Organizational Creative Climate & Learning Organization ... PAPERS/JSSH Vol. 11 (1) Mar... · Organizational Creative Climate & Learning Organization: Factors ... regarding influencing

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 11(1): 51-68 (2003) ISSN: 0128-7702© Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Organizational Creative Climate & Learning Organization: FactorsContributing Towards Innovation Within an Organization

AZAHARI ISMAIL, MERIAM ISMAIL*, BAHAMAN ABU SAMAH, SHAMSUDDIN AHMAD,KHAIRUDDIN IDRIS 8c JEGAK ULI

*A-02-21, Damansara MAS, Persiaran KIP 2Sri Damansara, 52200 Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaFaculty of Education, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Keywords: Organizational climate, creativity, innovation, learning culture

ABSTRAKKajian inovasi mencadangkan bahawa satu iklim organisasi yang kreatif cenderung untukmeinainkan peranan penting dan sebagai satu prediktor inovasi. Walau bagaimanapun, baru-baruini, kehadiran budaya pembelajaran dalam sesebuah organisasi cenderung untuk menerangkankesan yang harus dipertimbangkan turut mempengaruhi inovasi dan untuk menentukan yangmana satu boleh menjadi prediktor yang lebih baik untuk inovasi teknologi dan organisasi. Hasilkeputusan menunjukkan bahawa kedua<lua budaya pembelajaran dan iklim kreatif secarasignifikannya menyumbang 80.4% kepada varians dalam inovasi yang dibentuk dengan iklimkreatif organisasi yang menyumbang 55.6% dan budaya pembelajaran menyumbang 63.7%varians dalam inovasi yang diperhatikan. Hasil kajian juga mendapati bahawa dimensi organisasipembelajaran menyumbang lebih kepada varians dalam inovasi, khususnya dimensi "KepimpinanStrategik" mempunyai kuasa prediktor tinggi signifikan ke atas inovasi berlaku di dalam organisasikes dibandingkan dengan sepuluh faktor iklim kreatif organisasi dan selebihnya enam dimensiorganisasi pembelajaran.

ABSTRACTStudies on innovation have suggested that a creative organizational climate tends to play animportant role and is a predictor for innovation. However, lately, the presence of learning culturein an organization tends to explain a considerable influencing effect on innovation too. Thisparticular case study tries to examine the influence of both variables on innovation and todetermine which one of the two can be a better predictor for technological and organizationalinnovation. The results indicated that both learning culture and creative climate significantlycontributed 80.4% to the variance in the innovation construct with organizational creative climateon its own, contributing 55.6% and the learning culture on its own, contributing 63.7% of theobserved variances in innovation. The results of the study also found that the learning organizationdimensions contributed more to the variances in innovation, particularly the dimension of'Strategic Leadership* which had a significantly high predictive power on innovation occurringwithin the case organization as compared to the ten organizational creative climate factors andthe rest of the six learning organization dimensions.

INTRODUCTION and make use of new technologies of all kindsThere is a substantial body of evidence that (OECD 1997; Freeman 1994). French and Bell,suggests innovation can be considered as a Jr. (1995) considered three elements to ensuredominant factor in national economic growth continuous innovation in organizations; theseand international patterns of trade, while at the are empowering employees, encouragingmicro level (within organizations) R&D is seen employee participation and employeeas enhancing an organization's activity to absorb involvement. Innovation, for example, could be

Azahari Ismail, Meriam Ismail, Bahaman Abu Samah, Shamsuddin Ahmad, Khairuddin Idris 8c Jegak Uli

one of the outcomes that result from successfulchange efforts (Beer and Nohria 2000; ChainStore Age 1998; OECD 1997; Mensch 1975).

Among the many streams of researchregarding influencing factors on innovation, theidea of having a creative working climate (orenvironment) within an organization whichrelates to a suitable working culture to facilitatean environment which will then enhance theorganizational power is very often mentioned.This idea was put forward during the middle1980's and late 1990's by several scholars amongothers Ekvail, Arvonen and Waldenstrom-Lindblad (1983), Ekvail and Tangeberg-Anderson (1986), Zain Mohamed (1995), ZainMohamed and Rickards (1996) and Amabileand Conti (1999) who focused on organizationalclimate factors which are said to foster creativityand innovation. Zain Mohamed (1996) in hisstudy involving eight Malaysian firms used theEkvail et a/.'s (1983) Creative ClimateQuestionnaire (CCQ) which contained tendimensions of creative climate to compare theinnovation level of the organizations. In additionZain Mohamed's (1995) study identified fifteenfactors deemed favorable for innovationimplementations in private organizations bothlarge and small, of which five are similar toAmabile and Conti's (1999) eight organizationalclimatic factors likely to foster innovation. Thefive major factors favorable for innovation arementioned and common to both Amabile andConti's and Zain Mohamed's studies thoughphrased differently. They are (1) Organizationalencouragement (commitment), (2) Sufficientresources (user friendly technology), (3)Teamwork support, (4) Freedom (open to newideas), and (5) Supervisory encouragement.

Research on innovation has also identified anumber of human, social and cultural factorswhich are crucial to the effective operation ofinnovation at the organizational level (OECD1997). These factors, according to OECD (1997),were mostly centered around learning; it islearning by organizations as a whole (diffusionof knowledge to a broad range of key individualswithin them) which is critical to an organization'sinnovative capabilities. Beginning in the late1990's and the year 2000, the idea of learning atthe organizational level and knowledgemanagement have been closely linked toinnovation (Argyris and Schon 1978; Drucker1988; Garvin 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).

This stream of research also called the neo-Schumpeterian approach stems from earlierscholars such as Polyanyi (1966) and Nonaka(1991), who viewed innovation in terms ofinteraction between market opportunities andthe organization's knowledge base andcapabilities. This approach has been followedup on recent studies by Mohanty (1999) and StaMaria (2000).

