploration, Idea generation, Championing, Idea Implementation)
2.3.6 Challenging work and employee’s innovative behavior
The job design has been considered a factor that affects employee’s intrinsic motivation and creative outputs (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Amabile, 1988; West &
Research model & scales
Based on the above literature and hypothesis development, the study proposes the research model as figure 2.1 below:
Below are summarized descriptions of scales:
Encouragement of risk-taking and idea generation, fair, and affirmative evaluation of new ideas, valuing of innovation from all levels of management, reward, and recognition of creativity, and cross-fertilization of ideas that result from participative management and decision making
Supervisors who provide goal clarity, give support of the team’s work and ideas, and engage in open interactions with subordinated and supervisory
Organizational creativity climate Employee's innovative behaviors
Workgroup support Stimulation of creativity through qualities found within the group such as team member diversity, the constructive challenge of ideas, mutual openness to ideas, and shared commitment to the project
Freedom/Autonomy Freedom to decide what work to do or how to do it, to have a sense of control over one’s work Sufficient resources Access to appropriate resources, including funds, facilities, materials, and information Challenging work A belief that tasks are important and therefore provides a source of motivation, work that is intellectually challenging Organizational impediment
Internal strife, conservatism and rigid, formal management structure
Workload pressure Extreme time pressures, unrealistic expectations for productivity and distractions from creative work Opportunity exploration
Opportunity exploration includes looking for ways to improve current services or delivery processes or trying to think about work processes, product or services in alternative ways
Idea generation Idea generation refers to generating concepts for the purpose of improvement Championing Championing includes behaviors related to finding support and building coalitions, such as persuading and influencing other employees or management, and pushing and negotiating
Implementation can mean improving existing products or procedures, or developing new ones
Source: Amabile (1996) and De Jong & Den Hartog (2008)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Sampling
The survey was conducted online with participation of employees working in Vietnam
In total, 248 responses returned in which 245 responses were valid and being used for data analysis Detailed description of sample characteristics will be presented in section 4.1.
Data collection procedure
All measurement items used in this research are adopted from prior researches Firstly, the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese and being checked Then, a pilot test is conducted with the participation of 22 people both online and offline Then, the translation was finalized and confirmed before being inputted into Google form The questionnaire was designed in Vietnam and consists of two parts (see Appendices A)
Part I asked respondents demographic questions (gender, age), their type of jobs, service time in current company, etc Part II was designed to collect assessments from employees about their innovative behaviors and perceptions about creativity climate of their organization Part II included 76 questions in total Assessing organizational creativity climate under KEY model included 66 questions to measure 8 components while the research used 10 questions to measure 4 components of employee’s innovative behavior
Each question was a statement followed by a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree
Method to collect data was conducting online surveys with employees In order to avoid response bias, the auto-mix mode was activated, so that the questions will be mixed randomly for each respondent Link of online survey is as below: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeSQ15hLl54JW6TcBhb9VdqTwQQ735 TIePdP8_QIbiiAMuPAA/viewform
The online survey link is posted publicly on social network channels, including Facebook & Zalo The author uses this channel because according to the statistic from Hootsuite and We Are Social, until Apr 2018 Vietnam had 58 million Facebook users (Top 7 globally) and the average age of all users is around 30 Therefore, many of them are in working age and are potential respondents of this research Meanwhile, 40% of Vietnamese people also using Zalo daily
Before starting the survey, respondents are informed that their answers are anonymity and will be used for research purpose only Respondents are asked to think about the organization they are working in and answer the questions It took each respondent about
15 minutes to complete the questionnaire The data collection process was carried out from Apr 05th to 24th April 2019.
Data Analysis
Statistical Package for Social Science version 20.0 was used for the analysis of data
First of all, the collected data will be screened to reject all invalid samples Only valid samples will be kept and encoded
Next, reliability and validity analysis will be conducted for all variables Then, means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among the variables will be computed Finally, single regression among scales of dependent and independent variables will be calculated for hypothesis testing.
Measurements
Construct for organizational creativity climate adopted components from Amabile’s componential model (1996) According to Amabile, KEYS is a tool for theorist and practitioners to understand the effects of context on creative and innovative behavior in an organization
There are eight environment scales, six scales for stimulants to creativity and two scales for obstacles Six stimulants are Organizational encouragement (OrgEn-15 items), Managerial encouragement (ManEn-11 items), Workgroup support (Group-8 items), Freedom (Free-4 items), Sufficient resources (Resource-6 items), Challenging work (Challen-5 items) Two obstacles scales are Organizational impediments (Impe-12 items), Workload pressure (Press-5 items) The measuring items for each scale are categorized in the appendix A
Totally, this research will use 66 items to measure the climate in organizations
De Jong and Den Hartog (2008) 10-items were used to rating the innovative behavior of the respondents There are four scales which are Opportunity exploration (Explore-2 items), Idea Generation (Gene-3 items), Idea championing (Cham-2 items), Idea Implementation (Imple-3 items) (See appendix A for the measuring items of each scale)
Employee’s innovative behaviors is an individual measure in which respondents were asked about their own innovative behaviors This study uses a self-report survey by employees This approach also being used by other researchers such as Dul et al., (2011), Hocevar (1981), Shalley, Gilson, & Blum (2009) They reasoned that because employees who committed innovative behavior were undertaken different stipulations Therefore, it is optimal to use self-evaluation to evaluate employee’s innovative behavior disregarding whether the managers and co-workers understand or observe these behaviors Thus, to assess the employee innovative behavior, self-report is a useful method (Kaufman, Cole, & Baer, 2009).
RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Demographic analysis
Below is table summary the main demographic characteristic of 245 participants:
Table 4.1: Summary of sample characteristics
Job type High creativity intensive 83 33.9
As can be seen from the table above, gender distribution among participants is higher for female The proportion of female accounted for 63.7% (nearly two-thirds with 156 responses) while that for a male is 36.3% (89 responses)
It’s also clear that the majority of the participant has age ranging from 26 to 35 years old There are 194 out of 245 participants are included in this range, accounting for 79% total participants The second largest group is the age of 16 to 25 made up 15% and another 6% is from 18 to 25 years old There is no participant who is over 45 years old participated in this survey The graph reveals that the age of the participants is quite homogenous
In addition, most of the participants have a university education or above which are accounted for 71.4% and 25.7% respectively Participants with college education only accounted for 2.4% and only 1 participant (0.4%) with vocational education It can be seen that the education level of participants is relatively high and homogeneous
Experience in this table means a number of years that participants have worked in the current company/organization, it does not represent the whole working experience of participants Around one-fourth of participants have worked less than one year in the current organization Similarly, participants who work from 3 to 5 years also accounted for one-fourth of total participants People with 1 to 3 years’ experience and more than
5 years’ experience represent 31% and 18% respectively
Among participants, around one-third (33.9%) are working in high creativity intense jobs such as marketing, entertainment, IT, design, etc Remaining 66.1% of participants are doing the job with characteristics that require lower creativity intensive such as accounting, finance, etc High creativity intensive and low creativity intensive jobs are categorized with reference from the “Creativity Economy Outlook” by UNCTAD (2018) in which creative goods and services are classified in 14 sub-groups In the question
“What is your work function”, all jobs belong to first 7 categories (1 Art, cultural, entertainment field, 2 Design, architecture, 3 Journal, publishing, 4 IT, software, computer services, 5 Advertising, marketing, marketing communication, 6 Engineering, technical service, 7 R&D, market research) are categorized as high creativity intensive
Meanwhile, finance, accounting, administrative, HR and other jobs are categorized as low creativity intensive It is impossible to cover all creative components in the questionnaire so the categorization in this research is just relatively reflect the real situation.
Reliability analysis
Table 4.2: Summarize Cronbach’s Alpha values
Scales No of variables Cronbach’s Alpha
According to Nguyen Dinh Tho, Science research method in business, 2 nd Edition, Page
355, Cronbach’s Alpha only measure the reliability of scales from 3 variables but not test reliability for each variable Two scales opportunity exploration and idea championing have only 2 variables (less than 3 variables) so reliability test is not conducted
To sum up, through reliability analysis conducted for 10 scales, NO items are rejected
The initial scales still remain with 76 variables.
Exploratory factor analysis
4.3.1 Exploratory analysis of Organizational creativity climate scales
Organizational creativity climate scale initially contains 66 variables and all of these items remain after reliability analysis Therefore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is conducted with these 66 variables and results are shown as the below table:
Table 4.3: Exploratory factor analysis of Organizational creativity climate
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
OrgEn7 763 OrgEn11 761 OrgEn3 734 OrgEn12 722 OrgEn5 682 OrgEn2 652 OrgEn8 634 OrgEn10 631 OrgEn6 607 OrgEn14 606 OrgEn4 582 OrgEn9 568 OrgEn1 537 ManEn1
In this case, KMO value is 0.930 (greater than 0.5) with significant 000 so factor analysis is appropriate As can be seen from the table, with 8 extracted components, the cumulative % of Variance is 65.146% shows that these 8 components explain 65.146% of organizational creativity climate variance Eight items ManEn1, OrgEn13, OrgEn15, Impe12, ManEn10, ManEn11, Challen1, and Free4 have factor loading value less than 0.5 so these items will be rejected from data
The first component is defined by items from OrgEn and ManEn scales However, item ManEn9 has two-factor loadings in which 508 (component 1) is higher than 0.5 but not clearly differentiates from 596 (component 4) Thus, item ManEn9 is rejected from data
The second component is defined by 11 items from Impediment (Impe) scale and item Press4 from Press scale However, item Press4 has two factors loading in which 549 (component 2) is just slightly lower than 590 (component 6) As a result, item Press4 will be rejected from data The third component is defined by 8 items from Group scale
The fourth component picks up 8 items from ManEn scale but item ManEn9 already rejected from data as explained when analyzing the first component The fifth component characterized by 6 items from the Resource scale The sixth component defined by 5 items from Press scale Similar to the 4 th component, item Press4 also be rejected as explained in the second component section The seventh component comprises 4 items from Challen scale Final component picks up 3 items from Free scale
In short, exploratory factor analysis, in the first time, extract 8 factors, and rejects 10 items from data: ManEn1, OrgEn13, OrgEn15, Impe12, ManEn10, ManEn11, Challen1, Free4, ManEn9 and Press4 The Organizational creativity climate scale now includes 56 observed variables, divided into 8 components Then, 2 nd factor analysis will be conducted Results of these analyses are as in Table 4.4 below:
Table 4.4: Factor analysis for Organizational creativity climate scale – 2 nd time
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
OrgEn Impe Group ManEn Resource Challen Press Free
OrgEn11 781 OrgEn7 759 OrgEn3 756 OrgEn12 744 OrgEn5 696 OrgEn2 681 OrgEn10 647
OrgEn6 621 OrgEn14 590 OrgEn4 590 OrgEn1 578 OrgEn9 565
Table 4.3 shows that 8 components have Cronbach’s Alpha higher than 0.7 In other words, all 8 components have good internal consistency and are reliable
The cumulative % of Variance is 66.688% (higher than the previous value of 65.146%) shows that these 8 components explain 66.688% of creativity climate variance
To sum up, the organizational creativity climate scale now includes 56 variables, belong to 8 components: OrgEn, Impe, Group, ManEn, Resource, Challen, Press, and Free
4.3.2 Exploratory factor analysis of employee’s innovative behavior scale
Table 4.5: Exploratory factor analysis of employee’s innovative behavior
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
As can be seen from the table above, the analysis extracted 2 components The first component is defined by items from Im scale, Cham scale, and Gene scale However, item Gene3 has loaded into two components which is component 1(.541) and component 4(.638) These 2 values are both greater than 0.5 but the difference is too small (less than 0.3) Thus, item Gene3 is rejected from data
The initial construct of employee’s innovative behavior adopted measurement of De Jong & Den Hartog (2008) with 4 dimensions: Opportunity exploration, Idea Generation, Idea Championing and Idea implementation However, after exploratory factor analysis, items loaded into 2 factors in which opportunity exploration and idea generation loaded into 1 component and idea championing and idea implementation loaded into another component This result is compatible with models proposed by Krause (2004) and Dorenbosch, Engen, & Verhagen (2005) in which innovative behavior include 2 dimensions represent creativity-oriented behaviors and implementation-oriented behaviors This result may suggests that innovative behaviors in Vietnam could be 2- stages process (creativity and implementation) instead of 4-stages process In other word, two dimensional measurement could be a more suitable measurement for innovative behaviors in Vietnam context Given result of rotated component matrix, the employee’s innovative behavior scale now includes 9 observed variables, divided into 2 components namely Creativity-oriented behaviors (Crea-Ori) and implementation-oriented behaviors (Imple-Ori)
