Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Establishing a work environment that is conducive to creativity and innovation is a key priority for organizations of all kinds. A variety of measures have been developed to assess the climate and culture for creativity and innovation and some limited literature is available that reviews these. Those sources that do review these assessments usually include only a handful of measures and their reviews are brief. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively summarize forty years of research, development, and application of one of these assessments called the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ). This summary includes an overview of the development, conceptual and theoretical foundations, psychometric characteristics, as well as the status of the evidence for reliability and validity of the SOQ. It also includes three new analyses of data that illustrate its relationship to a variety of other variables. Finally, although much progress has been made, the article concludes by suggesting a number of future fruitful pathways for further inquiry.

Keywords

Creative climate situational outlook questionnaire work environment for creativity and innovation

Establishing conditions that support creativity and innovation is a major challenge for all organizations to help them survive and grow. Having measures that provide for productive assessment of this kind of climate can help those who lead and manage organizations. One such measure, the Situational Outlook Questionnaire has been available since the 1980s (Isaksen, 2007; Isaksen et al., 1999).

A wide variety of measures exists, yet few attempts have been made to synthesize and evaluate measures of climate for creativity and innovation (e.g., Dubina, 2013; Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004; Moultrie & Young, 2009). These have focused on a select handful of assessments, and some have included rather cursory reviews (e.g., da Silva Veiga & Cortez, 2022). Those who may be considering using an assessment of the climate or work environment for creativity and innovation need to have a more comprehensive picture of any measure they may apply.

The purpose of this article is to provide potential researchers and practitioners a comprehensive summary of the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ). This includes up-to-date psychometrics, and evidence of reliability, validity, and uses of the assessment. This article represents the most current and comprehensive overview of more than 40 years of research, development, and practical application of the SOQ. Further, we present three new analyses of SOQ data to illustrate aspects of its validity.

The Creative Climate Project

The impetus for the creative climate project stems from a program of research and development initially focused on the impact of learning and applying creative problem solving (CPS). Earlier work on the Creative Studies Project had demonstrated the effectiveness of learning and applying CPS (Parnes, 1987). This program of research spawned two additional areas of inquiry. The first was a series of impact studies to find out what aspects of CPS worked in applied settings. This resulted in significant changes to our instructional efforts (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004). The second area of inquiry was the Cognitive Styles Project (Isaksen, 2004) that focused on improving our understanding individual differences associated with learning and applying CPS.

The importance of the work environment emerged as a key theme from our continuous efforts to study the impact of learning CPS (e.g., Isaksen, 2023c). Participants who returned to their workplaces felt that they had the means, but their motive and opportunity to apply what they learned greatly depended on the nature of their work environment. This led to the formation of the key guiding question for our inquiry: what (aspects of CPS) works (has impact), for whom (different styles), under what circumstances (climate)?

The impetus for the creative climate project was based on practical experiences and needs. Yet, we realized that our work on the work environment (climate and culture) for creativity and innovation sits within a complex conceptual and theoretical landscape – all four constructs are complex, muti-dimensional, and multi-level.

The creative climate project, through cooperative efforts of other scholars, has yielded 74 dissertations and theses, 246 published articles, chapters, books and monographs. One keystone of the project has been the development and validation of the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ).

Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations of the SOQ

Our primary reliance has been on theories that place creativity within a complex social system (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Hennessey, 2017; Katz & Kahn, 1978) and consider an interactionist approach to creative behavior as influenced by both the person and situation (e.g. Tett et al., 2021; Woodman et al., 1993; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989, 1990). This led us to embrace an ecological approach to our program of research (e.g. Isaksen et al., 1993; Staber, 2011; Withagen & van der Kamp, 2018).

The idea that people observe patterns of behavior, and that these observations stem from the interaction of multiple factors within the larger psychosocial organizational environment is supported by a diversity of theories. Over the past 40 years we’ve identified many of these theoretical foundations that are aligned and complementary with the importance of social conditions influencing creative behavior. Many of these theories belong to the person-environment fit family (De Cooman & Vleugels, 2022). For example, Social Cognitive Theory posits that behavior stems from the dynamic interaction of people with their environment (e.g. Bandura, 2001, 2018).

The creative climate project was influenced by the groundbreaking work of Göran Ekvall, a Swedish industrial psychologist who was one of the earliest scholars who recognized the importance of the climate for creativity. His work on employee suggestion systems led him to see that the nature of the climate, beyond individual characteristics of the suggesters, made a difference for innovation (Ekvall, 1976). His review of literature led to a bounded definition of creative climate, a preliminary conceptual model, and a measure called the Creative Climate Questionnaire (Ekvall, 1983). His visit to us in 1984 was foundational to our program of research. We see climate as the consistent and persistent observations of patterns of behavior and interaction that characterize life within the organization. A creative climate is those observed patterns of behavior that influence creativity and innovation. Creativity is defined as the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system (Woodman, 2014, p. 472). Innovation is focused on the adoption, execution, and implementation of these new outcomes.

Many factors within the broader work environment influence the climate for creativity and innovation. This climate also influences many outcomes within the workplace. We have built on Ekvall’s (1987; 1996) original conceptual model by integrating Burke and Litwin’s (1992) work on organizational change. Our conceptual model’s origin and use are more fully elaborated in Isaksen (2013; 2017; 2023a). This model presents climate as an intervening multi-level construct influenced by numerous antecedent factors and influences numerous outcomes and dependent constructs. A few key distinctions are noteworthy. The first is the placement of organizational culture as an antecedent to climate. Culture and climate are two primary constructs included within the literature on work environment (Ehrhardt et al., 2014; Schneider et al., 2017). In contrast to climate, organizational culture is conceived as shared values, beliefs, and assumptions reflecting the deeper identity of the organization, and can often exist at the preconscious level (Schneider et al., 2017). Climate is what people within the organization experience, and culture refers to what the organization values. Contrary to culture’s current salience in popular vernacular, the consensus is that organizational culture is an antecedent to climate – climate is considered an ‘artifact’ of culture (e.g. Ostroff et al., 2013; Schein, 2017) and an organizational attribute.

The second noteworthy issue relating to our conceptual model is the placement of leadership behavior as an antecedent to climate. The importance of leadership behavior in creating a climate for creativity, innovation, and change is well supported in the literature (e.g. Isaksen, 2017; Sheffield et al., 2022). Some measures of the climate for creativity and innovation include leadership as a climate dimension. Since leadership behavior is such an influential factor, we consider it as an antecedent to climate. For example, Ostroff et al. (2013: p. 652) argued that “the constructs of leadership and climate should be treated separately, and the behaviors and styles of supervisors should be viewed as triggers or antecedents of climate.” By treating leadership this way, deeper insights can be gleaned regarding the dynamics of how it influences climate (e.g. Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Sandvik et al., 2015).

The Development of the SOQ

Following Ekvall’s visits to our academic program, we worked with him to create an English translation of the Swedish CCQ in 1986. The initial translation, as well as the following five iterations of its development has resulted in the seventh and current version of the SOQ (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2015b). The item performance, item-to-scale correlations, scale reliability, factor analysis, as well as related reliability and validity studies have been reported in Isaksen et al. (1999), Isaksen and Ekvall (2015b) and Isaksen (2007; 2023a). The SOQ assesses nine dimensions of a climate for creativity and innovation. The 53 items of the SOQ measure these nine dimensions. The first item is not scored as it is a dummy item. The number of items for each scale is presented in Table 1. Detailed information on the development of items is available in Isaksen and Ekvall (2015b).

Table 1.

Dimensions of the SOQ.

