Brief Description - Center for Creative Leadership

Transcription

USER’S GUIDE
©1987, 2010 Teresa M. Amabile, Ph.D. and Center for Creative Leadership. All Rights Reserved.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview
Introduction ...........................................................................................................3
User’s Guide Audience and Purpose .................................................................3
Appropriate Use ....................................................................................................4
Survey Development ............................................................................................5
Dimension Descriptions .......................................................................................7
Response Scale .....................................................................................................10
Sample Survey Questions ..................................................................................10
Research Basis
Assessment of Reliability and Validity ............................................................13
Translations of KEYS ..........................................................................................22
Additional Research ...........................................................................................23
Report Characteristics
How to Read and Interpret ................................................................................29
Scoring Rules .......................................................................................................42
Norms ...................................................................................................................43
Support for Organizations
Sample Size Selection .........................................................................................60
Administration Process ......................................................................................61
Ordering ...............................................................................................................61
References .....................................................................................................................62
Appendix
Terms Used in This Guide .................................................................................65
E-mails ..................................................................................................................66
Case Studies .........................................................................................................69
2
OVERVIEW
Introduction
Because the generation and successful implementation of creative ideas are of such vital
importance to companies in a rapidly changing world, KEYS® to Creativity and
Innovation 1 focuses on creativity and innovation. The KEYS report is designed to
provide a clear “picture” of the climate within a work group or organization. That
climate, also known as the work environment, greatly influences employees’ ability to be
creative. The value of KEYS lies in its capacity to accurately identify the conditions
necessary for creativity and innovation to occur.
KEYS is a reliable, valid, research-based tool that measures elements in the work
environment that can have an impact on creativity. It is most useful in situations where
an individual or team within an organization is concerned about the degree of creativity
and innovation in the work, and suspects that the work environment might not be
optimal in supporting creativity and innovation. It is also useful when, having made
attempts to improve the work environment or the overall degree of innovation, an
individual or team wants to check the organization’s current status.
KEYS assesses perceptions of . . .
• stimulants to creativity in the work environment
• obstacles to creativity in the work environment
• outcomes in the quality of the work: Creativity and Productivity
• what should be done to improve the work environment for creativity and
innovation
User’s Guide Audience and Purpose
The user’s guide is designed to be a resource for anyone for use with KEYS. All the
information and materials needed to administer and interpret the KEYS report are
provided.
Please consult the appendix for definitions of the terms used in this document.
Additional KEYS documentation can be found in the following locations:
•
1
Sample report – www.ccl.org/keys
Referred to as KEYS from this point forward.
3
•
•
•
•
Technical Requirements (document prepared for your IT department so that
they are aware of this initiative and can limit firewall issues) – www.ccl.org/keys
FAQs document – www. ccl.org/keys
CCL Policy on Privacy (a document that describes CCL policy regarding data
collection and privacy) –
http://www.ccl.org/leadership/utilities/privacyData.aspx
Facilitator Qualification Form (a two-page document asking you about your
experience working with psychological assessments and providing facilitated
feedback) –
www.ccl.org/leadership/forms/assessments/facilitatorQualificationForm.aspx
Appropriate Use
KEYS is intended for users who have either had training in the administration and
interpretation of psychological or organizational development instruments, or have had
considerable experience in doing so. The Center has a qualification process that requires
completion of a Facilitator Qualification Form. To obtain a KEYS Facilitator Qualification
Form, please go to the Web site listed above.
There are two reasons for requiring training and/or experience for new KEYS users.
Although the survey and results are fairly self-explanatory, it is important for the client
organization or group to have the guidance of a professional who understands the
results and their implications, and who can help people deal with both positive and
negative feedback.
Second, KEYS is a tool that requires some sophistication in its use. Much of the
important work in the use of KEYS comes before and after the participating organization
sees the results. The user must be able to accurately identify situations within
organizations where KEYS might be particularly useful, and must be able to explain to
potential clients what they can expect from the assessment and its results—as well as
what not to expect. After the results have been read and understood by clients, users
will often be called upon to help them formulate action plans for improvement, carry
out those plans, and perhaps follow up with a later KEYS assessment to see if the actions
have been successful.
4
Survey Development
The theory of creativity and innovation that serves as the conceptual foundation for
KEYS proposes the following three organizational components, each of which includes
several specific aspects of the work environment (Amabile, 1988, 1996):
(1) Management Practices: Allowance of freedom or autonomy in the conduct of work;
provision of challenging, interesting work; specification of clear overall strategic
goals; and formation of work teams by drawing together individuals with diverse
skills and perspectives. Several KEYS dimensions fall within this conceptual
component: Freedom, Challenging Work, Managerial Encouragement, and Work
Group Supports.
(2) Organizational Motivation to Innovate: A basic orientation of the organization
toward innovation, as well as supports for creativity and innovation throughout the
organization. The KEYS dimensions that fit conceptually within this component are
Organizational Encouragement and Lack of Organizational Impediments to
Creativity.
(3) Resources: Everything that the organization has available to aid work in the
domain targeted for innovation (e.g., sufficient time for producing novel work in
the domain, funding, materials, and information). The KEYS dimensions within this
component include Sufficient Resources and Realistic Workload Pressure.
According to the theory, these three organizational components constitute the work
environment that influences individual or team creativity.
Individual creativity depends on three components within the individual. These
components are necessary for an individual to produce a creative idea or product in any
given domain:
(1) Expertise: Knowledge and skill in the particular area where the individual is trying
to do creative work.
(2) Creativity Skills: Techniques for taking new perspectives on problems, for
incubating and persevering on difficult problems, and for taking risks with
solutions to problems.
(3) Task Motivation: The desire to solve the problem or do the task because it is
interesting, involving, or personally challenging.
5
The work environment affects all three individual components, but it appears to have its
most immediate and salient impact on motivation. The creativity that results from the
work of individuals or teams has a major role in determining the overall level of
innovation within the organization.
Research Foundation
Details of the research foundation for KEYS can be found in an article in the Academy of
Management Journal (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). This section
provides an overview of the results presented in that article.
Research has shown that the social environment—the work environment—can strongly
influence the creativity of individuals and teams, in large part because the work
environment influences motivation (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1990). People are most creative
when they feel primarily intrinsically motivated, by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction,
involvement, and personal challenge of the work itself. They are less creative if they feel
primarily extrinsically motivated by the dictates or inducements of other people.
Early experimental research on creativity clearly pointed to the power of the social
environment to influence the creativity of both children and adults (see Amabile, 1983,
1990 for summaries). However, the immediate predecessor of KEYS was an interview
study of over 100 R&D scientists from several different companies (Amabile, 1988;
Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987). The critical-incident technique used in the interviews
called for participants to describe in detail two significant events from their work
experience: one that exemplified low creativity and one that exemplified high creativity.
Detailed content analysis of transcriptions of the interviews, done by independent coders,
revealed several environmental factors that inhibit creativity. Many had already been
studied in experimental paradigms, but several new inhibiting factors were also revealed.
In decreasing order of the frequency with which they were mentioned, the environmental
obstacles to creativity were: (1) various organizational characteristics having to do with
poor communication, infighting, and excessive red tape; (2) constraint or restriction of
choice in how to do one’s work; (3) organizational disinterest or apathy toward the
project; (4) poor project management in the form of unclear goals or overcontrolled work
assignments; (5) evaluation pressure; (6) insufficient resources; (7) insufficient time; (8)
emphasis on the status quo, or the maintenance of traditional practices; and (9)
competition, especially within the organization itself.
Just as important, these interviews revealed several environmental stimulants to
creativity. In decreasing order of frequency, they were: (1) freedom in deciding how to do
one’s work; (2) good project management in the setting of work assignments; (3) sufficient
6
resources; (4) encouragement; (5) various organizational characteristics having to do with
communication, cooperation, and collaboration; (6) recognition and feedback; (7)
sufficient time; (8) challenging work; and (9) pressure arising from the urgent need for a
solution.
Our theory of creativity and innovation in organizations, our experimental research on
the effects of the social environment on creativity, and, especially, our interview research
on work environment influences in organizations led directly to the development of
KEYS. We believed that although the interview methodology yielded many rich insights
into a company’s work environment, it was too cumbersome, too nonstandardized, and
too labor-intensive to be used on a large scale. Moreover, it did not easily afford
comparisons between organizations or groups. By contrast, KEYS was designed to
provide a means by which an organization can efficiently gain a quantitative picture of
its work environment for creativity with a standardized, reliable, and valid instrument,
and can readily compare itself to other groups and organizations.
The items for KEYS were developed directly from transcripts of the interviews with
R&D scientists, as well as transcripts of similar interviews with managers and
employees in other functions and other organizations. Items were written to tap each
essential aspect of each of the main categories of environmental influences that appeared
repeatedly in these interviews. (These are also the categories in the theory described
earlier [Amabile, 1988]). Wherever possible, item wordings were identical or similar to
actual quotes from the interviews.
Dimensions Descriptions
The 78 items on KEYS form 10 work environment dimensions. Of these, 4 describe
management practices, 2 describe organizational motivation to creativity, and 2 describe
resources. The remaining 2 dimensions do not describe the work environment. Rather,
they describe perceptions of outcomes—the creativity and productivity of the work
actually being done in the organization. Each of the dimensions is briefly described
below (see Table 1).
Table 1
Dimensions, Definitions, and Sample Items
Management Practices
1. Freedom
Deciding what work to do or
how to do it; a sense of
control over one’s work.
2. Challenging Work
A sense of having to work
I have the freedom to
decide how I am going to
carry out my projects.
I feel challenged by the
7
3. Managerial
Encouragement
4. Work Group Supports
Organizational Motivation
5. Organizational
Encouragement
6. Lack of Organizational
Impediments
Resources
7. Sufficient Resources
8. Realistic Workload
hard on challenging tasks and
important projects.
A boss who serves as a good
work model, sets goals
appropriately, supports the
work group, values
individual contributions, and
shows confidence in the work
group.
A diversely skilled work
group in which people
communicate well, are open
to new ideas, constructively
challenge each other’s work,
trust and help each other, and
feel committed to the work
they are doing.
work I am currently
doing.
My boss serves as a good
work model.
An organizational culture that
encourages creativity through
the fair, constructive
judgment of ideas, reward
and recognition for creative
work, mechanisms for
developing new ideas, an
active flow of ideas, and a
shared vision.
An organizational culture that
does not impede creativity
through internal political
problems, harsh criticism of
new ideas, destructive
internal competition, an
avoidance of risk, and an
overemphasis on the status
quo.
People are encouraged to
solve problems creatively
in this organization.
Access to appropriate
resources, including funds,
materials, facilities, and
information.
Absence of extreme time
Generally, I can get the
resources I need for my
work.
There is free and open
communication within
my work group.
There are few political
problems in this
organization.
I do not have too much
8
Pressure
Outcomes
9. Creativity
10. Productivity
pressures, unrealistic
expectations for productivity,
and distractions from creative
work.
work to do in too little
time.
A creative organization or
unit, where a great deal of
creativity is called for and
where people believe they
actually produce creative
work.
An efficient, effective, and
productive organization or
unit.
My area of this
organization is
innovative.
My area of this
organization is effective.
Checklist Questions
Following the 78 numerical items are three additional questions:
•
Question A asks, “What are the three most important factors supporting creativity
and innovation in your current work environment?”
•
Question B asks, “What are the three most important factors inhibiting creativity
and innovation in your current work environment?”
•
Question C asks, “What are the three most important suggestions that you have for
improving the climate for creativity and innovation in your daily work
environment?”
For each question, there is a separate list of between 42 and 52 possible responses (including
“Other” and “None”). Respondents are asked to simply choose three of the possible responses
for each of these three questions. These questions were added in recognition of the fact that,
within any given organization, creativity might be influenced by a particularly potent factor or
set of factors that do not appear prominently on KEYS. Questions A, B, and C would be able to
capture such factors. Moreover, by forcing respondents to cite the three most important
factors, we would be able to give feedback to managers that would highlight the areas that
were of most concern to their employees. The specific suggestions coming from their own
employees were likely to be more fitting to the particular organization than any suggestions
that outsiders might make.