The 2nd reliability analysis and factor analysis is also conducted for employee’s innovative behavior Results of these analyses are as in Table 4.6 below:
Table 4.6 Reliability and Exploratory factor analysis of employee’s innovative behavior- 2 nd time
Scales No of variables Cronbach’s Alpha
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Component Imple-ori Crea-ori
As can be seen from the table, the KMO value is 860 with Sig is 000 This means the data is valid for exploratory factor analysis The analysis extracts 2 components which have eigenvalues of 4.896 and 1.454 respectively (greater than 1) The % of the cumulative variance is 70.560% which indicated that these components can explain 70.560% variance in employee’s innovative behavior
To conclude, after running exploratory factor analysis, the employee’s innovative behavior scale includes 9 observed variables, extracted to 2 components which are Crea-Ori and Imple-Ori
After EFA, two scales Explore and Gene together defines Crea-Ori component Cham scale and Im scale also join together to define Imple-Ori component Below are the revised research model & hypotheses:
H1: Organizational encouragement is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
H2: Managerial encouragement is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
H3: Workgroup support is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
H4: Freedom is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
H5: Sufficient resource is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
H6: Challenging work is positively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
Organizational creativity climate Employee's innovative behaviors
Workgroup support Creativity oriented behaviors
Challenging work Implementation oriented behaviors
H7: Organizational impediment is negatively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
H8: Workload pressure is negatively associated with employee’s innovative behaviors (Creativity oriented behaviors, implementation-oriented behaviors)
Regression analysis
Firstly, mean scores of both dependent variables (Crea-Ori, Imple-Ori) and independent variables (OrgEn, ManEn, Group, Free, Resource, Challen, Impe, Press) for
245 participants are calculated Then correlation analysis is conducted with the result as table 4.7 below It can be seen from below table that all dimensions of organizational creativity climate (both stimulants and obstacles) are positively correlated to dimensions of employee’s innovative behaviors (creativity oriented behavior and implementation oriented behavior)
Mean SD OrgEn ManEn Group Free Resource Challen Impe Press Crea-
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Then single regression analyses are conducted for each pair of the dependent variable and independent variable Totally 16 regressions were run with the result as below table:
Table 4.8: Structural relationships and hypotheses testing
Relationship Coefficient Standardized coefficient T-value Sig level Result
Impe Cre-Ori 270 344 5.715 000 Not supported
Press Cre-Ori 276 381 6.423 000 Not supported
Impe Imple-Ori 234 279 4.526 000 Not supported
Press Imple-Ori 184 237 3.802 000 Not supported
From table 4.7 and 4.8 above, all 8 independent variables (OrgEn, ManEn, Group, Free, Resource, Challen, Impe, and Press) show positive relationships with innovative behaviors (Cre-Ori, Imple-Ori) In other words, six hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6) are supported but H7 and H8 are not supported
Specifically, Pressure, Challenging, and Organizational impediments imposed the biggest effects on Creativity oriented behaviors with standardized coefficients are 0.385, 0.381 and 0.344 respectively Meanwhile, Freedom (β=0.172), Managerial encouragement (β=0.196), and Organizational encouragement (β=0.264) have less effects on Creativity oriented behaviors
For Implementation oriented behaviors: Challenging (β=0.433) is still the factor that carries the strongest effect The next factors are freedom, resource, organizational encouragement, and group support with β coefficients are 0.391, 0.386, 0.373, and 0.365 respectively In contract with challenging, pressure & organizational impediment which had a strong influence on Creativity oriented behaviors but show a much smaller effect on implementation oriented behaviors.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Discussion
In this research, the organizational creativity of companies in Vietnam was accessed through KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity The scores of 8 climate dimensions are calculated by the mean components as showed in table 4.7 It indicates that all stimulant factors (OrgEn, ManEn, Group, Free, Resource, and Challen) are at a fairly high level with scores ranging from 3.263 to 3.856 Challenging work is a factor with the highest mean score of 3.856 This indicates that participants in this research are experiencing the jobs that can make them feel challenged and being important Next is workgroup support with a score of 3.736 This means workgroup environment are fairly filled trust, help, and open communication The mean score for Freedom component is at the lowest level among these stimulant factors (3.263) This means that an organization, employees still have some freedom to decide what and how they are going to do and some control over their own works and ideas Meanwhile, organizational impediments and pressure are at an average level with scores of 2.697 and 2.81 respectively In general, the creativity climate in organizations in Vietnam is at a fairly high level
Similarly, creativity-oriented behavior and implementation oriented behavior are also at fairly high level with mean scores are 3.497 and 3.491 respectively
5.1.1 Impacts of creativity climate factors on creativity oriented behaviors
From table 4.8, challenging work is the factor that has the strongest influence on creativity oriented behaviors This result can be explained by the sample characteristic of this research in which most of the participants have a good educational background (97.1% with university education and higher) and doing complex tasks that require a certain level of intellectual creativity (nearly 34% doing highly creativity job) Given their education level and their job’s nature, it can be interpreted that participants in this research may have higher intrinsic motivation at work, in comparison with labors or workers doing repetitive and simple tasks As discussed in hypothesis development part, with higher intrinsic motivation, these people will find challenging work is desirable and is an important source of motivation for them to be creative Moreover, this result also same as a finding of Amabile (1989) in which Challenge was the strongest predictor of creativity
It is surprising that freedom has the positive influence but the effect is small, meanwhile organizational impediments present positive and stronger effects on creativity oriented behaviors However, there are some researches already proposed same ideas For example, a study by Sagiv, Arieli, & Goldenberg (2009) found that creativity was higher under structured conditions Research by Joyce (2009) suggested that constraint- any restriction imposed on freedom such as rules, boundaries, and scarcity- can influence the creative process in a curvilinear fashion The study indicates that moderate level of constraint is optimal for an individual’s creativity In this research, organizational impediments can be considered as a constraint factor which is at a moderate level, and in turn, imposed positive influence on creativity behavior
