J PROD INNOV MANAG 2014;():

2014 Product Development & Management Association

DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12149

The Impact of a Creativity-supporting Work Environment

on a Firms Product Innovation Performance*
Jan Dul and Canan Ceylan

Many scholars and practitioners have suggested that a creativity-supporting work environment contributes to a firms
product innovation performance. Although there is evidence that such an environment enhances innovative behavior at
individual level, very few studies address the effect of a creativity-supporting work environment on product innovation
performance at firm level, and the results are inconsistent.
This paper examines the relationship between a firms creativity-supporting work environment and a firms product
innovation performance in a sample of 103 firms. For measuring a firms creativity-supporting work environment, a
comprehensive and creativity-focused framework is used. The framework consists of 9 social-organizational and 12
physical work environment characteristics that are likely to enhance employee creativity. These characteristics
contribute to the firms overall work environment that supports creativity. The firms product innovation performance
is defined by two distinct concepts: new product productivity (NP productivity), which is the extent to which the firm
introduces new products to the market, and new product success (NP success), which is the percentage of the firms
sales from new products. In most firms, different knowledgeable informants provided the data for the variables.
The results show that firms with creativity-supporting work environments introduce more new products to the market
(NP productivity), and have more NP success in terms of new product sales (NP success). NP productivity partly
mediates the relationship between creativity-supporting work environment and NP success. The mediation model shows
that the two paths from a creativity-supporting work environment to NP success are about equally important: the direct
path between creativity-supporting work environment and NP success has a coefficient of .22, and the coefficient of the
indirect path via NP productivity is .23.
The creativity-supporting work environment framework can be used in managerial practice to enhance employee
creativity for product innovation. It allows applying a flexible and broad approach by influencing both social-
organizational and physical characteristics of the work environment.

Introduction A work environment1 that stimulates employee cre-

ativity is generally believed to be beneficial for a firms

O
rganizations must constantly develop new prod-
ucts (goods and services) that are successful in
the market to ensure their survival. A firms
product innovation success depends on many factors that
can at least be partly influenced by management. These
factors relate to the characteristics of new products, the
firms product development process, its strategy, and
its market (Henard and Szymanski, 2001). Successful
product innovation also depends on organizational char-
acteristics such as the firms organizational climate
(Evanschitzky, Eisend, Calantone, and Jiang, 2012).
Address correspondence to: Jan Dul, Rotterdam School of Manage-
ment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: jdul@rsm.nl. Tel: 10-408-1719.
* We are grateful to the Industrialists and Businessmens Association
of Bursa (BUSIAD) and its member companies for their support during
data collection. We would also like to thank Jan van den Ende for his
comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
new product performance. People working in a creativity-
supportive environment may generate ideas that are
useful for product innovation. Creativity is considered as
an antecedent of innovation because all innovation
begins with creative ideas (Amabile, Conti, Coon,
Lazenby, and Herron, 1996, p. 1154). It is claimed that
creative ideas turn ordinary companies into market
leaders (Pitta, Wood, and Franzak, 2008, p. 137) and
lack of creativity is considered a deficiency in the new
product process (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1991).
1
In the literature both the terms climate and work environment are
used to refer to the organizational context to support employees for showing
desired behaviors and performance. These terms are often used inter-
changeably although climate is often used for employees perceptions of
the context, and work environment for its objective reality, although
many exceptions exist (e.g., work environment for creativity, Amabile
et al., 1996). In the present paper, the term work environment is used to
denote both meanings of supporting context. The paper does not address
organizational culture defined as the firms shared values, beliefs, and
norms.
2 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2014;():
Companies such as Google, Apple, IDEO, and 3M invest
heavily in work environments to support the creativity of
their employees (e.g., Brand, 1998; Kelley and Littman,
2001; Kuntze and Matulich, 2010; Thomke and Feinberg,
2009; Zien and Buckler, 1997).
Despite these strong beliefs, surprisingly little empiri-
cal evidence exists about the effect of a creativity-
supporting climate on a firms product innovation
performance, and the few available studies show contra-
dictory results. Most studies focus on the effect of
creativity-supporting organizational climates on the cre-
ative behavior of individual employees in different
departments, but do not address their impact on innova-
tion performance at firm level (okpekin and Knudsen,
(2012). These studies, primarily in the field of psychol-
ogy and organizational behavior, examine the effect of
specific supporting elements of a work environment on an
individuals creativity (for reviews, see Anderson, De
Dreu, and Nijstad, 2004; Egan, 2005; George, 2008;
Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford, 2007; Rank, Pace, and
Frese, 2004; Runco, 2004; Shalley and Gilson, 2004;
Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham, 2004; Zhou and Shalley,
2003). However, the generation of ideas (creativity) may
not necessarily lead to the implementation of ideas (inno-
vation). The link between a firms creativity-supporting
work environments and a firms innovation performance
in terms of new product performance has only recently
become a topic of empirical research. The available
studies at firm level are scarce and report contradictory
findings. Parry, Song, Weerd-Nederhof, and Visscher
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Jan Dul is a professor of technology and human factors and chair of
the Technology and Operations Management Department at the Rotter-
dam School of Management, Erasmus University, the Netherlands. He
received his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee,
USA. His research interests include designing work environments for
employee performance, satisfaction, and creativity, and (case study)
research methodology. He has written more than 150 academic and
professional publications and is the author of several books, including a
best-selling book on human factors/ergonomics.
Dr. Canan Ceylan is an assistant professor of management and organi-
zation at the School of Social Sciences, Department of Business Admin-
istration at Uludag University in Bursa, Turkey. Dr. Ceylan received her
Ph.D. from the same university. Her current research focuses on linking
human resource (HR) systems to innovation and firm performance, HR
systems and organizational culture, and its relationship with employee
behaviors, organizational culture and climate for supporting creativity
and innovation, and the design of the work environments for employee
creativity. Her research has been published in several peer-reviewed
journals, recently in Human Resource Management and The Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management.
J. DUL AND C. CEYLAN
(2009) studied the effect of a firms creativity-supporting
work environment on a firms new product cycle time
performance, and confirm the link. Gumusluoglu and
Ilsev (2009) studied the effect of a firms supporting work
environment on a firms success of product innovation,
and reject this link. In a third study, okpekin and
Knudsen (2012) found mixed results for the link between
a firms creativity-supporting work environment and its
new product introductions. Given these contradictions,
the first contribution of this paper is that more data and
rigor are added to this relatively new field of research by
re-examining the relationship between a creativity-
supporting work environment at firm level and product
innovation performance at firm level.
The second contribution relates to the elements of a
creativity-enhancing work environment. Most studies
conceptualize such an environment as the firms overall
creativity-supporting work environment consisting of dif-
ferent elements of creativity. Different elements in the
environment are summed to provide an assessment of
overall work environment support (Pierce, Gardner,
Dunham, and Cummings, 1993, p. 278). Several frame-
works have been developed for combining different ele-
ments of creativity support (Mathisen and Einarsen,
2004). Examples include KEYS (Amabile et al., 1996),
the Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ; Ekvall, 1996),
the similar Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ;
Isaksen, Lauer, and Ekvall, 1999), and Scott and Bruces
(1994) Climate for Innovation measure. Examples of
creativity-enhancing elements include challenging work,
job autonomy, teamwork, leadership styles, and rewards.
Many scholars who focus on these and other social-
organizational aspects of the work environment have sug-
gested that physical aspects should also be part of the
creativity-supporting work environment (e.g., Amabile,
2013; Amabile et al., 1996; George, 2008; Shalley and
Gilson, 2004; Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin, 1993).
However, the current frameworks consider only social-
organizational aspects of the work environment, and do
not address the physical work environment (Hunter,
Bedell, and Mumford, 2005). Elements in the physical
workplace that stimulate creativity include the presence
of plants (Shibata and Suzuki, 2002, 2004), a non-
crowded workspace (Aiello, DeRisi, Epstein, and Karlin,
1977), and window view (Stone and Irvine, 1994). Other
physical elements such as color, sound, and odor have
also been included in an overall measure of the physical
work environment to enhance employee creativity (Dul
and Ceylan, 2011; McCoy and Evans, 2002). The second
contribution is that a comprehensive approach for a
creativity-supporting work environment is employed to
CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT
develop a framework that includes aspects of both the
social-organizational and the physical environment to
estimate the effect of a creativity-supporting work envi-
ronment on product innovation at firm level.
The framework has managerial relevance as it consists
of 21 creativity-supportive elements of the work environ-
ment that can be readily influenced in management prac-
tice. The framework allows applying a flexible and broad
approach when managing the organizational climate
for creativity to enhance firm innovation performance:
managers can improve aspects of both the social-
organizational and the physical work environment. This
usually requires involvement of several business func-
tions such as research and development (R&D), human
resource management (HRM), operations, and facility
management.
Theoretical Framework
Creativity is required at all stages of the development
process, from the generation of new product ideas to their
commercialization (Pitta et al., 2008). Because people at
any level in the organization have creative capabilities
(Shalley and Gilson, 2004), they can contribute to inno-
vation (Zien and Buckler, 1997), despite earlier claims
that at the lower level of the organization the people can
introduce fewer and less radical types of innovations
(Knight, 1967, p. 490). All organizational members can
directly (e.g., as part of new product development [NPD]
team) or indirectly (not part of such a team) contribute
to product innovation. Especially in hierarchically
less structured organizations, the entire workforce is
engaged in developing or improving products and ser-
vices (Thamhain, 2003, p. 301). If larger and more struc-
tured organizations have NPD teams, members of these
teams may interact with other members of the organiza-
tion who are not part of the NPD process, and their ideas
might be included in the NPD process as well. Therefore,
people in a company with a more creativity-supportive
work environment are supposed to be more fluent in
generating novel ideas that can be useful in a NPD
process, and this may result in enhanced product innova-
tion performance.
In this paper, product innovation performance is
defined by two distinct concepts: new product productiv-
ity (NP productivity), which is the extent to which a firm
introduces new products to the market, and new product
success (NP success), which is the percentage of the
firms sales from new products (Hansen, 1992). Both
concepts are product innovation performance measures at
J PROD INNOV MANAG 3
2014;():
firm level (Griffin and Page, 1993). The concept of NP
productivity is based on the OECDs (2005) definition of
product innovation: an innovative firm is one that has
implemented a new or significantly improved product
during the period under review. The concept of NP
success is the market success of new products in terms of
the relative share of new products compared with total
sales. NP success refers to the impact of innovations on
firm performance. The conceptualization of product inno-
vation is more comprehensive compared with the three
other studies in this domain of research that only use one
rather than both of these concepts of product innovation
(okpekin and Knudsen, 2012; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev,
2009; Parry et al., 2009).
A creativity-supporting work environment may have
separate effects on NP productivity and on NP success.
When considering NP productivity, people in a creativity-
supporting work environment may produce a larger
number of ideas such that more product ideas may enter
the innovation funnel (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).
Additionally, in such an environment, people that are
involved in the idea selection process may be more open
to novel ideas and risk taking, allowing more ideas to
enter the implementation stage of the innovation process.
Eventually, more new products may exit the innovation
funnel as new products in the market. Hence, a creativity-
supporting work environment can result in more new
products that are introduced to the market (NP produc-
tivity). This is reflected in the following hypothesis:
H1: The more a firms overall work environment sup-
ports creativity, the more the firm introduces new prod-
ucts to the market (NP productivity).
When considering NP success, a creativity-supporting
work environment may not only increase the number of
ideas, but also the quality of the ideas, as quantity breeds
quality (Osborn, 1963). High correlations have been
found between the number of ideas and the number of
high-quality ideas (e.g., Diehl and Stroebe, 1987). In a
product innovation context, this would mean that there
are more high-quality ideas for products, i.e., ideas that
are more appropriate and are more meaningful to the
market in a work environment that supports creativity
(Calantone, Chan, and Cui, 2006; Crespell and Hansen,
2008; Im and Workman, 2004; Patterson et al., 2005).
Hence, new products that are developed in a creativity-
supporting work environment may be more successful in
the market and generate a higher percentage of sales from
new products. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
formulated:
4 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. DUL AND C. CEYLAN
2014;():