9
The data are reported as percentages of the total number of respondents who checked
each possible answer for each of the questions. Thus, the results feedback still provides
insights that go beyond the 10 validated dimensions, still highlights those areas that are
of most concern to employees within the organization when they think about creativity
and innovation, and still offers improvement suggestions that come directly from the
employees themselves.
Response Scale
Each of the 78 items is answered by indicating one of four responses with different
numerical values:
1 = Never or almost never true of your current work environment
2 = Sometimes true of your current work environment
3 = Often true of your current work environment
4 = Always or almost always true of your current work environment
This four-point response scale is used on KEYS in order to avoid a mid-point and, thus,
force respondents away from a neutral option. If respondents are allowed to choose a
middle-of-the-road “average” response, they may sometimes avoid thinking carefully
and accurately about their answers.
Sample Survey Questions
10
11
12
RESEARCH BASIS
Assessment of Reliability and Validity
Psychometric analyses were conducted on KEYS data collected from 12,525 individual
managers and employees. Of these, 9,729 were participants in a variety of leadership
programs at the Center for Creative Leadership and the participants’ back-home
coworkers (usually groups of 4-9 individuals from a given organization). The remaining
2,796 respondents came from a variety of functions and departments in 21 different
organizations. These organizations represent a number of industries, including high
technology, biotechnology, and electronics; chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and health
products; traditional research and development; traditional manufacturing; banking;
and consumer products. These data were collected over the years 1987 to 1995.
Table 2 presents summary data on the psychometric characteristics of KEYS.
Dimension Structure and Characteristics
Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the 66 work environment items fit
moderately well onto the 8 work environment dimensions. Data for this analysis were
derived from a KEYS database of 26 companies (N = 3,708). The overall fit measures
show a moderate fit to the data (goodness of fit index = .85; adjusted goodness of fit
index = .84; chi squared (2051) = 17305.48, p < .001; root mean square residual = .056),
with the large chi-square value indicating room for improvement. The component fit
measures show that all items loaded significantly onto their dimensions (p’s < .001). The
modification indices are quite high for many items, indicating that these items load onto
more than one factor. Given the nature of the instrument, this is not surprising; the
concepts measured by KEYS are theoretically related. Although a more complex model
(where items were permitted to load on several factors) would better fit the data,
maintaining a simple structure was central to the purpose of separately assessing each
aspect of the work environment that is thought to be related to creativity. Therefore, the
eight dimensions for assessing the work environment were retained.
As shown in Table 2, the dimensions generally intercorrelate at moderate levels. This
suggests that, although these various aspects of the work environment form an
interconnected network, the dimensions are not largely redundant.
13
Table 2
KEYS Summary Tablea
Reliability
Freedom
.66
.80
Dimension
Intercorrelations
Median r with
KEYS Stimulant
& Obstacle
Dimensions
(n=12,100)
.36
Challenging Work
.79
.82
.36
.42
.03
-.14
Managerial Encouragement
.91
.90
.42
.43
.03
-.27
Work Group Supports
.86
.88
.42
.32
.00
-.16
Organizational Encouragement
.91
.94
.49
.58
.02
-.11
Lack of Organizational
Impediments
.84
.89
.41
-.53
-.03
.14
Sufficient Resources
.83
.75
.34
.45
.00
-.10
Realistic Workload Pressure
.77
.71
.24
-.06
-.02
-.03
Creativity
.84
.87
.46
.43
.09
-.02
Productivity
.86
.84
.47
.46
.06
-.14
Alpha
(n=12,100)
Testretest
(n=40)
Convergent
Validity
Median r with
Dimensions
on the WES
(n=56)
.23
Discriminant
Validity
Median r
KAI
with
r
(n=69)
Dimensions
on the WPI
(n=69)
-.08
-.02
a
All correlations are statistically significant (p < .05), except those in the last two columns (Discriminant Validity). WES is the Work Environment Scale (Insel &
Moos, 1975); WPI is the Work Preference Inventory (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994); KAI is the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (Kirton,
1976). Median correlations are presented for those instruments having several dimensions.
14
Dimension Reliability
As can be seen in Table 2, internal dimension reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) vary from
minimally acceptable (.66) to extremely strong (.91), with a median that is quite good
(.84). Only two of the dimensions (Freedom and Realistic Workload Pressure) show
reliabilities lower than .80.
Test-Retest Reliability
The test-retest reliabilities of the dimensions, across a period of three months, are good
(see Table 2). Note that short-term test-retest reliability of an environment inventory is
desirable, to indicate that responses are not merely capricious or influenced by highly
transitory but irrelevant forces. However, scores on an environment inventory are not
expected to stay stable across long periods of time. As the environment changes, which
most environments do, ratings on an environment inventory should also change.
Research has shown that KEYS results do change during a major organizational
transformation, such as downsizing (Amabile & Conti, 1995).
Validity of KEYS
Construct Validity
A first step toward asserting construct validity in a work environment instrument is to
demonstrate that it discriminates between different work environments. As a start, it
should yield different results for different organizations. A multivariate analysis of
variance on all KEYS dimensions, with company as the independent variable, indicated
highly significant differences between the work environments of different companies
(Multivariate F(250, 38,410) = 10.59, p < .001). In addition, step-down univariate analyses
of variance revealed highly significant overall across-company differences on each of the
eight environment dimensions and on both criterion dimensions (all p’s < .001).
Although results on differences in KEYS dimensions across companies began to
establish the construct validity of KEYS, stronger evidence was needed. To this end, a
study was conducted to test the ability of KEYS to discriminate between work
environments where demonstrably creative work is being produced and work
environments where notably less creative work is being produced. This study was
designed to determine whether the stimulant dimensions would be rated higher and the
obstacle dimensions lower for work environments surrounding projects with highly
creative outcomes, compared to environments of projects with less creative outcomes. A
strong test of these hypotheses required that the highly creative and less creative
projects be rated as such, not only by members of the project teams but also by experts
external to the project teams.
15
The study was conducted at a company we’ve labeled High-Tech Electronics
International, a U.S. company with over 30,000 employees providing diversified
electronics products to international markets.
Phase 1
In Phase 1 of the study, both technical and nontechnical middle-level
managers (N = 141, 42% response rate) were individually asked to
nominate both the highest and the lowest creativity project with which
they had been involved during the previous three years in the company.
For both projects, they were asked to select only from that set of projects in
which creativity was both possible and desirable; creativity was defined as “the
production of novel and useful ideas by individuals or teams of
individuals.” These managers were selected across four major divisions of
the company. They briefly described each nominated project (using a
standard questionnaire) and completed a KEYS survey on each project.
It is important to note that, although the instructions for the standard KEYS survey ask
respondents to answer the questions by reference to their “current work environment,”
the instructions were customized for this validity study. Because the outcome measure
to be obtained was a measure of the creativity of the work on a specific team project,
respondents were told to answer the KEYS questions by reference to the work
environment surrounding that particular project.
A multivariate analysis of variance, combining across all KEYS dimensions, revealed a
significant difference between high- and low-creativity projects (F(10, 131) = 17.19, p <
.001). Moreover, as shown in Table 3, all of the KEYS dimensions showed significant
differences in the step-down univariate analyses, in the predicted directions. (The effect
sizes, presented as partial eta-squared, demonstrate that some aspects of the work
environment discriminate between high and low creativity more strongly than others.)
Thus, Phase 1 data suggest that projects producing highly creative work have very
different work environments, as assessed by KEYS, from those producing less creative
work.
Table 3
Phase 1 Work Environment Assessments for 141 Pairs of High- and Low-Creativity
Projects
High
Low
Creativity
Creativity
Partial
Ma
(SD)
(SD)
F(1,140)
M
2
Eta
Freedom
3.10
(.51)
2.51
(.66)
90.37***
.40
Challenging Work
3.30
(.52)
2.66
(.63)
110.47***
.44
16
Mgr. Encouragement
3.10
(.59)
2.63
(.69)
60.27***
.30
Work Group Supports
3.34
(.52)
2.75
(.62)
96.12***
.41
Org. Encouragement
2.99
(.58)
2.38
(.60)
110.21***
.44
Lack of Org.
Impedimentsϒ
1.91
(.54)
2.46
(.62)
80.44***
.36
2.96
(.57)
2.65
(.61)
35.07***
.20
Realistic Workload
Pressureϒ
2.40
(.56)
2.55
(.65)
6.95**
.05
Creativity
3.09
(.56)
2.32
(.62)
165.68***
.54
Productivity
3.22
(.56)
2.58
(.65)
83.33***
.37
Means are on a 4-point scale, with a higher number indicating a higher level of the variable.
** p < .01
*** p < .001
ϒ
These dimensions have not been reversed; higher numbers indicate higher levels of Lack of
Organizational Impediments and Realistic Workload Pressure.
a
Phase 2
Phase 2 of the study was conducted to validate the creativity nominations
of Phase 1, by allowing independent expert assessments of the level of
creativity in the projects nominated in Phase 1. A group of experts from
each of the divisions sampled in Phase 1 was asked to independently rate
the projects nominated from that division on creativity, quality, and the
experts’ degree of familiarity with the project. These experts were kept
blind to the initial nomination status of the projects, and high- and lowcreativity projects were randomly intermixed in the experts’ rating
questionnaires. (They were asked to skip the ratings for any projects with
which they were not familiar.)
Because different raters rated different subsets of projects, the reliability of the expert
creativity assessments was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC). This statistic
indicated a modest degree of consistency between raters (ICC (1,k) = .58). Despite the
relatively low reliability of these creativity ratings, projects that had been nominated in
Phase 1 as “high creativity” were still found to be significantly higher in expert-rated
creativity than those that had been nominated as “low creativity” projects (t(92) = 3.42, p
<.001). This finding supports the creativity nominations of Phase 1.
Phase 3
Phase 3 was conducted to validate the environment assessments and
creativity differences of Phase 1, with a different sample of individuals
17
who were unaware of the study’s purpose. In essence, it was a conceptual
replication of Phase 1; it was used to allow more conservative tests of the
work environment differences between high-creativity and low-creativity
projects. A subsample of projects was selected for Phase 3 because our
resources did not permit us to include all projects from Phase 1 in Phase 3.
All project team members of this subsample of projects were asked to
complete a KEYS survey to describe the work environment of their
particular project. These participants did not know that the study
concerned creativity or that their project had been chosen for any particular
reason. Indeed, potential Phase 3 participants were eliminated if they had
participated in Phase 1. Each participant in Phase 3 described the
environment for only one project.
Only projects that had been assessed by at least three Phase 2 raters were included in
Phase 3. We also required that the raters’ familiarity ratings average at least 3.0
(midpoint on the familiarity scale). Then, to ensure selection of only truly high- and lowcreativity projects, we eliminated those with an average expert-rated creativity score
within 1 standard deviation of the mean (1/2 standard deviation above and below the
mean). Finally, we removed a few projects with mean Phase 2 ratings falling into the
high-creativity category if they were originally nominated as low-creativity in Phase 1,
and vice versa.
This procedure yielded 36 projects (18 high-creativity and 18 low-creativity). The level of
agreement between the Phase 2 expert creativity ratings on these 36 projects was quite
acceptable (ICC (1,k) = .76). Of the 36 project leaders, 24 provided names of all projectteam members who were still with the company. All of those project members (except
two who had previously participated in Phase 1) were then asked to complete a KEYS
survey to describe the work environment surrounding that project. Because one of these
projects was rated by only one Phase 3 participant, the final number of Phase 3 projects
was 23 (12 high- and 11 low-creativity).
Of the 250 project team members who received Phase 3 packets, 170 (68%) returned
useable questionnaires. Of these, 95% reported that they could recall the project
environment at least moderately clearly. In addition, the majority of respondents (78%)
reported daily involvement with the project.
Interrater reliabilities were computed on KEYS for each project assessed in Phase 3,
using data from both the original project nominator (from Phase 1) and the raters in
Phase 3. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of the mean work
environment ratings for each project. Overall, the reliabilities of the environment
perceptions were acceptable (median = .75), with alphas ranging from .21 to .93, and
with generally higher reliabilities for the high-creativity projects. It is possible that these
18
very advantageous work environments are more salient and consistent, and thus are
more uniformly perceived by those who work in them. Over both high- and lowcreativity projects, however, the alphas are sufficient to allow acceptance of the mean of
the ratings from a given project team’s members as a fairly reliable estimate of the work
environment of the project.