SOQ climate dimension	Definition and sample items	Mean	Range	SD	SEM	Alpha
Challenge/Involvement (7 items)	The degree to which people are involved in daily operations, long-term goals, and visions. High challenge/Involvement implies better levels of engagement, commitment, and motivation Sample items: People here take a sincere interest in their work. People here feel deeply committed to their jobs	225	0–300	54.7	.348 19.3	.77
Freedom (6 items)	The degree of independence shown by the people in the organization. High levels of freedom imply more perceived autonomy and ability for individual discretion Sample items: People here make their own choices about their daily work. People here feel free to set their own priorities	175	0–300	57.6	.367 23.1	.78
Trust/Openness (5 items)	The emotional safety in relationships. In high trust/Openness situations people feel more comfortable sharing ideas and being frank and honest with each other Sample items: People here believe in and trust each other. People here keep their commitments to each other	184	0–300	61.5	.391 29.1	.78
Idea-time (6 items)	The amount of time people can, and do, use for elaborating new ideas. When idea-time is high people can explore and develop new ideas that may not have been included in the original task Sample items: People here take time to test new ideas. Time is available to explore new ideas here	147	0–300	63.5	.404 22.0	.77
Playfulness/Humor (6 items)	The spontaneity and ease displayed within the workplace. Good-natured joking and laughter and a relaxed atmosphere (lower stress) are indicators of higher levels of playfulness and humor Sample items: People here exhibit a sense of humor. A playful atmosphere prevails here	186	0–300	64.5	.410 22.0	.77
Conflict (6 items)	The presence of personal and emotional tensions (a negative dimension – in contrast to the debate dimension). When conflict is high people engage in interpersonal warfare, slander and gossip, and even plot against each other Sample items: There is a great deal of personal tension here. The atmosphere is filled with gossip and slander	83	0–300	67.6	.430 25.4	.90
Idea-support (5 items)	The way new ideas are treated. In a high idea-support situation people receive ideas and suggestions in an attentive and professional manner. People listen generously to each other Sample items: People here receive support and encouragement when presenting new ideas. People generally share their ideas here because they are listened to and encouraged	192	0–300	64.8	.412 20.5	.75
Debate (6 items)	The occurrence and open disagreement between viewpoints, ideas, experiences, and knowledge. In the debating situation many different voices and points of view are exchanged and encouraged Sample items: Many different points of view are shared here during discussion. People here often discuss different points of view	193	0–300	57.6	.366 20.1	.77
Risk-taking (5 items)	The tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity. In a high risk-taking climate people can make decisions even when they do not have certainty and all the information desired. People can and do “go out on a limb” to put new ideas forward Sample items: People here feel as though they can take bold action even if the outcome in unclear. People here can move forward here even in the face of uncertainty	153	0–300	57.8	.367 25.7	.76

Descriptive Statistics

The climate dimensions of the SOQ are assessed quantitatively on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all applicable (zero) to applicable to a high degree (three). In 1991 we added additional open-ended narrative questions to allow participants to identify other salient factors with the work environment that were acting as helps, hinders, and actions they would take to improve their context for creativity. The SOQ is now a multi-method assessment that provides quantitative results for broad comparison, as well as narrative results allowing participants to identify other salient factors within the broader work environment and providing more depth regarding how the quantitative dimensions are playing out in the workplace.

Definitions, samples items, and descriptive statistics for each of these based on the current database including 24,675 subjects from 300 organizations is included in Table One. The average age of respondents was 42 years with a range from 18 to 81. The sample included 5800 females and 9051 males for the 14,851 people who provided their gender.

The average standard error of the measure is 23.0 and the average standard error of the mean is .388. The intercorrelations of the dimensions are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations of SOQ Dimensions.

SOQ climate dimension	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Challenge/Involvement	1.00
Freedom	.46	1.00
Trust/Openness	.64	.38	1.00
Idea-time	.53	.49	.42	1.00
Playfulness/Humor	.59	.40	.53	.51	1.00
Conflict	−.46	−.16	−.54	−.26	−.38	1.00
Idea-support	.70	.47	.62	.65	.63	−.45	1.00
Debate	.54	.43	.44	.50	.50	−.20	.66	1.00
Risk-taking	.53	.55	.44	.58	.49	−.17	.64	.59	1.00

Note. All correlations are significant at p ≤ .001.

Reliability

The climate dimensions assessed by the English translation of the CCQ, and the SOQ have been shown to have adequate levels of internal reliability and stability over time (Isaksen, 2007; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2015a, 2015b; Isaksen et al., 1999). The average Cronbach’s alphas for the nine dimensions of the current version of the SOQ was .86, well above the generally accepted standard of .70. The average Guttman split half was .83, and the average Spearman Brown was .85.

The stability over time has been examined through several studies. For example, a longitudinal study of a high-tech company was conducted over a three-year period with assessments every three months. Ekvall (1993) reported that the scores over time were relatively stable. He was able to explain any observed differences based on specific factors and events within the organization. Another study included 798 subjects of similar level who attended a leadership development program. They included four different groups who attended the program, and each group completed the SOQ as a part of the workshop. The workshops were spread over a 7-month period. Differences across the four groups on the nine dimensions of the SOQ were tested via MANOVA and ANOVA. No significant differences were found. Another study was conducted to examine the stability of format to compare an online versus paper version of the SOQ. This study included 119 subjects who completed the SOQ (counterbalanced) once for each form. The average overall correlation between the two forms was .92.

Validity

The current standards include five interrelated sources of evidence comprising a contemporary understanding of validity (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). Validity is never fully accomplished as it includes a continuous effort to ensure that the assessment measures what it was designed to measure. The status of the validity of the SOQ is summarized below along the five sources contained within the current standards. Evidence of construct, content, concurrent, and criterion validity is shared within these sources.

Evidence Based on Test Content

The first source of evidence examines the relationship of the SOQ items and dimensions to its theoretical and conceptual rationale. There is substantial support in the literature for each of the nine dimensions of the SOQ (Isaksen, 2023b; Lauer, 1994). Throughout the iterative development process efforts were taken to document the explicit historical and conceptual foundations of the assessment (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2015a) and ensure that the SOQ adequately sampled the domain of the climate for creativity.

For example, Q-sort studies were performed along with other studies that provided support for relevance to the domain of creative climate. The precursor to the SOQ included one dimension called tension. After repeated factor analysis this dimension contained two different aspects of tension. One was tension among different points of view. Another kind of tension focused on hostility among people. This resulted in two dimensions going forward. One was renamed debate, the other conflict (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). This shift is consistent with the general conflict literature that makes a distinction between task and relationship conflict (e.g. Jimmieson et al., 2017).

Another shift in defining the dimensions resulted in fusing two dimensions within the early translation. The two dimensions were dynamism and liveliness and challenge and motivation. Again, repeated factor analysis showed nearly complete overlap resulting in a new more inclusive dimension called challenge and involvement.

One of the first to provide evidence of the fit between the dimensions and the domain of climate was a study of the relationship between the climate dimensions and the occurrence of occupational stress. Talbot et al. (1992) found that higher scores on the eight positive dimensions and lower scores on the Conflict dimension related to lower levels of stress. Similar findings were reported within the health care industry (Sandberg et al., 2018). Further support for relevance to the domain was provided by Turnipseed (1994) who studied the relationship between the social environment supportive of innovation and the dimensions of the SOQ. Puccio et al. (1995) examined the relationship between their Survey of Creative and Innovative Performance which assess the degree to which people feel the products they produce are creative, and the dimensions of the SOQ. They found support for the clear influence of climate on how people perceive their creative performance. Isaksen et al., (2001a) found support for the dimensions reflecting individuals’ perception for the support of creativity in their workplace. More recent studies have confirmed these findings (e.g. Biekart, 2014; Erickson, 2010; Knox, 2003). Isaksen and Lauer (2002) and Sandvik et al. (2018) expanded this inquiry and found support for a similar relationship at the team level.

