Creativity Research Journal Copyright 2000–2001 by

2000–2001, Vol. 13, No. 2, 171–184 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Perceptions of the Best and Worst Climates for Creativity: Preliminary

Validation Evidence for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire S. G. Isaksen, K.
Situational
J. Lauer, G.
Outlook
Ekvall,Questionnaire
and A. Britz

Scott G. Isaksen and Kenneth J. Lauer

Creative Problem Solving Group–Buffalo
Göran Ekvall
FAinstitute
Stockholm, Sweden
Alexander Britz
Technische Hochschule
Darmstadt, Germany

ABSTRACT: This article reports the results of 2 stud- that examine the concurrent criterion-related validity
ies conducted to examine the ability of the Situational of the SOQ.
Outlook Questionnaire™ (SOQ) to effectively discern The focus of these studies is on how people respond
climates that either encourage or discourage creativ- to the SOQ when they are asked to think of the best cli-
ity and the ability to initiate change. The purpose of mate for creativity and change they have ever experi-
the studies is to examine the concurrent criterion-re- enced, and then to do the same for the worst climate
lated validity of the SOQ. The climate for creativity they have experienced. Participants filled out the SOQ
and change is defined, and the context for the use of twice, once for each of the situations they clearly re-
the measure in organizational settings is established membered. The first study was derived from the work
through the development of a model for organiza- of Britz (1995), who analyzed data from a group of
tional change. The article presents the history of the graduate students and a group of managers. The second
SOQ’s development and gives a description of the study used a revised version of the SOQ on a larger
SOQ. The methodology and results of both studies, in- sample of undergraduate students. This article pro-
cluding 3 groups, are reported. The results of both vides initial evidence that the SOQ does discriminate
studies show that when individuals complete the SOQ among different perceptions of the climate for creativ-
based on their recollection of a best- and worst-case ity and change.
work experience, the measure is able to consistently Before describing the measure, the definition of
and significantly discriminate between the 2 types of climate for creativity and change is explored. These
experiences. Conclusions, implications, and areas for concepts are then placed within the context of organi-
future research to further examine the validity of the
SOQ are explored. We thank Donald Treffinger and Robert Firenze for their comments
and suggestions on an earlier version of this article. We acknowledge
The Situational Outlook Questionnaire™ (SOQ) is de- the helpful comments provided by Mark A. Runco and reviewers of
signed to measure perceptions of the character of life the Creativity Research Journal.
within an organization. Its particular emphasis is on Manuscript received April 5, 1998; revision received March 28,
1999; accepted July 15, 1999.
how attitudes, feelings, and behaviors support creativ-
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Scott
ity and change (Ekvall, 1996; Isaksen, Lauer, Murdock, G. Isaksen, Senior Fellow–Creativity Research Unit–CPSB, 1325
Dorval, & Puccio, 1995; Lauer, 1994). The purpose of North Forest Road, Suite F-340, Williamsville, NY 14221. E-mail:
this article is to share the results of two recent studies [email protected].

Creativity Research Journal 171

S. G. Isaksen, K. J. Lauer, G. Ekvall, and A. Britz

zations. To document the validity of the measure, it is of new and different approaches and concepts.
necessary to define the concepts and the domain Because the level of analysis for our inquiry into the
within which the instrument is expected to operate. climate for creativity and change is the organization, it
Climate is defined as the recurring patterns of be- is necessary to define the relevant constructs under
havior, attitudes, and feelings that characterize life in investigation.
the organization. At the individual level of analysis, A variety of models have been put forward to ex-
the concept is called psychological climate. At this plore the relation and role of climate in organizational
level, the concept of climate refers to the individual research and theory (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Ekvall,
perceptions of the patterns of behavior. When aggre- 1996; Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Nadler & Tushman,
gated, the concept is called organizational climate. 1977; Payne & Pugh, 1976; Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968;
These are the objectively shared perceptions that char- Weisbord, 1976; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).
acterize life in the organization. Although climate is Considering these models and our own field work and
perceived by individuals within the workplace, it exists action research with organizations engaged in change
independently of these perceptions and is considered initiatives, we have developed a revision and reintegra-
an attribute of the organization (Ekvall, 1987). Climate tion of these works as shown in Figure 1.
is distinct from culture in that it is more directly ob- Organizational climate is seen as an intervening
servable within the organization. Culture refers to the variable that affects individual and organizational per-
deeper and more enduring values, norms, and beliefs formance due to its modifying effect on organizational
within the organization (Ekvall, 1996; Schneider, and psychological processes. The climate is influenced
Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). by many factors within the organization and, in turn,
The climate for creativity and change is that which affects organizational and psychological processes.
promotes the generation, consideration, and use of new Organizational processes include group problem solv-
products, services, and ways of working. This climate ing, decision making, communication, and coordina-
supports the development, assimilation, and utilization tion. Psychological processes include learning,

Figure 1. A model for organizational change.