In this research, workload pressure also at an average level and positively affected creativity-oriented behavior A research findings from Ren & Zhang (2015) indicated that the nature of the stress moderate the relationship between job stress and idea generation They argued that if the stress is challenging in nature, such as time pressure, then the relationship could be positive Hon & Kim (2007) also mentioned that individual creativity may be influenced positively by the presence of a higher workload Moreover, Robbins and Judge (2008) argued that there is reversed U shape relationship between level of workload pressure and an employee creativity To be more specific, this means that an appropriate level of pressure will impose positive effects but overwhelming pressure or too little will show negative results From these researches and reviewed literature, the effect of workload pressure on creativity is difficult to judge In this case, employee’s perception about the problem or the work itself In this study, workload pressure is average level which can be considered as “appropriate” level that contributed positively to the creativity-oriented behaviors
Other climate factors such as “Organizational encouragement”, “Managerial encouragement”, “Workgroup support”, and “Resource” shows moderate influence on creativity-oriented behaviors It can be interpreted that creativity oriented behaviors require more initiatives from the employees themselves Therefore, the role of supporting factors from the work environment seems to be less important
5.1.2 Impacts of creativity climate factors on implementation oriented behaviors
Again, challenging work is the climate factor that contributes to the strongest effect on implementation oriented behaviors This result is in support of previous literature by Amabile & Gryskiewicz (1989) The literature review by McLean (2005) also proposed that an environment that provides both support and challenge would sustain the innovation among employees and within the organization
Though the effect is less significant, Obstacles factors still contribute positively to implementation behaviors One possible reason is that these factors may interact with other variables and with employee’s trait and skills Another possible explanation is the effect of obstacle factors is not necessarily direct, but more likely indirect Therefore, further research should be conducted to reveal the underlying process/mechanism behind these results
Finally, different from creativity, implementation of creative ideas requires a higher level of support from the workplace such as freedom (0.391), resources (0.386), organizational encouragement (0.373) and Workgroup support (0.365) This means that organization supports plays an important role in assisting employees to implement the creative ideas to make it become real innovations, regardless it is radical or minor innovations It is reasonable as the implementation of the idea is often perceived as much more difficult as searching and come up with an idea To successfully implement this idea, the employees must make effort to defense for their ideas, interact and solicit other members of organizations to support their ideas, and doing a lot of works to make an idea become real changes These employees are exposed to a certain level of risk when they try to introduce innovative ideas into work practices That is why at this stage, they need more autonomy to make a decision, more resource and support from workgroup and organization.
Theoretical implications
Firstly, this research is the first attempt to comprehensively evaluate the effect of factors of creativity climate on specific dimensions of innovative behaviors Previous researches often study about the effect of climate factors on innovative behaviors in general In this research, innovative behavior of employees was categorized into 2 dimensions and results shown that creativity climate factors have different effects on each dimension
Secondly, result from this thesis also confirmed the findings of previous researches about the positive effect of factors such as challenge, organizational support, and freedom on employee’s innovation Meanwhile, this study also shows different result about relationship between factors which was traditionally considered as obstacles for innovation, and innovative behaviors of employees This result opens directions for future empirical research about individual creativity in Vietnam setting
Thirdly, this research provides empirical evidence from the Vietnam context
Therefore, it contributes into current literature about how component constructs of creativity climate affect innovative behaviors of employees, with perspective from a non- Western country
Finally, with high reliability and validity, KEYS scales again is still a suitable instrument for assessing creativity climate in organizations, including organizations in Vietnam Moreover, with items of innovative behaviors loaded into 2 factors, it suggests that innovative behaviors in Vietnam is more likely to be 2-stages process rather than 4 stages This research model can be useful for companies in Vietnam to assess the work environment as well as innovations among their workforce.
Practical implications
Findings from this study provide some benefits to organizational leaders, especially for managers in multinational companies doing business in Vietnam to consider future competitiveness
Firstly, the findings indicate that challenging work is the factor that has biggest contribute to both types of innovative behaviors That means employees in Vietnam are motivated to be more creative if they are assigned interesting and intellectual challenging tasks Therefore, it is critical for organizations to pay attention to job design and person- job-fit so that employees have the feel of being challenged, especially for companies in the innovative industry or companies with high intellectual intensive Challenging jobs with complex tasks, intellectual challenging, requires a variety of skills, significance should be considered if managers wish to motivate the creativity and innovation among their employees Moreover, there are some simple practices managers can do to make the job more challenging such as: (1) Setting demanding but realistic deadlines for tasks
(2) Setting the learning and development goals for employees (3) Encouraging employees to solve the problems by themselves rather than relying on managers
Secondly, organizational impediments and workload pressure present at most of the organizations as a natural part of an organization itself In the organization, some employees have high intrinsic work motivation, for them, these impediments and pressure could be perceived as a source of job challenge and positively promote their creativity However, it does not mean that organization’s managers should exploit these factors It’s important to keep in mind the inverted “U” shape effect discussed above To encourage innovative behaviors within these employees, it is recommended to control these factors at a moderate level
Thirdly, creativity-oriented behavior and implementation oriented behavior of employees are affected differently by climate factors Specifically, implementation- oriented behaviors normally require employees to protect their ideas against skepticism, criticism, and consistently implement the ideas; thus, at this stage, employees may need more freedom/ autonomy, resources, and support from the organization Meanwhile, creativity oriented behaviors require less of these outside support but more about the nature of the challenging job and challenging situations (organizational impediments and workload pressure) that could arouse their thinking for creative solutions Vietnamese people also have a saying “Necessity is the mother of invention” to reflect how creativity can pop out in difficult situations Given different effects of creativity climate on innovative behaviors, managers of the company should aware of these differences to combine and promote critical factors.