More recent studies have examined the boundary conditions of the domain by making distinctions and exploring the relationships between the SOQ and other core constructs. For example, Sundgren et al. (2005) applied the dimensions of the SOQ as dependent variables and information sharing, intrinsic motivation and learning culture were found to be drivers of the climate for creativity within the pharmaceutical industry. Abdullah et al. (2006) found clear distinctions between organizational culture and the dimensions of the SOQ. Sellgren et al. (2008) found support for making distinctions between job satisfaction and the SOQ dimensions. O'Shea and Buckley (2007) provided an integrative conceptual overview and placed the SOQ within the larger domain of creativity and innovation. Turnipseed and Turnipseed (2013) explored the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and the SOQ dimensions. Afshari and Arshadi (2015) found clear distinctions among organizational structure, leadership, and climate as assessed by the SOQ. Douglas et al. (2017) conducted a case study to examine the relationship between the SOQ and organizational readiness to make change happen. Iqbal (2019) found evidence for the intervening nature of the SOQ dimensions between strategic human resource practices and organizational performance.

Finally, the SOQ technical materials have been subjected to external expert review. Porter (2010). Sample (2010, p. 550) reported:

Ekvall, Isaksen, and associates make a strong argument for the effect of organizational climate on change, creativity, and innovation. The developers of the SOQ provide a solid foundation for the theory, nature, and context for change, including a useful distinction between an organization’s climate and culture. The history for the identification of dimensions and items for the SOQ, and its predecessor the CCQ, are supported by more than adequate attention to reliability, validity, and related analysis.

Evidence Based on Response Processes

This source of evidence relates to the ‘fit’ between the construct and the detailed nature of the performance or responses provided by those who complete the assessment. For example, Lauer and Isaksen (2001) studied the impact of gender, age, educational status, and years in current position on dimensional scores of the SOQ. Most of the comparisons were non-significant. Given the large sample size, some significant differences were observed and implications for interpretation were outlined. In general, females tended to have more positive scores on the dimensions. The relationship with age was significant, but the average correlation was very small at .07. Isaksen and Ekvall (2015b) reported the SOQ results for different occupational groups to demonstrate the similarity in results as well as the amount of time it took participants to complete the assessment. They examined item and scale responses, distributions, and correlations and found similarity across groups. They also found no significant differences between paper and digital versions of the SOQ (they correlated at .92). Übius et al. (2013) and Pupal (2020) examined the influence of cultural differences on the response processes for the SOQ.

Yström et al., (2015) conducted a mixed method study to examine the effects of open innovation on the climate for creativity. They applied the SOQ and conducted interviews with the participants of 26 partner organizations that innovate together. They found that the pursuit of uniformity of the climate needs to be questioned and that a plurality of climates may be required for open innovation. Olsson et al. (2019) also conducted a mixed-method study within Swedish retail organizations. They applied the SOQ dimensions through a quantitative survey and followed up with semi-structured interviews. The interviewees confirmed the findings on the dimensions and provided elaboration of other aspects of the work environment.

Evidence Based on Internal Structure

Iterative exploratory factor analyses (EFA) have identified that the 53 items coherently reduce to nine independent factors (e.g. Dackert & Carlsson, 2007; Isaksen, 2007; Isaksen et al., 1999; Porter, 2010; Sample, 2010). The current EFA, presented in Table 3, utilized principal component analysis with a Promax rotation shows that the nine factors account for 62% of the variance. The rotation converged after six rotations. Three of the 53 items co-load beyond .30 on other factorial components.

Table 3.

Principal Component Analysis (Promax Rotation) SOQ Version 7.

Theoretical dimensional items	Component
Theoretical dimensional items	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Challenge/Involvement 1	.63
Challenge/Involvement 2	.79
Challenge/Involvement 3	.95
Challenge/Involvement 4	<.30						.37
Challenge/Involvement 5	.80
Challenge/Involvement 6	.64
Challenge/Involvement 7	.92
Conflict 1		−.77
Conflict 2		−.83
Conflict 3		−.86
Conflict 4		−.79
Conflict 5		−.73
Conflict 6		−.77
Idea-time 1			.34				.41
Idea-time 2			.36
Idea-time 3			.86
Idea-time 4			.98
Idea-time 5			.89
Idea-time 6			.92
Playfulness humor 1				.84
Playfulness humor 2				.56
Playfulness humor 3				.90
Playfulness humor 4				.78
Playfulness humor 5				.93
Playfulness humor 6				.61
Debate 1					.57		.39
Debate 2					.82
Debate 3					.84
Debate 4					.69
Debate 5					.63
Debate 6					<.30		.63
Freedom 1						.84
Freedom 2						.76
Freedom 3						.66
Freedom 4						.78
Freedom 5						.60
Freedom 6						.66
Idea-support 1							1.03
Idea-support 2							.95
Idea-support 3							.74
Idea-support 4							.73
Idea-support 5							.81
Risk-taking 1								.43
Risk-taking 2								.74
Risk-taking 3								.75
Risk-taking 4								.50
Risk-taking 5								.80
Trust and openness 1									.87
Trust and openness 2									<.30
Trust and openness 3									.84
Trust and openness 4									.30
Trust and openness 5	.46								<.30
Eigenvalues	17.50	3.92	2.15	2.05	1.78	1.56	1.25	1.07	0.96
% variance accounted for by factors	33.65	7.53	4.14	3.94	3.42	3.00	2.40	2.06	1.84

Note. This table presents the Principal Component Analysis with Promax rotation. Eigenvalues and variance percentages are displayed for each component.

Two studies have conducted confirmatory factor analysis on the SOQ. Isaksen and Aerts (2011) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with 225 samples of convenience (N = 7345) resulting in an adequate fit of the nine-dimensional model (χ2 (1238) = 17,568, GFI = .88, AGFI = .87, TLI = .89, NFI = .89, and RMSEA = .047). Swinnen et al. (2019) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with a sample of 180 aerospace engineers and reported adequate fit of the nine-dimensional model (χ2 = 2404.7, GFI = .87, AGFI = .85, TLI = .90, CFI = .91, and RMSEA = .05). These results are generally supportive of a nine-dimensional measurement model.

Evidence Based on Relationships With Other Variables

In addition to the studies reported above on test content, researchers have examined numerous convergent or concurrent, and discriminant or predictive factors associated with the SOQ. Ryhammar (1996) Ryhammar and Smith (1999) and Ryhammar and Andersson (2001) published a series of studies utilizing the Work Environment Inventory (WEI, Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989) an earlier version of KEYS - the Work Environment Inventory (Amabile et al., 1996). Ryhammar and colleagues found that the dimensions of the WEI that were climate variables correlated with the dimensions of the SOQ, but other WEI dimensions reflected aspects of the broader work environment.

The dimensions have successfully differentiated organizational levels of innovative productivity (e.g. Bertels et al., 2011; Ekvall, 1996; Nasurdin et al., 2014; Shanker et al., 2017). For example, Parry et al. (2009) examined the idea cycle time for new product development in 164 firms. They found that establishing a climate and work environment supporting freedom, idea time, idea support, as well as challenge and involvement reduced cycle time. Other studies have shown clear relationships between the SOQ dimensions and innovative work behavior (e.g. Kermani & Solhdoost, 2017). The dimensions have also shown positive relationships to higher sales volumes, market share, profitability, and greater impact from implementing new social and technical systems (like self-managed teams), in addition to implementing more complex work designs (e.g. Carlfjord et al., 2010; Davis, 2000; Firenze, 1998; Porzse et al., 2012).