172 Creativity Research Journal

 Situational Outlook Questionnaire

individual problem solving, creating, motivating, and ment and will require new behaviors within the organi-
committing. These components exert a direct influence zation (Bass, 1985; Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burns,
on the performance and outcomes in individuals, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 1987).
working groups, and the organization (Amabile & Leadership behavior includes any actions initiated
Gryskiewicz, 1989; Service & Boockholdt, 1998; Witt by leaders aimed at the transformative aspects of the
& Beorkrem, 1989). The model outlines a few of the organization. Acts of leadership occur whenever stra-
more important organizational factors that affect cli- tegic problems are solved, decisions are made, or in-
mate, which in turn, impact the results and outcomes of formation exchanges result in actions. Leadership
the organization. behavior is very visible to individuals in the organiza-
The model for organizational change (MOC) em- tion, especially during times of change. Leaders may
phasizes the factors that are important to consider be senior managers, supervisors, and others who hold
when introducing, managing, or understanding change formal positions of influence or those who demon-
within an organizational context. The 14 elements in strate an informal influence on others. Leadership be-
the MOC describe the key levers for change within or- havior has a major influence on the perceptions people
ganizations. Information and interaction are the con- have about the climate for creativity and change
tent that flows through this larger system. Information (Ekvall, 1997; Ekvall & Arvonen, 1984).
is the data and knowledge that are exchanged. It in- Organizational culture includes the values, beliefs,
cludes formal and informal news and represents the history, and traditions that reflect the deeper founda-
collective wisdom within the organization. Interac- tions of the organization. Culture is the cement that
tions are the relations and interplay between and holds an organization together. Over time, organiza-
among people. This includes patterns of communica- tions develop a culture based on deeply entrenched
tion and focuses on how the information is exchanged norms and assumptions. These embedded principles
and transmitted. and ethics influence patterns of interaction as well as
The organization exists in a context, is affected by choices and decisions people make. The culture deter-
its external environment, and affects its environment mines the worldview or mindset for those who belong.
by producing both individual and organizational out- It influences the way people behave, particularly how
put or performance. This is consistent with the thinking they respond to surprise, ambiguity, creativity, and
of the general systems theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and change.
the findings of Burke and Litwin (1992). Mission and strategy define what the business is go-
The external environment is any condition or situa- ing to do and subsequently how it will achieve its aim.
tion that is outside the organization itself (e.g., the mar- The mission is the basic purpose of the organization,
ket, global financial conditions, government, the larger stated explicitly or implicitly. The strategy defines for
political and social system, technological and scien- them how this purpose will be achieved. The mission
tific developments) but can exert an influence on the and strategy provide insight into the vision for the or-
organization’s performance. Individual and organiza- ganization’s desired future state. Mission and strategy
tional performance and well-being includes the actual also influence patterns of behavior, attitudes, and feel-
outcomes or results. The outcomes or results function ings of those who develop the direction as well as those
as indicators of the achievements and efforts of the or- who take initiative and implement it.
ganization and the people within it. The MOC displays Structure refers to the way people and functions are ar-
the organization as a system within this larger context. ranged. It deals with levels of responsibility, decision-
Both the external environment and the organization’s making authority, and formal reporting relations with
operations and performance have an impact on the cli- others in the organization. Structures are usually de-
mate within the organization. signed to assure that the mission and strategy of the orga-
The four factors at the “top” of the model are leader- nization are effectively implemented. The structure and
ship behavior, mission and strategy, structure and size, the size of the organization, and its working units, influ-
and organizational culture. These have been referred to ence the use of power in making decisions and the scope
as the transformational variables for organizational of participation. It creates the pathways for the flow of in-
change because any alteration within them is likely to formation and guides the assumptions people make re-
be caused by an interaction with the external environ- garding relations and interactions. Ekvall (1997) showed

