Ekvall’s Creative Organisational Climate Model

Organisational climate refers to the aggregated perceptions of recurring behavioural, attitudinal, and feeling patterns that characterize life within an organisation (Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall, & Britz, 2001). Organisational climate refers to that which organisational members experience and is distinct from organisational culture, which is what members of the organisation value (Puccio & Cabra, 2010). Organisational climate is also more directly observable than organisational culture, as the latter refers to values, norms, and beliefs within the organisation that often need to be elicited via interviews before it can be recorded (Isaksen et al., 2001).

While working for several large Swedish organisations during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, an industrial psychologist named Göran Ekvall observed how differences in organisational atmosphere affected participation in innovation schemes. Ekvall and his colleagues have continually studied and refined the original observations to synthesize nine dimensions of creative organisational climate (Isaksen et al., 2001):

1. Challenge and involvement. This refers to the degree that employees are involved in the organisation’s vision, long-term objectives, and day-to-day operations. When challenge and

involvement are high, people find their work meaningful and feel motivated to contribute the organisation’s goals.

2. Freedom. This refers to the degree that people are provided with autonomy and resources to plan their work. In a climate marked by a high degree of freedom, employees exercise discretion in their day-to-day tasks and may take initiative to gather and share information concerning their work.

3. Trust/Openness. This dimension refers to the degree of emotional safety in interpersonal relationships. In a climate where trust is high, people feel free to be genuinely open with each other and depend on their colleagues for both personal and professional support. Recognition is given where it is due.

4. Idea Time. Idea time refers to the amount of time employees are permitted to and do use to develop new ideas. In a high idea-time climate, time is given to discuss, explore, develop, and experiment with ideas not delineated by an assignment. In such a climate, flexible timelines are utilised.

5. Playfulness/Humour. This dimension is defined as the spontaneity and ease permeating the workplace. Climates high in playfulness are professional yet easy-going where employees laugh and have fun. This is in line with West’s (2014) contention that play must be viewed as a behavioural approach to one’s work and that any task can become a playful one if a person can develop such a state of mind.

6. Idea Support. This dimension deals with how new ideas are treated. Idea-supportive climates are marked by constructive atmospheres, where ideas are received in an attentive manner by supervisors, peers, and subordinates. In such climates, opportunities to field-test ideas are also created.

7. Debate. This dimension refers to the degree differences in ideas, experiences, and viewpoints are considered. Debate is conceptually similar to what Jehn (1995) calls cognitive conflict, defined as differences regarding task-related aspects, expressed as disagreements. If foreseen and managed carefully, debates or cognitive conflicts elicit a larger number of ideas and anticipation of such conflict may increase flexible thinking patterns (Carnevale & Probst, as cited in Badke-Schaub, Goldschmidt, & Meijer, 2010). In debating climates, many voices are welcome, people discuss opposing positions, and are unafraid to offer their ideas for consideration. 8. Risk-taking. Risk-taking is the degree to which ambiguity and uncertainty are tolerated within the

ideas, even if outcomes are unknown. There is no need to play it safe (e.g. set up committees to consider the ideas).

9. Conflict. This dimension should not be confused with the dimension called debate. Debate is a productive, idea-focused phenomenon required for creativity to occur in organisations, while conflict is the counter-productive, person-focused face of disagreement (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). Ekvall’s conflict dimension is conceptually similar to Jehn’s (1995) construct of affective conflict, which involves negative emotions connected to interpersonal issues and dysfunctional relationships among team members. According to Ekvall’s model, creative climates possess low levels of conflict, where organisational members behave maturely and tolerate diversity. If a contrary situation of high conflict exists, then employees may engage in interpersonal warfare, power struggles, and allow personal differences to lead to counter-productive personal attacks, gossip, and even slander.

Numerous studies have validated Ekvall’s model of creative organisational climate (Ekvall, 1997; Ekvall & Ryhammar, 1999; Isaksen et al., 2001). This research agenda has yielded a valid instrument to measure creative organisational climate called the Situational Outlook Questionnaire. This instrument has been validated over time and fruitfully applied to various contexts, such as within teams (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002).

The current researcher is of the opinion that Ekvall’s model may dovetail quite well with other organisational research streams. For example, if one uses the Ekvall’s model as a lens to look at Mayfield and Mayfield’s (2008) work on leadership behaviours (based upon goal-setting, motivation, coaching, feedback, and securing resources) that promote creativity, then leaders may be in a position to enhance the challenge and involvement, freedom, and risk-taking dimensions.

Another area of inquiry that could have an impact on creative organisational climate may be Job design research. The challenge and involvement dimension may be greatly helped by recent research on problem-solving demand, defined as the degree to which a job requires workers to actively use their skills and knowledge for diagnosing and solving problems in their workplace (Zhou, Hirst, & Shipton, 2012). Furthermore, to increase the idea time dimension, organisations may have to consider designing jobs on the basis of work days (i.e. how a workday is structured) not merely tasks.

At a more strategic level, it occurs to the current researcher that to build a creative organisational climate, an organisation must possess or consciously decide to develop a high degree of organisational

ambidexterity, which is defined as being efficient in managing today’s demands, while also being adaptive to tomorrow’s changing environment (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004). Although the directionality of the relationships can be debated, it would seem logical that dimensions such as challenge and involvement, freedom, idea time, idea support, debate and risk-taking are linked to organisational ambidexterity.

Theoretically and empirically, Ekvall’s creative organisational climate model is a robust and widely applicable contribution to creativity research. The sole limitation, when considering the preceding few paragraphs, is that the practical implementation of the model requires both multi-level and multi-target interventions. As such, there may be resistance from organisational members, especially within an existing organisation. Alternatively, full implementation may only be realised in the longer term, if leadership chooses to ease the organisation into such a climate.