H2: The more a firms overall work environment sup- is considered to be an important characteristic of a theory
ports creativity, the higher the firms percentage of sales because it keeps theories from becoming too complex
from new products (NP success). and incomprehensible (Wacker, 1998, p. 365), and par-
simonious models are easier to understand, and they gen-
When companies bring more new products to the market
eralize more reliably (Schwab, Abrahamson, Starbuck,
(NP productivity), at least some of these are likely to
and Fidler, 2011, p. 1047). More complexity (e.g., more
become successful, and increase the percentage of sales
independent variables) does not necessarily mean more
from new products (NP success). Davis and Daley (2008)
predictive accuracy or insight. In this paper, the model
suggest such a link between the number of new products
and related hypotheses are tested in a sample of 103
launched and the percentage of sales from new products.
firms.
Hence, the notion that quantity breeds quality, origi-
nally proposed for idea generation in teams (Osborn,
1963), may also apply to product innovation at firm Methodology
level: more new products breed more successful new
products. However, Barczak, Griffin, and Kahn (2009) Sample and Procedures
found that the best firms are not different than the
Two hundred seven firms that were at least four years old
rest in terms of the number of new products commer-
(because of the review period of three years, and a
cialized over the last five years. The best firms are those
start-up year, see below) were invited to participate in a
that simultaneously (1) are in the top one third of their
questionnaire survey. The firms were taken from the
industry, (2) have program success, (3) and have sales
membership list of the Bursa Industrialists and Business-
and profit success from new products. However, sales
mens Association. The Bursa region is one of the biggest
from new products is only one of the success indicators;
industrial areas in Turkey. A questionnaire was sent to
hence, a relationship between the number of new prod-
members who represent their firms, accompanied by an
ucts and sales of new products can still exist. In the
invitation letter from the president of the association.
common reflective indicators of a firms innovation per-
Useful responses were obtained from 103 firms (response
formance (e.g., Langerak, Hultink, and Robben, 2004),
rate 49.8%) from various industrial sectors: the automo-
both the number of new products and the percentage of
tive industry (29%), the textile industry (25%), the
sales from new products are included, which suggests
service industry (17%), the food industry (8%), and other
that NP productivity and NP success are positively cor-
industries (22%). About 56% of the companies were
related. Therefore, the third hypothesis is formulated as
small or medium sized with fewer than 250 employees
follows:
(range 3249); the rest were large companies (range 250
H3: The more a firm introduces new products to the 7500 employees). The mean company age was 26.9 years
market (NP productivity), the higher the firms percent- (range 483 years).
age of sales from new products (NP success). Similarly to others (e.g., okpekin and Knudsen,
2012; Crespell and Hansen, 2008; Parry et al., 2009;
As shown in Figure 1, these hypotheses imply that the
kerlavaj, Song, and Lee, 2010) in the present study, a
number of new products introduced to the market (NP
key informant approach was used to obtain information
productivity) partially mediates the relationship between
about the variables. All variables are defined at firm level,
a creativity-supporting work environment and the per-
and selected informants were supposedly knowledgeable
centage of sales from new products (NP success). This
about issues at firm level (Kumar, Stern, and Anderson,
theoretical model is simple but parsimonious. Parsimony
1993; Seidler, 1974). These were usually senior managers
or company owners in smaller companies and specialists
in larger companies. The company was asked to select a
Creativity- key informant such as human resource (HR) manager or
supporting NP NP success
work
H1
productivity
H3 HR specialist who was knowledgeable about the compa-
environment nys HRM system, to provide information about the
firms creativity-supporting work environment. HR man-
H2 agers or specialists receive information about work envi-
ronments from a wide variety of staff at all levels and in
Figure 1. A Conceptual Model of the Relationships among
Creativity-supporting Work Environment, NP Productivity, all units of the firm, and are involved in HR policies and
and NP Success practices that can shape the firms climate and culture for
CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT
creativity (e.g., Dul, Ceylan, and Jaspers, 2011;
Mumford, 2000). Information about the extent to which
new products were introduced to the market (NP produc-
tivity) were gathered from people knowledgeable about
the firms innovation, such as R&D, production, market-
ing or quality assurance managers or specialists in larger
firms, or a senior manager or company owner in smaller
firms. Information on the percentage of sales from new
products (NP success) was collected from a firms finan-
cial specialist in larger firms, or a senior manager or
company owner in smaller firms. It was verified whether
the appropriate people answered the questions during a
follow-up telephone interview with the company. If this
was not the case, an appropriate informant was asked to
re-answer specific parts of the questionnaire.
Common method variance appears to be not a major
problem because in most firms, different people answered
the questions about the independent variable (creativity-
supporting work environment) and the other main vari-
ables (NP productivity, NP success). Harmans one-factor
test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) confirmed this: princi-
pal component analysis with all items that make up the
main variables showed that the unrotated principal com-
ponents solution extracted six components with eigenval-
ues greater than 1, and that the first component accounted
for only 39% of the variance.
Measures
Independent variable. Creativity-supporting work
environment is defined as an overall work environment
measure at firm level, consisting of several sources of
creativity. Kuenzi and Schminke (2009) distinguish
between general and specific conceptualizations of sup-
porting climate. In product innovation research, both con-
ceptualizations have been employed. For example, Wei
and Morgan (2004) formulate an organizations general
support in terms of social support (e.g., group spirit and
management friendliness), whereas others (okpekin and
Knudsen, 2012; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Parry
et al., 2009) use a more specific conceptualization focus-
ing on creativity and innovation. Because a supportive
work environment is a domain referenced phenomenon
that should be defined according to the type of perfor-
mance that is desired (Hunter et al., 2007, p. 70), in the
present study, a work environment measure that specifi-
cally focuses on creativity is used.
From several review studies that discuss creativity-
supporting characteristics of the social-organizational
work environment (Anderson et al., 2004; Egan, 2005;
George, 2008; Hunter et al., 2007; Rank et al., 2004;
J PROD INNOV MANAG 5
2014;():
Runco, 2004; Shalley and Gilson, 2004; Shalley et al.,
2004; Zhou and Shalley, 2003), nine characteristics that
are likely to enhance employee creativity were selected:
challenging job (the complexity of the job, and how
demanding the job is), teamwork (working in a group of
people toward a common goal, by having interactions
with each other), task rotation (a schedule with a set of
different tasks to be performed simultaneously), job
autonomy (decision latitude in the job, e.g., with respect
to deciding about the order of work tasks), coaching
supervisor (a supervisor who supports and encourages
employees, builds mutual trust and commitment, and pro-
vides positive feedback), time for thinking (the availabil-
ity of time for idea generation without the time pressure
of everyday work), creative goals (the situation that the
employee must produce new ideas according to goals,
and with the expectation of evaluation), recognition of
creative ideas (the recognition, e.g., praise, awards, of
new ideas), and incentives for creative results (possibility
of rewards, e.g., pay raises, profit sharing, bonuses, pro-
motions, after reaching creative results).
Next for the physical work environment empirical
studies in ergonomics, environmental psychology,
architecture/indoor design, and other fields were
reviewed to find characteristics of the physical work envi-
ronment that are likely to support creativity. Studies on
the effect of physical characteristics on creative task per-
formance and research on the effect of physical elements
of the environment on positive mood were included
because a positive mood may facilitate the generation of
a large number of ideas (e.g., Amabile, Barsade, Mueller,
and Staw, 2005; Davis, 2009; Isen, Daubman, and
Nowicki, 1987). This resulted in the selection of 12
creativity-supporting characteristics of the physical work
environment: furniture in the workplace (e.g., chairs,
tables, cupboards) (Ridoutt, Ball, and Killerby, 2002);
natural plants or flowers in the workplace (Ceylan, Dul,
and Aytac, 2008; Shibata and Suzuki, 2002, 2004); colors
that provide a relaxing experience (e.g., green, blue, or
blue violet) (Ceylan et al., 2008); colors that provide a
stimulating experience (e.g., yellow, orange, pink, red, or
red violet) (McCoy and Evans, 2002; Stone, 2003);
privacy (i.e., the possibility of being secluded from the
presence or view of others) (Aiello et al., 1977; Stokols,
Clitheroe, and Zmuidzinas, 2002); window views to
nature, i.e., visual access from the work environment to
the outer natural environment (e.g., trees, plants) (McCoy
and Evans, 2002); any window view (i.e., having visual
access from the work environment to any outer environ-
ment) (Stone and Irvine, 1994); the amount of light in
the work environment (Knez, 1995); the presence of
6 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. DUL AND C. CEYLAN
2014;():