Our central prediction was that the perceived project environments of the high- and the
low-creativity projects would differ, in the same directions found in Phase 1. Table 4
presents the results of this analysis, which support the Phase 1 findings for most of the
KEYS dimensions. The high-creativity project environments were higher on the
creativity stimulant dimensions of Work Group Supports, Challenging Work,
Organizational Encouragement, and Managerial Encouragement. Additionally, the
Freedom dimension was marginally higher for high-creativity projects. Low-creativity
projects, on the other hand, were rated as higher on the creativity obstacle dimension of
Lack of Organizational Impediments. No differences were found for the Realistic
Workload Pressure and Sufficient Resources dimensions. Also, as expected, both
criterion dimensions (Creativity and Productivity) were significantly higher for the highcreativity project environments.
19
Table 4
Phase 3 Work Environment Assessments for 12 High- and 11 Low-Creativity Projectsa
High
Low
Creativity
Creativity
Partial
Ma
(SD)
(SD)
F(1,140)
M
2
Eta
Freedom
3.12
(.42)
2.78
(.34)
4.54*
.18
Challenging Work
3.30
(.31)
2.94
(.26)
9.12**
.30
Mgr. Encouragement
2.94
(.30)
2.72
(.38)
2.38 ‡
.10
Work Group Supports
2.83
(.33)
2.51
(.26)
6.55*
.24
Org. Encouragement
3.25
(.22)
2.87
(.43)
7.05*
.25
Lack of Org.
Impedimentsϒ
2.05
(.37)
2.32
(.28)
3.83†
.15
2.52
(.19)
2.62
(.40)
.71
.03
Realistic Workload
Pressureϒ
2.83
(.33)
2.78
(.33)
.10
.00
Creativity
2.89
(.28)
2.60
(.27)
6.43*
.23
Productivity
3.02
(.33)
2.72
(.32)
4.94*
.19
a
Means are on a 4-point scale, with a higher number indicating a higher level of the variable.
* p < .05
** p < .01
†
p = .06
‡
p = .15
ϒ
These dimensions have not been reversed; higher numbers indicate higher levels of Lack of Organizational
Impediments and Realistic Workload Pressure.
In part, the results of Phase 3 may have been less strong than the results of Phase 1
because of some bias on the part of the Phase 1 respondents; they knew that the study
concerned creativity, and they were explicitly contrasting a highly creative project with a
less creative project. Additionally, memory biases may have entered in for the Phase 3
respondents. Nearly half of all projects nominated in Phase 1 were currently ongoing (and
virtually all had been conducted in the previous three years), but an additional nine
months had passed before the Phase 3 respondents made their ratings. Thus, it is possible
that accuracy of reporting was somewhat compromised by clouded recollections. This
may partially account for the relatively weaker effects in Phase 3. Of course, it is also
possible that the work environments of ongoing projects actually changed in the nine
months.
Conclusions from the Construct Validity Study at High-Tech Electronics. This study
clearly demonstrates that projects producing highly creative work have work
20
environments (as assessed by KEYS) that differ reliably from the work environments of
projects producing less creative work. In addition, the study highlights five aspects of the
work environment as particularly important (with strong effect sizes in both Phase 1 and
Phase 2): Challenge, Organizational Encouragement, Work Group Supports, Managerial
Encouragement, and Lack of Organizational Impediments. A sixth aspect of the work
environment, Freedom, appears to have a more moderate relationship to creativity of the
work produced. And two aspects, Realistic Workload Pressure and Sufficient Resources,
have considerably weaker relationships.
Some cautions apply to the interpretation of the results of this validity study. Because
the outcome measure was work produced by a project team, and because the work
environment perception measures were aggregated at the level of the team, the results
are only directly generalizable at that level. However, because KEYS assesses
psychological perceptions of the work environment, regardless of the level within the
organization at which influences on those perceptions arise, it should be applicable at
the level of departments, divisions, or even small organizations—as long as the
individual respondents perceive themselves to be working within the same
environment. Nonetheless, although it is reasonable to assume that KEYS measures
aggregated at other levels, such as departments, should be similarly related to creativity
measures at those levels, such applicability will require further research for
confirmation.
Importantly, causal interpretations cannot be drawn from this observational study. It is
true that many of the findings in this study match well with the results of research
reviewed earlier and with the results of experimental studies where environment has
been manipulated (e.g., Amabile, 1983). Nonetheless, it may well be the case that at least
some of the work environment factors studied here are consequences of the level of
project creativity, rather than causes. Indeed, it is likely that a complex causality
accounts for variations in project creativity and project work environment, whereby the
nature of the work and the nature of the work environment are both causes and
consequences in a complex chain of feedback loops.
This validity study is useful in a number of ways. It is the first study to obtain
independent quantitative measures of the work environment from several respondents
in each work environment and separate independent quantitative measures of the
creativity of the work being done in those environments. Moreover, the findings of the
study are applicable to both technical and nontechnical work; no clear differences were
found between the two categories of projects. Additionally, the study demonstrates that
work environment perceptions can be aggregated across different respondents within
the same environment.
Overall, this study provides important construct validity information on KEYS and
supports the conceptual model presented earlier. High-creativity projects were generally
21
rated higher on the KEYS dimensions developed to assess stimulants to creativity and
lower on the KEYS dimensions developed to assess obstacles to creativity. These
findings were bolstered by independent creativity assessments by internal company
experts and by independent work environment assessments by various project-team
members.
Convergent Validity
The measure used to test convergent validity was the Work Environment Scale (WES;
Insel & Moos, 1975), a well-established general measure of work environments in
organizations. Although this measure was not specifically designed to assess aspects of
the work environment that are most relevant to creativity (as KEYS was), its dimension
should correlate moderately with KEYS if the latter instrument does indeed assess
perceptions of the work environment. As shown in Table 2, the KEYS dimensions do
correlate moderately with the dimensions on the WES, establishing preliminary
convergent validity.
Discriminant Validity
Two measures were used to establish discriminant validity by demonstrating that KEYS
responses do not simply reflect individual characteristics of the respondents. Because
KEYS is oriented toward creativity, a widely used measure of creative cognitive style
was chosen. This instrument, the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI; Kirton, 1976),
assesses stable individual differences in the tendency to take radically different
approaches to problems. In addition, because creativity is influenced by an individual’s
intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, a measure of motivational orientation was also chosen
for the demonstration of discriminant validity. This instrument, the Work Preference
Inventory (WPI; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994), assesses stable individual
differences in intrinsic-extrinsic motivational orientation. If indeed KEYS responses
reflect perceptions of creativity-relevant aspects of the external work environment rather
than creativity-relevant characteristics of the respondents, KEYS dimension scores
should be relatively uncorrelated with KAI and WPI scores. As Table 2 illustrates, KEYS
shows relatively low correlations with the personality measure of motivational
orientation, the WPI, and with the measure of cognitive style, the KAI. This suggests that
respondents’ ratings of their work environment are not merely reflections of their own
personal characteristics.
Translations of KEYS
Translations of KEYS are not currently available.
22
Additional Research
Abstracts
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of
creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
This book presents a comprehensive view of how motivation for creative behavior, and
creativity itself, can be influenced by the social environment. The author uses findings
from her research and others in the field to describe ways creativity can be killed and the
ways it can be maintained through social-psychological influences.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, Reprint
#98501, September.
The article discusses creativity in organizations and how managers can motivate people
to do more of it. The author notes that creativity is a function of three components:
expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation. She believes managers can influence
these. The article further describes the six KEYS managerial practices that affect
creativity: challenge, freedom, resources, work-group features, supervisor
encouragement, and organization support.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity
during a downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, (6), 630-640.
This study used KEYS to examine the work environment for creativity at a large Fortune
500 high-technology firm before, during, and after a downsizing. The sample included
754 employees. Eighty-three volunteered to be interviewed about their experiences of
changes during the restructuring, perceptions of various aspects of the work
environment, general motivational and social changes experienced or observed, and
suggestions for management about the restructuring. The authors found perceptions of
creativity and aspects supporting creativity in the work environment declined
significantly during the downsizing but increased modestly later. The opposite pattern
was observed for creativity-undermining aspects. Finally, their results revealed the
relationship between downsizing and creativity is mediated by the work environment
(more specifically stimulants and obstacles).
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the
work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
This paper describes the development and validation of KEYS. Psychometric properties
of KEYS were determined by analyzing data, collected from 1987 to 1995, from several
23
different samples of respondents. The findings of this research are reported in the
research foundation section of the User’s Guide.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors
and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 5-32.
This award-winning exploratory study investigated the relationship between leader
behaviors and perceived instrumental and socioemotional leader support. Data were
collected from 238 workers from 26 project teams in seven companies across three
industries. KEYS was used to validate leader support scores. Leader support scores were
assessed using a daily questionnaire (daily diary narratives) designed to obtain
information on leader behaviors. The Managerial Practices Survey was also used to code
categories of leader behavior.
The first of three studies established leader support was positively and significantly
related to peer-rated creativity. The first qualitative study, which focused on specific
effective and ineffective forms of leader behaviors revealed not only subordinate
perceptual reactions to this behavior (their perceptions of leader support), but affective
reactions as well. The second qualitative analysis focused on the behavior of two
extreme team leaders in context over time, revealing both positive and negative spirals
of leader behavior, subordinate reactions, and subordinate creativity.
Amabile, T. M., Taylor, S., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1995). KEYS to creativity in public
schools. Technical manual for KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
This study examined the construct validity of KEYS in a sample of public school
personnel. KEYS surveys were distributed to 69 principals who were attending a
leadership development program. This sample was comprised of principals from 44
elementary schools, 13 middle schools, and 12 high schools. Each principal was asked to
complete a KEYS form and to distribute forms to up to 10 other school personnel. A total
of 650 forms were returned and scored.
Coefficient alpha results in the public school sample were similar to the norm
sample, ranging from .64 to .90 for all of the KEYS dimensions (average alpha was .80).
In addition, the stimulant, obstacle, and criterion dimensions were all significantly
correlated with each other in approximately the same magnitude as the norm sample.
KEYS also discriminated between schools. A multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) on the six stimulant dimensions, with school as the independent variable,
indicated highly significant differences between work environments in different schools
(Multivariate F(372, 3,283) = 1.90, p < .001). Significant differences were found for each of
24
the stimulant dimensions. Identical analyses were significant for the obstacle dimensions
(Multivariate F(124,1,102) = 2.10, p < .001) and the criterion dimensions (Multivariate
F(124,1,106) = 1.69, p < .001). Subsequent univariate analyses also showed differences for
each of the dimensions across analyses.
The ranks of mean scores for the combined schools were significantly higher than the
ranks of companies in the norm base across all of the KEYS dimensions except for Lack
of Realistic Workload Pressure (Wilcoxon W = .217, p = .828) and Sufficient Resources
(Wilcoxon W = 1.671 p = .10); however, the results were somewhat different when the
schools were classified as elementary (44 schools), middle (13 schools), and high school
(12 schools). Elementary schools were higher than the KEYS norm group on all of the
dimensions, compared to middle schools, which were not different on Lack of Realistic
Workload Pressure, Sufficient Resources, and Managerial Encouragement, and high
schools, which were not different on Realistic Workload Pressure, Sufficient Resources,
Managerial Encouragement, and Work Group Supports.
These findings show that while KEYS is equally reliable and valid in public school
environments, mean scores for schools are, on average, significantly higher than mean
scores in corporate environments, especially elementary schools.
Breen, B. (2004, December). The six myths of creativity. Fast Company, 89.
This article discusses six common myths about creativity. Teresa Amabile’s research was
used to discredit the misunderstandings. She used 12,000 daily journal entries from 238
people working on creative projects across seven organizations for the basis of her
findings. Myth 1, creativity comes from creative people, was not supported in the
research. Instead, Amabile found that creativity is dependent on experience, including
knowledge and technical skills, talent; an ability to think in new ways; and the capacity
to push through uncreative dry spells. Myth 2—money is a creative motivator—was not
found to be as motivating as working in an environment where creativity is supported,
valued, and recognized. Breen further reports that people want the opportunity to
deeply engage in their work and make real progress. It turns out that time pressure does
not fuel creativity, myth 3. Instead, Amabile’s research found time pressure stifles
creativity because people cannot deeply engage with the problem. Creativity requires an
incubation period. Myth 4, fear forces breakthoughs, was not supported by research.