Limitations and future research direction
As many other researches, this research still involves a number of limitations need to be acknowledged and addressed in future research
Firstly, this research is conducted online so the answering process of the participant is not controlled Secondly, due to time constraint and limited resources, the sample size of this research is quite small (245 valid responses) and the female participant is a nearly double number of male participants so this may reduce the generalization of the population as a whole Therefore, research using offline survey on a national scale should be carried out to collect about 1,000 valid responses Thirdly, the survey was based on self-report by employees so the data collected may be subjective Therefore, in order to reduce data’s subjectiveness, the future work should measure employee’s innovative behaviors using both self-report and supervisory rating Finally, future research could examine the impact of demographic differences (such as age, sex, education, etc) on research results and re-test and explaining the effect of obstacle factors
The business environment in Vietnam is becoming more and more competitive Thus, organizations are trying to maintain their competitive advantages through innovations
This research looks into the innovation within the organization at the lowest level- innovative behaviors of employees This research has tested the influence of creativity climate factors on each dimension of employee’s innovative behaviors and found that challenging work is the climate factor which has the biggest impact on both creativity- oriented and implementation-oriented behaviors
Unexpectedly, obstacles factors including workload pressure and organizational impediments also impose positive and significant influence on creativity-related behaviors Meanwhile, freedom does not contribute so much to this first stage However, when it comes to implementation of these creative ideas, supports from organization, workgroup, freedom, and resource plays important roles in this process Due to time, resource constraints, and limited research capability, this research still remains many shortcomings The author always welcomes comments and suggestions for completing this research
Abdullah, N H., Wahab, E., & Shamsuddin, A (2015) Organizational Culture , Creativity Climate and Organizational Innovativeness : Are They Linked ?
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology, 3(December 2015), 106–110
Abstein, A., & Spieth, P (2014) Exploring HRM meta-features that foster employees’ innovative work behavior in times ofincreasing work– life conflict Journal of
Akram, T., Lei, S., & Haider, M J (2017) The impact of relational leadership on employee innovative work behavior in IT industry of China Arab Economic and Business Journal, 11(2), 153–161 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aebj.2016.06.001
Amabile, T M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–
Amabile, T M., & Gryskiewicz, N D (1989) The Creative Environment Scales: Work Environment Inventory Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 231–253 https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418909534321
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J (2014) Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Andrews, F M & Farris, G F (1967) Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams Personnel Psychology, 20, 497-575
Axtell, C., Holman, D., & Wall, T (2006) Copyright © The British Psychological Society Promoting innovation : A change study Copyright © The British Psychological Society 509–516 https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X68240
Axtell, C M., Holman, D J., Unsworth, K L., Wall, T D., & Waterson, P E (2000)
Shopfloor innovation : Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas
Bani-Melhem, S., Zeffane, R., & Albaity, M (2018) Determinants of employees’ innovative behavior International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1601–1620 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2017-0079
Does the composition of the team make a dif- ference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124; doi:10.1002/smj.4250100709
Carmeli, A (2007) The Role of Job Challenge and Organizational Identification in Enhancing Creative Behavior among Employees in the Workplace 41(2), 75–90 Çekmecelioğlu, H G., & Günsel, A (2013) The Effects of Individual Creativity and Organizational Climate on Firm Innovativeness Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 99, 257–264 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.493
Cunha, R., Wong, S I., Van Rossenberg, Y., Shipton, H., Dysvik, A., Jorgensen, F., … Sanders, K (2018) Performance-based rewards and innovative behaviors Human Resource Management, 57(6), 1455–1468 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21918
Damanpour, F (1991) Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590
Deci, E L & Ryan, R M (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior New York: Plenum Press
De Jong & Ron Kemp (2003) DETERMINANTS OF CO-WORKERS ’ INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR : AN INVESTIGATION INTO 7(2), 189–212
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D (2010) Measuring innovative work behaviour Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
De Jong, J P J., & Den Hartog, D N (2007) How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41–64 https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546
Den Hartog, D N., & De Jong, J (2008) Innovative work behavior: measurement and validation (November)
Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M L va., & Verhagen, M (2005) On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129–141 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x
Fairness, H., Make, P., Behavior, I., Author, L S., Source, O J., Issue, S., … Url, W S
(2015) How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful
Gro Ellen Mathisen & Stale Einarsen (2004) A Review of Instruments Assessing Creative and Innovative Environments Within Organizations 0419(August 2013),
Hon, A H Y., & Kim, T (2007) Work Overload and Creativity : Goal Orientation , Task Feedback from Supervisor , and Reward for Competence (January)
Hunter, S T., Bedell, K E., & Mumford, M D (2007) Climate for creativity: A quantitative review Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69–90 https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883
Janssen, O (2005) The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behaviour Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 573–579 https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X25823
Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., & West, M (2004) The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: A Special Issue introduction Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 129–145 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.242
Jing Zhou, & Jennifer M George (2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–
Joo, B K (Brian), McLean, G N., & Yang, B (2013) Creativity and Human Resource Development: An Integrative Literature Review and a Conceptual Framework for Future Research Human Resource Development Review, 12(4), 390–421 https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484313481462 Joyce, K (2009) The Blank Page: Effects of Constraint on Creativity
Kahai, S S., Sosik, J J., & Avolio, B J (2003) Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 499–524
Kimberley, J.R & M.J Evanisko (1981), Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations, Academy of management journal, 24,