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMDespite achieving considerable successeconomically, the innovation practices in theMalaysian private organizations still remainrelatively under-researched as asserted by a fewscholars (Zain Mohamed and Rickards 1996;Malaysian Science and Technology InformationCenter (MASTIC) 1996). This statement is alsosupported by Sta Maria (2000) and Khairuddin(1999). Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall andWaterson's (2000) were of the opinion that therewas a large literature on creativity in general butfew relating to innovation per se. Even thoughthere has been a huge volume of research oninnovation, with 3,085 publications on thediffusion of innovation out of which 2,297 areempirical works (Rogers 1983), surprisingly, goodmodels and principles on innovation have yet tobe developed as stated by Zairi Mohamed (1994).MASTIC (1996), realizing the situation and theneed for Malaysian organizations to upgradetheir innovations, has since conducted anationwide survey on innovation in 1994involving a large number of Malaysian privateorganizations. Following which, another surveywas conducted in 1998 (M. Kamaruzzmanpersonal communication, October 2000). Thus,the problem statement of this study can besummarized as "the critical need for morestudies to be conducted linking organizationalcreative climatic factors and learning factors inorder to analyze their influences on innovationwithin the Malaysian context is pressing".Specifically, the fields of organizational creativeclimatic factors and learning factors should beempharised. Undoubtedly with more research,more crucial information could be obtainedwhich will further assist in organizational decisionmaking and subsequently improve the nationalgrowth. Hence, the implementation of this studywas taken up generally to add value for thetheoretical development in this particular areaand specifically to obtain insights into the areas

52 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Organizational Creative Climate 8c Learning Organization: Factors Contributing Towards Innovation

of working climate and learning culture oninnovation.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMSThe three major operational definitions of termsused in this study are as follows:

Organizational Creative ClimateThe definition of organizational climate forcreativity, takes the definition by Ekvall (1996)and Ekvall et al. (1983) who regard climate as anattribute of the organizations, a conglomerate ofattitudes, feelings, and behavior whichcharacterises life in organizations, and existsindependently of the perceptions andunderstandings of the members of theorganization (p. 105); it is conceived as anorganizational reality in an 'objectivistic' senseand therefore is not identical to organizationalculture. By Ekvall's (1996) understanding, climateis regarded as a manifestation of culture. Theorganizational climate for creativity containedseveral factors (Ekvall 1996) deemed favorablefor such climatic culture one which couldstimulate creativity and innovation. These factorsthen are referred to as creative climate factors.The creative climate in this study is assessed bythe ten factors of the Creative ClimateQuestionnaire (CCQ) forwarded by Ekvall et al.(1983) and Ekvall (1996). The factors are:challenge/motivation, freedom, idea support,liveliness/dynamism, playfulness/humour,debates, trust/openness, conflicts, risk takingand idea time.

Learning OrganizationA learning organization is one in which learningand work are integrated in an ongoing andsystematic fashion to support continuousimprovement and includes learning at theindividual, group, organization and global levels(Watkins 1996, p. 91). This learning occurs at alllevels within the organization and outside theorganization by Watkins' (1996) understandingand forms the basis needed for a learningorganization. Watkins and Marsick (1996a, 1999)forward seven dimensions for a learningorganization and these are known as learningorganizational factors. The learning culture inthis study is assessed by the seven dimensions ofthe Dimensions of the Learning OrganizationQuestionnaire (DLOQ) forwarded by Watkinsand Marsick (1996a). These are continuous

learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning,embedded systems, empowerment, systemconnection and strategic leadership.

InnovationInnovation is defined as the process of creatinga commercial product from invention (Hitt et al.1999, p. 476). This definition which equatesinnovation to commercialization of invention(which includes improvement on alreadyavailable product or service) is similar to thoseof several scholars (OECD 1997; Rickards 1985;Robbins and Decenzo 2001; Taylor 1991). Whenan organization innovates, it often does so bothways, which is in radical manner (technological)as well as non-technological (OECD 1997). Thenon-technological component of innovation inthis study focuses on organizational innovation.Organizational innovation (OI) is included inthis study together with technological innovation(TI) since OI occurs as part of technologicalinnovation (OECD, 1997). The major componentbeing emphasized in OI in this study is themanagerial innovation or what some scholarswould call administrative innovation (Sta Maria,2000) which is the incremental (soft) side ofinnovation.

Technological InnovationTechnological innovation comprises implementedtechnologically new products and processes andsignificant technological improvements inproducts and processes (OECD 1997).Technological innovation is deemedimplemented if it has been introduced to themarket (product innovation) or used within aproduction process (process innovation).

Organizational Innovation

Organizational innovation in this study includesthe implementation of advanced managementtechniques such as the practice of qualityassurance program. In this study organizationalinnovation is reflected by the ISO 9000 programbeing adopted or implemented by the sampledorganizations as well as the practice of the fourbasic pillars of TQM. The basic pillars of TQMare: (1) satisfying the customer, (2) effectivemanagement system/process such as ISO 9000program, (3) teamwork practice and (4)improvement tools for continuous improvement.The component is being assessed by statementsin the questionnaire relating to the ISO 9000

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. 8c Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003 53

Azahari Ismail, Meriam Ismail, Bahaman Abu Samah, Shamsuddin Ahmad, Khairuddin Idris & Jegak Uli

program implementation and its procedures aswell as the basic pillars of TQM.

Justifiably and also for ease of use, the terminnovation which is widely referred to in thiswriting includes the two major constructs ofinnovation, namely, technological innovation andorganizational innovation.

METHODOLOGYThe study used a quantitative case method withmultivariate statistical analysis, namely, multipleregression analysis and multiple correlation inan attempt to find answers to the researchquestions being posed. Multivariate analysis issuitable in analyzing phenomena either fordiscovery or hypothesis testing (Davis 2000). Inthis study, the analysis used was more for gettinganswers to the questions posed rather than forhypothesis testing. The survey case method as aform of causal-comparative is seen suitable forconducting studies that are seeking explanationon attitudes and behavior on the basis of datagathered at a point in time (Ary Jacobs andRazavieh 1990-pg. 407). The survey involvedconvenient sampling on a cross sectional basiswhich was deemed appropriate for makinggeneralizations from samples being studied tothe broader population group. Since the studyinvolved three different variables which werenot controlled or manipulated and whichconcerned the relationships among the variablesand the ability to explain and predict values ona variable from the relationships, a multipleregression analysis is seen appropriate to use insummarizing Lehman's (1995) point of view.The independent variables were assumed to sharevery little variance with each other (not collinear)but together, they accounted for much of thevariance in the dependent variable (Davis 2000).In addition, the multiple correlation analysis wasconducted to obtain explanation of therelationship of the criterion variable on theentire set (not just one in particular) of thepredictor variables. Thus, the analysis can explainhow much of the total variation in the criterionvariable, innovation, is accounted for by theindependent variables taking the idea fromLehman's (1995) statement. Thus this study isalso an explanatory study (Ary et ai 1990).