Creativity Research Journal 173

S. G. Isaksen, K. J. Lauer, G. Ekvall, and A. Britz

that the type of structure within departments of an organi- practices include conducting performance and busi-
zation (i.e., hierarchical and bureaucratic vs. flat and em- ness reviews, encouraging and monitoring individual
powered) has an impact on employees’ perceptions of the and team goal setting, operational planning projects,
climate in those departments. and budgeting. How managers behave influences how
The remaining elements of the MOC are generally others in the organization will behave and, therefore,
referred to as transactional variables in that they are the climate for creativity and change.
aimed at preserving and implementing that which has Systems, policies, and procedures are the mecha-
been decided at the transformative level of the organi- nisms that facilitate work and provide structure for the
zation. Some might call these more tactical elements organization. They include pay practices, rewards and
rather than strategic factors. recognition policies, management information sys-
Resources and technology are the basic tools an orga- tems, performance appraisal, budget and financial con-
nization has at its disposal to complete business. These trols, and human-resource allocation procedures.
include the people, capital, machines, equipment, mate- Systems, policies, and procedures provide the checks
rials, patents, and copyrights that the organization has and balances that keep things on track and prevent costly
acquired for use in its operations. The quantity of intel- errors. They act as early warning systems and help es-
lectual assets available to the organization is also a key tablish repeatable processes, create stability, and pre-
resource. Resources and technology can impact the feel- vent anarchy. How they are implemented and what
ings and attitudes of people in the organization by either people think about them has an influence on the climate.
facilitating or inhibiting appropriate behaviors. A lack They can also prescribe certain kinds of behavior.
of key resources can often frustrate and provide barriers Individual needs, motives, and styles provide the
to creative thinking and limit initiative. Having and ef- basic drive and source of energy for the organization.
fectively using resources and technology can be a stimu- They are psychological factors that provide a sense of
lant for the climate for creativity and change. worth or desire for peoples’ actions and thoughts.
Task requirements are the mixture of skills, knowl- Needs for affection, belonging, and recognition influ-
edge, and capabilities needed by the organization to ence what a person does. Their motives determine the
perform assignments effectively. The kinds of tasks to kinds of tasks for which they have energy and commit-
be accomplished, and their corresponding demands, ment. Their preferred styles dictate the way they might
influence the selection of who needs to work on what like to work, think, solve problems, and manage
jobs. Certain tasks may require cross-functional work; change. Needs, motives, and styles tell us how much
others may require cooperation across divisions. The energy people have for various kinds of work and will
demands made by these tasks influence the behaviors impact their behaviors, attitudes, and feelings.
required by the organization to accomplish its purpose, The MOC provides the conceptual framework to
and in turn, affects the climate. help define climate and to see it as an intervening vari-
Individuals’ skills and abilities are the capabilities able in influencing organizational change. The MOC
and knowledge held by individuals within the organi- outlines those organizational attributes that influence
zation. The skills and abilities describe the level and climate as well as those that climate influences. It also
kind of competence available to the organization. They helps to frame the future for both research and prac-
determine how much talent is available within the or- tices. The model is applied here to help interpret quan-
ganization to meet the requirements of the tasks. If a titative and qualitative results from the SOQ.
workplace is filled with highly qualified people, with Because climate can be defined and differentiated,
more than sufficient talent to contribute to accomplish- it should be possible to measure it. The next section of
ing the purpose of the organization, the climate will be this article describes the development of a measure of
positively affected. organizational climate for creativity and change.
Management practices refer to the behaviors man-
agers use to run the day-to-day business. Management
practices are aimed at maintaining the stability and or- Development of the Measure
der of the organization by coordinating, communicat-
ing, controlling, and planning the use of human, The SOQ is based on a translation of an earlier mea-
financial, and material resources. Typical management sure resulting from the research and development of

174 Creativity Research Journal

 Situational Outlook Questionnaire

Göran Ekvall. As an industrial psychologist working Ekvall (1983) and redefined as a result of Lauer’s
for Volvo in the 1950s and other large Swedish compa- (1994) work provided the conceptual basis for the Cli-
nies in the 1960s and 1970s, Ekvall observed differ- mate for Innovation Questionnaire, which was an ear-
ences in how the working atmosphere of different lier version of the SOQ (see Table 1).
companies affected the degree of participation in idea Each dimension of the SOQ includes five items.
suggestion schemes (Ekvall, 1974). He developed the The respondents answer on a 4-point Likert-like
Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) from an inter- scale, answering either 0 (not at all applicable), 1
national program of research conducted in the 1980s (applicable to some extent), 2 (fairly applicable), or 3
(Ekvall, 1983, 1991; Ekvall & Arvonen 1984; Ekvall, (applicable to a high degree). The respondent’s over-
Arvonen, & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, 1983). all scores on the 10 dimensions of a complete SOQ
The CCQ includes 10 dimensions of creative cli- are derived by taking the aggregated averages of the
mate. Lauer (1994) found theoretical support for the respondent’s results for each dimension and multiply-
existence of these dimensions within the literature on ing this score by 100. All dimensions therefore have
creative climate. The 10 dimensions discovered by a theoretical range from 0 to 300. A cumulative score