For the purposes of this article, and to illustrate the ability of the SOQ dimensions to discriminate levels of innovative productivity, we aggregated the results from three studies that related to innovative productivity. Isaksen and Isaksen (2010) examined the levels of empowerment for innovation, consumer insight driving innovation, and uncertainty avoidance (reverse scored) within an international pharmaceutical research and development organization (N = 334). Isaksen and Akkermans (2011) conducted a global survey on general success at innovation and successful implementation of new ideas (N = 140). Retz (2011) studied the level of success at radical and incremental innovation with aerospace engineers in North America (N = 180). These last two studies also included a metric for leadership support for innovation. All metrics were split at their means for analysis. This resulted in a total sample size of 654 individuals from 204 different organizations. The average age of respondents was 45 years with a range from 23 to 66. The sample included 114 females and 202 males for the 316 people who provided their gender. The aggregated results are presented in Table 4. Before conducting the one-way ANOVA, a nine (number of SOQ dimensions) by two (More or Less Innovative) MANOVA was applied to reduce the likelihood of a Type I error when examining the differences in the means. For this sample, there was a significant interaction, Wilks’ Λ = .601, F (9, 644)) = 47.47, p < .0001. The means, standard deviations, r_wg values, and F-values, are presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4.

Comparison of More and less Innovative Organizations.

Dimensions	More (N = 389)			Less (N = 265)			F	P	_p η2
Dimensions	M	SD	r_wg	M	SD	r_wg	F	P	_p η2
Challenge/Involvement	244.17	41.65	.947	190.26	57.80	.882	192.120	.001	.228
Freedom	203.49	54.78	.887	142.46	59.81	.856	181.558	.001	.218
Trust/Openness	205.66	56.01	.817	159.40	61.54	.789	99.194	.001	.132
Idea time	169.93	60.80	.860	104.83	55.76	.887	193.134	.001	.229
Playfulness/Humor	211.35	54.01	.890	152.69	62.19	.853	164.239	.001	.201
Conflict	77.38	59.20	.843	107.29	72.37	.734	33.524	.001	.049
Idea support	218.46	49.99	.911	137.28	61.44	.865	344.461	.001	.346
Debate	221.38	50.30	.916	167.29	62.17	.871	150.204	.001	.187
Risk taking	176.92	52.96	.874	108.15	51.46	.881	271.861	.001	.294

All nine dimensions yield significantly different scores when comparing the more and less innovative organization results. The results from these eight metrics are like Ekvall’s (1996) comparison of innovative versus stagnated organizations. The directionality of the dimensions is the same with minor variations across specific scores. There is general support for within group agreement, and eight of the nine dimensions yield a large effect size.

Since organizational innovation and creativity imply transformation and change, the dimensions have also been linked to climate that supports organizational change and transformation (e.g. Douglas et al., 2017; Lofquist & Isaksen, 2019), and organizational capacity to support entrepreneurship (Abbasinezhad, 2017), organizational resilience (Mafabi et al., 2015), and the ability of organizations to cope with the complexities of knowledge-intensive industries (Lone et al., 2014). The dimensions of the SOQ have also been shown to discriminate levels of personal and job satisfaction and well-being (e.g. Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009).

Isaksen et al., (2001b) studied the ability of the SOQ to discriminate between best and worst-case work situations. Since that initial study, additional data has been collected on subjects by three master of science theses (Hoßbach, 2019; Johansson & Kirkeby, 2024; Myhre & Skovli, 2015), a published research study (Isaksen & Aerts, 2011), as well as project team members as they have taught classes and workshops. This resulted in a final sample size of 1262 individuals. For those who provided their age (N = 789), the average was 32 years. For those who provided their gender (N = 696), there were 256 males, and 440 females.

Respondents completed the SOQ twice, once for a best-case and another for a worst-case situation. The best-case was defined as “an environment in which you felt you did your best work because it encouraged, nurtured, or supported your use of creativity.” The worst case was “characterized as an environment in which you felt unproductive because it discouraged, hindered, or interfered with your use of creativity.” The order of completion of the SOQ was counterbalanced for each of the samples of convenience.

The MANOVA results showed a significant interaction between the overall scores for best and worst-case SOQ results (Wilks’ Λ = 0.360, F (9, 2514) = 497.420, p < .001).

The results for a one-way ANOVA are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5.

Comparison of Best and Worst-Case SOQ Results.

Dimensions	Best (N = 1262)			Worst (N = 1262)			F	P	_p η2
Dimensions	M	SD	r_wg	M	SD	r_wg	F	P	_p η2
Challenge/Involvement	238.55	53.93	.927	111.37	66.75	.851	2771.711	.001	.524
Freedom	201.75	61.79	.858	110.51	69.03	.781	1223.967	.001	.327
Trust/Openness	218.12	66.83	.802	99.07	65.74	.802	2035.454	.001	.447
Idea time	186.13	69.39	.840	75.23	58.36	.880	1888.298	.001	.428
Playfulness/Humor	232.40	64.32	.890	102.56	71.34	.824	2305.900	.001	.478
Conflict	64.99	63.99	.847	163.88	89.20	.523	1024.004	.001	.289
Idea support	217.05	65.51	.872	81.15	57.29	.884	3078.142	.001	.550
Debate	209.98	61.61	.892	108.39	66.97	.834	1573.212	.001	.384
Risk taking	187.87	71.82	.822	78.38	59.48	.846	1739.705	.001	.408

The results show significant differences across all nine dimensions when comparing best versus worst-case work situations and replicate the results of the earlier study (Isaksen et al., 2001b). The effect sizes for all the dimensions are large. There was support for aggregating the two different measures, except for the conflict dimension. Examination of the data showed that for the worst-case results had a unique distribution for a subset of females showing that some had low, and others had high scores for this negative dimension.

We also had access to the SOQ data from nine studies that we aggregated under the general heading of positive, and creatively productive workplaces. The sample included results from two unpublished doctoral dissertations. Erickson (2010) applied the criteria provided by the Veterans Administration to distinguish magnet from non-magnet hospitals and the SOQ (N = 71). Bushart (2015) studied the relationship between collaborative relationships using an independent scale and the SOQ (N = 222). Additional data was aggregated from three published studies. Isaksen and Lauer (2002) applied the SOQ dimensions to distinguish more and least creative teams (N = 154, taken twice). Lofquist et al. (2018) studied the relationship between engagement using an independent scale and the SOQ (N = 95). Isaksen et al. (2024) studied the efficacy of talent development using an independent scale and the SOQ (N = 497).

Three studies conducted to meet practical needs of organizations were also included that used single items or independent short scales. The first was conducted in 2010 with a large university interested in the promotion of diversity and inclusion, and included three additional metrics that were added to the SOQ (N = 525). The second was conducted in 2016 with a manufacturing facility within a large consumer products organization interested in how focusing on safety can also encourage creativity and innovation (N = 299). The third practical study was conducted in 2024 with a North American publishing organization interested in the relationship between the SOQ and having a sense of belonging and level of use of creative problem solving (N = 330).

The best versus worst workplace study reported above was also included for this analysis (N = 1262, taken twice). When the SOQ was taken twice the metrics were split at their means for analysis. The total sample for this analysis included 4871 subjects. The average age was 37 for those who provided this information (N = 1378). The sample included 610 males and 856 females for those who provided their gender (N = 1466).

Before conducting the one-way ANOVA, a nine (number of SOQ dimensions) by two (More or Less Productive) MANOVA was applied to reduce the likelihood of a Type I error when examining the differences in the means. For this sample, there was a significant interaction, Wilks’ Λ = .547, F (9, 4861) = 447.03, p < .0001. The means, standard deviations, r_wg values, and F-values, are presented in Table six below.

The results indicate clear and significant differences in the means between those organizations having positive levels of creative productivity versus those with less positive results by aggregating twelve distinct metrics. All comparisons yielded large effect sizes. There was support for aggregating the two different combinations of metrics, except for the conflict dimension. Examination of the raw data revealed that for those within the less creatively productive organizations, some younger females reported rather low levels of interpersonal tension, and higher scores on the positive SOQ dimensions. This deserves some additional inquiry.