Creativity is actually positively associated with joy and love and negatively associated
with anger, fear, and anxiety. Finally, the opposite of myth 6, a streamlined organization
is a creative organization, was found. More specifically, creativity suffers during
downsizing.
25
Callahan, C. M. (1995). Review of KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity. The
Mental Measurements Yearbook, pp. 123-124. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
The reviewer finds that, overall, CCL has provided documented evidence of the
reliability and validity for the intended use of KEYS. The reviewer also positively notes
the careful and detailed directions for sampling, confidentiality, and interpretation the
results.
Callahan criticizes the manual for not providing information about the distribution of
the norm group scores or if the norm group scores were normalized. She further notes
lacking empirical evidence supporting the interpretation that a difference of 10 points is
a “meaningful” difference.
Gordon, H. S. (2008). Men’s and women’s perceptions of the climate for creativity in
male-dominated and female-dominated work environments (Doctoral Dissertation,
Rutgers). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(9-B), 6389.
Gordon’s dissertation uses KEYS to collect data from 5,422 individuals working in
engineering, manufacturing, and education/human resources. These data were used to
explore perceptions of stimulants and obstacles to creativity in male- and femaledominated work environments. Gordon hypothesized that men would perceive the
climate for creativity higher than women in a male-dominated environment. Women, on
the other hand, would perceive the climate for creativity higher than men in femaledominated work environments. Finally, she hypothesized whether the work
environment was male- or female-dominated would affect women’s creativity climate
perceptions to a greater extent than men’s. The researcher found support for most of her
hypotheses except she found both women and men perceived the climate for creativity
higher in female-dominated environments than in male-dominated environments.
Hickman, L. J. (1998). The impact of executive team excellence and the work
environment on organizational creativity (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Maryland). Dissertation Abstracts International 59(1-B), 0158.
Hickman’s dissertation uses KEYS to collect data from 13 hospital executive teams.
These data were used to describe and explore the impact of executive team excellence
and the work environment of acute care. Team Excellence was measured using the
Team Excellence assessment and the researcher developed a questionnaire to obtain
information about hospital attributes. Results of correlations and descriptive statistics
found all respondents rated their team performance, stimulants to creativity in the work
environment, and organizational creativity higher than the norm group.
26
Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and
innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119140.
This article provides an academic review of available instruments in 2004 for measuring
work environments favorable to creativity and innovation. The following instruments
were reviewed: KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity, Creative Climate
Questionnaire, Situational Outlook Questionnaire, Team Climate Inventory, and Siegel
Scale of Support for Innovation. The authors’ described details about each instrument’s
research foundation, norms, factor structure, reliability, and validity. It was concluded
that only two of the instruments were of acceptable scientific quality and were well
documented in the academic literature. KEYS was one of the recommended instruments.
McCann, L. M. (2004). Assessing the organizational environment for creativity in three
UNHCR offices in the Middle East. A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
Central Michigan University in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Master of Business Administration.
McCann’s thesis research provided qualitative and quantitative data to the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the Middle Eastern region
(Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria). The organizational environment for creativity was
measured using KEYS. The researcher created a supplemental survey to collect
demographic data, open-ended definitions and observations of creativity, stimulants
and inhibitors of creativity, and suggestions for improvement.
The results showed an unfavorable environment for creativity in the UNHCR offices
when compared to the norm. Statistically significant differences in scale means around
subgroups were found in a small number of cases. Significant differences were found
between European and Middle Eastern staff. More specifically, European staff perceived
more freedom and sufficient resources.
Data from the supplemental survey provided useful information for ways to enhance
creativity.
Mcelvaney, L. A. (2006). The relationship between functional supervisor behavior and
employee creativity in a project matrix organization (Doctoral Dissertation, Saybrook
Graduate School and Research Center). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(5-A),
1812.
Mcelvaney’s dissertation uses KEYS to collect data from 80 individuals working in a
high-tech project matrix engineering consulting organization. These data were used to
test for a relationship between functional supervisor behavior and employee creativity.
Mcelvaney’s hypotheses were supported. Positive relationships were found between
27
employee creativity and functional supervisory encouragement, freedom, and
challenging work. A predicted inverse relationship was not found between employee
creativity and extreme workload pressure.
The researcher added additional questions to tap functional supervisor behaviors. She
found supervisors’ behavior that (1) secured challenging work, and (2) reduced extreme
work load pressure were also correlated with employee creativity. Finally, using
stepwise regression, she found (a) climate perceptions of challenging work mediates
between functional supervisor ‘securing of challenging work’ and employee creativity,
partially predicting employee creativity in the project matrix, and (b) functional
supervisor ‘securing of challenging work’ also has an independent significant effect on
employee creativity.
Rosenberg, D. (2007). Assessing measurement equivalence of the KEYS® climate for
creativity dimension across managerial levels. A thesis submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science Psychology.
Rosenberg’s thesis research investigated whether the climate for creativity, as measured
by KEYS®, displayed measurement equivalence across three distinct managerial levels
including supervisors (N = 2,100), middle managers (N = 15,829), and executives (N = 2,
960). Both confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and the differential functioning of items
and tests (DFIT) was used to assess measurement equivalence. Using the eight-factor
structure, both the CFA and IRT analyses found that KEYS displayed measurement
equivalence across all managerial levels. Two DFIT indices were used to determine that
there was no differential functioning found at either the item (NCDIF) or the test (DTF)
level.
28
REPORT CHARACTERISTICS
This section of the user’s guide explains how to read and interpret KEYS reports.
How to Read and Interpret
KEYS results are provided in two ways: graphically and verbally. The graphs depict the
participating organization’s results in comparison to a norm group. Verbal (text) is used
to provide full descriptions of each dimension and each item, and to provide a word for
the relative placement of the organization’s result on that dimension or item (such as
“Very High” or “Mid-range”). At the end of the report, the results summarize responses
for the three “checklist” questions. These questions ask respondents to choose the three
most important factors supporting creativity and innovation in their work environment,
the three most important factors inhibiting creativity and innovation in their work
environment, and three suggestions for improving the work environment for creativity
and innovation.
Cover Page
The cover includes the organization or group(s) name as it was provided in the KEYS
order form. Also shown is the number of completed surveys, the name of the norm
group used for scoring, and the date the report was scored (dd mm yyyy). If an
individual respondent report is included in your order, the name of the individual will
appear here.
29
Table of Contents, Page 1
The KEYS report is organized under the following sections.
1. About KEYS
2. Key Terms
3. Respondent Profile
4. Guide for Interpretation
5. Graphs and Scores: Dimensions and Outcomes - Overall
6. Graphs and Scores: Item Level Data
7. Highest and Lowest Rated Items
8. Most Important Factors Affecting Creativity and Innovation
30
About KEYS, Page 3
The information on this page provides an introduction to the tool and sections of the
report.
Key Terms, Page 4
The terms and definitions displayed on this page are provided to the respondents when
they complete the survey.
31
Respondent Profile, Page 5
Pie charts on this page report the percentage of people who completed the survey for the
categories below. The sample size is the total number of people who completed the
survey.
• Gender: % Female , % Male.
• Years of Service: % 0 to 5 years, % 6 to 10 years, % 11 years or more.
• Level: % Top, % Executive, % Upper Middle, % Middle, % Other.
Note: Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. Numbers are based
on all people included in the report.
Guide for Interpretation, Pages 6-7
The information provided on these pages is critical to read. Details to help you interpret
the scores, read the graphs, and understand the principles or theory underlying KEYS
are provided.
32
Graphs and Scores: Dimensions and Outcomes – Overall, Pages 8-9
Page 8 includes an overview graph and descriptions (such as “Very High” or “Midrange”) depicting the group’s or organization’s results in comparison to a norm group.
Page 9 lists the definition for each dimension and presents a verbal code for the range in
which each dimension score falls.
33
Note: Remember that respondents are rating a work environment—not an individual. The
work environment is a result of the personalities, styles, policies, and interactions of a
great many people, from top management to individual employees in work groups.
There are several points to note in this overall graph:
• The title at the top of the graph names the organization or group whose results
appear in the graph, along with the number of respondents who completed the
survey.
• The vertical scale, labeled “Standard Scores,” presents the T-score values. These
values are computed by the KEYS scoring program. The standard scores presented
on the survey results graphs are computed by using the mean and standard
deviation of all organization means (from all of the organizations in our database).
34
As an example, the Freedom dimension score for the Acme company group would
be computed in two steps:
Step 1: Simple z-scores are computed: (Acme respondents’ raw score mean on
Freedom minus Mean of database company group means on Freedom) divided by
(Standard deviation of database company group means on Freedom).
Step 2: T-scores, used in all of the feedback graphs in KEYS reports, are
computed from the z-scores. T-scores are a very common type of standard
score in psychological testing. They have a mean of 50 and a standard
deviation of 10. To arrive at these T-scores, the following calculation is
applied to the z-score computed in Step 1: (10 times z-score) plus 50.
•
T-scores have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The line at 50 marks the
average or the norm; this is the mean of means on each dimension, computed by
using all organizations included in the norm group (other than the target
organization).
•
The 10 KEYS dimensions are listed along the horizontal axis, with the 4 Management
Practices dimensions listed first, followed by the Organizational Motivation and
Resources dimensions, followed by the two Outcome dimensions.
Interpretation of the dimension and outcome data
•
•
For every dimension, a higher score is generally associated with higher creativity. In
order to report scores consistently, we modify survey items and scoring on the Lack
of Organizational Impediments and Realistic Workload Pressure dimensions scores
for presentation in the graphs. Specifically, the survey items on these two
dimensions are negatively worded in the survey. In the report, they are positively
worded and reverse-scored for ease of interpretation.
Shading is used to help define several regions on the graph; these regions are listed
vertically along the right-hand side of the graph:
KEYS Standard Score
Range
61 or above
56 – 60
46 – 55
41 – 45
40 or below
Verbal Description
Very High/VH
High/H
Mid-range/M
Low/L
Very Low/VL
35
•
•
•
Dimension scores range from 20 to 80. Scores of 80 or higher are graphed at 80.
Scores of 20 or lower are graphed at 20. Less than 1% of scores fall outside the 20-80
range.
For each dimension, the target organization’s score is depicted by a diamond.
In interpreting the results and planning for action, it is extremely important to keep
consideration of the two Outcome dimensions (Creativity and Productivity)
separate from the Work Environment dimensions. The first eight dimensions
describe factors in the work environment that can influence the work outcomes of
Creativity and Productivity. These environment factors should be the primary focus
of organizational diagnosis and improvement efforts. The two Outcome dimensions
assess perceptions of the work itself. The quality of the work itself should change as
the work environment changes. Thus, although these Outcome dimensions will be
interesting for diagnostic purposes and especially for comparison with follow-up
KEYS assessments, the focus for improvement efforts should be on the environment
factors that can influence these outcomes.
Graphs and Scores: Item Level Data, Pages 10-29
The next 20 pages in the report present item-level data for each dimension. These data
are presented according to the dimensions on which the items are grouped. For each
dimension, the item data are presented in the same manner: (a) a page presenting a
graphical depiction of item scores relative to the database, and (b) a facing page that lists
each item and presents a verbal code for the range in which each item score falls.
The item graph can be read in the same way as the overall dimension graph; the
standard scores and the score ranges have the same meaning. Notice that the items are
numbered in a simple succession, beginning with 1. Please be aware that these are not
the item numbers that appear on the actual KEYS survey. Below each of these numbers
you will find a brief phrase or a word that captures the essence of that particular item.
The full wording of each item appears on the facing page along with the verbal code
signifying the range in which the score fell.
Recall, Lack of Organizational Impediments and Realistic Workload Pressure
dimensions have reverse-worded items and are reverse-scored in the scoring program.
36
•
•
Interpretation of the item-level data
The item results can be an extremely useful addition to the dimension results
because sometimes an overall dimension score will not be particularly discrepant
from the database mean, but one or two items on that dimension will be quite
discrepant. This is particularly likely in the dimensions with many items—
Organizational Encouragement, Lack of Organizational Impediments, and
Managerial Encouragement.