Along with the multiple regression analysis,ANOVA also used and a post hoc test wasfollowed, where appropriate, to investigatedifferences among population means.

INSTRUMENTATIONThree instruments were used in this study, ofwhich two were the ones developed byresearchers for their previous work and havebeen validated. Two instruments which formpart of the whole questionnaire were obtainedfrom the original questionnaires developed byvarious scholars (Ekvall et al (1983); Watkinsand Marsick 1996a). All the statements were inthe English language. The third instrument toassess innovation was developed by theresearcher, Meriam Ismail.

The instrument used to measure theorganizational climate factors is the CreativeClimate Questionnaire (CCQ) developed byEkvall et al (1983). The ten factors are (i)challenge/motivation (5 items), (ii) freedom (5items),.(iii) idea support (5 items), (iv) liveliness/dynamism (5 items), (v) playfulness/humour (5items), (vi) debates (5 items), (vii) trust/openness (5 items), (viii) conflicts (5 items),(ix) risk taking (5 items) and (x) idea time (5items). The total items are fifty. The itemsconsisted of statements which required therespondents to determine the degree to whichthe statements are true or otherwise of theorganizational working climate occurring in theorganizations. The scales used representing eachstatement is from a continuum of 0 to 3. The "0"represented a degree equivalent to "not at allapplicable" and the "3" represented "applicableto a high degree". The CCQ was selected for thiscase study over other instruments because of itswide range of ten factors covering workingclimate within an organization both stimulatingand hampering innovation. It was also selectedbecause the factors were said to be able toexplain effects on productivity, job satisfaction,profit, quality, innovation, well-being which inturn will give performance impact on theorganizational resources both human and non-human according to Ekvall (1990) as cited byEkvall (1996). The stability aspect of the reliabilityof the CCQ has been illustrated in a longitudinalstudy of a product development project in ahigh-tech company (Ekvall 1993) as cited byEkvall (1996). The CCQ has previously beenapplied for use in many researches both inEurope and Asia, in particular in a study involvingSwedish, German and Spanish organizations.

The instrument used to measure learningorganization dimensions is the Dimensions ofLearning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)


Organizational Creative Climate & Learning Organization: Factors Contributing Towards Innovation

forwarded by Watkins and Marsick (1999) witheach dimension having at least six items ormore. The seven dimensions of learningorganization with the relevant items are (1)continuous learning- 7 items, (2) dialogue andinquiry- 6 items, (3) team learning - 6 items, (4)embedded systems- 6 items, (5) empowerment-6 items, (6) system connections- 6 items and (7)provide leadership- 6 items. The total items areforty-three. The instrument has been constructedin a way where each item requires the respondentto determine the degree to which the statementis true or otherwise of the extent of organizationalapproach practised in the organization. Eachstatement of either instrument will be measuredon a common scale of 1 to 6 continuum rangingfrom "1" representing "almost never" to "6"representing "almost always". The DLOQ wasselected for this study because it has been widelyused in studies involving innovation in Malaysiaand in the USA besides other parts of the world.It has proved to be a reliable measure of learningculture. The DLOQ has also been used in over200 companies worldwide.

The innovation construct, on the other hand,contained two main constructs namely (I)technological product and process innovation(technological transfer & absorptive capacity,and diffusion of innovation), and (2)organizational innovation focusing on basicelements of TQM and quality assurance programsuch as ISO 9000 certification. There were thirty-two items to cover all the two sub constructs.The breakdown of the items were nineteen fortechnology transfer/absorptive capability, five fordiffusion of innovation and eight fororganizational innovation concentrating onaspects of ISO 9000 implementation and basicfoundation of TQM. The thirty-two items on thetwo constructs of technological innovation andorganizational innovation were constructed bythe researcher Meriam Ismail and validated usingfactor analysis (Rotation method), based on theguidelines provided by Wong et al. (1999),OECD(1997) and MASTIC (1996). Thestatements required the respondents todetermine the degree to which something istrue or otherwise. All the items were constructedusing rating scales on a continuum of 1 to 6.The u l " represented a degree equivalent to"almost always" and the "6" represented a degreeequivalent to "almost never" of the statements.The scales "2", through "5" represented the

degree? equivalent to between "almost always" to"almost never" of the statements. All items forthe three constructs have been reviewed by twoacademics (Zain Mohamed and Ekvall) in therelated fields (please see Appendix 1).

Finally, the fourth section contained eightitems that seek information on the respondents'demographic backgrounds. This includedgender, age in years, job category, educationbackground, tenure of service with theorganization, and the length of organizationestablishment in years.

MEASURES

Following are Tables 1 and 2 depicting reliabilityestimates for each of the ten factors of the CCQand each of the seven dimensions of the DLOQ.The original estimates of the CCQ aredetermined by Ekvall and colleagues (Ekvall1996). The reliability estimates for the innovationconstructs are shown in Table 3 after a pilot testof the instrument was conducted during thecase investigation.

The Cronbach Alpha's reliability index forthis innovation questionnaire is .97. Theconstructs have proved consistently reliable withall the scales above the recommended . 70(Nunally 1978).

POPULATION AND SAMPLEThe sample of respondents from the caseorganization was obtained through convenientsampling (selected by the liaison person in thecase organization) from a cross section of apopulation of about a hundred employees andwas close to random sampling. A total of fortyrespondents from three major levels ofemployment namely top/senior management,middle/lower management/supervisory and thetechnical/administrative support staff respondedto the questionnaire. All the responses wereusable.