Evidence Based on Consequences and Uses

The SOQ has demonstrated multi-level relevance in its use and inquiry. It has been applied at an individual level of analysis (Isaksen & Lauer, 1999, 2001; Yee et al., 2014), team and group level (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Sandvik et al., 2018), as well as the organization level (Lofquist et al., 2018; Olsson et al., 2019). More recently, the dimensions have also been applied at a national level of analysis (e.g. Hodge, 2021; Pupal, 2020; Übius et al., 2013).

The SOQ has been translated into multiple other languages. Current research editions are available in Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, and Spanish. The procedures and current progress on these are reported in Isaksen and Ekvall (2015c).

Feedback on the dimensions has demonstrated ability to help organizations make improvements in their ability to produce technological innovation (Abdel-Razek & Alharbi, 2017), increase the effectiveness of organizational scenario planning (Chermack et al., 2015) and increase awareness of faculty to establish a climate conducive to creativity (e.g. Allen & Zeisler, 2015). Providing feedback on SOQ results has also resulted in building capabilities for innovation management (e.g. Björkdahl & Börjesson, 2011; Fomujang et al., 2019).

Numerous case studies illustrate the ability of the SOQ to help organizations make meaningful changes on the dimensions they target based on the unique needs of their organizations (e.g., Isaksen & Tidd, 2006). The dimensions have provided insight into the relationships among creative climate, knowledge-sharing, and innovative work behavior within start-ups. For example, Munir and Beh (2019) found that a creative organizational climate affects knowledge-sharing, which ultimately affects innovative work behavior. Two integrative reviews of the literature provide support for the intervening nature of the dimensions between strategic human resource practices and innovative organizational performance (Iqbal, 2019; Loewenberger, 2013). The intervening nature of the dimensions of creative climate was also supported by Zubair et al. (2015). They found that creative climate acted as a partial mediator between employee participation in decision making and managers’ encouragement of creativity.

The dimensions have also demonstrated relevance to learning. Aliberti and Paolino (2018) found that the creative climate dimensions were linked to learning and transfer of training, particularly within work environments characterized by technological learning. Cirella et al. (2016) found that the dimensions were related to cognitive, structural, and procedural learning mechanisms. The dimensions of creative climate were also found to be related to collaborative learning (Hong et al., 2014) and to an organizational learning culture (Ismail, 2005; Sundgren et al., 2005). In a study of 15 English secondary schools, McLellan and Nicholl (2013) found that the dimensions of creative climate were able to distinguish differences in perceptions of the students versus their teachers. Students did not see their classroom climates as conducive to their creativity, but their teachers did. Chaubey et al. (2022) studied the relationship between training and organizational innovation and found that this relationship was strengthened by employee creativity. Further, employee creativity acted as a mediator between the two, and that the SOQ climate dimensions augmented the mediation process by coherently creating a positive moderating influence.

When it comes to practical application of the SOQ, only those who successfully complete a qualification program can apply the assessment. This ensures that the measure is appropriately applied. The earlier technical resources are now available as digital downloadable versions for the public, and others are available only to qualified practitioners. The qualification program and technical resources are continuously updated and improved and is currently provided by Better Change Tools.

Summary and Future Directions

A great deal has been accomplished over the past 40 years, but future work can move our understanding and application of the SOQ forward. The overwhelming majority of research on the SOQ has been cross-sectional and descriptive. Future research must establish causation requiring experimental and longitudinal designs. Although the directionality of the SOQ dimensions is consistent across studies, the three new analyses reported in Tables 4, 5, and 6 utilized combined samples of convenience. The participants in these studies opted into completing the SOQ and this could skew the results, limiting their generalizability. Future research should seek to apply random, stratified, or systematic sampling to improve generalizability and reduce potential bias.

Table 6.

Comparison of More or less Positive, Productive Workplaces.

Dimensions	More (N = 2779)			Less (N = 2092)			F	P	_p η2
Dimensions	M	SD	r_wg	M	SD	r_wg	F	P	_p η2
Challenge/Involvement	232.15	56.72	.909	130.74	73.60	.810	2949.274	.000	.377
Freedom	187.94	63.15	.845	118.91	70.14	.800	1296.309	.000	.210
Trust/Openness	202.77	68.41	.757	112.33	70.26	.748	2038.062	.000	.295
Idea time	179.18	69.11	.829	87.09	63.14	.848	2280.834	.000	.319
Playfulness/Humor	216.30	66.00	.862	117.51	76.66	.800	2325.420	.000	.323
Conflict	72.92	70.85	.773	147.05	91.67	.408	1013.271	.000	.172
Idea support	207.94	67.68	.843	96.89	67.11	.825	3236.528	.000	.399
Debate	204.03	60.70	.878	119.93	68.54	.838	2049.088	.000	.296
Risk taking	172.31	68.50	.818	89.32	62.98	.829	1876.762	.000	.278

There is currently little or no consensus regarding what dimensions should be included within the conceptual arena of the climate for creativity. This is due, in part, to a lack of agreement on the conceptual definition of climate itself. Some assessments include leadership or organizational culture within their concept of climate resulting in conflicting inclusion of dimensions. Some work has been done to address these concerns (Hunter et al., 2005, 2007; da Silva Veiga & Cortez, 2022; Isaksen, 2023a) but much more work is required. For example, further inquiry should include examination of the levels of abstraction of the dimensions. It is likely that some dimensions operate at a rather concrete level, and others (perhaps latent factors) are at a much higher level of abstraction. This conceptual work would enhance the quantitative application of creative climate assessments and should be complemented by qualitative research.

Some qualitative work has been accomplished with the SOQ after adding three open-ended questions. This allows subjects to provide elaboration on how the dimensions and other salient factors may be seen as helpful, hindering, or in need of actions to improve the workplace. These narrative results also allow for cross-site examination (e.g. Geurts, 2009; Sobieck, 1996). Yet, much more qualitative work would provide deeper insight into how climate (both as antecedent and intervening variables) affects creative and innovative outcomes. This should include the use of structured and unstructured interviews, for example.

The nature of work is changing. We see more hybrid and digital working, and AI technology is also influencing the world of work and creativity (e.g. Cropley et al., 2022; Tigre et al., 2024). Climate assessment starts with individuals and requires them to consider observed patterns of behavior. So, with these changes to the workplace, subjects could be challenged regarding the opportunities for direct and holistic observation of behavior. Along with these changes, many organizations are attempting to reduce the dysfunctions associated with hierarchy by flattening their structures and attempting to set up ‘bossless’ organizations (e.g. Foss & Klein, 2022). Since leadership exerts such an influence on the climate for creativity, we will need to consider the impact of these changes going forward.

Our theoretical foundation for work with the SOQ is based on an interactionist and ecological approach (e.g. Hennessey, 2017), so a natural area of interest is considering individual differences in relation to the climate for creativity. The work environment plays a key role in determining if, how, and when both surface and deep-level diversity affects performance (e.g. Kim et al., 2024; Lauer & Isaksen, 2001; Trinh, 2016). Some work has already been accomplished to investigate the relationships between cognitive and problem-solving style and the dimensions of the SOQ (e.g. Hoßbach, 2019; Isaksen, 2009; Isaksen & Lauer, 1999). Future work should be focused on expanding our understanding of how these and other individual differences may influence the climate and work environment for creativity and innovation. This could lead to expanding our inquiry to other important organizational constructs such as fairness, managing diversity, and organizational justice, among others.