Table 1. Definitions of Climate Dimensions

Dimensions of the Situational Outlook Questionnaire

Challenge and Involvement: Degree to which people are involved in daily operations, long-term goals, and visions. When there is a high
degree of challenge and involvement, people feel motivated and committed to making contributions. The climate is dynamic, electric, and
inspiring. People find joy and meaningfulness in their work. In the opposite situation, people are not engaged, and feelings of alienation
and apathy are present. Individuals lack interest in their work and interpersonal interactions are dull and listless.
Freedom: Independence in behavior exerted by the people in the organization. In a climate with much freedom, people are given the
autonomy and resources to define much of their work. They exercise discretion in their day-to-day activities. Individuals are provided the
opportunity and take the initiative to acquire and share information about their work. In the opposite climate, people work within strict
guidelines and roles. They carry out their work in prescribed ways with little room to redefine their tasks.
Trust/Openness: Emotional safety in relationships. When there is a high degree of trust, individuals can be genuinely open and frank with
one another. People count on each other for professional and personal support. People have a sincere respect for one another and give
credit where credit is due. Where trust is missing, people are suspicious of each other, and therefore, they closely guard themselves, their
plans, and their ideas. In these situations, people find it extremely difficult to openly communicate with each other.
Idea Time: Amount of time people can use (and do use) for elaborating new ideas. In the high idea-time situation, possibilities exist to
discuss and test suggestions not included in the task assignment. There are opportunities to take the time to explore and develop new ideas.
Flexible timelines permit people to explore new avenues and alternatives. In the reverse case, every minute is booked and specified. The
time pressure makes thinking outside the instructions and planned routines impossible.
Playfulness/Humor: Spontaneity and ease displayed within the workplace. A professional yet relaxed atmosphere where good-natured jokes
and laughter occur often is indicative of this dimension. People can be seen having fun at work. The climate is seen as easy-going and
light-hearted. The opposite climate is characterized by gravity and seriousness. The atmosphere is stiff, gloomy, and cumbrous. Jokes and
laughter are regarded as improper and intolerable.
Conflict: Presence of personal and emotional tensions in the organization. When the level of conflict is high, groups and individuals dislike
and may even hate each other. The climate can be characterized by “interpersonal warfare.” Plots, traps, power, and territory struggles are
usual elements of organizational life. Personal differences yield gossip and slander. In the opposite case, people behave in a more mature
manner; they have psychological insight and control of impulses. People accept and deal effectively with diversity.
Idea Support: Ways new ideas are treated. In the supportive climate, ideas and suggestions are received in an attentive and professional way
by bosses, peers, and subordinates. People listen to each other and encourage initiatives. Possibilities for trying out new ideas are created.
The atmosphere is constructive and positive when considering new ideas. When idea support is low, the automatic “no” is prevailing.
Fault-finding and obstacle-raising are the usual styles of responding to ideas.
Debate: Occurrence of encounters and disagreements between viewpoints, ideas, and differing experiences and knowledge. In the debating
organization, many voices are heard and people are keen on putting forward their ideas for consideration and review. People can often be
seen discussing opposing opinions and sharing a diversity of perspectives. Where debate is missing, people follow authoritarian patterns
without questioning them.
Risk-Taking: Tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity in the workplace. In the high risk-taking case, bold initiatives can be taken even when
the outcomes are unknown. People feel as though they can “take a gamble” on their ideas. People will often “go out on a limb” to put an
idea forward. In a risk-avoiding climate, there is a cautious, hesitant mentality. People try to be on the “safe side” and often “sleep on the
matter.” They set up committees, and they cover themselves in many ways.

Creativity Research Journal 175

S. G. Isaksen, K. J. Lauer, G. Ekvall, and A. Britz

for the entire SOQ is not derived because of the po- new to the marketplace) novelty of the products pro-
tential for misinterpretation. duced by these companies. Based on this information,
Ekvall’s research built on his productive working the companies were divided into three categories.
relations with numerous international organizations Innovative organizations invested in new products
and was conducted with a variety of doctoral students that increased the likelihood of long-term survival for
and colleagues. The companies used in Ekvall’s work the company. The stagnated companies were unsuc-
were selected for their ability to put new products into cessful in creating new products and were commer-
the marketplace. This selection process was based on cially in trouble. The average companies fell between
the work of Nystrom and Edvardsson (1980) who stud- these two extremes. The results of the studies (see Ta-
ied the technical (products that had novel or original ble 2 and Figure 2) show that organizations that were
technical elements) and market (products that were designated innovative have climate scores that are sig-

Table 2. Ekvall’s CCQ Normative Information—Numeric Data

Innovative Organizationsa Stagnated Organizationsb

Dimension M SD Range M SD Range

Challenge and Involvement 238 27 219–300 163 10 154–176

Dynamism 220 33 182–290 140 22 120–166
Freedom 210 16 185–240 153 32 114–192
Trust/Openness 178 36 90–212 128 29 89–168
Idea Time 148 13 123–168 97 26 70–130
Playfulness/Humor 230 31 148–260 140 21 105–158
Conflict 78 31 56–150 140 14 126–162
Idea Support 183 14 166–200 108 23 80–132
Debate 158 31 110–204 105 6 98–112
Risk-Taking 195 27 153–240 53 15 34–70
a
n = 10. bn = 5.