Krause, D E (2004) Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors An empirical investigation
Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79–102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006
Madjar, N (2008) Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Moghimi, S., & Devi Subramaniam, I (2013) Employees’ Creative Behavior: The Role of Organizational Climate in Malaysian SMEs International Journal of Business and Management, 8(5), 1–12 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n5p1
Moultrie, J., & Young, A (2009) Exploratory study of organizational creativity in creative organizations Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 299–314 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00536.x
Neal, A., Griffin, M A., & Hart, P M (2000) The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior Safety Science, 34(1–3), 99–109 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
Litwin, G H., & Stringer, R A., Jr Motivation and organizational climate Boston:
Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1968
Oldham, G R., &Cummings, A (1996) Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634
Patterson et al (2004) Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 77, 193–216 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112070000939
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R (2005) Determinants of Innovative Work Behaviour: Development and Test of an Integrated Model
Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00334.x
Ren, F., & Zhang, J (2015) Job Stressors, Organizational Innovation Climate, and Employees’ Innovative Behavior Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 16–23 https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.992659
Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., & Goldenberg, J (2009) Structure and freedom in creativity : The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style (July) https://doi.org/10.1002/job
Sellgren, S F., Ekvall, G., & Thomas, G (2008) Leadership behavior of nurse managers in relation to job satisfaction and work climate Journal ofNursing
Scott, G (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607 https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rsn:20080009 Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., van der Heijden, B I J M., & Farrell, M (2017)
Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 67–77 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004
Sia, S K., & Appu, A V (2015) Work Autonomy and Workplace Creativity:
Moderating Role of Task Complexity Global Business Review, 16(5), 772–784 https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915591435
Sundgren, M., & Styhre, A (2007) Creativity and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in new drug development: A Whiteheadian perspective European Journal of
Innovation Management, 10(2), 215–235 https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710745260
Tesluk, P E., Farr, J L., & Klein, S R (1997) Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 27–41 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00779.x
Tsai, C T., & Tseng, W.W (2010) A research agenda of transformational leadership and innovative behavior for the hospitality industry: An integrated multilevel model
Annual international council on hotels restaurants and institutional education conference Puerto Rico, USA
UNCTAD (2018) Creativity Economy Outlook: Trends in International Trade in Creative Industries 445
Van de Ven, A (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation Management Science, 32, 590–607
West, M.A and Farr, J.L (1990) Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies Chichester: John Wiley
West, M A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H (2004) Twelve steps to heaven:
Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 13, 269–299
Yeh‐Yun Lin, C., & Liu, F (2012) A cross‐level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived innovation European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), 55–76 https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061211192834
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R W (2010) Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342
65038.html https://english.thesaigontimes.vn/61202/vietnam-stands-45th-in-global-innovation- index.html http://ven.vn/vietnam-supports-business-in-technology-innovation-34219.html https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-launches-innovation-network-to-tap- diaspora-expertise-3794880.html http://tuyengiao.vn/khoa-hoc/diem-danh-11-mang-xa-hoi-ua-thich-cua-nguoi-viet-nam-
118867 https://advertisingvietnam.com/2018/12/nhung-con-so-thong-ke-an-tuong-ve-social- media-nam-2018/
My name is Nguyen Thi Huyen, MBA student Currently I am doing research about innovation in organization Thank you so much for participating in this survey!
It will take about 15 minutes to complete below questions There is no “right” or “wrong” answer, you just need to answer below questions honestly to your true feeling and experience at current organization
The information you provided through this survey will be used for research purpose only Wish you have a nice day!
Please help answer below questions:
Gender: ☐ Male ☐ Female Age range: ☐18-25 ☐26-35 ☐36-45 ☐above 45 Education: ☐High school ☐Vocational education ☐College
☐University ☐Higher education Your work experience in current organization:
☐Under 1 year ☐from 1 to 3 years ☐from 3 to 5 years
☐Above 5 years What is your work function?
☐Staff ☐Team leader ☐Manager ☐ Top manager (CEO, CFO, COO…)
Below question are about you and your working environment Please read each statement and indicate to what extent you agree with that statement according to below scale: 1= Strongly Disagree 5= Strongly Agree
“People are encouraged to Solve Problems creatively in this organization”
2 “New Ideas are encouraged in this organization.” 1
3 “This organization has a good Mechanism for encouraging and developing creative Ideas.”
4 “People are encouraged to Take Risks in this organization.” 1
5 “In this organization, top management Expects that people will do Creative Work”
6 “I feel that top Management is Enthusiastic about my work.” 1
7 “Ideas are Judged Fairly in this organization.” 1
8 “People in this organization can Express unusual Ideas without the fear of being called stupid.”
9 “Failure is Acceptable in this organization, if the effort on the project was good.”
10 “Performance Evaluation in this organization is Fair.” 1
11 “People are Recognized for Creative work in this organization.”
12 “People are Rewarded for Creative work in this organization.” 1
13 “There is an Open Atmosphere in this organization” 1
14 “In this organization, there is a lively and active Flow of
15 “Overall, the people in this organization have a Shared Vision of where we are going and what we are trying to do.”
16 “My boss's Expectations for my work are Clear” 1
18 “My boss clearly Sets overall Goals for me.” 1
19 “My boss Communicates well with our work group” 1
20 “My boss has good Interpersonal Skills.” 1
21 “My boss shows Confidence in our work group.” 1
22 “My boss Values individual Contributions to project(s).” 1
23 “My boss serves as a good Work Model.” 1
24 “My boss is Open to new Ideas.” 1
25 “My boss Supports my work Group within the organization” 1
26 “I get constructive Feedback about my work.” 1
“My co-workers and I make a Good Team.” 1
28 “There is a feeling of Trust among the people I work with most closely”
29 “Within my work group, we Challenge each other's Ideas in a constructive way.”