daylight, i.e., the light coming from the sun into the work Table 1. Creativity-supporting Elements That Are
environment (Ceylan et al., 2008); the physical climate Present (Realized) in the Firms Work Environment
(i.e., the temperature, velocity, humidity, and composi- According to Informants (Means, Standard Deviations,
and Factor Structure)
tion of the air in the work environment) (Hygge and
Knez, 2001); positive sounds (e.g., music, silence with Factors and Factor
absence of noise) (Alencar and Bruno-Faria, 1997; Loadingsa
Stokols et al., 2002); and positive odors (e.g., fresh air, Element M SD 1 2 3 4
absence of bad smell) (Knasko, 1992).
In the literature, two approaches are used to obtain a Challenging job 4.5 1.6 .73
Teamwork 5.4 1.3 .51
score at firm level. In the first approach, perceptions of Task rotation 4.3 1.7 .68
individual employees about the work environment are Job autonomy 4.2 1.7 .69
aggregated to the firm level (e.g., Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, Coaching supervisor 4.8 1.7 .51
2009). In the second approach, knowledgeable infor- Time for thinking 4.4 1.5 .58
mants provide the firm score (e.g., okpekin and Creative goals 4.5 1.7 .54 .61
Recognition of creative ideas 5.2 1.6 .79
Knudsen, 2012; Crespell and Hansen, 2008; Jung, Chow,
Incentives for creative results 4.7 1.8 .75
and Wu, 2003; Parry et al., 2009; kerlavaj et al., 2010; Furniture 4.7 1.8 .72
Wei and Morgan, 2004). The second approach was used Indoor plants/flowers 3.7 2.0 .53
because the work environment is defined in terms of Calming colors 3.6 1.9 .66
organizational sources, rather than psychological percep- Inspiring colors 3.1 1.8 .62
Privacy 4.3 1.8 .66
tions of employees about these sources (Baer and Frese,
Window view to nature 3.4 2.1 .83
2003; Glick, 1985). Managers and specialists can have a Any window view 3.7 2.1 .91
more direct influence on organizational sources than on Quantity of light 4.8 1.7 .56 .57
employee perceptions. The informant (e.g., the HR spe- Daylight 4.9 1.8 .55
cialist or managers, see above) was asked to indicate, on Indoor (physical) climate 5.0 1.6 .66
a 7-point scale (from very little to very much), the Sound (positive sound) 3.4 2.1 .86
Smell (positive smell) 3.5 2.0 .83
extent to which each of the 21 social-organizational and
physical work environment sources for employee creativ-
a
Factors with eigenvalues > 1 extracted by principal component analysis
with varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Only factor loadings
ity had been present (realized) in the company during the above .50 are shown.
last three calendar years under review. To ensure that the
informant focused on support for creativity when evalu-
ating the sources, questions about the supporting work work, whereas low mean scores indicate that the support-
environment for creativity were introduced as follows: ing element is commonly less present (e.g., inspiring
Employees in your firm may have been directly or indi- colors). However, the present paper considers only overall
rectly involved in the innovation activities of your firm. work environment support, as the focus is on the effect of
The work environment of these employees could have the overall work environment on product innovation per-
stimulated or hindered their creativity for innovation. formance. A higher-order construct is defined, which is
Employee creativity for innovation is the generation of formed by these 21 additive creativity-supporting sources
ideas for product, process, marketing, or organizational (Choi, 2004; Crespell and Hansen, 2008; Dul et al., 2011;
innovation. Employee creativity also refers to the genera- Isaksen and Akkermans, 2011). In the present study, the
tion of ideas for solving problems during innovation concept of a creativity-supporting work environment is
activities. The work environment refers to the social work therefore defined as a formative index consisting of the
environment, the organizational work environment, and sum of the scores of the separate elements (Pierce et al.,
the physical work environment. Subsequently, the ques- 1993). This index ranges from 21 (all separate sources
tion: During the last three calendar years, to which have value 1) to 147 (all separate sources have value 7).
extent were the following work environment elements The mean value in the sample is 90 (range 30145). A
present (realized) for stimulating employee creativity formative index differs from a traditional reflective scale
(1 = very little, 7 = very much) was asked. because the item scores cause the latent variable, whereas
Table 1 shows the mean scores, standard deviations, in a reflective scale, the item scores are caused by a latent
and factor structure of each source for creativity. variable (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001).
High mean scores indicate that the given supporting Because the separate scores of a formative index do not
element is commonly present in this sample, e.g., team- need to correlate, common test methods for assessing
CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT
construct reliability do not apply (Rossiter, 2002). On the
contrary, multicollinearity would mean that the elements
do not represent distinctive aspects of the supporting work
environment. Multicollinearity was not a major problem
as the variance inflation factor (VIF) values of the items
were below the commonly recommended level of 10 (1.9
6.7). The absence of a latent variable that causes multi-
collinearity in a formative scale is also the reason that a
factor analysis is not useful for identifying this latent
variable. Such an analysis was performed only to illustrate
that several elements are apparently simultaneously
present (realized). For example, in organizations where
employees have more job autonomy, leaders also set more
creative goals.
Mediator variable. NP productivity is defined as the
extent to which the firm has introduced new or signifi-
cantly improved products (goods and services) to the
market during the last three calendar years under review.
It is a formative index that includes two items: goods and
services. The related questions were based on the Com-
munity Innovation Survey questionnaire 2008 (OECD,
2005). The original dichotomous (yes/no) interval scale
was adapted into a more sensitive 5-point scale. The
index was obtained by adding the two separate item
scores. The theoretical and observed range was 210 with
an observed mean score of 6.5.
Dependent variable. NP success is defined as the per-
centage of the firms sales in the previous year from new
or significantly improved products (goods and services)
introduced during the last three calendar years under
review. It is a formative index that includes two items:
percentage of sales from products that are new to the
market and percentage of sales from products that are
new to the firm. The related questions were adapted from
the Community Innovation Survey questionnaire 2008
(OECD, 2005). The index was obtained by adding the
two percentages. The theoretical and observed range was
0100% with an observed mean score of 53%.
Control variables. Firm age, firm size, and industrial
sector were included as control variables since prior
studies have reported their relationship with innovation
(Evangelista and Mastrostefano, 2006; Gumusluoglu and
Ilsev, 2009; Hitt, Hoskisson, and Kim, 1997; Jung et al.,
2003). For firm age and firm size, the natural logarithm
was used to reduce skewness of the distribution.
Data Analysis
Several regression analyses were conducted to test the
hypotheses. All control variables and a selection of inde-
J PROD INNOV MANAG 7
2014;():
pendent, mediator, and dependent variables were
included in each regression model. The hypothesized
partial mediation was tested in two ways. In the first
approach, the traditional recommendations by Baron and
Kenny (1986) were followed: first, the independent vari-
able (i.e., creativity-supporting work environment) is
regressed on the dependent variable (i.e., NP success);
second, the independent variable is regressed on the
mediator variable (i.e., NP productivity); and finally, the
mediator is regressed on the dependent variable, control-
ling for the independent variable. Then for mediation, the
following conditions must be met: (1) the independent
variable must have a significant effect on the dependent
variable, (2) the independent variable must have a signifi-
cant effect on the mediator variable, and (3) the mediator
must have a significant effect on the dependent variable.
For partial mediation, the independent variable should
have a significant effect on the dependent variable in the
third regression. If not, then there is full mediation.
In the second approach, more recent recommendations
by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) were followed. They
suggest that Baron and Kennys approach is not conclu-
sive for mediation effects, and propose an alternative:
first, test if there is an indirect effect using Preacher and
Hayess (2008) bootstrapping approach, and then classify
the mediation depending on the presence of a direct
effect, and on the sign of that effect (positive or negative).
If both the indirect and the direct effect are significant,
and have the same sign, there is complementary media-
tion (partial mediation).
Results
Table 2 shows means, standard deviations, and correla-
tions for all variables. The correlations among creativity-
supporting work environment, NP productivity, and NP
success are consistent with the hypotheses. Furthermore,
the correlations show that older firms are larger than
younger firms, and that younger firms have more NP
success than older firms.
Table 3 shows the results of the regression analyses.
In model 1, creativity-supporting work environment is
regressed on NP productivity. The regression coefficient
for creativity-supporting work environment differs sig-
nificantly from zero. This means that there is a positive
effect of creativity-supporting work environment on NP
productivity (coefficient: .23 and p < .05). This result
confirms H1: The more a firms overall work environ-
ment supports creativity, the more the firm introduces
new products to the market. In model 3, creativity-
supporting work environment is regressed on NP success.
8 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. DUL AND C. CEYLAN
2014;():