When working with the graphic representation of the feedback along with the
dimension or item-level feedback where the designations VH, H, M, L, VL are used,
you may occasionally notice an apparent discrepancy. This can occur when the score
is very near the cut-off between categories. For example, the symbol on the graph
may appear to be slightly over the line from the medium into the high category,
whereas the category label provided on the dimension/item feedback page below
37
says medium. If this occurs, use the two forms of feedback together for the most
accurate picture, and be aware of those examples that are very close to a boundary.
Highest and Lowest Items, Pages 30-31
These pages present the 10 highest rated and 10 lowest rated items relative to the KEYS
norm group.
Note: Additional items with standard scores equal to the last item will be indicated by an asterisk
(*).
Interpretation of the highest and lowest rated items
• The highest items are listed from high to low by standard score.
• The lowest items are listed from low to high by standard score.
38
• Look for patterns. Are there multiple items from the same dimensions?
Most Important Factors Affecting Creativity and Innovation, Pages 32-34
This section of the report provides the results for three questions related to the factors
that support, inhibit, and could improve creativity and innovation. Respondents were
asked to choose the three most important factors for each question. The 10 most
frequently chosen factors, listed in order from highest to lowest percentage, along with
the work context in which they appear are reported for each question.
These pages present the percentage of individuals who rated the factors most important
in supporting creativity and innovation in the organization’s current work environment.
Note: The percent column(s) reflects the proportion of respondents who selected this item
as one of the three most important factors affecting creativity and innovation.
The respondent selects up to three responses to each question. The results for each
question (A, B, and C) are calculated as follows:
a. Item Response Percentage = (Response Frequency / Respondent
Total)*100
b. Sort the responses by Item Response Percentage in descending order.
c. Display the top 10 items by Item response percentage.
• If there is a tie, order the tied items by survey item number
and display up to 10 responses.
39
Interpretation of the most important factors
• In interpreting and using these checklist responses, it is helpful to remember that
respondents were forced to choose the three factors that stand out in their mind as
most important. Thus, these responses can be useful in deciding where to focus, if
several dimensions were highlighted for action in consideration of the dimension
and item results.
• Moreover, there are some factors that appear on the checklists that do not appear
explicitly in any of the 78 KEYS numerical items (such as “customer requirements”).
This more specific information can add measurably to the dimension and item
feedback. Finally, Question C provides information that is not directly tapped by any
of the 78 items. It allows respondents the opportunity to make suggestions for
improving the work environment for creativity and innovation. Clearly, these can be
valuable in the action planning process.
Subgroup Comparisons
Many users will request subgroup comparisons, in which particular sets of respondents
(such as departments) within an organization can each be compared separately to the
database and to the entire organization. The subgroup report can be read and
understood similarly to the group or organizational report with a few exceptions.
As you can see in the image below, each subgroup category is depicted with a different
line. Up to five subgroup categories can be compared on one graph; it is visually
confusing to have more than five lines on a graph.
40
The standard scores are still based on the database of means of all companies that have
taken KEYS, as is the case for every graph in the survey results.
Highest and Lowest Subgroup Items
These pages present the selected groups’ 10 highest rated and 10 lowest rated items. The
items are sorted based on the results of the entire population surveyed, not each
subgroup.
Interpreting a KEYS subgroup report
• For each dimension, a diamond depicts the score of the response group. If more than
one group is represented in the graph, other symbols will be presented.
41
• When comparing the scores of any two groups, a 10-point difference is considered a
significant difference and could indicate observable differences in behavior.
• In examining and interpreting these results, you and the feedback recipients will
naturally focus on the most discrepant scores. What are the lowest environment scores
obtained by the group? These likely point to areas that should be targeted for
improvement. Keep in mind that any one result must always be considered in the
context of the particular organization and the other dimensions. For example,
Sufficient Resources might be the lowest score obtained by the group. However, the
members of the group might decide that they would better spend their energies by
focusing on the second-lowest score, which might, for example, be Freedom. They
might make this decision for one of several reasons:
1. They know that, in their organization, there is currently a short-term resource
crunch that will ease soon; or
2. They know that, in their organization, there is little that can currently be done
to increase resource allocations; or
3. They know that, as pointed out earlier, Sufficient Resources and Realistic
Workload Pressure do not carry as much weight in organizational creativity as
the other environmental factors; or
4. When they examine the data on the checklist Questions A, B, and C, they
discover that only a small percentage of respondents checked Resources as the
most important inhibitor of creativity and innovation in their current work
environment; or
5. Interviews that might have been conducted in conjunction with KEYS revealed
that Freedom was likely a more important influence currently than Resources.
• The point is that all results must be considered as a complex whole, in the context of
the organization as it currently exists. No one can assess this better than the members
of the organization who completed KEYS in the first place.
• It is also important to consider the highest environment scores obtained by the group,
because these likely point to particular strengths that can be celebrated and built upon
in improving the overall environment for creativity and innovation.
Scoring Rules
Rules for Computing Scores
Standard scores are computed as follows:
Step 1: Simple z-scores are computed.
Step 2: The z-scores are converted to T-scores using the following
calculation: (10 times z-score) plus 50.
Most important factors are computed as follows:
1. Item Response Percentage = (Response Frequency / Respondent Total)*100
42
2. Sort the responses by Item Response Percentage in descending order based on
total number of people reported.
3. Display the top 10 items by Item Response Percentage.
– If there is a tie, order the tied items by survey item number and display up
to 10 responses.
Rounding
Results are based upon all available data and have been rounded to two decimal places.
Norms
KEYS norms consist of 186 groups from a variety of functions and departments in over
200 different organizations (see Table 5). These organizations represent a number of
industries, including high technology, biotechnology, and electronics; chemicals,
pharmaceuticals, and health products; traditional research and development; traditional
manufacturing; banking; and consumer products.
Not all data in our database were used to generate norms. Some of our data come from
the use of KEYS with very small groups, with groups that result from the use of the
instrument in public programs or conferences, or from other uses that do not result in
data on intact work environments. We selected groups to be part of our norm base
according to the following criteria: (1) The group must represent an intact working
environment (i.e., samples of random individuals, as might be represented in data from
a public leadership program, were not included); (2) the group must be comprised of
more than 20 individuals; (3) within companies, groups that took KEYS separately but
that were part of the same working environment were combined and kept separate if
they did not share one working environment; and (4) when one or more individuals
were listed as members of more than one group, those groups were combined.
However, if groups from the same company were parts of separate working
environments, they were entered as separate groups in the norm sample.
Table 5
KEYS Norms Database Company Groups
Industry
Aerospace &
Defense
Sub-Industry
Company
Pseudonym
Flight Control
Mfg
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
168
2000
Country
USA
43
Industry
Sub-Industry
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Automotive
Banks
Banks
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Cars & Trucks
Cars & Trucks
Cars & Trucks
Cars & Trucks
Cars & Trucks
Cars & Trucks
Parts &
Equipment
Parts &
Equipment
Company
Pseudonym
Global
Transmissions
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Automotive
Parts Inc
Auto Mfg
Auto Mfg
Auto Mfg
Auto Mfg
Auto Mfg
Auto Mfg
Global
Transmissions
Climate
Control Mfg
Bank Services
Inc
Bank A
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
58
2002
USA
22
1996
USA
24
1996
USA
24
1996
USA
25
1997
USA
24
1997
USA
17
1997
USA
21
1998
USA
23
1998
USA
15
1998
USA
14
1998
USA
29
20
23
33
26
39
31
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
310
2002
USA
40
2002
USA
51
12
2001
1998
USA
USA
44
Industry
Sub-Industry
Chemical
Science
Rubber bands
Inc
Plastics Inc
Laundry
Products
Agro
Chemicals of
America
Chemicals
Chemicals
Chemicals
Chemicals
Chemicals
Chemicals
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Company
Pseudonym
Computers &
Office
Equipment
Computers &
Office
Equipment
Computers &
Office
Equipment
Computers &
Office
Equipment
Computers &
Office
Equipment
Business
Machines &
Services
Computers &
Peripherals
Computers &
Peripherals
Computers &
Peripherals
Computer
Software &
Services
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
194
2003
USA
58
20
1997
1999
USA
USA
88
38
1998
2005
USA
Argentina
11
1999
USA
NI
49
1993
USA
NI
35
1993
USA
NI
228
1994
USA
NI
165
1994
USA
NI
112
1993
USA
63
1997
USA
21
2000
USA
21
2003
USA
17
1997
USA
56
1996
USA
Retail
equipment
Computer Mfg
B
Integrated
Software
National
Computer
Makers
Engineering
Consulting
45
Industry
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Computers & Office
Equipment
Conglomerates
Conglomerates
Conglomerates
Conglomerates
Conglomerates
Conglomerates
Conglomerates
Conglomerates
Sub-Industry
Computer
Software &
Services
Computer
Software &
Services
Computer
Software &
Services
Computer
Software &
Services
Computer
Software &
Services
Computer
Software &
Services
Computer
Software &
Services
Computer
Software &
Services
Company
Pseudonym
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
Oak Tech
Consulting
High Tech Info
Services
High Tech Info
Services
Computer Mfg
35
1996
USA
73
1994
USA
22
1995
USA
36
1995
USA
15
1996
USA
USA
126
1999
Computer Mfg
Max Software
Computer Mfg
USA
368
2004
73
1995
USA
347
2004
USA
138
2003
USA
60
2005
USA
68
2003
Malaysia
50
1998
USA
68
28
17
2002
2004
2004
USA
Asia
Europe
High Tech Info
Services
Apex
Conglomerates
Apex
Conglomerate
Apex
Conglomerate
Apex
Conglomerate
Apex
Conglomerate
Apex
Conglomerate
Light Asia
Light Europe
46
Industry
Sub-Industry
Conglomerates
Carriers
Apex
Conglomerate
Conglomerates
Catalogue
Marketing
Health
Consumer
Products Inc
Packaging
Solutions
Consumer
Products Inc
Consumer
Products Inc
Magic
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Appliances &
Home
Furnishings
Consumer Products
Personal Care
Consumer Products
Personal Care
Consumer Products
Consumer Products
Personal Care
Personal Care
Consumer Products