ANALYSIS

The analysis procedures conducted were in linewith the research questions being posed. Twomajor types of analyses were conducted; one wasthe simple descriptive statistics and the otherwas the inferential statistics (multiple regressionand ANOVA and independent T-Test). Beforethe data was analyzed, an exploratory data analysisEDA was first executed on the data. This is todetermine whether the spread of data subscribed


Azahari Ismail, Meriam Ismail, Bahaman Abu Samah, Shamsuddin Ahmad, Khairuddin Idris &Jegak Uli

TABLE 1Reliability estimates for the original measures in the CCQ inventory

Subscale

Challenge/motivationFreedomIdea supportLiveliness/dynamismPlayfulness/humourDebatesTrust/opennessRisk takingIdea timeConflicts

Total

Number of items

5

555555555

50

Cronbach's Alpha(original)

0.820.740.890.790.810.750.790.730.780.85

Cronbach's Alpha(from current pilot test)

0.780.680,830.760.740.780.550.680.720.61

The overall reliability for 50 items of the CCQ in the pilot test was .94

TABLE 2Reliability estimates for the measures in the DLOQ

Subscale

Continuous LearningDialogue and InquiryTeam LearningEmbedded SystemsSystems ConnectionsEmpowermentProvide Leadership

Total

Number of items

7666666

43

Cronbach Alpha's(original)

0.810.870.860.820.840.790.77

Cronbach Alpha's(current pilot test)

0.830.890.870.810.880.900.92

However the overall reliability for the 43 items of the DLOQ is .97

TABLE 3Reliability estimates for the innovation construct

Subscale Number of items Cronbach Alpha's (original)

Tech. Transfer/Absorptive capabilityDiffusion of innovationOrganizational innovation

1958

0.960.930.94

Total items 32

to the normality test, an assumption neededwhen running the inferential statistics. Anotherpurpose for conducting EDA is to test the datafor homogeneity of variance, a neededassumption for multiple regression analysis. Fromthe EDA it was found that the normalityassumption was met for all the three variablesbased on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-

Wilk's normality test: organizational climate forcreativity (P=.200, P=.827), learning organization(P-.200, P= .643) variables and the innovationconstructs (P=.2OO, P=.827). Then the data wasassessed for collinearity. A highly correlatedcoefficient (near or equal to 1) between the twopredictor variables denotes a high collinearity.In examining the data for collinearity for n=40,

56 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. 8c Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003

Organizational Creative Climate 8c Learning Organization: Factors Contributing Towards Innovation

the analysis revealed that the two predictorvariables have a moderate collinearity from thetable of coefficients analysis.The research questions posed are:1. To what extent do the factors of the variable

organizational creative climate independentlyexplain observed variances in organizationalmembers' perceptions on innovation in theorganization?

2. Which factor/s of the organizational creativeclimate variable is/are highly predictive ofinnovation?

3. To what extent do the dimensions of thelearning organization variable independentlyexplain observed variances in organizationalmembers' perception on innovation in theorganization?

4. Which dimension/s of the DLOQ is/arehighly predictive of the innovation construct?

5. To what extent do both organizationalcreative climate and learning organizationvariables explain observed variances inorganizational members' perceptions oninnovation in the organization?

6. Which factor/s together from eithercriterion variables contributes highly to theprediction of innovation in the organization?

7. What are the differences in the members'perceptions on innovation, organizationalcreative climate and learning culture amongthe three levels of employee groups in theorganization?

8. Are there any differences in the members'perceptions on innovation, organizationalcreative climate and learning culturebetween (1) males and female employees;(2) employees of different ages; (3)

employees' education background; and (4)employees' tenure of service in theorganization?

FINDINGSThe case organization is a medium sizedconsulting quantity surveying firm. The full timeemployees in the department are about ahundred. The demographics of the respondentscan be summarized as made up of 55% male tofemale, 85% of top to middle/lower managementlevel, the rest are supervisory and support staff.In addition, 70% are between the ages of 20 to40 years, while the rest are above 41 years of age.Nearly 75% of the respondents have at least abachelor's degree while the rest have at least an'A' level equivalent. Forty-five percent of therespondents have served the organization forless than 5 years.

RESULTS

In answering research question 1, the multipleregression analysis was conducted involving theten factors of organizational creative climatewith the innovation construct. The findingsrevealed that the organizational climate forcreativity factors did explain signifkandy observedvariances of the members' perceptions oninnovation as much as 55.6% with F valuesignificant as seen from Table 4 and Table 5,using the enter method. However, none of theten factors were seen to contribute significantlyas reported from Table 7.

The analysis also found that the correlationof the organizational creative climate variablewith the innovation construct was moderate

overall innovationtotal challengetotal conflicttotal debatetotal freedomtotal idea supp.total idea timetotal livelinesstotal playfulnesstotal risktotal trust

TABLE 4Descriptives- innovation level and organizational climatic factors

Mean

133.638.909.204.857.188.686.507.608.187.706.88

Std. Deviation

25.991.821.872.792.552.292.152.562.832.342.58

N

4040404040404040404040



TABLE 5Model summary of the multiple regression analysis of the organizational climatic factors with innovation

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .745 .556 .402 20.09

a Predictors: (Constant), total trust, total debate, total idea supp., total risk, total challenge, total freedom,total liveliness, total playfulness, total idea time, total conflict

b Dependent Variable: overall innovation

TABLE 6ANOVA- Organizational climate for creativity factors with innovation

Model

OCCfactors

Total

RegressionResidual

Sum of Squares

14635.44411701.931

26337.375

df

1029

39

Mean Square

1463.544403.515

F

3.627

Sig.

.003

a Predictors: (Constant), total trust, total debate, total idea supp., total risk, total challenge, total freedom,total liveliness, total playfulness, total idea time, total conflict


TABLE 7Coefficients of relationships between organizational creative climate (OCC) factors and innovation

Model

OCC (Constant)total challengetotal conflicttotal debatetotal freedomtotal idea supp.total idea timetotal livelinesstotal playfulnesstotal risktotal trust

UnstandardizedCoefficients

B Std. Error

65.3743.270

-4.786.560

3.3241.775-.6162.9982.0549.432E-02

.714

21.6153.4754.4161.3332.0802.0953.2182.0982.4702.1082.891

StandardizedCoefficients

Beta

.229-.344.060.326.157

-.051.295.224.009.071

t

3.024.941

-1.084.420

1.598.847

-.1911.429.832.045.247

Sig.

.005

.354

.287

.678

.121

.404

.850

.164

.412

.965

.807

CollinearityStatistics

Tolerance

.258

.152

.750

.368

.449

.216

.359

.212

.424

.185

VIF

3.8796.5931.3342.7202.2284.6192.7884.7132.3615.392

a Dependent Variable: overall innovation

(r=.673) and significant at (P<.01). Table 8 showsthe detailed correlation of each factor withinnovation. Table 9 reflects the amount ofcollinearity present among the factors of theorganizational creative climate. The conditionindex was very much less than 30.0 (thresholdvalue) which means the two CCQ factors have alow degree of collinearity with each other. Inaddition, results from Table 7 show that the VIFvalues of the factors are much less than 10.0which indicated low collinearity among thefactors.