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Study Measuresa

Variable M S.D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. NP success 52.70 29.70

2. Firm age 3.08 .70 .20*
3. Firm size 5.24 1.50 .04 .36**
4. Sector 1: Automotive versus textile .23 .42 .14 .02 .12
5. Sector 2: Automotive versus other .26 .44 .07 .02 .23* .33**
6. Sector 3: Automotive versus food .11 .31 .02 .07 .08 .19 .21*
7. Sector 4: Automotive versus services .13 .33 .04 .00 .31** .21* .23* .13
8. NP productivity 6.54 2.16 .42** .03 .12 .00 .10 .07 .14
9. Creativity-supporting work environment 90.00 25.20 .27** .05 .11 .01 .06 .06 .18 .26**
* p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
a
n = 103.

The results show that creativity-supporting work environ-
ment has a positive effect on NP success (coefficient .31
and p < .01). This confirms H2: The more a firms overall
work environment supports creativity, the higher the
firms percentage of sales from new products. In model 2,
NP productivity is regressed on NP success. It shows that
NP productivity has a positive effect on NP success (coef-
ficient: .43 and p < .001). This result confirms H3: The
more a firm introduces new products to the market,
the higher the firms percentage of sales from new
products.
According to Baron and Kennys (1986) mediation
test, model 3 shows that the effect that may be medi-
ated (i.e., the effect of creativity-supporting work envi-
ronment on NP success) is significant. Furthermore,
model 1 shows that creativity-supporting work environ-
ment has a significant effect on NP productivity, and
model 4 shows that NP productivity has a significant
effect on NP success controlled for the effect of
creativity-supporting work environment. This means that
partial mediation is confirmed because the effect of
creativity-supporting work environment is not absent in
model 4. Also Zhao et al.s (2010) approach for testing
mediation confirms that NP productivity mediates the
relationship between creativity-supporting work environ-
ment for creativity and NP success: the indirect and direct
effects of creativity-supporting work environment on NP
success are both significant and positive, indicating
complementary mediation (5000 bootstrap samples, 95%
bootstrap confidence interval between .32 and 4.72). In
all, empirical support is found for the parsimonious
partial mediation model on the effect of a creativity-
supporting work environment on product innovation
performance.

Table 3. Results of Regression Analyses Predicting NP Productivity and NP Successa.b

NP Productivity NP Success

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

(H1) (H3) (H2) (H2, H3)