Figure 2. Ekvall’s Creative Climate Questionnaire normative information—Spider chart.

176 Creativity Research Journal

 Situational Outlook Questionnaire

nificantly different from organizations identified as Our studies examined the SOQ’s ability to distin-
stagnated. Analysis of variance showed that the mean guish best-case from worst-case climates for creativity
differences were significant at the .05 level or better on and change. It would be expected that best-case situa-
all 10 climate dimensions (Ekvall, 1996). tions chosen by respondents would be significantly
Table 2 includes the means on all 10 CCQ dimensions different on all the SOQ’s dimensions from the worst-
for 15 organizations, representing different branches and case situation they chose.
countries. The first column reports the averages for 10
innovative organizations, and the other column reports
averages for 5 stagnated organizations. Study 1
Figure 2 illustrates the same data included in Table
2 but uses a spider chart to provide a visual display. Be- Method
cause the spider charts are used to show the shape of
the data included in the studies discussed in the follow- The method used in this study compared individu-
ing, this figure provides a sort of visual benchmark il- als’ perceptions of the climate dimensions for a very
lustrating the target scores for the best-case and worst- positive or best-case situation against a negative or
case organizations. worst-case situation. Respondents completed the SOQ
The CCQ was chosen for translation into English for a best-case and a worst-case situation. The best case
due to its validation evidence available in the literature. was defined as “an environment in which you felt you
No other measure, available in the behavioral scientific did your best work because it encouraged, nurtured, or
literature, had the same degree of evidence of its ability supported your use of creativity.” The worst case was
to effectively discriminate creatively productive orga- “characterized as an environment in which you felt un-
nizations from their stagnated counterparts. Further, productive because it discouraged, hindered, or inter-
the practical relevance and usefulness of the climate fered with your use of creativity.”
factors of the CCQ have been well demonstrated for It was hypothesized that if the SOQ is an accurate
organizational diagnosis and intervention. In short, the measure of the psychological climate for creativity,
CCQ was already in widespread international use in then it would be sensitive enough to show distinct dif-
organizational and management development projects ferences between very favorable and unfavorable situ-
and programs. ations. By having respondents think back to a past or
Studies of the psychometric properties of the ver- present real work situation that could be characterized
sions of the SOQ through its development has suggested as either very positive or negative, the perceptions of
that the questionnaire was reliable and began to estab- the climate dimensions could then be compared be-
lish and document the measure’s content validity tween these situations.
(Cabra, 1996; Lauer, 1994). These works also suggested This procedure was carried out two times. The first
and implemented the reduction of the SOQ from 10 to 9 time involved a group of 22 managers (14 men and 8
dimensions. In a more recent study of the SOQ’s con- women) from an international computer company. The
struct validity and psychometric properties (Isaksen, age for this group ranged from 32 to 58. Examples of
Lauer, & Ekvall, 1999) with a predominantly North the best case for this group were: negotiating with un-
American sample, it was found that the SOQ had a factor ion, intercultural video creation, and internal training
structure that supports the existence of the 9 SOQ di- center. Examples of the worst case included: post-
mensions (see Table 1). The reliabilities of the dimen- merger environment, executive development program,
sions reported in terms of Cronbach’s alpha scores and development of a product database.
obtained in that study were sufficient enough (.62–.90) The second group to complete the SOQ in this man-
to also consider the SOQ a reliable measure. ner were 24 graduate students (11 men and 13 women)
Although the SOQ has already been subject to a va- enrolled in a course at the Center for Studies in Cre-
riety of research studies (Isaksen & Kaufmann, 1990; ativity at Buffalo State College. The age for this group
Sobiek, 1996; Sperazini, 1997; Turnipseed, 1994), no ranged from 25 to 56. Examples of the best-case situa-
specific evidence of its concurrent criterion-related va- tion identified by the students included teaching in col-
lidity is available in the published literature for this lege, working as a journalist for a newspaper, and
translation of the CCQ. technology marketing. Examples of the worst-case sit-

Creativity Research Journal 177

S. G. Isaksen, K. J. Lauer, G. Ekvall, and A. Britz

uation included working in a psychiatric center, teach- Figures 3 and 4 present a graphic depiction of these
ing in a middle school, and working as a waitress. scores.
A visual display of the scores for the best-case and
Results worst-case situations between the two samples shows
remarkable similarities (see Figures 3 and 4). In general,
Britz (1995) originally analyzed the data collected the scores for the best-case situation approach the high
from the two samples described previously by examin- end of the scale (300), except for conflict (a negative di-
ing the means for both measures and conducting an mension), and the scores for the worst case fall toward
analysis of variance. For this study, the data were the low end of the scale (0), again except conflict. To de-
reanalyzed. Table 3 shows the mean scores for the termine if these differences were statistically signifi-
best- and worst-case situations for both samples, and cant, we began by conducting a 10 (SOQ dimensions) ×

Table 3. Mean Scores for Best-Case and Worst-Case Situations: Study 1

Manager Groupa Student Groupb

Dimension Best Case Worst Case Best Case Worst Case

Challenge and Involvement 259 138 263 130

Freedom 227 104 226 89
Dynamism 239 103 235 111
Trust/Openness 219 94 218 94
Idea Time 155 85 209 86
Playfulness/Humor 213 72 243 99
Conflict 92 204 74 219
Idea Support 232 85 233 70
Debate 238 137 228 113
Risk-Taking 208 77 185 67
a b
n = 22. n = 24.