In answering research question 2, a stepwiseregression was conducted to determine whichfactor/s is/are having high predictive power onthe dependent variable, innovation. There weretwo factors of such nature, namely, 'Freedom'and 'Liveliness/dynamism' as shown in Table10 and Table 11 where the values of t weresignificant (P<.05) for both factors, at 2.767 and2.641 respectively.

In answering research question 3, themultiple regression analysis was again conductedinvolving the seven dimensions of the learning


CCQ


TABLE 8Correlations of the organizational creative climate factors with innovation construct

Correlations index ( r ) P

Climate of Challenge/motivationClimate of conflictsClimate of debatesClimate of freedomClimate of idea timeClimate of idea supportClimate of liveliness/dynamismClimate of playfulness/humorClimate of risk takingClimate of trust

.738**

.726**.239.773**.833**.521**.766**.786**.549**.824**

.000

.000

.137

.000

.000

.001

.000

.000

.000

.000

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

TABLE 9Collinearity diagnostics

Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index VarianceProportions(Constant)

total freedom total liveliness

1

2

12

123

1.9445.645E-02

2.9015.865E-024.019E-02

1.0005.868

1.0007.0338.496

.03

.97

.01

.95

.04

.03

.97

.01

.32

.67

.01

.08

.91


TABLE 10ANOVA: Organizational creative climate with innovation

Model

1

2

RegressionResidualTotal


Sum of Squares

10827.38915509.98626337.375

13287.84313049.53226337.375

df

13839

23739

Mean Square

10827.389408.158

6643.921352.690

F

26.527

18.838

Sig.

.000

.000

a Predictors: (Constant), total freedomb Predictors: (Constant), total freedom, total livelinessc Dependent Variable: overall innovation

organization with the innovation construct. Thefindings revealed that the learning organizationdimensions did explain significantly observedvariances of the members' perceptions oninnovation as much as 73.0% as seen from Tables12, 13, 14 respectively. The dimension 'Dialogueand Inquiry' (total dialogue) seemed to be having

significant relationship (P<.05) as seen fromcoefficients values (t= 2.222) in Table 15 below.This meant that 'Dialogue and Inquiry' could bethe dimension which has a high predictive poweron innovation. To confirm this assumption, themodel was tested once more using the stepwisemethod.



TABLE 11Coefficients of the relationship between the organizational creative climate factors and innovation (stepwise)

Model

1

2

(Constant)total freedom(Constant)total freedomtotal liveliness


B

86.7596.532

74.2284.1243.922

Std. Error

9.6441.268

10.1431.4901.485


Beta

.641

.405

.386

t

8.9965.1507.3182.7672.641

Sig.

.000

.000

.000

.009

.012


Tolerance

1.000

.626

.626

VIF

1.000

1.5981.598


TABLE 12Descriptives: Innovation construct and the dimensions of learning organization

Mean Std. Deviation N

overall innovationtotal continuous learntotal dialoguetotal embedded systotal empowermenttotal leadertotal system conntotal team learning

133.637.83

26.1523.2322.0321.4320.3523.20

25.992.615.484.925.385.745.485.18

4040404040404040

TABLE 13Model summary of the multiple regression analysis of the learning

organization dimensions with innovation construct

Model SummaryModel R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .854 .730 .671 14.91

a Predictors: (Constant), total team learning, total continuous learn, total empowerment, total dialogue, totalembedded sys, total system conn., total leader


TABLE 14ANOVA- Dimensions of the learning organization with innovation construct

Model

1 RegressionResidualTotal

Sum of Squares

19222.9337114.442

26337.375

df

73239

Mean Square

2746.133222.326

F

12.352

Sig.

.000

a Predictors: (Constant), total team learning, total continuous learn, total empowerment, total dialogue, totalembedded sys. total system conn., total leader




TABLE 15Coefficients of relationship between learning dimensions and innovation

Model

DLOQfactors


(Constant)total continuous learntotal dialoguetotal embedded systotal empowermenttotal leadertotal system conntotal team learning

B

44.370.435

-1.8111.845.598

1.8391.062.697

Std. Error

13.1981.439.815.983.930

1.002.931.869


Beta

3.362.044

-.382.349.124.406.224.139

t

.002

.302-2.2221.877.643

1.8351.141.802

Sig.

.765

.034

.070

.525

.076

.262

.429


Tolerance

.404

.286

.244

.228

.172

.219

.281

VIF

2.4763.4994.1064.3845.8024.5753.560


TABLE 16Correlations of DLOQ dimensions with innovation construct

DLOQ Correlation index (r )

Continuous learningDialogue 8c inquiryEmbedded systemsEmpowermentLeadershipSystems connectionTeam learning

.420**

.511**

.700**

.696**

.798**

.722**

.647**

.003

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

** Correlations significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

The results from Table 13 revealed that theseven dimensions of the learning organizationsignificantly explained 73.0% of the variances ininnovation (P<.05). In addition, the Pearson-Correlation coefficients for six of the sevendimensions against innovation are significantlyhigh at r>0.5 (Table 16) with the highest beingStrategic Leadership (r=-,798). The values ofVIF in Table 15 were less than 10.0, the thresholdvalue which indicated the collinearity amongthe seven dimensions of the DLOQ were low.

In answering question 4, the model wastested again to determine which of the sevendimensions of the learning culture is/are highlypredictive of the variance in innovation. In thestepwise method, the results of the analysis werepresented in Table 17 and Table 18. The singledimension providing 'Strategic Leadership' (totalleader) was seen as uniquely contributingsignificantly to the variance in innovation withthe t value larger than 2 (8.159) from Table 18.

TABLE 17ANOVA: Learning dimensions with innovation

Model

DLOQ Regressionfactors Residual

Total

Sum of Squares

16766.0229571.353

26337.375

df

13839

Mean Square

16766.022251.878

F

66.564

Sig.

.000

a Predictors: (Constant), total leaderb Dependent Variable: overall innovation



TABLE 18Coefficients of relationship between learning dimensions and innovation

Model

DLOQfactor

(Constant)total leader


B Std.