Firm age .02 .19* .19* .18*

Firm size .13 .06 .06 .11*
Sector 1: Automotive versus textile .04 .19* .23* .22*
Sector 2: Automotive versus other .07 .13 .19 .16
Sector 3: Automotive versus food .10 .01 .08 .04
Sector 4: Automotive versus services .10 .11 .13 .17
NP productivity .43*** .38***
Creativity-supporting work environment .23* .31** .22*
R2 10.3% 25.1% 16.1% 29.2%
Adjusted R2 3.7% 19.5% 9.9% 23.2%
Model F 1.56 4.54*** 2.60* 4.85***
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
a
n = 103.
b
Standardized regression coefficients are reported for a one-sided test.
CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Discussion
The present study shows that a firm with a creativity-
supporting work environment introduces more new prod-
ucts to the market (NP productivity), and has more NP
success in the market in terms of the percentage of sales
from new products. The results also show that the number
of new products partially mediates the relationship
between creativity-supporting work environment and NP
success. In other words, a work environment that sup-
ports creativity not only boosts product innovation, but
also enhances the success of new products in the market.
The first contribution is that new data and findings are
added to the relatively small body of existing knowledge
on the link between creativity-supporting work environ-
ments and product innovation performance at firm level.
The present study can be compared with the three studies
that consider the effect of a creativity-supporting work
environment on product innovation. okpekin and
Knudsen (2012) and Parry et al. (2009) examined effects
on NP productivity, whereas Gumusluoglu and Ilsev
(2009) studied effects on NP success. Using a selection of
(adapted) items of the KEYS and CCQ/SSQ instruments,
okpekin and Knudsen (2012) analyzed the effect of
seven dimensions of a creativity-supporting social-
organizational work environment on NP productivity in
108 Danish small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs),
and Parry et al. (2009) studied the effect of an overall
creativity-supporting social-organizational work environ-
ment on one specific aspect of new product introductions
on the market: the degree to which new products were
launched on time in 164 firms selected from the World
Business Directory. By comparison, the present study
used a sample of 103 Turkish companies, and a
creativity-supporting work environment is conceptual-
ized as an overall social-organizational and physical con-
struct. Two studies employed the key informant approach
to obtain measures of all study variables at firm level.
okpekin and Knudsen (2012) and Parry et al. (2009)
used one key informant per firm (innovation manager,
chief executive officer, or manager involved in NPD)
whereas the present study used several informants with
different backgrounds (HR, financial, general manage-
ment) to measure the main variables independently in
order to avoid common method bias, as this may inflate
effect sizes. okpekin and Knudsens (2012) and the
present study both used questions from the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development question-
naire (Community Innovation Survey) on product inno-
vation (OECD, 2005) as the measure for NP productivity.
Instead of using the original dichotomous (yes/no)
J PROD INNOV MANAG 9
2014;():
interval scale as okpekin and Knudsen (2012) did, in the
present studies, it was adapted to a 5-point scale to make
it more sensitive. okpekin and Knudsen (2012) found
substantial positive effects of a creativity-supporting
work environment on NP productivity for the dimensions
organizational motivation (correlation coefficient .24),
resources (correlation coefficient .30), and idea time
(correlation coefficient .27). The present study found
similar effect sizes for the effect of an overall creativity-
supporting work environment on NP productivity (corre-
lation coefficient .26). Parry et al. (2009) found support
for their hypothesis that a creativity-supporting work
environment helps companies to introduce new products
to the market in a timely fashion (correlation coefficient
.50). By combining the results of these three studies, it
can be concluded that firms with creativity-supporting
work environments introduce more new products to the
market.
In the present study, also a substantial total effect
(correlation coefficient .27) of a creativity-supporting
work environment on NP success in terms of a firms
market share of new products was found. Gumusluoglu
and Ilsev (2009) also studied this link with 43 small
software companies in Turkey. They aggregated
employee scores of selected items from Scott and Bruces
(1994) Innovation Climate Questionnaire to firm level
and used one informant per firm (leader) to estimate
sales generated by new products. They rejected their
hypothesis as they found a small negative effect of a
creativity-supporting work environment on innovation.
Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) offer two interpretations
for this result: (1) the effect of a creativity-supporting
work environment on employee innovative behavior may
be overestimated in the literature, and (2) the effect may
have been obscured by another predictor of NP success in
their study: leadership style (which was the prime interest
of their study) as they found a high correlation (correla-
tion coefficient .81) between the leadership style predic-
tor and the supporting work environment predictor. The
present study had only one organizational support predic-
tor and found that it had a substantial positive effect on
NP success, illustrated by the correlation coefficient of
.27 and the standardized regression coefficient of .31 in
model 3 of Table 3. It is concluded that firms with
creativity-supporting work environments have more NP
success in the market. The mediation model shows that
there are two paths from a creativity-supporting work
environment to this NP success that are about equally
important: a direct path between a creativity-supporting
work environment and NP success (standardized regres-
sion coefficient .22 in model 4), and an indirect path via
10 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2014;():
NP productivity (standardized regression coefficient .23
in model 1).
The second contribution is the use of a comprehensive
and focused measure of a firms creativity-supporting
work environment that also includes physical elements
and that is more focused on creativity support rather than
on general support. In particular, the inclusion of physical
elements is a valuable extension as creativity researchers
have repeatedly suggested that the physical environment
can be a source of creativity (e.g., Amabile, 2013;
Amabile et al., 1996; George, 2008; Shalley and Gilson,
2004; Woodman et al., 1993). Studies on the effect of
specific physical elements (Shibata and Suzuki, 2002,
2004; Stone, 2003; Stone and Irvine, 1994) and research
into the effect of an overall supporting physical work
environment (Ceylan et al., 2008; McCoy and Evans,
2002) have shown that, at individual level, a supporting
physical work environment can enhance employees cre-
ative behavior. In the present study, 12 elements of the
physical environment and 9 elements of the social-
organizational environment were included for the con-
ceptualization of an overall creativity-supporting work
environment at firm level. Overall or total supporting The present study has several limitations. First, the con-
environment is a useful theoretical concept to study orga-
nizational performance (e.g., DiLiello, Houghton, and
Dawley, 2011; Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham,
1989; Pierce et al., 1993). With this overall measure, evi-
dence was found for the link between an overall
creativity-supporting work environment and product
innovation performance at firm level. Because of lack of
statistical power, it was not possible to analyze separate
contributions from the physical work environment and
the social-organizational environment, nor from distinct
elements. This could be a topic for future research.
This paper focuses specifically on product innovation,
not on innovation in general. In studies with general
innovation, product innovation is mixed with other types
of innovation. For example, the concept of technical
innovation usually combines product innovation and
process innovation. Several studies have shown (e.g.,
Ceylan, 2013; Gunday, Ulusoy, Kilic, and Alpkan, 2011)
that there is a complex interrelationship between product
innovation and other types of innovation. Therefore, high
levels of general innovation performance may not neces-
sarily mean high levels of product innovation perfor-
mance. Furthermore, okpekin and Knudsen (2012)
found that work environments may have different effects
on product innovation and on process innovation. Avail-
able studies on the effects of a creativity-supporting work
environment on general innovation performance report
mixed results. Mohamed and Rickards (1996) evaluated
J. DUL AND C. CEYLAN
the link between a creativity-supporting work environ-
ment (using an overall CCQ score) and overall imple-
mentation of changes in eight firms in Malaysia. One of
the 15 firm changes dealt with the introduction of new
products (NP productivity). The authors report that firms
with the highest scores for a creativity-supporting work
environment were the most innovation active. Porzse
et al. (2012) used a similar measure of a creativity-
supporting work environment in two Hungarian firms.
They measured innovation activity, which includes
both general innovation and NP productivity. When com-
paring the two firms, one with a high level of innovation
activity, the other with a low level of innovation activity,
they found that these companies did not differ with
respect to a creativity-supporting work environment. The
present study focuses on product innovation alone, and
the expected relationship between a creativity-supporting
work environment and product innovation performance is
found.
Limitations and Future Research
clusions are based on only one specific sample of firms.
Just like other single shot studies, further replication
studies are needed to check whether the results hold for
other firm populations as well, before any generalization
can be made (Hak and Dul, 2010; Hubbard and
Armstrong, 1994). This is particularly true for this field of
research with very few studies at firm level. Second, only
one key informant per concept was used, which may have
hampered measurement reliability. Data collection with
multiple informants per concept can improve reliability