Figure 3. Comparison of mean scores for worst-case situations: Study 1.

178 Creativity Research Journal

 Situational Outlook Questionnaire

Figure 4. Comparison of mean scores for best-case situations: Study 1.

2 (situation: best, worst) multivarite analysis of variance Table 4. Univariate F Tests Between Best-Case and Worst-
(MANOVA). There was a significant interaction for sit- Case Scores: Study 1
uation in the manager group, Wilks’s Λ = .197, F(10, 33) F*
= 13.43, p < .001, and in the student group, Wilks’s Λ =
.154, F(10, 37) = 20.33, p < .001. Manager Student
a
For both samples, a subsequent univariate F test was Dimension Group Groupb
conductedbetweenthebest-andworst-caseclimates.All10 Challenge and Involvement 76.7 92.8
dimensions showed significant univariate effects across the Freedom 60.0 49.1
best- and worst-case situations (see Table 4). These results Dynamism 74.5 57.3
are important in that they demonstrate that respondents will Trust/Openness 66.0 99.9
vary their answers to the SOQ given very different work en- Idea Time 13.1 31.0
Playfulness 60.6 107.4
vironments. Additionally, respondents will vary their an-
Conflict 29.5 77.8
swers in the theoretically hypothesized direction (i.e., Idea Support 100.6 102.3
positive environments receive more positive scores and Debate 27.9 56.2
negative environments receive more negative scores). Re- Risk-Taking 66.3 36.9
sults from this analysis show that the SOQ can discriminate a
n = 22, df = 1, 42. bn = 24, df = 1, 46.
between a variety of productive and unproductive work sit- *All ps < .001.
uations experienced by two diverse groups.
Subsequent analysis compared the scores for the
best-case and worst-case situations across the two set, Wilks’s Λ = .747, F(10, 35) = 1.19, p > .05. A sig-
samples. This was done to determine if the scores for nificant interaction occurred for the best-case data set,
the best- and worst-case situations were relatively sim- Wilks’s Λ = .527, F(10, 35) = 3.15, p < .01. A subse-
ilar. To examine this question, we pooled the data sets quent univariate F test of the best-case data set re-
and created a best-case data set and a worst-case data vealed only one significant difference. Idea Time for
set. A 10 (SOQ dimensions) × 2 (group: manager, stu- the best-case situation produced a small but statisti-
dent) MANOVA was conducted on each set. There cally significant difference, F(1, 44) = 5.79, p < .05.
was no significant interaction for the worst-case data This difference favored students enrolled in a graduate

Creativity Research Journal 179

S. G. Isaksen, K. J. Lauer, G. Ekvall, and A. Britz

program over busy professionals working for a global The SOQ provided consistent results in the ex-
organization. Thus, the patterns across the best- and pected direction. The best-case results were all more
worst-case situations for the two groups were rela- positive than the worst-case situations, except in con-
tively similar. flict where the worst-case average would be expected
to be higher on this negative dimension. The worst-
Study 2 case results were all lower and also in the expected di-
rection, except for conflict, which yielded higher
Method scores, showing a more negative climate for creativity
and change.
The second study utilized a revised version of the Consistent with the analysis conducted in the first
climate measure containing only nine dimensions. study, a 9 (SOQ Dimensions) × 2 (situation: best,
Factor analysis with North American samples had worst) MANOVA was applied to the means from best-
demonstrated that the dynamism dimension fell on the and worst-case climates. As in the previous study, a
challenge factor (Cabra, 1996). The revised version of significant interaction was observed, Wilks’s Λ = .255,
the SOQ contained items for only nine dimensions. In F(9, 132) = 42.80, p < .001. Univariate F tests were
addition, the revised measure utilized open-ended then applied and all the means were significantly dif-
questions where participants reported aspects of their ferent (see Table 6). The 71 best-case situations chosen
environment that help or hinder their creativity as well by the undergraduate students were clearly different
as make recommendations for improvement. from their 71 worst-case situations.
Data collection occurred during the fall of 1996,
with an undergraduate class enrolled in an elective hu-
manities course. This course was selected due to its Discussion
size and the diversity of the students enrolled. Students
volunteered to have their data included in the study. From the studies reported, it seems reasonable to
The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 56 with an aver- conclude that the SOQ appears to perform similarly
age age of 27.3. The class consisted of 27 men and 44 to its parent measure, the CCQ. The studies reported
women. in this article provide preliminary evidence regarding
The group’s scores on the Kirton Adaption–Innova- the validity of the SOQ. The three samples from the
tion Inventory (Kirton, 1987) showed a fairly normal two studies, offering a wide variety of best- and
distribution and a mean score that was close to the the- worst-case comparisons, yielded very similar results.
oretical mean (Mudd, 1986). The Kirton Adaption–In- These results appeared to be consistent with the ear-
novation Inventory is a 32-item instrument on which lier validation results provided by Ekvall and his col-
respondents are asked to indicate the degree of ease or leagues, who reported significant differences that
difficulty they have in maintaining specific adaptive or
innovative preferences over a long period of time. This Table 5. Mean Scores for Best-Case and Worst-Case Situa-
suggested that this group was fairly representative of tions: Study 2
the normal population and would provide a better sam-
Undergraduate Students
ple than those presented in the previous study pre-
sented in this article. The Kirton Adaption–Innovation Dimension Best Case
a
Worst Case
a