Personal Care
Consumer Products
Personal Care
Consumer Products
Personal Care
Education
Education
Education
Company
Pseudonym
Consumer
Products Inc
Personal Care
Products Inc
Textile
Research
Consumer
Products Inc
Hair Care Inc
Consumer
Products Inc
Consumer
Products Inc
Consumer
Products Inc
County
Education Org
Family
Foundation
State
Education
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
208
2004
Country
USA
64
2002
USA
46
55
1997
2005
USA
Argentina
21
1998
USA
1010
2005
USA
46
1999
China
52
330
1998
2003
USA
USA
17
2002
USA
125
1996
USA
158
2003
USA
119
209
1999
1998
USA
USA
19
1995
USA
378
2005
USA
210
1995
USA
11
1996
USA
17
1999
USA
168
1996
USA
47
Industry
Sub-Industry
Department
University G
Education
Electrical &
Electronics
Electrical &
Electronics
Electrical &
Electronics
Electrical &
Electronics
Electrical &
Electronics
Electrical &
Electronics
Electronics
Electrical &
Electronics
Electronics
Electrical &
Electronics
Electronics
Financial
Financial
Financial
Services
Financial
Services
Financial
Services
Insurance
Financial
Insurance
Financial
Insurance
Financial
Financial
Food
Company
Pseudonym
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
37
1997
USA
459
1992
USA
31
2005
Mexico
21
1996
USA
75
1996
USA
31
1995
Germany
40
1996
Germany
16
1998
USA
39
1999
Germany
Rural Credit
Insurance
Group Inc
121
1998
USA
36
2001
USA
Investing Org
Insurance Inc
Medical
Insurance
Group
Medical
Insurance
Group
24
94
1995
1996
USA
USA
191
2002
USA
16
2002
USA
18
1998
USA
High Tech
Electronics
International
Electronics
Photographic
Equipment Inc
Photographic
Equipment Inc
German
Technology
Inc
German
Technology
Inc
Electronic
Controls &
Automation
German
Technology
Inc
Food
48
Industry
Sub-Industry
Food
Food
Food
Food
Food
Processing
Food
Processing
Food
Processing
Food
Food
Food
Company
Pseudonym
Innovator
Food
Innovator
Food
Innovator
Food
Innovator
Food
Innovator
Conglomerate
Foods Inc
Conglomerate
Foods Inc
Food
Innovator
Coal, Oil &
Gas
Coal, Oil &
Gas
Coal, Oil &
Gas
Fuel
Fuel
Fuel
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Drug &
Research
Drug &
Research
Drug &
Research
Drug &
Research
Drug &
Research
Drug &
Country
27
1998
USA
23
1997
USA
181
1998
USA
127
1998
USA
30
1995
USA
15
1996
USA
88
2002
USA
578
1996
Middle East
Fuel Inc R&D
Seaside
Mining
138
1998
USA
18
1997
USA
Seaside Fuel
23
1996
Canada
31
468
1999
1999
USA
USA
862
2004
USA
USA
988
2004
Biology
127
2004
Master Drugs
78
1998
USA
Master Drugs
Consumer
258
745
2004
1998
USA
USA
Middle
Eastern Oil
Fuel
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Health Care
Products
Healthcare Inc
Health Care
Labs
Health Care
Labs
USA
49
Industry
Sub-Industry
Company
Pseudonym
Country
Health Care
Research
Drug &
Research
Health-care
Services
Health-care
Services
Health-care
Services
Health-care
Services
Health Care
Medical
Products
Health Care
Medical
Products
City Health
Oral Health
Sci
University
Health
Worldwide
Implants
German
Technology
Inc
Medical
Equipment
Mfg
Housing & Real
Estate
Building
Materials
Building
Materials Inc
78
1996
USA
Eating Places
National Fast
Food
46
1997
USA
Hotel & Motel
River Resorts
25
1996
USA
144
1999
USA
61
1996
USA
23
27
248
1996
1998
1998
USA
USA
USA
55
19
2003
1996
USA
USA
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Leisure Time
Industries
Leisure Time
Industries
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Products Inc
Consumer
Products Inc
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Product Labels
Inc
North
American Tire
Mfg
General
Manufacturing
Inc
Bearing Mfg
Industrial Mfg
General
Heavy
Manufacturing Equipment Inc
General
European Tire
80
1998
USA
72
2003
USA
60
2002
265
2004
USA
USA
128
2005
39
1997
Germany
45
2004
USA
USA
50
Industry
Sub-Industry
Company
Pseudonym
Manufacturing
Manufacturing Mfg
General
Manufacturing Industrial Mfg
Textiles
Textiles Inc
Consumer
Apparel
Textiles
Products Inc
Consumer
Apparel
Textiles
Products Inc
Metals & Mining
Steel
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
NonProfit
NonProfit
NonProfit
Non Profit
Non Profit
Education
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
NonProfit
Government
Steelmakers
Humanitarian
Nonprofit
Kids Voice
Filbert Inc
Government
Bureau A
Federal
Government B
Federal
Government B
Federal
Government B
Government
Training
Government
Agency
Federal
Bureau B
Government
Bureau D
Government
Bureau O
Government
Bureau O
Federal
Bureau B
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
136
41
1997
1999
USA
USA
61
1999
USA
189
1996
USA
25
2005
Canada
203
15
24
1997
2002
1995
USA
USA
USA
138
1998
USA
307
2001
USA
424
1999
USA
502
1999
USA
139
2003
USA
55
1999
USA
50
2001
USA
171
1999
USA
284
1992
USA
339
1999
USA
201
1999
USA
51
Industry
Sub-Industry
NonProfit
NonProfit
NonProfit
NonProfit
Government
Government
Military
Military
NonProfit
Military
NonProfit
NonProfit
Military
Research
Publishing &
Broadcasting
Publishing &
Broadcasting
Publishing &
Broadcasting
Broadcasting
Discount
Home
Furnishings
Adventure
Clothing Mfg
Home Retail
Home
Products
Broadcasting
Retailing
Retailing
Service Industries
Service Industries
Service Industries
Service Industries
Service Industries
Service Industries
Federal
Bureau B
Gov't Org
Military Org
Military Org
Government
Bureau B
University
Faculty
University F
NA
Broadcaster
NA
Broadcaster
Broadcasting
Inc
Broadcasting
Retailing
Retailing
Company
Pseudonym
Construction
& Engineering
Construction
& Engineering
Construction
& Engineering
Construction
& Engineering
Construction
& Engineering
Printing &
Advertising
Group
Engineering
International
Consulting
International
Consulting
International
Consulting
International
Consulting
Creativity
Consulting
Firm
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
46
1003
300
17
2004
1999
1996
1996
USA
USA
USA
USA
80
2003
USA
20
81
1996
1997
USA
USA
27
2000
Canada
281
2000
17
1996
Canada
USA
USA
92
2003
107
32
2002
2005
29
2003
91
2005
England
40
2001
USA
111
2002
USA
171
2002
USA
137
2001
Australia
17
1999
USA
USA
USA
USA
52
Industry
Sub-Industry
Printing &
Advertising
Service Industries
Service Industries
Printing &
Advertising
Printing &
Advertising
Printing &
Advertising
Printing &
Advertising
Service Industries
Other Services
Service Industries
Other Services
Service Industries
Other Services
Service Industries
Other Services
Service Industries
Other Services
Service Industries
Service Industries
Other Services
Other Services
Service Industries
Other Services
Service Industries
Service Industries
Service Industries
Telecommunications
Equipment &
Telecommunications Services
Equipment &
Equipment &
Equipment &
Company
Pseudonym
Creativity
Consulting
Firm
Advertising
Inc
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
17
1995
USA
16
1996
USA
Marketing Inc
Creativity
Consulting
18
1996
USA
35
1998
USA
Branding Inc
Data
Processing
General
Consulting
General
Consulting
HR Consulting
Firm
HR Consulting
Firm
HR Consulting
Firm
HR Consulting
General
Services Inc
21
2004
USA
30
1999
USA
34
1997
USA
27
1997
USA
202
1997
USA
49
1999
USA
27
15
1996
1998
USA
USA
45
1997
USA
86
1996
USA
107
1997
USA
57
1996
USA
69
1996
USA
59
1996
USA
Global
Telecomm Mfg
Worldwide
Telecomm Mfg
Global
Telecomm
Services Inc
Global
Telecomm
Services Inc
Global
Telecomm
53
Sub-Industry
Industry
Company
Pseudonym
Number
Year
in
Data
Sample Collected
Country
Telephone
Telecommunications Companies
Services Inc
Northern
Telephone
26
1997
Canada
Utilities & Power
Energy Org
23
1998
USA
Table 6
Demographic Data on the Norm Database 2
Years of Service
Years Of Service
0 to 5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
Over 20 years
TOTAL
Frequency Percent
3384
28
2754
23
2161
18
1482
12
2367
19
12,148
100
Gender
Sex
Male
Female
TOTAL
Frequency Percent
7975
61
5049
39
13,024
100
Organizational Function
Function
Frequency Percent
Administration/Management
2369
Education/Training/Human Resources
522
2
Represents 186 companies groups and 21,447 individuals who used KEYS from 1992-2005. Missing data
are not included in these tables or in the calculation of percentages.
54
Engineering/Product Development
Law
Manufacturing
Marketing/Advertising
Medicine
Research & Development
Sales
Support Services
TOTAL
1598
200
860
567
79
1917
367
1605
10,084
100
Organizational Level
Level
Top
Executive
Upper Middle
Middle
First Level
Hourly
Not relevant
TOTAL
Frequency
161
591
1771
4384
1733
2506
755
12,304
Percent
100
Table 7
KEYS Dimension Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations
for all Company Groups in the Norm Database 3
(N=186 company groups)
KEYS Dimension Name
Raw Scores
Mean
SD
3
Note: All scales are presented so that higher scores are associated with higher levels of
creativity.
55
Freedom
Challenging Work
Work Group Supports
Lack of Organizational Impediments
Creativity
Productivity
2.73
2.93
2.76
3.08
2.60
2.48
2.74
2.48
2.67
2.91
0.24
0.20
0.31
0.19
0.27
0.40
0.21
0.16
0.21
0.21
Table 8
KEYS Item Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations
for all Company Groups in the Norm Database 4
Item #
in survey
KEYS Dimension Name
Raw Scores
Mean
SD
8
14
18
3.00
3.04
2.53
0.26
0.23
0.36
22
28
35
40
2.50
2.65
3.15
2.96
0.34
0.26
0.19
0.24
42
45
2.65
2.53
0.31
0.28
49
50
2.46
2.35
0.46
0.20
56
61
62
2.47
2.78
2.60
0.43
0.26
0.32
64
3.03
0.25
9
2.50
0.31
21
27
2.51
2.88
0.30
0.34
4
Note: All items are presented so that higher scores are associated with higher levels of
creativity.
56
33
2.74
0.25
37
2.47
0.73
51
59
2.44
2.65
0.87
0.27
60
68
72
2.49
2.53
3.01
0.44
0.38
0.23
73
3.02
0.25
6
15
Work Group Supports
Work Group Supports
2.96
3.01
0.21
0.33
19
25
Work group supports
Work group supports
3.25
2.44
0.21
0.52
29
41
Work Group Supports
Work Group Supports
2.49
2.91
0.46
0.23
58
67
Work Group Supports
Work Group Supports
2.47
2.49
0.77
0.25
1
12
Freedom
Freedom
2.53
2.73
0.31
0.22
23
44
Freedom
Freedom
2.45
3.01
0.80
0.24
26
32
46
57
2.47
2.69
3.07
2.70
0.56
0.35
0.19
0.28
63
75
2
7
Challenging Work
Challenging Work
2.49
2.95
2.28
2.67
0.41
0.24
0.31
0.27
36
38
Challenging Work
Challenging Work
2.74
3.17
0.26
0.19
53
Challenging Work
Impediments
2.87
0.31
2.40
0.33
3.19
0.22
2.71
0.24
2.91
0.27
4
16
Impediments
Impediments
20
Impediments
10
57
24
Impediments
3.00
0.20
30
Impediments
2.55
0.25
2.79
0.32
2.71
0.20
3.27
0.20
2.45
0.74
2.52
0.20
2.31
0.35
34
39
43
66
Impediments
Impediments
Impediments
Impediments
78
Impediments
Impediments
3
11
17
2.19
2.45
2.51
0.36
0.77
0.31
31
70
5
47
Creativity
Creativity
2.94
2.47
3.09
3.15
0.26
0.56
0.21
0.19
52
55
69
76
Creativity
Creativity
Creativity
Creativity
2.72
2.54
2.69
3.06
0.24
0.51
0.27
0.20
13
48
Productivity
Productivity
3.10
2.90
0.21
0.20
54
65
Productivity
Productivity
2.66
2.65
0.20
0.21
71
74
Productivity
Productivity
2.50
2.45
0.49
0.71
77
The KEYS norms will be updated as more organizations and programs use KEYS for
assessment of work environments. As more data are collected, we will “retire” the older
data in the norms when we present comparisons in the survey results. We intend to
retain only the last 10 years of data for comparisons. Such updating of norms, although
not likely necessary for personality-oriented inventories (because personality structures
58
are unlikely to change across the population), may well be important for organizational
variables. For example, it is possible that most organizational environments, across the
board, were marked by greater Realistic Workload Pressure in 1997 than they were in
1970. In order to give organizations and groups an accurate comparison between their
work environment and the work environments of other organizations, the comparative
information should be contemporary. Of course, a company that administers KEYS
several times over a period of months or years can request from CCL customized survey
results that will compare all of its own earlier data to its current data.
CCL currently offers the option of selecting a different norm group to be used in the
report (see Table 5). If a different norm group is selected, the client’s data will be
compared to the selected norm group in the report. Below are the 17 optional norms
groups that are available.