(Kumar et al., 1993). On the other hand, several studies
have found acceptable inter-rater reliability for similar
constructs as in the present study (Baer and Frese, 2003;
Wei and Morgan, 2004). Future studies could employ a
hybrid approach in which several informants per con-
struct per firm attempt to reach consensus on scoring
the concept (Kumar et al., 1993). Other data collection
methods (e.g., observation, document analysis, inter-
viewing) could also be considered. Third, despite efforts
to find different informants to measure different concepts,
in several smaller firms, only one informant could answer
all the questions. Therefore, single source bias cannot be
excluded, although Harmans one-factor test did not indi-
cate that this was a problem. In future studies, further
attempts could be made to have different sources to
measure the main study variables. Finally, the explained
variance of the regression models is up to about 25%.
Although this is not uncommon in research about
CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT
multicausal phenomena, obviously many factors other
than the creativity-supporting work environment affect
product innovation performance. Future research could
include more factors such as strategic factors, develop-
ment process factors, and market environment factors
(Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1995). To better understand
the creativity-supporting role of the environment, future
research could employ large N studies (with a large
number of firms) to study the effects of separate dimen-
sions of the creativity-supporting work environment (e.g.,
social-organizational, physical) or even separate elements
within these dimensions, on product innovation perfor-
mance. Such large N studies could also include more
details about product innovation performance, e.g., with
market, product, financial, customer acceptance, and
timing measures (Langerak et al., 2004).
Practical Implications
The present study shows that firms can enhance their
product innovation performance by developing
creativity-supporting work environments. The hypoth-
eses about the effects of a creativity-supporting work
environment are not only confirmed, but the effect sizes
also appear to have practical relevance (Cumming, 2012;
Schwab et al., 2011). The effect of a creativity-supporting
work environment on NP success consists of a direct
effect and an indirect effect via NP productivity, and the
total effect can be considered to be substantial. In model
3, the standardized regression coefficient of creativity-
supporting work environment on NP success is .31. The
corresponding unstandardized regression coefficient is
.36 (95% confidence interval [.13, .59]). This means that
an increase of one unit in the score of creativity-
supporting work environment results in an increase of .36
units in the score of NP success (which is the percentage
of sales from new products). In the present sample, firm
scores for creativity-supporting work environment range
from 30 to 145. For example, if average companies
with a creativity-supporting work environment score of
90 and a NP success score of 50 were able to reach the
maximum observed work environment score of 145,
these companies could achieve a percentage of sales from
new products that is .36 (145 90) = 20 [7,32] units
higher (i.e., the percentage of sales from new products
increases from 50% to 70% [57%, 82%]). Given the
variations that were observed in the sample, such
increases are realistic and the effects on product innova-
tion success can be considered important in practice: the
average company can become a high performer. Amabile, T. M., S. G. Barsade, J. S. Mueller, and B. M. Staw. 2005. Affect
Another indication for the practical relevance of the find-
J PROD INNOV MANAG 11
2014;():
ings can be found in Table 2, which shows that the cor-
relation coefficient between creativity-supporting work
environment and NP success is .27. According to Cohens
(possibly disputable) classification of small, medium, and
large effect sizes in the social sciences, such correlation
can be considered as a medium large effect (Cohen,
1988). Hence, firms should offer a work environment that
supports creativity to people who are directly or indi-
rectly involved in NPD.
How can this be realized? Because the conceptualiza-
tion of overall creativity-supporting work environment
consists of separate elements that add up, each single
element could be manipulated separately by organiza-
tional design and management. The description of these
elements in the Methods section provides a starting
point for possible practical actions. It is suggested that
firms make their work environments more creativity-
supporting by focusing both on social-organizational ele-
ments as well as on physical elements of the work
environment. Although the effects of separate physical
elements (e.g., plants, colors) may be smaller than the
effects of specific social-organizational elements
(Amabile, 2013), changes of the physical work environ-
ment are relatively easy and cost-effective with immedi-
ate visible results (Dul et al., 2011). Rather than just
focusing on the creativity of specific individuals (e.g.,
designers) or groups (e.g., NPD teams) that are directly
involved in the product innovation process, this approach
focuses on the overall work environment that may affect
people that are both directly and indirectly involved in
this process. Such a work environment may not only help
to improve product innovation performance in the short
run, but may also help to shape longer lasting organiza-
tional cultures (values, beliefs) of flexibility, change,
external orientation, exploiting opportunities, taking risks
etc. that support creativity and innovation (Martins
and Terblanche, 2003; Naranjo-Valencia, Sanz-Valle, and
Jimnez-Jimnez, 2010; Wang, Guidice, Tansky, and
Wang, 2010; Yang and Hsu, 2010).
References
Aiello, J. R., D. T. DeRisi, Y. M. Epstein, and R. A. Karlin. 1977. Crowding
and the role of interpersonal distance preference. Sociometry 40: 271
82.
Alencar, E. M. L. S., and M. F. Bruno-Faria. 1997. Characteristics of an
organizational environment which stimulate and inhibit creativity. The
Journal of Creative Behavior 31: 27181.
Amabile, T. M. 2013. Componential theory of creativity. In Encyclopedia
of management theory, ed. E. H. Kessler, 13540. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 367403.
12 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2014;():
Amabile, T. M., R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby, and M. Herron. 1996.
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 39 (5): 115484.
Anderson, N., C. K. W. De Dreu, and B. A. Nijstad. 2004. The routinization
of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-
the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 14773.
Baer, M., and M. Frese. 2003. Innovation is not enough: Climates for
initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm per-
formance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 4568.
Barczak, G., A. Griffin, and K. B. Kahn. 2009. PERSPECTIVE: Trends and
drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best
practices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: 323.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 51: 117382.
Brand, A. 1998. Knowledge management and innovation at 3M. Journal of
Knowledge Management 2 (1): 1722.
Calantone, R., K. Chan, and A. S. Cui. 2006. Decomposing product
innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 23 (5): 40821.
Ceylan, C. 2013. Commitment-based HR practices, different types of inno-
vation activities and firm innovation performance. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (1): 20826.
Ceylan, C., J. Dul, and S. Aytac. 2008. Can the office environment stimulate
a managers creativity? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufac-
turing 18: 589602.
Choi, J. N. 2004. Person-environment fit and creative behaviour: Differen-
tial impacts of suppliesvalues and demandsabilities versions of fit.
Human Relations 57: 53152.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
okpekin, ., and M. P. Knudsen. 2012. Does organizing for creativity
really lead to innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management 21
(3): 30414.
Cooper, R. G., and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 1991. New product processes at
leading industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management 20 (2):
13747.
Cooper, R. G., and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 1995. Benchmarking the firms
critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 12: 37491.
Crespell, P., and E. Hansen. 2008. Work climate, innovativeness, and firm
performance: In search of a conceptual framework. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 38: 170315.
Cumming, G. 2012. Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confi-
dence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
Davis, D., and B. J. Daley. 2008. The learning organization and its dimen-
sions as key factors in firms performance. Human Resource Develop-
ment International 11 (1): 5166.
Davis, M. A. 2009. Understanding the relationship between mood and
creativity: A meta-analysis. Organisational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes 108: 2538.
Diamantopoulos, A., and H. M. Winklhofer. 2001. Index construction with
formative indicators. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 26977.
Diehl, M., and W. Stroebe. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups:
Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 53: 497509.
DiLiello, T. C., J. D. Houghton, and D. Dawley. 2011. Narrowing the
creativity gap: The moderating effects of perceived support for creativ-
ity. The Journal of Psychology 145 (3): 15172.
Dul, J., and C. Ceylan. 2011. Work environments for employee creativity.
Ergonomics 54: 1220.
Dul, J., C. Ceylan, and F. Jaspers. 2011. Knowledge workers creativity and
the role of the physical work environment. Human Resource Manage-
ment 50 (6): 71534.
J. DUL AND C. CEYLAN
Egan, T. M. 2005. Factors influencing individual creativity in the work-
place: An examination of quantitative empirical research. Advances in
Developing Human Resources 7: 16081.
Ekvall, G. 1996. Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. Euro-
pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5 (1): 10523.
Evangelista, R., and V. Mastrostefano. 2006. Firm size, sectors and coun-
tries as sources of variety in innovation. Economics of Innovation and