Building on the future efforts to better understand the people-place relationship and the changing nature of the workplace, we should conduct studies that add to our understanding of the relationship of climate and work environment to the processes related to creativity and innovation (e.g. Hunter et al., 2020; Isaksen, 2023b; Oppert et al., 2022). It is well established that we can deliberately develop creativity in organizational settings (e.g., McKay et al., 2024). Yet, there could be important differences in the work environment that enhances and supports diverse aspects of creative and innovative processes. For example, there are likely to be meaningful differences in the climates that support exploratory versus exploitative innovation. This sort of effort could serve to disentangle the complex interplay between person, process, and place (Green et al., 2023).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Scott G. Isaksen

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the corresponding author. All data was collected in conformance with APA and Data Protection Policies. *

Author Biographies

Scott G. Isaksen is a Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at BI – Norwegian Business School and Founder of the Creative Problem-Solving Group-Buffalo. A former professor and director of SUNY’s International Center for Studies in Creativity, he has published over 260 books, articles, chapters, and technical papers. He has provided consultation and training on leadership, creativity, and innovation for over 500 organizations in 35 different countries around the world.

Soli Pupal is a Research Associate with the Creative Problem-Solving Group - Buffalo, where he contributes to a variety of research and development projects. He has conducted research into cross-cultural differences in the work environment for creativity and innovation during his pursuit of a bachelor’s degree in business administration at Handelshøyskolen BI Bergen. Additionally, he has examined the effects of hierarchy on the work environment for creativity and innovation while pursuing graduate studies in business and financial management at Kingston University in London. Soli also works as an accountant and is qualified to use VIEW: An Assessment of Problem-Solving Style as well as the Situational Outlook Questionnaire.

References

Abbasinezhad

(2017). The relationship between creative climate and entrepreneurship with a mediating role of employee empowerment. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(4), 717–726.

Abdel-Razek

Alharbi

F. B.

(2017). Assessment of technological innovation climate in organizations. Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_005.003_0004

Abdullah

H. S.

Chik

Deen

(2006). Influence of cultural orientation of perceived organizational creativity climate: An exploratory study of two steel plants in Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 11(2), 51–72.

Afshari

Arshadi

(2015). An investigation into the relationships between transformational leadership style, organizational structure, and organizational climate with employee creativity considering the mediating role of creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Innovation & Creativity in Human Science, 4(3), 77–95.

Aliberti

Paolino

(2018). Being absorbed in technological learning environments: Distraction, boredom, and the effects of a creative climate on learning and training transfer. In Lazazzara

Nacamulli

Rossignoli

(Eds.), Organizing for digital innovation (pp. 189–197): Springer.

Allen

D. C.

Zeisler

(2015). An educational climate for innovation at the U.S. Army War College. Leader to Leader, 76, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20175

Amabile

Gryskiewicz

N. D.

(1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418909534321

Amabile

T. M.

Conti

Coon

Lazenby

Herron

(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 1154-1184. https://www.jstor.org/stable/256995

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & the National Council on Measurement in Education . (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

10.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

11.

Bandura

(2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280

12.

Bertels

H. M. J.

Kleinschmidt

E. J.

Koen

P. A.

(2011). Communities of practices versus organizational climate: Which one matters more to dispersed collaboration in the front end of innovation? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(5), 757-772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00836.x

13.

Biekart

E. A.

(2014). Supporting creativity in organizations: Research considering predictors of perceived and expressed support for creativity in organizations. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Utrecht University.

14.

Björkdahl

Börjesson

(2011). Organizational climate and capabilities for innovation: A study of forest-based nordic manufacturing firms. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(5), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.585997

15.

Burke

W. W.

Litwin

G. H.

(1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306

16.

Bushart

(2015). Examining the relationship between collaborative relationships and organizational innovation with the third-party logistics industry. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Northcentral University.

17.

Carlfjord

Andersson

Nilsen

Bendsen Lindberg

(2010). The importance of organizational climate and implementation strategy at the introduction of a new working tool in primary health care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(6), 1326–1332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01336.x

18.

Chaubey

Sahoo

C. K.

Das

K. C.

(2022). Examining the effect of training and employee creativity on organizational innovation: A moderated mediation analysis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(2), 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2020-2271

19.

Chermack

T. J.

Coons

L. M.

Nimon

Bradley

Glick

M. B.

(2015). The effects of scenario planning on participant perceptions of creative organizational climate. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815582225

20.

Cirella

Canterino

Guerci

Shani

A. B.

(2016). Organizational learning mechanisms and creative climate: Insights from an Italian fashion design company. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12161

21.

Cropley

D. H.

Madieros

Demadzic

(2022). The intersection of human and artificial creativity. In Henriksen

Mishra

(Eds.), Creative provocations: Speculations on the future of creativity, technology & learning (pp. 19–34): Springer.

22.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: Springer.

23.

Dackert

Carlsson

(2007). Creative organizational climate – Testing Ekvall’s 10-dimension model (Paper presentation). The XIIIth European congress on work and organizational psychology. Published in Lund University Research Portal. https://www.eawop2007.org/9/53714.asp

24.

da Silva Veiga

H. M.

Cortez

P. A.

(2022). Creativity climate: An analysis of measurement scales. In Macambira

M. O.

Mendonça

Paz

M. d. G. T.

(Eds.), Assessing organizational behaviors: A critical analysis of measuring instruments (pp. 173–189): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81311-6_8

25.

Davis

(2000). Global innovation and growth survey: PricewaterhouseCoopers.

26.

De Cooman

Vleugels

(2022). Person-environment fit: Theoretical perspectives, conceptualizations, and outcomes. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.377

27.

Douglas

Muturi

Douglas

Ochieng

(2017). The role of organizational climate in readiness for change to lean six-sigma. The TQM Journal, 29(5), 666–676. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2017-0046

28.

Dubina

I. N.

(2013). Measuring organizational climate for creativity and innovation. In Carayannis

E. G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 1238–1244). Springer.

29.

Ehrhardt

M. G.

Schneider

Macey

W. H.

(2014). Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research, and practice. Routledge.

30.

Ekvall

(1976). Creativity at the place of work: Studies of suggestors and suggestion systems in industry. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 10(1), 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1976.tb00138.x

31.

Ekvall

(1983). Climate, structure and innovativeness of organizations: A theoretical framework and an experiment. FAradet - the Swedish council for management and work-life issues.Report 1.

32.

Ekvall

(1987). The climate metaphor in organization theory. In Bass

Drenth

(Eds.), Advances in organizational psychology (pp. 177–190): Sage.

33.

Ekvall

(1993). Creativity in project work: A longitudinal study of a product development project. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.1993.tb00065.x

34.

Ekvall

(1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414845

35.

Ekvall

Arvonen

(1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two- dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(91)90024-U

36.

Erickson

D. R.

(2010). The climate for nursing creativity and risk-taking: A magnet environment versus non-magnet environment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Capella University.

37.

Firenze

R. J.

(1998). A study of performance improvement strategies of manufacturing and service organizations. The ILMC center for manufacturing and service excellence.

38.

Fomujang

V. A. M.

Tassang

(2019). Assessment of a creative climate within an organization. International Journal of Science and Research, 8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20195871

39.

Foss

N. J.

Klein

P. G.

(2022). Why managers matter: The perils of the bossless company. Hatchett Books.

40.

Geurts

(2009). An examination of the model for organizational change, innovation and creativity. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hogeschool-Universiteit.

41.

Green

A. E.

Beaty

R. E.

Kenett

Y. N.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2023). The process definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 36(3), 544–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2254573

42.

Hennessey

(2017). Taking a systems view of creativity: On the right path toward understanding. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 341–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.196

43.

Hodge

T. A.

(2021). Retrospective and prospective examination of climate creation for national creativity and innovation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of the Virgin Islands.

44.

Hong

H.-Y.

Chang

Y.-H.

Chai

C. S.

(2014). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9289-y

45.