Industry
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Automotive
Chemicals
Computers & Office Equipment
Conglomerates
Consumer Products
Electrical & Electronics
Food
Healthcare
Manufacturing
Non-profit
Service
Sub-Industry
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Computer Software & Services
Personal Care
Drug & Research
Government
Advertising & Printing
Consulting
59
SUPPORT FOR ORGANIZATIONS
Sample Size Selection
KEYS can be used in organizations of any size. The analyses yield meaningful data with
teams as small as five people or with groups as large as several hundred people. For
data to be generalizable, the sample size must be adequately large and gathered from a
random sample of the population to which you wish to generalize. For example, a report
of data from 50 people in marketing may not reflect information beyond that group of 50
people, unless the 50 respondents comprise a sizable and representative portion of the
marketing group.
The information provided in Table 9 can guide you on how many people you need to
select for the results to be reliable or consistent. 5 Keep in mind that these suggested
sample sizes assume that random selection will be used. Also, while the table provides
guidance, there is never a guarantee that the data from a sample are, in fact,
representative of a population.
Table 9
Sample Size Selection
Population
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Sample
9
14
19
23
27
32
36
40
44
48
52
Population
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
320
340
360
Sample
144
147
151
155
158
162
165
168
174
180
186
Population
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
Sample
301
305
309
313
316
319
322
327
331
334
337
The sample sizes in the table reflect a Degree of Accuracy = plus or minus .05, Proportion of
Sample Size = 0.5, and Confidence Level = 95% (Zemke & Kramlinger, 1982).
5
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
55
59
62
66
69
73
76
79
85
91
97
102
108
113
118
122
127
131
136
140
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
191
196
200
205
209
213
217
226
234
241
248
254
259
264
269
273
277
284
291
296
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
120,000
160,000
1,000,000
340
346
350
354
356
361
364
366
368
369
374
376
379
380
381
381
382
382
383
383
Administration Process
The implementation of KEYS involves straightforward steps that take you from
initiating the survey to delivery of the report.
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
Begin by confirming with your information technology staff that all
raters meet the technical requirements. A copy of the Technical
Requirements document is available on www.ccl.org/KEYS. This step
helps prevent bounce-backs due to internal firewall issues.
Complete the order form.
Upon receipt of completed order form, CCL will set up your KEYS
survey.
Client administrators notify the recipients of purpose of the survey
and let them know they should expect an e-mail invitation from
[email protected] or Keys to Creativity.
Raters access the system and complete the survey online. The system
sends access to surveys and reminders via e-mail.
Client administrators view status online of completed surveys and
contact the CCL Administrator to score data.
You will be notified by e-mail when your KEYS report is ready.
61
Ordering
For more information, contact: Client Services +1 336 545 2810 [email protected]
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 10.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychology of creativity and
beyond. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, Reprint #98501,
September.
Amabile, T. M. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity:
Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5-32.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1995). What downsizing does to creativity. Issues &
Observations, 15(3), 1-6.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999) Changes in the work environment for creativity
during a downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630-640.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1989). The Creative Environment Scales: The Work
Environment Inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231-254.
Amabile, T. M., Gryskiewicz, N., Burnside, R., & Koester, N. (1990). Creative Environment
Scales: Work Environment Inventory. A guide to its development and use. Unpublished
technical manual, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. (1994). The Work Preference
Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950-967.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors
and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5-32.
Amabile, T. M., Taylor, S., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1995). Technical manual for KEYS:
Assessing the Climate for Creativity. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Breen, B. (2004, December). The six myths of creativity. Fast Company, 89.
62
Burnside, R. M. (1988). Climates for creativity and innovation: Building a context for
meaning. In P. Colemont, P. Grøholt, T. Rickards, & H. Smeekes (Eds.), Creativity
and innovation: Towards a European network (pp. 13-14). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Burnside, R. M. (1990). Improving corporate climates for creativity. In M. West & J. Farr
(Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies
(pp. 265-284). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.
Burnside, R. M. (1994). Creativity and innovation invited to dance together. In H.
Geschka, S. Moger, & T. Rickards (Eds.), Creativity and innovation: The power of
synergy (pp. 75-80). Darmstadt, Germany: Geschka & Partner
Unternehmensberatung.
Burnside, R. M., Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1988). Assessing organizational
climates for creativity and innovation: Methodological review of large company
audits. In Y. Ijiri & R. L. Kuhn (Eds.), New directions in creative and innovative
management: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 169-185). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Callahan, C. M. (1995). Review of KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity. The Mental
Measurements Yearbook, 123-124. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Campbell, D. P. (1990). Manual for the Campbell Organizational Survey (COS). Minneapolis,
MN: National Computer Systems.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514-539.
Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J., & Waldenstrom-Lindblad, I. (1983). Creative organizational climate:
Construction and validation of a measuring instrument. Report 2. Stockholm,
Sweden: The Swedish Council for Management and Organizational Behaviour.
Gordon, H. S. (2008). Men’s and women’s perceptions of the climate for creativity in
male-dominated and female-dominated work environments (Doctoral
Dissertation, Rutgers). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(9-B), 6389.
Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Predictable creativity. In S. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity
research: Beyond the basics (pp. 305-313). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Gryskiewicz, S. S., & Hills, D. A. (1992). Readings in innovation. Greensboro, NC: Center
for Creative Leadership.
Hickman, L. J. (1998). The impact of executive team excellence and the work
environment on organizational creativity (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Maryland). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(1-B), 0158.
Insel, P. M., & Moos, R. H. (1975). Work Environment Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.
Koester, N. (1993). A multiple levels analysis of the Work Environment Inventory.
Unpublished manuscript. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Koester, N., & Burnside, R. (1989). Climate for creativity: What to measure? What to say
about it? In T. Rickards, P. Colemont, P. Grøholt, M. Parker, & H. Smeekes (Eds.),
63
Creativity and innovation: Learning from practice (pp. 55-61). Delft, The
Netherlands: Innovation Consulting Group TNO.
Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and
innovative environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1),
119-140.
Mcelvaney, L. A. (2006). The relationship between functional supervisor behavior and
employee creativity in a project matrix organization (Doctoral Dissertation,
Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 67(5-A), 1812.
Rosenberg, D. (2007) Assessing measurement equivalence of the KEYS® climate for creativity
dimension across managerial levels. A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science Psychology.
Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for
innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553-562.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York:
Wiley & Sons.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.
64
APPENDIX
Terms Used in This Guide
CCL Administrator
Client Administrator
Dimension
Convergent Validity
Correlation
Current Work Environment
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Construct Validity
Creativity
Discriminate Validity
Graphic Display
Innovation
Mean
My Area of This Organization
Norms
An individual at the Center for Creative Leadership who is
identified as the client’s contact during the implementation
of a survey.
An individual in the client’s organization who has the
primary responsibility for guiding the assessment process
within the organization and monitoring the status of
completed surveys.
Another name for a scale or a group of items that have
logical and empirical coherence.
A test that indicates the degree of agreement between
different measurements of the same construct.
A number, resulting from statistical analyses, that indicates
the strength of a relationship between two measures.
The setting within which you currently do most or all of
your work.
A set of statistical approaches to grouping items or variables
into categories known as factors.
The ability of KEYS to measure phenomena that are
hypothesized to exist but for which we can have no direct
measure.
Per KEYS . . . the production of novel and appropriate ideas
by individuals or small groups.
The degree to which scores on KEYS do not correlate with
scores from other tests that are not designed to assess the
same construct.
Charts or graphs that provide a visual portrayal of numeric
data.
Per KEYS . . . the successful implementation of creative
ideas within an organization.
Arithmetic average of a set of data points or numbers.
The department, branch, division, or group within which
you do most of your work.
A method for comparing a group’s results with the average
ratings from a relevant comparison group.
65
Project(s)
Raters
Reliability
Report
Response Scale
Scale
Sample
Standard Score
Boss
Survey
Test-Retest Reliability
This Organization
Work Group
Validity
The major work that you do, whatever that may be.
Individuals who complete KEYS.
Consistency of the measure, or the degree to which an
instrument measures the same way each time it is used
under the same condition with the same subjects.
The summary of the organization’s results.
A set of response choices for responding to items or
questions on the survey.
A group of items or questions that have logical and
empirical coherence.
A subset of individuals drawn from the total population.
A derived score indicating the degree of deviation of a
group score from the mean using the standard deviation as
the unit of measure.
The person who manages your major project(s); the person
to whom you report for most of your work.
The online questionnaire that all raters complete and submit
for scoring.
Stability of score over short periods of time.
The organization within which you currently work.
The people with whom you currently work closely on a
day-to-day basis; the group of people with whom you do
your major project(s).
The extent to which the tool measures what it is intended to
measure; the appropriateness of the inferences made about
scores from an instrument.
E-mails
The KEYS data collection and scoring system is contained on an Internet-based system.
Once a client places an order for KEYS and provides CCL with the rater names and email addresses, all communications with raters are automatic and take place via e-mail.
This appendix contains the complete set of all e-mails possibly seen by raters and client
administrators in the course of their KEYS use.
66
E-mail to Raters
Subject: KEYS Survey
#Respondent name#:
Your organization has selected you to participate in a survey designed to assess the
work environment and the conditions necessary for innovation to occur. You will be
asked to rate a set of question on KEYS® in terms of how often they are true of your
current work environment.
Your individual responses will be strictly confidential. The Center for Creative
Leadership will process completed surveys and will create an aggregated organizational
report.
You begin the survey process by accessing the Web site shown below. It takes
approximately 20 minutes to complete the survey. Please complete the survey by #date
in order form – dd month yyyy#.
https://www.datasltn.com/wss/KEYSHome.cfm
Your Confidential User ID: 6039884
Your Confidential Password: 8NNYBE
If you have questions regarding this feedback process, please contact #contact name,
number & email from order form#.
If you experience any difficulty connecting to the Internet, please contact your
organization's help desk. Our experience is that the vast majority of access problems are
due to security measures within our clients' systems. For any other technical problems,
please contact Technical Support by sending an e-mail to [email protected]. We can
be reached toll free by telephone within the United States at 877 477 1416. If you are
calling from outside the United States, use +1 952 746 5747.
If you receive an "Access Denied" or "Page Not Displayed" message when accessing the
Web site, please contact our Technical Support. There are browser settings that may
need to be adjusted on your computer so that you can fully access secured sites.
67
Reminder E-mail to Raters
Subject: REMINDER: KEYS Survey
Dear #participant name#:
This is a reminder that your KEYS® survey has not yet been received.
If you did complete the survey, please note that after responding to all the questions,
you must select the "Submit" button to send your survey. If you log out without
submitting the survey, your answers are saved but not received by the Center for
Creative Leadership's data center. It will not be possible to change your responses once
you have selected the "submit" button.
Please access the Web site to complete and submit your survey by #date in the order
form – dd month yyyy#.
https://www.datasltn.com/wss/KEYSHome.cfm
Your confidential User ID: 5966725
Your confidential Password: KVC8KL
If you have questions regarding this feedback process, please contact #contact name,
number & email from order form#.
If you experience any difficulty connecting to the Internet, please contact your
organization's help desk. Our experience is that the vast majority of access problems are
due to security measures within our clients' systems. For any other technical problems,
please contact Technical Support by sending an e-mail to [email protected]. We can
be reached toll free by telephone within the United States at 877 477 1416. If you are
calling from outside the United States, use +1 952 746 5747.
If you receive an "Access Denied" or "Page Not Displayed" message when accessing the
Web site, please contact our Technical Support. There are browser settings that may
need to be adjusted on your computer so that you can fully access secured sites.
68
Case Studies
In practice, KEYS has been used in three ways, each of which appears to provide
valuable insight. First, it has been used with large groups within organizations, such as
divisions, business units, or departments, and even with entire organizations.
Generally, in these cases, the user will spend some time getting to know the
organization and its needs, determining the appropriate sample, setting up the KEYS
administration, and helping the organizational leaders and members understand and
assimilate the feedback. Quite often, users wish to combine the quantitative picture they
get from KEYS with the qualitative information that can be obtained from interviews.
Cases 1, 2, and 3, below, fall in this category.
Second, KEYS has been used with teams and small groups within organizations,
generally ranging in size from 5 to 15 individuals. Often, this work has taken place in the
context of a workshop attended by several such groups, but it can also be done with a
single small intact work group. KEYS is administered to everyone in the team prior to
the meeting or workshop. During the meeting, participants analyze the KEYS reports
and discuss their team’s work environment. The impact of the insight afforded by this
process is often quite powerful, and generally motivates people to consider the most
notable strengths and weaknesses in their group and their organization—as well as the
extent to which they might be responsible for the work environment and what they
might be able to do about the situation. Case 4, at the end of this section, describes this
application of KEYS.