New Technology 15 (3): 24770.
Evanschitzky, H., M. Eisend, R. J. Calantone, and Y. Jiang. 2012. Success
factors of product innovation: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 29 (Suppl S1): 2137.
George, J. M. 2008. Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Manage-
ment Annals 1: 43977.
Glick, W. H. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and
psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Man-
agement Review 10: 60116.
Griffin, A., and A. L. Page. 1993. An interim report on measuring product
development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement 10 (4): 291308.
Gumusluoglu, L., and A. Ilsev. 2009. Transformational leadership and
organizational innovation: The roles of internal and external support for
innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: 264
77.
Gunday, G., G. Ulusoy, K. Kilic, and L. Alpkan. 2011. Effects of innova-
tion types on firm performance. International Journal of Production
Economics 133 (2): 66276.
Hak, T., and J. Dul. 2010. Replication. In Encyclopedia of case study
research, ed. A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, and E. Wiebe, 8046. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hansen, J. 1992. Innovation, firm size, and firm age. Small Business Eco-
nomics 1: 3744.
Henard, D. H., and D. M. Szymanski. 2001. Why some new products are
more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 362
75.
Hitt, M. A., R. E. Hoskisson, and H. Kim. 1997. International diversifica-
tion: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified
firms. Academy of Management Journal 40: 76798.
Hubbard, R., and J. S. Armstrong. 1994. Replications and extensions in
marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal
of Research in Marketing 11: 23348.
Hunter, S. T., K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford. 2005. Dimensions of
creative climate: A general taxonomy. The Korean Journal of Thinking
and Problem Solving 15 (2): 97116.
Hunter, S. T., K. E. Bedell, and M. D. Mumford. 2007. Climate for cre-
ativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal 19: 6990.
Hygge, S., and I. Knez. 2001. Effects of noise, heat and indoor lighting on
cognitive performance and self-reported affect. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology 21: 29199.
Im, S., and J. P. Workman. 2004. Market orientation, creativity, and new
product performance in high technology firms. Journal of Marketing 68
(April): 11432.
Isaksen, S. G., and H. J. Akkermans. 2011. Creative climate: A leadership
lever for innovation. The Journal of Creative Behavior 45 (3): 16187.
Isaksen, S. G., K. J. Lauer, and G. Ekvall. 1999. Situational outlook ques-
tionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and change. Psycho-
logical Reports 85: 66574.
Isen, A. M., K. A. Daubman, and G. P. Nowicki. 1987. Positive affect
facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 52: 112231.
Jung, D. I., C. Chow, and A. Wu. 2003. The role of transformational
leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and
some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly 14: 52544.
Kelley, T., and J. Littman. 2001. The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity
from IDEO, Americas leading design firm. New York: Currency.
CREATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Knasko, S. C. 1992. Ambient odors effect on creativity, mood, and per-
ceived health. Chemical Senses 17: 2735.
Knez, I. 1995. Effects of indoor lighting on mood and cognition. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 15: 3951.
Knight, K. E. 1967. A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation
process. Journal of Business 40: 47896.
Kuenzi, M., and M. Schminke. 2009. Assembling fragments into a lens: A
review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational
work climate literature. Journal of Management 35 (3): 634717.
Kumar, N., L. W. Stern, and J. C. Anderson. 1993. Conducting inter-
organizational research using key informants. The Academy of Man-
agement Journal 36 (6): 163351.
Kuntze, R., and E. Matulich. 2010. Google: Searching for value. Journal of
Case Research in Business and Economics 2: 110.
Langerak, F., E. J. Hultink, and H. S. J. Robben. 2004. The impact of
market orientation, product advantage, and launch proficiency on new
product performance and organizational performance. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 21: 7994.
Martins, E. C., and F. Terblanche. 2003. Building organizational culture
that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innova-
tion Management 6 (1): 6474.
Mathisen, G. E., and S. Einarsen. 2004. A review of instruments assessing
creative and innovative environments within organizations. Journal of
Creativity Research 16: 11940.
McCoy, J. M., and G. W. Evans. 2002. The potential role of the physical
environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal 14:
40926.
Mohamed, M. Z., and T. Rickards. 1996. Assessing and comparing the
innovativeness and creative climate of firms. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 12: 10921.
Mumford, M. D. 2000. Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for
innovation. Human Resource Management Review 10: 129.
Naranjo-Valencia, J., R. Sanz-Valle, and D. Jimnez-Jimnez. 2010. Orga-
nizational culture as determinant of product innovation. European
Journal of Innovation Management 13 (4): 46680.
OECD. 2005. Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting
innovation data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD.
Osborn, A. F. 1963. Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Charles
Scribners Sons.
Parry, M. E., M. Song, P. C. Weerd-Nederhof, and K. Visscher. 2009. The
impact of NPD strategy, product strategy, and NPD process on per-
ceived cycle time. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26:
62739.
Patterson, M. G., M. A. West, V. J. Shackleton, J. F. Dawson, R. Lawthon,
S. Maitlis, D. L. Robinson, and A. M. Wallace. 2005. Validating the
organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, produc-
tivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 379408.
Pierce, J. L., D. G. Gardner, L. L. Cummings, and R. B. Dunham. 1989.
Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal 32: 62248.
Pierce, J. L., D. G. Gardner, R. B. Dunham, and L. L. Cummings. 1993.
Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition-
employee response relationships. Academy of Management Journal 36:
27188.
Pitta, D., V. Wood, and F. J. Franzak. 2008. Nurturing an effective creative
culture within a marketing organization. Journal of Consumer Market-
ing 25 (3): 13748.
Podsakoff, P., and D. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12: 53144.
Porzse, G., S. Takacs, Z. Csedo, Z. Berta, Z. Sara, and J. 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): 111.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 13
2014;():
Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. Asympotic and resampling proce-
dures for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 87991.
Rank, J., V. L. Pace, and M. Frese. 2004. Three avenues for future research
on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology: An Inter-
national Review 53: 51828.
Ridoutt, B. G., R. D. Ball, and S. K. Killerby. 2002. First impressions of
organizations and the qualities connoted by wood in interior design.
Forest Products Journal 52: 3036.
Rossiter, J. R. 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in
marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19: 30535.
Runco, M. A. 2004. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 65787.
Schwab, A., E. Abrahamson, W. H. Starbuck, and F. Fidler. 2011. Research-
ers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis
significance tests. Organization Science 22 (4): 110520.
Scott, S. G., and R. A. Bruce. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A
path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal 37: 580607.
Seidler, J. 1974. On using informants: A technique for collecting quantita-
tive data and controlling for measurement error in organizational analy-
sis. American Sociological Review 39: 81631.
Shalley, C. E., and L. L. Gilson. 2004. What leaders need to know: A review
of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The
Leadership Quarterly 15: 3353.
Shalley, C. E., J. Zhou, and G. R. Oldham. 2004. The effects of personal
and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from
here? Journal of Management 30: 93358.
Shibata, S., and N. Suzuki. 2002. Effects of the foliage plant on task
performance and mood. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22:
26572.
Shibata, S., and N. Suzuki. 2004. Effects of an indoor plant on creative task
performance and mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 45: 373
81.
kerlavaj, M., J. H. Song, and Y. Lee. 2010. Organizational learning culture,
innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert
Systems with Applications 37 (9): 6390403.
Stokols, D., C. Clitheroe, and M. Zmuidzinas. 2002. Qualities of work
environments that promote perceived support for creativity. Creativity
Research Journal 14: 13747.
Stone, N. J. 2003. Environmental view and color for a simulated telemar-
keting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 6378.
Stone, N. J., and J. M. Irvine. 1994. Direct and indirect window access, task
type, and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14:
5763.
Thamhain, H. J. 2003. Managing innovative R&D teams. R&D Manage-
ment 33 (3): 297311.
Thomke, S., and B. Feinberg. 2009. Design thinking and innovation at
Apple. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Wacker, J. G. 1998. A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different
theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal
of Operations Management 16: 36185.
Wang, S., R. M. Guidice, J. W. Tansky, and Z. Wang. 2010. When R&D
spending is not enough: The critical role of culture when you really
want to innovate. Human Resource Management 49 (4): 76792.
Wei, Y., and N. A. Morgan. 2004. Supportiveness of organizational climate,
market orientation, and new product performance in Chinese firms.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 21: 37588.
Wheelwright, S. C., and K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing product devel-
opment: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency and quality. New York:
Free Press.
Woodman, R. W., J. E. Sawyer, and R. W. Griffin. 1993. Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review 18: 293
321.
14 J PROD INNOV MANAG J. DUL AND C. CEYLAN
2014;():