56.198 93.614

. Error

.816443


Beta

.798

t

5.7258.159

Sig.

.000

.000


Tolerance

1.000

VIF

1.000


In answering research question 5, a multipleregression analysis was undertaken with bothsets of independent variables. The results wereshown in Tables 19, 20, and 21 respectively. Thefindings revealed that both sets of variablestogether explained 80.4% of the variance ininnovation.

From the tables above, it was observed thatboth sets of the independent variables togethersignificantly explained 80.4% of the variance inthe innovation construct, a higher value thaneither of the separate variables alone. Recall thatorganizational creative climate factors didcontribute significantly (55.6%) to theexplanation of the variance in innovation andthe learning organization dimensions on its owncontributed 73.0% of the variance in innovation.But when both variables were taken intoconsideration together, an increase in theexplanation of the variance in innovation wasrecorded. In the full model the learningorganization dimension, 'Dialogue and Inquiry'

was seen as having a significantly high predictivepower on the dependent variable (Table 21)with absolute t value of 2.709. To confirmwhether the learning dimension of 'Dialogueand Inquiry' was the one having the highestpredictive power of the variance in innovationbased on the full model, a stepwise regressionwas conducted. From this model a regressionequation was obtained. The results of the analysisresults are shown in Tables 22, Table 23 andTable 24 below.

From Table 22 and Table 23 and thecoefficient of Table 24, 'Strategic Leadership'(total leader) was the single predictor factor ofthe full model which seemed to uniquelycontribute to the variance in innovation. Thusthe full regression model equation obtainedwhich could be used to predict the dependentvariable given the values of the independentvariables within this case organization is:

Innovation = 56.198 + .798 (strategic leadership)

TABLE 19Model summary of the multiple regression analysis using both sets of independent variables

Model R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

.897 .804 .653 15.31

TABLE 20ANOVA: Organizational creative climate factors, learning organization dimensions with innovation construct

Model

OCC withDLOQfactors


Sum of Squares

21178.2525159.123

26337.375

df

172239

Mean Square

1245.780234.506

F

5.312

Sig.

.000

a Predictors: (Constant), team, overall conflict, overall dynamism, system connection, overall risk taking,overall humour, overall trust, overall freedom, overall idea support, embedded system, overall time,continuous learning, overall challenge, overall debates, leadership, dialogue, empowerment




TABLE 21Coefficients: Relationship between creative climate factors, learning dimensions with innovation

Model

occWithDLOQfactors


(Constant)

total continuous learntotal dialoguetotal embedded systotal empowermenttotal leadertotal team learningtotal system conntotal challengetotal conflicttotal debatetotal freedomtotal idea supp.total idea timetotal livelinesstotal playfulnesstotal risktotal trust

B

48.463

.519-2.9862.301.575

1.9101.0601.1923.448

-4.9431.0462.8352.471

-5.733-.1361.986

-1.8271.072

Std. Error

18.512

1.8161.1021.1461.1821.3041.0571.0962.9463.5471.2761.8431.8632.8841.9321.9571.9162.598


Beta

.052-.630.436.119.422.212.252.242

-.356.112.278.218

-.474-.013.216

-.165.107

t

2.618

.286-2.7092.008

.4871.4641.0021.0881.171

-1.394.820

1.5381.326

-1.988-.0711.015-.953.413

Sig.

.016

.778

.013

.057

.631

.157

.327

.289

.254

.177

.421

.138

.198

.059

.944

.321

.351

.684


Tolerance

.268

.165

.189

.149

.107

.200

.166

.209

.137

.475

.272

.330

.157

.246

.196

.298

.133

VIF

3.7366.0655.2896.7109.3164.9996.0114.7967.3192.1033.6773.0326.3864.0685.0943.3577.493


TABLE 22Model summary of the multiple regression analysis using both sets of independent variables (Stepwise)

Model

1

R

.798

Square

.637

Adjusted R Square

.627

Std. Error of the Estimate

15.87

Predictors: (Constant), total leaderDependent variable: overall innovation

TABLE 23ANOVA: Two sets of independent variables with innovation

Model

OCC withDLOQfactors


Sum of Squares

16766.0229571.353

26337.375

df

13839

Mean Square

16766.022251.878

F

66.564

Sig.

.000

a Predictors: (Constant), total leaderb Dependent Variable: overall innovation

This means that the innovation occurring inthe case organization is a function of the singlelearning factor of 'strategic leadership'.Innovation in this organization is moreinfluenced by the strategic leadership more thanthe rest of the other learning factors or creative

climate factors; which indicates that theleadership of the top and maybe the middlemanagement is the driving force behind anyinnovative activities occurring within theorganization.


Azahari Ismail, Meriam Ismail, Bahaman Abu Samah, Shamsuddin Ahmad, Khairuddin Idris &Jegak Uli

TABLE 24Coefficients of relationship between two sets of independent variables and innovation

Model

OCCWithDLOQ

(Constant)

total leader


B Std. Error

56.198 9.816

3.614 .443


Beta

.798

t

5.725

8.159

Sig.

.000

.000


Tolerance

1.000

VIF

1.000


The results from Table 24 also show thatthe learning dimension Total Leader (Beta=.798)alone has a significantly high predictive poweron innovation construct which answered researchquestion 6.

In answering research question 7, therespondents were grouped into different jobhierarchical levels. Group 1 consisted of top/senior management levels in the organization.Group 2 comprised the middle/lower managersand supervisors and group 3 was the support/administrative staff who were non-executives allof whom have at least 'A' level academicqualification or equivalent. The analysis usedone-way analysis of variance (one-way AN OVA)to determine whether there existed significantdifference on perceptions towards innovation.

The results were shown in Tables 25 and 26.From the results above it could be deduced

that there was no statistically significant differencein perceptions towards innovation by the threedifferent groups (P>.05).

From the results of ANOVA in Table 26, itcan be deduced that the perceptions onorganizational creative climate in theorganization by the three different groups werenot significantly different.

The results from ANOVA analysis in Table27 revealed that there is no statistically significantdifference on the perceptions on organizationallearning from the three groups of employees.For the three different ANOVA analyses above,the Levene's test of homogeneity of variance wasmet.