Inventory means for the other two groups were sub-

Challenge and Involvement 232 84
stantially more innovative.
Freedom 207 77
Trust/Openness 166 95
Results Idea Time 190 57
Playfulness/Humor 241 111
The results from this study show remarkably similar Conflict 81 209
patterns in the numeric data and their visual display. Idea Support 217 59
Debate 208 108
The means on the nine dimensions of the SOQ are re- Risk-Taking 167 72
ported in Table 5. The spider chart for the results from
a
the 71 students is shown in Figure 5. n = 71.

180 Creativity Research Journal

 Situational Outlook Questionnaire

Figure 5. Comparison of mean scores for best-case and worst-case situations: Study 2.

Table 6. Univariate F Tests Between Best-Case and Worst- worst-case situations. Further analysis should also be
Case: Study 2 conducted on the data from the two studies reported in
this article.
Undergraduate Considering the graphic representation of the data
a
Dimension Group F * (see Figures 6 and 7), it appears that the results are con-
Challenge and Involvement 259.7 sistent across the three groups reported in this article
Freedom 204.8 for both the best- and worst-case situations. A future
Trust/Openness 30.0 study may examine the adjusted means scores for the
Idea Time 183.0 three groups and a multiple analysis of variance could
Playfulness/Humor 138.1
Conflict 111.3
be performed to determine if the differences are con-
Idea Support 231.3 sistent across the three samples.
Debate 93.6 The studies reported here utilized individuals and
Risk-Taking 87.3 their recollections of actual organizations within
a which they worked. Actual climate data from other
n = 71, df = 1, 140.
*All ps < .001. individuals was not used within a shared context. For
the purpose of these studies, the individual level of
analysis was used for both the best- and worst-case.
occur on climate scores between companies identi- Ekvall (1996) used actual data from innovative, aver-
fied as innovative and stagnated (Ekvall, 1996). As age, and stagnated organizations. In this case, how-
such, it appears from these studies that the SOQ dis- ever, post-facto, self-report recollections were
criminates climates for creativity. Further studies utilized. Future research should include data at a sim-
may build on these findings to examine other issues ilar level of analysis as those Ekvall utilized and be
regarding the SOQ’s validity. based on similar criteria for discriminating innovative
Because the current version of the SOQ also pro- organizations from their stagnated counterparts. Fu-
vides narrative data, qualitative research methods ture studies should also focus more on predictive val-
should be applied to provide a more descriptive under- idation. Next steps in this area could include using
standing of the perceived differences in best- and measures of organizational productivity and profit-

Creativity Research Journal 181

S. G. Isaksen, K. J. Lauer, G. Ekvall, and A. Britz

Figure 6. Comparison of mean scores for all three worst-case situations.

Figure 7. Comparison of mean scores for all three best-case situations.

ability and providing a blind description of a work- The two studies presented here have provided prelimi-
place for participant review. nary evidence that the SOQ does discriminate the climate
A further avenue for future research to more firmly for creativity and change. This article is the first pub-
establish the validity of the SOQ would be to establish lished evidence supporting the concurrent criterion-re-
that clear narrative differences translated into item and lated validity of the SOQ. Future studies should further
dimensional differences. examine this and other aspects of the SOQ’s validity.