Hoßbach

(2019). Organizational climate for creativity: Exploring the influence of distinct types of individual differences. Springer Gabler.

46.

Hunter

S. T.

Bedell

K. E.

Mumford

M. D.

(2005). Dimensions of creative climate: A general taxonomy. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 15, 97–116.

47.

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

48.

Hunter

S. T.

Farr

J. L.

Heinen

R. L.

Allen

J. B.

(2020). Integrating creative climate and creative problem solving. In Mumford

M. D.

Todd

E. M.

(Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizations (pp. 137–160). Routledge.

49.

Iqbal

(2019). The strategic human resource management approaches and organizational performance: The mediating role of creative climate. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 16(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-11-2017-0104

50.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2004). The progress and potential of the creativity level - style distinction: Implications for research and practice. In Haukedal

Kuvas

(Eds.), Creativity and problem solving in the context of business management (pp. 40–71). Fagbokforlaget.

51.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2007). The situational outlook questionnaire: Assessing the context for change. Psychological Reports, 100(2), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.100.2.455-466

52.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2009). Exploring the relationship between problem-solving style and creative psychological climate. In Meusburger

Funke

Wunder

(Eds.), Milieus of creativity: An interdisciplinary approach to spatiality of creativity (pp. 169–188). Springer Science.

53.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2013). Managing for Innovation: An examination of a climate-centric model for organizational innovation and creativity. Kindai Management Review, 1(1), 39–56.

54.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2017). Leadership’s role in creative climate creation. In Mumford

M. D.

Hemlin

(Eds.), Handbook of research on leadership and creativity (pp. 131–158): Edward Elgar Publishing.

55.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2023a). Assessing the work environment for creativity and innovation: Building on the review by Mathisen and Einarsen (2004). Creativity Research Journal, 35(2), 227–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2112837

56.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2023b). Research literature on the CCQ and SOQ: An annotated bibliography. The creative problem-solving group - Buffalo. (Available as a PDF download from Better Change Tools.com).

57.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2023c). Developing creative potential: The power of process, people and place. Journal of Advanced Academics, 34(2), 111-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X231156389

58.

Isaksen

S. G.

Aerts

(2011). Linking problem-solving style and creative organizational climate: An exploratory interactionist study. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(2), 7–38.

59.

Isaksen

S. G.

Akkermans

H. J.

(2011). Creative climate: A leadership lever for innovation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 161–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01425.x

60.

Isaksen

S. G.

Ekvall

(2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climate. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00558.x

61.

Isaksen

S. G.

Ekvall

(2015a). Conceptual and historical foundations of the situational outlook Questionnaire®: A technical resource for the SOQ. (Available as a PDF download from Better Change Tools.com).

62.

Isaksen

S. G.

Ekvall

(2015b). Development of the situational outlook Questionnaire®: A technical resource for the SOQ. (Available as a PDF download from Better Change Tools.com).

63.

Isaksen

S. G.

Ekvall

(2015c). Translations of the situational outlook questionnaire: A technical resource. (Available as a PDF download from Better Change Tools.com).

64.

Isaksen

S. G.

Hoßbach

Stangl

(2024). Creating better workplaces: Linking the work environment for creativity, innovation and change to talent development. Kindai Management Review, 12, 7–29.

65.

Isaksen

S. G.

Isaksen

E. J.

(2010). The climate for creativity and innovation: And its relationship to empowerment, consumer insight, and ambiguity. The Creativity Research Unit Technical Report.

66.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

(1999). Relationship between cognitive style and individual psychological climate: Reflections on a previous study. Studia Psychologica, 41, 177–191.

67.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

(2001). Convergent validity of the situational outlook questionnaire: Discriminating levels of perceived support for creativity. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 31–40.

68.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

(2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00238

69.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

Ekvall

(1999). Situational outlook questionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and innovation. Psychological Reports, 85(2), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.665

70.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

Ekvall

Britz

(2001b). Perceptions of the best and worst-case climates for creativity: Validation evidence for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1302_5

71.

Isaksen

S. G.

Puccio

G. J.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1993). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149-179. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1993.tb00704.x

72.

Isaksen

S. G.

Tidd

(2006). Meeting the innovation challenge: Leadership for transformation and growth. John Wiley and Sons.

73.

Isaksen

S. G.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01234.x

74.

Ismail

(2005). Creative climate and learning organization factors: Their contribution towards innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510633719

75.

Jimmieson

N. L.

Tucker

M. K.

Campbell

J. L.

(2017). Task conflict leads to relationship conflict when employees are low in trait self-control: Implications for employee strain. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.035

76.

Johansson

Kirkeby

M. H.

(2024). Leading creativity: Nurturing creativity in internals and externals. Unpublished Master Thesis. BI-Norwegian Business School.

77.

Katz

Kahn

R. L.

(1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.), Wiley.

78.

Kermani

Z. J.

Solhdoost

(2017). Relationship between innovation climate and innovative behavior of librarians: Case study of libraries, museums, and documentation center of Astan Quds Razavi. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 15(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.22067/RIIS.V6I1.45015

79.

Kim

Vaulont

M. J.

Zhang

Byron

(2024). Looking inside the black box of gender differences in creativity: A dual-process model and meta-analysis. The Journal of applied psychology, 109(12), 1861–1900. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001205

80.

Knox

(2003). Time travel and role maps: A pilot initiative in creative problem solving. : Royal Roads University. (Unpublished master's thesis).

81.

Lauer

K. J.

(1994). The assessment of creative climate: An investigation of Ekvall's Creative Climate Questionnaire. (Unpublished master's thesis). International Center for Studies in Creativity: State University College at Buffalo.

82.

Lauer

K. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2001). Managing the organizational climate for creativity and change: What you should be considering. In van Geoffen

van der Meer

Rickards

(Eds.), Fit for the future: Proceedings of the sixth European conference on creativity and innovation (pp. 132–141). Twente University Press.

83.

Loewenberger

(2013). The role of HRD in stimulating, supporting, and sustaining creativity and innovation. Human Resource Development Review, 12(4), 422–455.

84.

Lofquist

E. A.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2019). Cleared for takeoff? A snapshot of context for change in a high-risk industry. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(3), 277–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319832011

85.

Lofquist

E. A.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dahl

T. J.

(2018). Something fishy: Exploring the relationship between organizational change, job engagement and work environment in the Norwegian directorate of fisheries. Journal of Change Management, 18(4), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1466823

86.

Lone

J. A.

Bjorklund

R. A.

Osterud

K. B.

Andersson

L. A.

Hoff

Bjorkli

C. A.

(2014). Assessing knowledge-intensive work environments: General versus situation-specific instruments. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.750449

87.

Mafabi

Munene

J. C.

Ahiauzu

(2015). Creative climate and organizational resilience: The meditating role of innovation. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(4), 564–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2012-0596

88.

Mathisen

Einarsen

(2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_12

89.

McKay

A. S.

Reiter-Palmon

Coombes

S. M.

Coombes

J. E.

(2024). A meta-analysis of creativity training in organizational settings. Creativity and innovation management, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12605

90.

McLellan

Nicholl

(2013). Creativity in crisis in design and technology: Are classroom climates conducive for creativity in English secondary schools? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.11.004

91.

Moultrie

Young

(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

92.

Munir

Beh

L.-S.

(2019). Measuring and enhancing organizational creative climate, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior in startup development. The Bottom Line, 32(4), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2019-0076

93.

Myhre

P. O.

Skovli

(2015). An examination of problem-solving style differences in best and worst-case work environments: BI-Norwegian Business School. Unpublished Master Thesis.

94.

Nasurdin

A. M.

Ling

T. C.

Hou

K. B.

(2014). The influence of organizational creative climate on product innovation: A study of Malaysian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Economics and Management, 8(1), 40–69.

95.