The third application is usually an addendum to the second. Individuals receive a
personal report showing their own KEYS scores. Through this feedback, people can
directly compare their own individual impressions of the work environment with those
of their coworkers. Not only does this allow them to consider why and how their
perceptions might have been so different from those of their coworkers, but it also
allows them to reflect upon the impact of the work environment on their own creativity.
Case 4 also describes this application.
The four cases presented in this section will give you an idea of the variety of
circumstances that may lead to the need for a KEYS assessment and the variety of longterm follow-up actions that might be taken. These cases illustrate several situations in
which KEYS will be particularly useful: An individual or team within an organization is
concerned about the degree of creativity and innovation in the work, and suspects that
the work environment might not be optimal for supporting creativity and innovation.
Or, having made attempts to improve the work environment and the overall degree of
innovation, an individual or team wants to check its current status. Or a newly formed
group wishes to educate itself about the role of work environment in creativity and to
establish the groundwork for a positive environment. Throughout this guide, company
names and details have been disguised.
69
Case 1: Global High Tech
James, the newly appointed Director of New Technology Development at Global High
Tech, had been charged by the chairman with revitalizing his unit. A recent employee
satisfaction survey revealed that the engineers and technicians felt that their
innovativeness was being stifled by the organization. Moreover, it was clear from
several indications that the product development process was stalling, but there was
great disagreement among top management as to the reasons. James and his team
decided to begin by determining what, in the work environment, was inhibiting
creativity and innovation within the R&D teams.
KEYS was chosen to help accomplish this goal because it would diagnose the prevalence
of several work environment factors that can stimulate or inhibit creativity and
innovation. Specifically, it would present a picture of how these units compared to other
organizations in terms of six “Stimulants to Creativity” (Challenging Work, Freedom,
Organizational Encouragement of Creativity, Work Group Supports, Managerial
Encouragement of Creativity, and Resources), two “Obstacles to Creativity” (Lack of
Organizational Impediments to Creativity and Realistic Workload Pressures), and two
“Outcome Measures” (Creativity and Productivity).
Global High Technologies was a large organization, dealing in both hardware and
software, with several thousand employees worldwide and many geographically
dispersed R&D units. James decided to focus the assessment on five units that he felt
would provide particularly useful insights into the company’s “creativity climate.”
Some of these units had been performing fairly well in terms of new product
development, but others seemed to be on a downward spiral. Moreover, people in the
different units expressed quite different opinions about the extent to which their
creativity was encouraged. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the work of each of
these units was considered absolutely vital to the future direction of the company.
All employees in each of these units received a KEYS survey, and, as a follow-up to the
KEYS data analyses, the user decided to conduct individual confidential interviews with
a number of associates within each unit. These interviews asked about the specific work
environment areas that had revealed particularly interesting results on KEYS. These
interviews both confirmed and enriched the information provided by the survey itself.
The pattern of results was fascinating. James and the top-management team of Global
were amazed at the differences in work environments across the units of their
organization. For example, in Unit 1, a hardware development facility whose
performance had been uneven, KEYS revealed several weaknesses in the work
environment, including a lack of perceived challenge in the work, a lack of freedom or
sense of ownership in the work, and a lack of organizational encouragement for
creativity. (Interestingly, some strengths were noted, as well: a sense of loyalty and
70
comfort that employees felt with their supervisors and work groups, and a sense of
cooperation across the whole unit.) The KEYS profile of Unit 3, which focused on a
particular type of hardware development, stood in stark contrast to that of Unit 1. This
group was widely considered to be the most outstanding development unit across the
company in terms of new product development rates and commercial successes. Unit 3
was particularly strong on three environmental stimulants to creativity: a sense of
positive challenge in the work; work groups that were diversely skilled and mutually
supportive; and a general sense of openness, collaboration, and cooperation across the
unit. In fact, Unit 3 was notably higher than the average of KEYS comparison companies
(the “norm”) on many of the work environment dimensions. There were similarly
interesting contrasts between other units, as well.
However, there were also some similarities. Two consistent features of the results stood
out in the KEYS reports for these units. In all units except Unit 5, the “creativity
stimulant” of Resources was much lower than the norm. And in all five units, the
“creativity obstacle” of Realistic Workload Pressure was much more severe than the
norm.
James felt that KEYS provided some valuable, actionable information. Across New
Technology Development, something had to be done about resource allocations and
workload distributions. It was clear, however, that time and resources were only a small
part of the overall innovation picture. Each of the individual units would have to pay
attention to the particular obstacles appearing in that unit—for example, a lack of clear
vision in Units 2 and 4, and a lack of a sense of challenge in the work in Unit 1. In
addition, because some positive features had been revealed in each of the units as well,
each unit had some foundation from which to build a more positive environment for
creativity.
With the cooperation of the unit heads, James organized a series of “creativity
environment” workshops within each unit. These began with a detailed presentation
and discussion of the KEYS results, their causes, and their implications. They ended
with specific action planning to address the primary areas on which the unit wished to
focus. Now, several months later, each unit is preparing to re-administer KEYS, to “take
the temperature” of the organization once again. Although there are varying opinions
about the degree of environment improvement across the different units, most unit
heads are optimistic and eager to learn where they now stand in terms of work
environment support for creativity and new product innovation.
Case 2: Chem-Trend
Several years ago, morale in Chem-Trend was extremely low, due to the company’s
downsizing by two-thirds over a period of three years. The survivors were shell©1987, 2010 Teresa M. Amabile, Ph.D. and Center for Creative Leadership. All Rights Reserved.
71
shocked, and many of the younger, most creative employees had left. Yet, the company
had identified new product development as the key to success in the future. Ruth, the
Vice-President of Research, set as her mission the improvement of the climate for
creativity within the organization. To get started, Ruth asked her Human Resource
Director, Samuel, to help by diagnosing current levels of support for creativity and
innovation within the research organization. The HR director suggested assessing the
stimulants and obstacles to creativity using KEYS. In addition to collecting the KEYS
survey data, Samuel interviewed a representative sample of the researchers and all of
the management team. These interviews were conducted in order to afford deeper views
of how creativity and innovation might be better fostered at Chem-Trend.
The feedback process was started by a three-day off-site program for the management
team. The work environment assessment had shown that employees were “trapped in
the past” and focused on the problems of the past few years. As part of the three days,
the team formed a new vision for the research department. This new vision was focused
relatively far into the future and incorporated insights from the assessment. The team
became quite energized by their new vision and by the action plans they had
formulated. When they returned to work, the assessment results were presented to the
entire research organization in cross-divisional groups of 30 people at a time, with both
CCL and members of the management team present.
The enthusiasm of the management team set the groups on fire. A great many
employees said that they were ready to get on with the future. On-the-spot volunteers
formed “Vision Action Teams” to carry out actions to improve the climate for creativity.
These actions included: de-layered decision making (where fewer levels are involved in
most decisions); a smaller, more focused Executive Committee; a streamlined planning
process (with less paper); and the creation of cross-functional new product development
teams. There were a few snags in the implementation of these plans; some volunteers
did not have the training or the skills to carry them out. On the whole, however, the
climate appeared to improve dramatically, as if a cloud had been lifted. Samuel was
asked to conduct a two-day off-site meeting 18 months later, with all 80 managers, to
review progress. The managers wanted a three-pronged agenda: let’s look at how far
we’ve come (a kind of celebration); let’s look at how far we still have to go (an
assessment of what still needs to be done and a revisiting of the vision); and let’s decide
what we need to do now (action planning).
What most excited Ruth and Samuel was seeing how much more enlivened the people
of Chem-Trend were compared to 18 months earlier, and how much the quality of their
ideas had improved—as a direct result, they said, of the changes they had made. Much
of the credit goes to Ruth, who was willing to take the risk of pushing hard for dramatic
change within the organization. In short, she was courageous enough to take seriously
the reports of her employees on how they saw the work environment. Moreover, and
72
perhaps most impressively, Ruth worked hard on changing her own personal behaviors
to exemplify the new ways of working.
Case 3: Pharmaceuticals and Medical Supplies
This case presents a complete picture of a work environment assessment process using
KEYS, from initial client request through to external third-party evaluation.
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Supplies, a large international organization, contacted
CCL because they wished to improve the creativity of their marketing groups in
responding to rapid changes in the marketplace. CCL conducted a KEYS assessment
within those marketing groups in order to provide senior management with a
benchmarking of the current climate and a foundation for development decisions.
When the management committee received the KEYS feedback, they decided to take that
feedback directly to all of the groups assessed. This was done in the context of a two-day
workshop devoted to understanding creativity and change within organizations, as well
as specifically working through and planning from the KEYS results. At several points
during this workshop, participants were asked to interpret the results in ways that were
most meaningful to them. In small groups, they were asked to confirm or question major
findings and to rank-order the issues that were most relevant for their organization’s
creativity at that point in time. Each group reported these issues in a plenary session,
followed by discussion and consensus. This discussion led to specific recommendations
for changes designed to improve creativity and innovation within the organization. The
major organizational change initiative based on the KEYS results was a structural one, a
move to a team-based organization.
The management of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Supplies felt that KEYS served as a
mirror held up to their organization, allowing them to reflect on the current strengths
and liabilities in their work environment and to thoughtfully plan organizational
development. They were pleased with the results of the changes they made, pointing to
more positive client response in international markets and to improved bottom-line
results.
However, in order to go beyond their own subjective views of improvement within the
organization, the management team implemented a third-party assessment of both
perceived climate and performance data three years later. An organization previously
uninvolved with the intervention carried out this in-depth assessment. The results were
consistent with the perceptions of the management team and with the internal selfassessment that the management team had conducted after one year. The outside
consultants concluded that the KEYS assessment and the resultant organizational
development actions taken did, in fact, have a long-term positive impact on the climate
for creativity.
73
Case 4: Home Health Supplies
Steve had recently been appointed by the CEO of Home Health Supplies to head up an
innovation team for a new division. His mission was to bring together a team of 15
highly skilled technical, marketing, and financial employees from across the division,
and to work intensively with them for one year to identify the next wave of new
products. It was a bold move, and Steve was exhilarated by the opportunity to handpick the best and the brightest and to work with them in whatever way they decided
would be best.
After the team had been working together for just a few weeks, Steve asked an outside
consultant for help in promoting creativity within the group. He felt strongly that they
could best promote the development of creative new ideas within the division if they
themselves operated creatively. After discussing Steve’s needs and aims, the consultant
recommended administering KEYS to Steve and his team, with the results to be
presented as part of a two-day off-site innovation workshop for the group. He also
recommended that they choose the option of having each individual team member
receive his or her own KEYS scores, in addition to the group scores.
The morning of the first workshop day consisted of presentations and discussions on
creativity and innovation, what they mean in the context of Home Health Supplies, and
what influences them. The afternoon focused on KEYS. Each of the 15 team members
received KEYS Survey Results presenting results from the entire team as well as their
own personal results. After working through each section of the survey results, they
discussed similarities and differences in their perceptions of the work environment and,
most importantly, the major stimulants and obstacles to creativity in their current work
environment.
Because their work environment was so newly formed, this innovation team believed
that they could set up new policies, procedures, and interaction norms that would
strongly impact that work environment for the better. This action planning occupied
most of the second day of the workshop. In feedback that the team members (including
Steve) provided subsequently, they reported that the KEYS workshop had served three
important functions. First, it educated them about the importance of work environment
for creativity and innovation. Second, it gave them a clear picture of where they
currently stood in terms of supports and obstacles to creativity. Finally, it provided them
the opportunity to shape the work environment of their team and the people who would
join them in creating the innovative future of Home Health Supplies.
74
75

Brief Description - Center for Creative Leadership

Transcription

Similar documents

These are Security risks! Security is about key control

GXP2160 - Allnet.Italia Store

Art, Creativity and Peace for CPRA 2013 - The Barnard

- CreaMed > The project

VX550 - Lpc Uk

Brain Child Learning

Sprouting Magic Beans - Digital Commons @ West Chester University

treadmill - TRUE Fitness Equipment

The Architecture of the Model