182 Creativity Research Journal

 Situational Outlook Questionnaire

References Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., Murdock, M. C., Dorval, K. B., &
Puccio, G. J. (1995). Situational outlook questionnaire: Under-
standing the climate for creativity and change (SOQ™)—A
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environ-
technical manual. Buffalo, NY: Creative Problem Solving
ment scales: Work Environment Inventory. Creativity Re-
Group.
search Journal, 2, 231–253.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organiza-
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta-
tions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
tions. New York: Free Press.
Kirton, M. J. (1987). Kirton Adaption–Innovation Manual (2nd ed.).
Britz, A. (1995). The assessment of climate for innovation in organi-
Berkhamsted, England: Occupational Research Center.
zations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Technische Hochschule
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge:
Darmstadt.
How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organiza-
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
tional performance and change. Journal of Management, 18,
Lauer, K. J. (1994). The assessment of creative climate: An investi-
523–545.
gation of Ekvall’s Creative Climate Questionnaire. Unpub-
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
lished master’s thesis, State University College, Buffalo, NY.
Cabra, J. F. (1996). Examining the reliability and factor structure of
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organiza-
the Climate for Innovation Questionnaire. Unpublished mas-
tional climate. Boston: Harvard Business School.
ter’s thesis, State University College, Buffalo, NY.
Mudd, S. (1986). Analytic review of research on the Kirton Adap-
Ekvall, G. (1974). Industriarbetanes Fõrbättringsideer [Improve-
tion–Innovation Inventory (KAI). Social and Behavioral Sci-
ment of industrial workers’ ideas]. Stockholm, Sweden:
ences Documents, 16 (Ms. No. 2775).
Personaladministrativa Rådet.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1977). A diagnostic model for or-
Ekvall, G. (1983). Climate, structure and innovativeness of organi-
ganizational behavior. In J. R. Hackman, E. E. Lawler, & L. W.
zations: A theoretical framework and an experiment (Report 1). Porter (Eds.), Perspectives on behavior in organizations (pp.
Stockholm, Sweden: FArådet–The Swedish Council for Man- 85–100). New York: McGraw-Hill.
agement and Work Life Issues. Nystrom, H., & Edvardsson, B. (1980). Technological and market-
Ekvall, G. (1987). The climate metaphor in organization theory. In ing strategies for product development: A study of 20 Swedish
B. Bass & P. Drenth (Eds.), Advances in organizational psy- food-processing companies. Uppsala, Sweden: Innovation Re-
chology (pp. 177–190). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. search Group, Institute for Economics and Statistics.
Ekvall, G. (1991). The organizational culture of idea-management: Payne, R., & Pugh, D. S. (1976). Organizational structure and cli-
A creative climate for the management of ideas. In J. Henry & mate. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and or-
D. Walker (Eds.), Managing innovation (pp. 73–79). London: ganizational psychology (pp. 1125–1173). Chicago: Rand
Sage. McNally.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innova- Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a cli-
tion. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol- mate and culture for sustainable organizational change. Orga-
ogy, 5, 105–123. nizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Service, R. W., & Boockholdt, J. L. (1998). Factors leading to inno-
Creativity and Innovation Management, 6, 195–205. vation: A study of managers’ perspectives. Creativity Research
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1984). Leadership styles and organiza- Journal, 11, 295–307.
tional climate for creativity: Some findings in one company Sobieck, M. A. (1996). Examination of cross-site narrative re-
(Report 1). Stockholm, Sweden: FArådet–The Swedish Coun- sponses on the CIQ and SOQ. Unpublished master’s thesis,
cil for Management and Work Life Issues. State University College, Buffalo, NY.
Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J., & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, I. (1983). Cre- Speranzini, G. D. (1997). Understanding the impact of a climate in-
ative organizational climate: Construction and validation of a tervention: Debriefing the Situational Outlook Questionnaire
measuring instrument (Report 2). Stockholm, Sweden: (SOQ). Unpublished master’s thesis, State University College,
FArådet–The Swedish Council for Management and Work Life Buffalo, NY.
Issues. Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.). (1968). Organizational climate:
Isaksen, S. G., & Kaufmann, G. (1990). Adaptors and innovators: Explorations of a concept. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
Different perceptions of the psychological climate for creativ- sity Press.
ity. In T. Rickards, P. Colemont, P. Grøholt, M. Parker, & H. Turnipseed, D. (1994). The relationship between the social envi-
Smeekes (Eds.), Creativity and innovation: Learning from ronment of organizations and the climate for innovation and
practice (pp. 47–54). Delft, The Netherlands: Innovation Con- creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 3, 184–
sulting Group TNO. 195.
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational Outlook Weisbord, M. R. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to
Questionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and look for trouble with or without a theory. Group and Organiza-
change. Psychological Reports, 85, 665–674. tional Studies, 1, 430–447.

Creativity Research Journal 183

S. G. Isaksen, K. J. Lauer, G. Ekvall, and A. Britz

Witt, L. A., & Beorkrem, M. N. (1989). Climate for creative produc- Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a
tivity as a predictor of research usefulness and organizational theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management
effectiveness in an R & D organization. Creativity Research Review, 18, 293–321.
Journal, 2, 30–40.

184 Creativity Research Journal