30 “People in my work group are Open to new Ideas” 1
31 “In my work group, people are willing to Help Each Other” 1
32 “There is a good Blend of Skills in my work group.” 1
33 “The people in my work group are Committed to our work” 1
34 “There is free and Open Communication within my work group.”
35 “I have the freedom to decide how I am going to Carry Out 1 2 3 4 5
36 “I feel little Pressure to meet someone else's specifications in how I do my work.”
37 “I have the freedom to Decide What Project(s)/ Work I am going to do.”
38 “In my daily work environment, I feel a Sense of Control over my own work and my own ideas.”
“The Facilities I need for my work are readily Available to me.”
40 “Generally, I can get the Resources I need for my work.” 1
41 “The Budget for my project(s) is generally adequate.” 1
42 “I can get all the Data I need to carry out my projects successfully.”
43 “I am able to easily get the Materials I need to do my work.” 1
44 “The Information I need for my work is easily obtainable” 1
“I feel that I am working on Important Projects” 1
46 “The Tasks in my work are Challenging.” 1
47 “The tasks in my work call out the Best in Me.” 1
48 “The Organization has an urgent Need for successful completion of the work I am now doing.”
49 “I feel Challenged by the Work I am currently doing” 1
50 “There are many Political Problems in this organization.” 1
51 “There are many Destructive Competition within this organization.”
52 “People in this organization are very concerned about
53 “Other areas of the organization Hinder My Project(s).” 1
54 Impe “People are Critical of New Ideas in this organization.” 1
55 “Destructive Criticism is a problem in this organization.” 1
56 “People are concerned about Negative Criticism of their work in this organization.”
57 “People in this organization feel Pressure to produce anything acceptable, even if quality is lacking.”
58 “Top management is not Willing to Take Risks in this organization.”
59 “There is many Emphasis in this organization on Doing
Things the Way We Have Always Done Them.”
60 “Procedures and structures are too Formal in this organization.”
61 “This organization is Strictly Controlled by upper management.”
“I have too Much Work to do in too little time.” 1
63 “I do not have Sufficient Time to do my project(s).” 1
64 “I feel too often distracted by colleagues, emails…” 1
65 “There are unrealistic Expectations for what people can achieve in this organization.”
66 “I feel a sense of Time Pressure in my work.” 1
“I pay attention to issues that are no part of my daily work” 1
68 “I wonder how things can be improved” 1
“I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments”
70 “I generate original solutions for problems” 1
71 “I find new approaches to execute tasks” 1
72 “I make important organizational members enthusiastic for 1 2 3 4 5
73 “I attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea” 1
“I systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices”
75 “I contribute to the implementation of new ideas” 1
76 “I put effort in the development of new things” 1
Tôi tên là Nguyễn Thị Huyền, học viên MBA và đang làm nghiên cứu về sáng tạo trong tổ chức Cảm ơn bạn đã đồng ý tham gia khảo sát này
Bạn sẽ mất khoảng 15 phút để hoàn thành bảng câu hỏi dưới đây Không có câu trả lời
"đúng" hay "sai", chỉ cần bạn trả lời trung thực các câu hỏi theo kinh nghiệm và cảm nhận cá nhân của bạn Hãy chọn câu trả lời phù hợp nhất với bạn tại thời điểm này
Thông tin cá nhân của bạn sẽ được bảo mật tuyệt đối, tất cả các phản hồi và thông tin mà bạn cung cấp sẽ chỉ được sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu
Chúc bạn luôn vui vẻ !!!
Bạn vui lòng cho biết Giới tính: ☐ Nam ☐ Nữ Độ tuổi: ☐18-25 ☐26-35 ☐36-45 ☐Trên 45 Trình độ học vấn: ☐Tốt nghiệp THPT ☐Trung cấp ☐Cao đẳng ☐Đại học ☐Sau đại học
Thời gian công tác ở công ty hiện tại:
☐Dưới 1 năm ☐từ 1 đến 3 năm ☐từ 3 đến 5 năm ☐Trên 5 năm
Công việc của bạn thuộc lĩnh vực nào dưới đây:
☐Nghệ thuật, văn hóa, giải trí
☐Công nghệ thông tin, phầm mềm, dịch vụ máy tính
☐Kỹ thuật, tư vấn kỹ thuật
☐Nghiên cứu và phát triển (R&D), nghiên cứu thị trường
☐Tài chính, kế toán, hành chính, nhân sự
☐Khác: vui lòng ghi rõ
Vị trí của bạn tại công ty hiện tại:
☐Nhân viên ☐Trưởng nhóm (team leader) ☐Quản lý ☐ Quản lý cấp cao (CEO, CFO, COO…) Tiếp theo sẽ là các câu hỏi về cảm nhận của bạn về môi trường nơi bạn làm việc Hãy chọn đáp án tương ứng với mức độ đồng ý của bạn với các câu dưới đây, 1= Hoàn toàn KHÔNG đồng ý 5= Hoàn toàn đồng ý
STT Câu hỏi Trả lời
1 Trong công ty này, mọi người được khuyến khích giải quyết vấn đề một cách sáng tạo
2 Trong công ty này, các ý tưởng mới được khuyến khích