TABLE 25ANOVA overall innovation

Between Groups

Within GroupsTotal

Between Groups

Within GroupsTotal

(Combined)Linear Term

(Combined)Linear Term

UnweightedWeightedDeviation

Sum of Squares

1408.504940.900

1139.613268.891

24928.87126337.375

TABLE 26ANOVA - overall climate

UnweightedWeightedDeviation

Sum of Squares

251.1745.1368.485E-02

251.0899916.426

10167.600

df

2111

3739

df

2111

3739

Mean Square

704.252940.900

1139.613268.891673.753

Mean Square

125.5875.1368.485E-02

251.089268.012

F

1.0451.3971.691.399

F

.469

.019

.000

.937

Sig.

.362

.245

.201

.531

Sig.

.630

.891

.986

.339



TABLE 27ANOVA- overall learning

Between Groups

Within GroupsTotal

(Combined)Linear Term Unweighted

WeightedDeviation

Sum of Squares

165.80336,73661.039

104.76410985.97211151.775

df

2111

3739

Mean Square

82.90136.73661.039

104.764296.918

F

.279

.124

.206

.353

Sig.

.758

.727

.653

.556

In answering research question 8, ANOVAand independent sample T-Test were used again.All the analyses revealed no significant differencesof the factors on those three perceptions.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONThe rapid changes in the global environment islikely to force organizations to constantlyinnovate by Organizational Development (OD)theory so as to gain sustainable competitiveadvantage (Hitt et al 1999; Porter 1985; Zhengand Das 2000).To innovate, organizations haveto change in various ways and this needs to bedone by having certain creative climates to helpfoster organizational members in facilitating thechange efforts (Amabile 1999; Axtel et al 2000;Ekvall et al 1983; Zain and Rickards 1995). Toinnovate, organization members must also becommitted to learning at a faster rate in orderto succeed over their competitors in the changeprocess (Argyris and Schon 1978; Drucker 1988;Garvin 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Senge1990; Watkins and Marsick 1996a). The successof the learning depends on the structure andstrategies (Donellon 1996) present in theorganizational system which the seven dimensionsof a learning organization can cater for.

The findings from the analysis were crucialfor exploring the relationship betweenorganizational climates for creativity and learningculture on innovation constructs. Variousnumbers of practical implications could be drawnfrom the findings which could be of use for thecase organization. For example, one of thefindings revealed that the organizational creativeclimate in this case organization did significantlycontribute to predicting innovation amongemployees with the factors 'Freedom' and'Liveliness/dynamism' as being good predictors;but the learning culture, particularly one whichwas related to 'Strategic Leadership' being

practised within and outside the case organizationconcerned, on the other hand, contributedtremendously to the innovation as perceived bythe employees of various levels. This couldindicate that this case organization when it cameto innovation was primarily motivated by the topmanagement more than by the employees downthe line.

The findings also implied that other factorsfrom the organizational creative climate withthe exception of climate of freedom and a climateliveliness/dynamism should be given moreemphasis in future to precipitate the innovationto occur. In addition, the other six learningfactors besides "Strategic Leadership" should alsobe given more attention for similar reasons.

In summary, it can be concluded that forthis particular organization, the learningorganization dimension of 'Strategic Leadership'had a high predictive power on innovationactivities occurring within the organization ascompared to the organizational creative climatefactors. It could be concluded also that the caseorganization did to a certain extent inculcatesignificantly a climate of creativity for themembers to innovate and did to a larger extentinculcate a culture of learning among themembers.

Further analyses also showed that there wereno significant differences in members 'perceptions on innovation, creative climate orlearning culture from the three job levels: topmanagement, middle management and the staffdown the line. This meant that almost allmembers have the same perception on thoseideas.

RECOMMENDATIONSFor innovation to occur at a faster andcontinuous rate, the presence of creative climateand a learning culture should be encouraged. In



this regard, the organization should be lookinginto ways of improving its creative climate by:(1) making the climate at work morechallenging/motivating which meant gettingemotional involvement of the members in theorganization's operations and goals; (2) makingthe climate more open and trustworthy throughthe presence of emotional safety in relationships;(3) the management giving more time formembers to elaborate on new ideas; (4) themembers displaying more spontaneity and easein actions; (5) reducing the presence ofemotional tensions (conflicts) duringinteractions; (6) having the management givemore support to new ideas brought up; (7)debating on viewpoints and on ideas forwarded;(8) encouraging members to take risks onopportunities.

Although the learning culture seemed to becontributing substantially towards the innovationin the case organization, the case organizationshould improve its learning on these areas aswell as provide a strong strategic leadership. Theareas are (1) giving more emphasis to individuallearning so that learning can occur at acontinuous basis; (2) by giving emphasis onteam learning; (3) by giving emphasis onorganizational learning (embedded systems andsystems connection) through environmentscanning and networking, and capturing learningon the organization systems; (4) by empoweringits members; and (5) by encouraging dialogueand inquiry to occur among them.

REFERENCES

AMABILE, T. M. and R. CONTI. 1999. Changes in the

work environment for creativity dur ingdownsizing. Academy of Management Journal42(6): 630-641.

ARGYRIS, C. and D. A. SCHON. 1978. Organizational

Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, MA:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

ARY, D., L. C. JACOBS and A. RAZAVIEH. 1990.

Introduction to Research in Education. 4th ed. FortWorth: Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,Inc.

AXTEIX, C. M., D. J. HOLMAN, K. L. UNSWORTH, T. D.

WALL and P. E. WATERSON. 2000. Shopfloorinnovation: facilitating the suggestion andimplementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational& Organizational Psychology 73(3): 265-286.

BEER, M. and N. NOHRIA. 2000. Cracking the codeof change. Harvard Business Review 78(3):133-142.

CHAIN STORE AGE. 1998. Change Management 74(8):13-16.

DAVIS, D. 2000. Business Research for Decision Making.5th ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

DONELLON, A. 1996. Team Talk: The Power of Languagein Team Dynamics. MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

DRUCKER, P. 1988. The coming of the neworganization. Harvard Business Review onKnowledge Management January-February: 1-20.

EKVALL, G. 1996. Organizational climate for creativityand innovation. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology 5(1): 105-123.

EKVALL, G., J. ARVONEN and I. WALDENSTROM-LINDBLAD.

1983. Creative Organizational Climate: Constructionand Validation of a Measuring Instrument.Stockholm: Swedish Council for Managementand Work Life Issues.