Yang, Y.-C., and J.-M. Hsu. 2010. Organizational process alignment, 5. Coaching supervisor
culture and innovation. African Journal of Business Management 4
(11): 223140. 6. Time for thinking
Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch, and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny:
7. Creative goals
Myths and truths about mediation analysis. The Journal of Consumer 8. Recognition of creative ideas
Research 37 (2): 197206. 9. Incentives for creative results
Zhou, J., and C. E. Shalley. 2003. Research on employee creativity: A 10. Furniture
critical review and directions for future research. In Research in per-
sonnel and human resource management, ed. J. Martocchio, 165217. 11. Indoor plants/flowers
Oxford, England: Elsevier. 12. Calming colors
Zien, K. A., and S. A. Buckler. 1997. Dreams to market: Crafting a culture 13. Inspiring colors
of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14: 27487. 14. Privacy
15. Window view to nature
16. Any window view
17. Quantity of light
Appendix A 18. Daylight
Questionnaire 19. Indoor (physical) climate
20. Sound (positive sound)
Creativity-supporting Work Environment 21. Smell (positive smell)

Employees in your firm may have been directly or indi-

rectly involved in the innovation activities of your firm.
The work environment of these employees could have
stimulated or hindered their creativity for innovation.
Employee creativity for innovation is the generation of
ideas for product, process, marketing, or organizational
innovation. Employee creativity also refers to the genera-
tion of ideas for solving problems during innovation
activities. The work environment refers to the social work
environment, the organizational work environment, and
the physical work environment.
During the last three calendar years, to which extent
were the following work environment elements present
(realized) for stimulating employee creativity (1 = very
little, 7 = very much):
1. Challenging job
2. Teamwork
3. Task rotation
4. Job autonomy
NP Productivity
1. During [the last three calendar years], to which extent
did your firm introduce new or significantly improved
goods to the market? (1 = no extent, 5 = great extent)
2. During [the last three calendar years], to which extent
did your firm introduce new or significantly improved
services to the market? (1 = no extent, 5 = great
extent)
NP Success
1. Indicate the percentage of your firms turnover in [the
last calendar year] from new or significantly improved
goods and services, introduced during [the last three
calendar years] that were new to your market.
2. Indicate the percentage of your firms turnover in [the
last calendar year] from new or significantly improved
goods and services, introduced during [the last three
calendar years] that were new to your firm.