3 Công ty này có cơ chế tốt để khuyến khích và phát triển các ý tưởng sáng tạo
4 Trong công ty này, mọi người được khuyến khích chấp nhận rủi ro
5 Trong công ty này, ban lãnh đạo luôn kỳ vọng mọi người làm những công việc sáng tạo
6 Tôi cảm thấy ban lãnh đạo luôn quan tâm tới các dự án mà tôi đang tham gia
7 Trong công ty này, Các ý tưởng được đánh giá công bằng
8 Mọi người trong công ty có thể đưa ra các ý kiến khác lạ mà không sợ bị phê phán
9 Ở công ty này, dù thất bại cũng vẫn được chấp nhận, miễn là có nỗ lực trong công việc
10 Trong công ty này, hiệu quả công việc được đánh giá công bằng
11 Trong công ty này, mọi người được ghi nhận cho việc sáng tạo
12 Trong công ty này, mọi người được khen thưởng cho việc sáng tạo
13 Công ty này có bầu không khí cởi mở 1
14 Trong công ty này, luôn tràn ngập các ý tưởng mới mẻ
15 Mọi người trong công ty này có chung tầm nhìn về hướng đi và việc phải làm
16 Sếp của tôi có kỳ vọng rõ ràng về công việc/dự án của tôi
17 Sếp tôi lên kế hoạch rất tốt 1
18 Sếp tôi đặt ra mục tiêu tổng thể cho tôi một cách rõ ràng
19 Sếp tôi giao tiếp tốt với nhóm của tôi 1 2 3 4 5
20 Sếp tôi có kỹ năng ứng xử tốt 1
21 Sếp tôi thể hiện sự tin tưởng vào nhóm của tôi 1
22 Sếp tôi trân trọng đóng góp của các cá nhân vào dự án
23 Sếp tôi đóng vai trò như một hình mẫu trong công việc
24 Sếp tôi luôn chào đón các ý tưởng mới 1
25 Sếp tôi hỗ trợ nhóm tôi trong công ty 1
26 Tôi nhận được những phải hồi mang tính xây dựng về công việc của mình
27 Tôi và các đồng nghiệp tạo thành một đội/nhóm ăn ý
28 Có sự tin tưởng giữa những người mà tôi thường xuyên làm việc cùng
29 Trong nhóm của tôi, chúng tôi thách thức các ý tưởng của nhau theo hướng xây dựng
30 Mọi người trong nhóm tôi cởi mở với các ý tưởng mới
31 Trong nhóm tôi, mọi người sẵn sàng giúp đỡ lẫn nhau
32 Có sự pha trộn các kỹ năng giữa các thành viên trong nhóm tôi
33 Những người trong nhóm tôi luôn cam kết với công việc mình đang làm
34 Có sự giao tiếp tự do, cởi mở bên trong nhóm của tôi
35 Tôi có quyền tự do quyết định cách tôi sẽ thực hiện công việc của mình
Tôi cảm thấy ít bị áp lực trong việc phải đáp ứng các yêu cầu của người khác về cách tôi thực hiện công việc
37 Tôi có quyền tự do quyết định sẽ tham gia làm dự 1
Trong môi trường làm việc hàng ngày, tôi có cảm giác kiểm soát được công việc cũng như các ý tưởng của mình
39 Các phương tiện, dụng cụ để làm việc luôn sẵn sàng khi tôi cần
40 Nói chung, tôi có thể có các nguồn lực tôi cần để phục vụ công việc
41 Ngân sách cho dự án của tôi nhìn chung là đủ 1
42 Tôi có thể có được tất cả các dữ liệu tôi cần để thực hiện dự án một cách thành công
43 tôi có thể dễ dàng tiếp cận các tài liệu tôi cần để thực hiện công việc
44 Tôi có thể dễ dàng lấy được các thông tin mà tôi cần cho công việc
45 Tôi có cảm giác mình đang làm việc cho các dự án quan trọng
46 Nhiệm vụ công việc của tôi đầy thử thách 1
47 Công việc của tôi yêu cầu tôi phải nỗ lực hết sức mình
48 Công ty rất cần tôi hoàn thành tốt công việc của mình
49 Tôi cảm thấy được thử thách bởi công việc tôi đang làm
50 Có rất nhiều các vấn đề chính trị trong công ty này 1
51 có rất nhiều sự đấu đá, phá hoại lẫn nhau trong công ty này
52 Những người trong công ty này rất quan tâm đến việc bảo vệ vị trí của mình
53 Các bộ phận khác của công ty cản trở công việc của tôi
54 Trong công ty này, mọi người chỉ trích các ý tưởng mới
55 Viêc phê bình thiếu tính xây dựng là một vấn đề của công ty này
56 Trong công ty này, mọi người để tâm đến những chỉ trích tiêu cực về công việc của họ
Mọi người trong công ty này cảm thấy áp lực về việc phải tạo ra thứ gì đó có thể chấp nhận được, dù chất lượng không đạt
58 Trong công ty này, ban lãnh đạo không sẵn sàng chấp nhận rủi ro
59 Công ty này rất coi trọng việc phải làm mọi thứ theo lối cũ
60 Các quy trình và thủ tục trong công ty rất cứng nhắc 1
61 Công ty này bị kiểm soát chặt chẽ bởi lãnh đạo cấp trên
62 Tôi phải làm quá nhiều việc trong khoảng thời gian quá ngắn
63 Tôi không có đủ thời gian để thực hiện công việc của mình
64 Tôi cảm thấy thường xuyên bị phân tâm bởi đồng nghiệp, emails, …
65 công ty này đặt ra những kỳ vọng/mục tiêu phi thực tế cho nhân viên
66 Tôi cảm thấy bị áp lực về thời gian khi làm việc 1
67 Tôi để ý đến các vấn đề ngoài công việc việc của mình
68 Tôi tự hỏi làm cách nào để cải tiến mọi thứ 1
69 Tôi tìm kiếm các phương pháp làm việc mới, kỹ thuật mới hoặc công cụ mới phục vụ công việc
70 Tôi nghĩ ra các giải pháp ban đầu cho vấn đề 1
71 Tôi tìm cách tiếp cận mới để giải quyết công việc 1
72 Tôi làm cho các thành viên quan trọng trong công ty nhiệt tình với các ý tưởng sáng tạo
73 Tôi cố gắng thuyết phục mọi người ủng hộ các ý tưởng sáng tạo