EKVALL, G. and Y. TANGEBERG-ANDERSON. 1986.

Working climate and creativity: a study of aninnovative newspaper. Journal of Creative Behavior215-225.

FREEMAN, C. 1994. The economics of technicalchange. Cambridge Journal of Economics 18(5):463-514.

FRENCH, W. L. and C. H. BELL, JR. 1995. Organization

Development: Behavioral Science Interventions forOrganizational Improvement 5th ed. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

GARVIN, D. A. 1993. Building a learning organization.Harvard Business Review, July-August: 78-91.

Hrrr, M. A., R. D. IREIAND and R. E. HOSKISSON.

1999. Strategic Management: Competitiveness andGlobalization. 3rd ed. Ohio: South WesternCollege Publishing.

KHAIRUDDIN, I. 1999. Organizational learningexperiences in Malaysian firms moving towardglobalization. Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Georgia.

LEHMAN, R, S. 1995. Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences:A Conceptual Introduction. New York: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

MASTIC. 1996. 1994 National Survey of Innovation inIndustry. Malaysia: Ministry of Science,Technology and the Environment.



MENSCH, G. 1975. Statement in technology(translation). In Stimulating Innovation, ed. T.Rickard, p . 15. London: Frances Pinter(Publishers).

MOHANTY, R- P. 1999. Value innovation perspectivein Indian organizations. Participation andEmpowerment: An International Journal 7(4):1-10.

NONAKA, I. 1991. The knowledge creating company.Harvard Business Review on KnowledgeManagement (Nov-Dec): 21-45.

NONAKA, I. and H. TAKEUCHI. 1995. The Knowledge

Creating Company: How Japanese Companies FosterCreativity and Innovation for CompetitiveAdvantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

NUNALLY, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

OECD. 1997. OECD Proposed Guidelines for Collectingand Interpreting Technobgical Innovation Data.Paris: OCDE/GD.

POLYANYI, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York:Anchor Day.

PORTER, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. Creatingand Sustaining Superior Performance. New York:The Free Press.

RICKARDS, T. 1985. Stimulating Innovation: A SystemApproach. London: Frances Pinter (Publishers).

ROBBINS, S. P. and D. A. DECENZO. 2001. Fundamentals

of Management: Essential Concepts and Application.New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

ROGERS, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed.New York: The Free Press.

STA. MARIA, R. F. 2000. Perception of learningculture, concerns about the innovation, andtheir influence on use of an on-goinginnovation in the Malaysian public sector.Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

TAYLOR, W. 1991. The business of innovation: Aninterview with Paul Cook. In The EntrepreneurialVenture, ed. Sahlman and Stevenson. Boston:Harvard Business School Publication.

WATKINS, K. E. 1996. Of course organizations learn!In New Directions for Adults and ContinuingEducation: Workplace Learning, ed. Robert W.Rowden. 1(72): 89-96.

WATKINS, K. E. and V. J. MARSICK. 1996a. Dimensionsof the Learning Organization Questionnaire.Warwick, RI: Partners for the LearningOrganization.

WATKINS, K. E. and V. J. MARSICK. 1999. Dimensions of

the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Warwick,RI: Partners of the Learning Organization.

WONG, V., V. SHAW and P. J. SHER. 1999. Intra-flrm

learning in technological transfer: a study ofTaiwanese information technology firms.International Journal of Innovation Management3(4): 427-458.

ZAIN MOHAMED. 1995. Competitiveness of Malaysianfirms: an investigation into the implementationof continuous improvement. Entrepreneurship,Innovation and Change: 191-207.

ZAIN MOHAMED. 1996. Innovation implementationsin Malaysian firms: process, problems, criticalsuccess factors and working cl imate.Technovation 15(6): 375-385.

ZAIN MOHAMED and T. RICKARDS. 1996. Assessing and

comparing the innovativeness and creativeclimate of firms. Scandinavian JournalManagement 12(2): 109-121.

ZAIRI MOHAMED. 1994. Innovation or innovativeness?Results of a benchmarking study. Total QualityManagement 5(3): 27-45.

ZHENG, H. and S. DAS, 2000. Managing rapidinnovation in Singaporean technopreneurialSMES: A proposed research framework. InProceedings of the 2nd Asia Academy of ManagementConference. Singapore: National University ofSingapore.

(Received: 28 May 2002)

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 11 No. 1 2003 67


APPENDIX 1

Results of POST HOC factor analysis of the innovation construct

Items

Technological transfer (assimilation)1. Absorpcap52. Absorpcap63. Absorpcap44. Absorpcap95. Absorpcap26. Absorpcap87. AbsorpcaplO8. Absorpcap39. Absorpcap710. Absorpcapl411. Absorpcapll12. Absorpcapl13. Absorpcapl3Diffusion of innovation14. Diffussion315. Diffussion216. Absorpcapl717. Diffussionl18. Absorpcapl919. Absorpcapl620. Diffussion521. Absorpcapl822. Diffussion423. Absorpcapl224. Absorpcapl5Organizational innovation25. ISO226. ISO327. ISO128. ISO729. ISO630. ISO831. ISO432. ISO5

EigenvalueCumulative percent variance

Technological

Factor 1

.790

.728

.727

.723

.722

.715

.701

.678

.677

.669

.666

.653

.577

.2593.683E-02

.136

.279

.338

.200

.406

.392

.379

.402

.436

.284

.308

.283

.271

.384

.317

.277

.333

17.12153.502

innovation

Factor 2

.204

.265

.377

.396

.2509.207E-02

.392

.184

.311

.285

.2809.702E-02

.486

.786

.780

.751

.744

.642

.624

.614

.607

.585

.566

.548

.264

.216

.305

.209

.201

.277

.349

.437

2.2847.139

Organizational innovation

Factor 3

.230

.358

.109

.197

.347

.301

.160

.387

.325

.322

.256

.416

.323

.1709.114E-02

.242

.239

.294

.192

.346

.238

.363

.225

.255

.823

.819

.794

.791

.776

.759

.749

.520

1.9786.182

N = 259Extraction method: Principal component analysis.Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization


Documents

Organizational Creative Climate & Learning Organization ... PAPERS/JSSH Vol. 11 (1) Mar... · Organizational Creative Climate & Learning Organization: Factors ... regarding influencing