Olsson

Paredes

K. M.

Johansson

Roese

M. O.

Ritzen

(2019). Organizational climate for innovation and creativity – a study in Swedish retail organizations. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 29(3), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2019.1598470

96.

Oppert

M. L.

Dollard

M. F.

Murugavel

V. R.

Reiter-Palmon

Reardon

Cropley

D. H.

O’Keeffe

(2022). A mixed methods study of creative problem solving and psychosocial safety climate: Preparing engineers for the future of work. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 759226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759226

97.

O'Shea

Buckley

(2007). Towards an integrative model of creativity and innovation in organizations: A psychological perspective. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 28(3-4), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2007.10446254

98.

Ostroff

Kinicki

A. J.

Muhammad

R. S.

(2013). Organizational culture and climate. In Weiner

I. B.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychology – Volume12: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 643–676). Wiley.

99.

Parnes

S. J.

(1987). The creative studies project. In Isaksen

(Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 156–188). Bearly Limited.

100.

Parry

M. E.

Song

de Weerd-Nederhof

P. C.

Visscher

(2009). Impact of NPD strategy, product strategy, and NPD processes on perceived cycle time. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00688.x

101.

Porter

(2010). Review of situational outlook questionnaire. In Spies

R. A.

Carlson

J. F.

Geisinger

K. F.

(Eds.), The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 546–548). Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

102.

Porzse

Takacs

Csedo

Sara

Fejes

(2012). The impact of creative organizational climate on the innovation activity of medical devices manufacturing firms in Hungary. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(13), 1–12.

103.

Puccio

G. J.

Treffinger

D. J.

Talbot

R. J.

(1995). Exploratory examination of relationships between creativity styles and creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0802_4

104.

Pupal

(2020). An exploratory examination into cultural differences on climates for creativity and innovation: Viewing culture through the lens of language. BI-Norwegian Business School. Unpublished thesis.

105.

Rasulzada

Dackert

(2009). Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855283

106.

Retz

(2011). Factors that affect the climate for creativity and innovation in an aerospace engineering organization: Apollos University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.

107.

Ryhammar

(1996). Kreativ funktion, perceptgenetisk rekonstruktion och organisatoriska forutsattningar for kreativ verksamhet. En studie av hogskolelarare (Creative functioning, percept-genetic reconstruction and organizational conditions for creative activity. A study of university teachers). Lund University Press. Published Doctoral Dissertation.

108.

Ryhammar

Andersson

A. L.

(2001). Relations between university teachers’ assessed degree of creativity and productivity views regarding their organization. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(3), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01046.x

109.

Ryhammar

Smith

G. J.

(1999). Creative and other personality functions as defined by percept-genetic techniques and their relation to organizational conditions. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_5

110.

Sample

(2010). Review of situational outlook questionnaire. In Spies

R. A.

Carlson

J. F.

Geisinger

K. F.

(Eds.), The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 548–550). Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

111.

Sandberg

Borell

Edvardsson

Rosenberg

Boström

A.-M.

(2018). Job strain: A cross-sectional survey of dementia care specialists and other staff in Swedish home care services. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 11, 255–266. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S155467

112.

Sandvik

A. M.

Croucher

Espedal

Selart

(2018). Intellectual stimulation and team creative climate in a professional services firm. Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 6(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-01-2017-0006

113.

Sandvik

A. M.

Espedal

Selart

(2015). Leadership drivers of organizational creativity: A path model of creative climate within a professional services firm. Beta, 29(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-3134-2015-01-06

114.

Schein

E. H.

(2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.), Wiley.

115.

Schneider

González-Romá

Ostroff

West

M. A.

(2017). Organizational climate and culture: Reflections on the history of the constructs in the Journal of applied psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000090

116.

Sellgren

S. F.

Ekvall

Tomson

(2008). Leadership behavior of nurse managers in relation to job satisfaction and work climate. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(5), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2007.00837.x

117.

Shanker

Bhanugopan

van der Heijden

Farrell

(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

118.

Sheffield

Jarvis

Kars-Unluoglu

(2022). Climate for innovation: A critical lever in the leadership of innovation. In Agarwal

Patterson

Pugalia

Green

(Eds.), Innovation (pp. 39–60): Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429346033

119.

Sobieck

M. A.

(1996). Examination of cross-site narrative responses on the CIQ and SOQ (Unpublished master's thesis). International Center for Studies in Creativity, State University of New York College at Buffalo.

120.

Staber

(2011). The ecological foundations of creativity. In Belussi

Staber

(Eds.), Managing networks of creativity (pp. 30–45): Routledge.

121.

Sundgren

Dimenäs

Gustofsson

Selart

(2005). Drivers of organizational creativity: A path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D. R and D Management, 35(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00395.x

122.

Swinnen

Teirlinck

Isaksen

S. G.

(2019). Leadership support for innovation: The intervening role of the climate for creativity. Kindai Management Review, 7, 78–98.

123.

Talbot

Cooper

Barrow

(1992). Creativity and stress. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1(4), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.1992.tb00052.x

124.

Tett

R. P.

Toich

M. J.

Oxkum

S. B.

(2021). Trait activation theory: A review of the literature and applications to five lines of personality dynamics research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 199–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228

125.

Tigre

F. B.

Henriques

P. L.

Curado

(2024). Creativity for problem solving in the digital era: Configurations of leadership profiles. Journal of Leadership Studies, 18(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21874

126.

Trinh

M. P.

(2016). Which matters more? Effects of surface and deep level diversity on team processes and performance. In Prescott

(Ed.), Handbook of research on race, gender, and the fight for equality (pp. 213–239). ICI Global.

127.

Turnipseed

(1994). The relationship between the social environment of organizations and the climate for innovation and creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 3(3), 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.1994.tb00172.x

128.

Turnipseed

P. H.

Turnipseed

D. L.

(2013). Testing the proposed linkage between organizational citizenship behaviors and an innovative organizational climate. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12027

129.

Übius

Alas

Elenurm

(2013). Impact of innovation climate on individual and organizational level factors in Asia and Europe. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.642081

130.

Withagen

van der Kamp

(2018). An ecological approach to creativity in making. New Ideas in Psychology, 49, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.11.002

131.

Woodman

R. W.

(2014). The science of organizational change and the art of changing organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(4), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314550575

132.

Woodman

R. W.

Sawyer

J. E.

Griffin

R. W.

(1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/258761

133.

Woodman

R. W.

Schoenfeldt

L. F.

(1989). Individual differences in creativity: An interactionist perspective. In Glover

J. A.

Ronning

R. R.

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 77–91). Plenum Press.

134.

Woodman

R. W.

Schoenfeldt

L. F.

(1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1990.tb00549.x

135.

Yee

W. F.

Pink

L. S.

Sern

M. L.

(2014). The effect of a psychological climate for creativity on job satisfaction and work performance. International Journal of Economics and Management, 8(5), 97–116. https://www.econ.upm.edu.my/ijem

136.

Yström

Aspenberg

Kumlin

(2015). Exploring the creative climate in an open innovation arena: Identifying challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2013-0085

137.

Zubair

Bashir

Abrar

Baig

S. A.

Hassan

S. Y.

(2015). Employee’s participation in decision making and manager’s encouragement of creativity: The mediating role of climate for creativity and change. Journal of Service Science and Management, 8(3), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2015.83033

Understanding the Climate for Creativity and Innovation: 40 Years of Progress on the Situational Outlook Questionnaire

Abstract

Keywords

The Creative Climate Project

Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations of the SOQ

The Development of the SOQ

Descriptive Statistics

Reliability

Validity

Evidence Based on Test Content

Evidence Based on Response Processes

Evidence Based on Internal Structure

Evidence Based on Relationships With Other Variables

Evidence Based on Consequences and Uses

Summary and Future Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

Author Biographies

References