Engineers

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by GSSRR.ORG: International Journals: Publishing Research Papers in all Fields International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) I SSN 2 3 0 7 - 4 5 3 1 (Print & Online) http://gssrr.org/index.php?journal=JournalOfBasicAndApplied ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Engineers’ Innovative Work Behavior: A Research with the Public Worker Ayşe Esmeray Yogun a*, Mehmet Miman b, Sibel Ateş c a Toros University, Dept. of Economics 45 Evler Kampusu, 33140 Mersin Turkey b Toros University, Dept. of Industrial Engineering 45 Evler Kampusu, 33140 Mersin Turkey c Toros University, 45 Evler Kampusu, 33140 Mersin Turkey a Email: esmeray.yogun@toros.edu.tr b Email: mehmet.miman@toros.edu.tr Abstract The only way for the organization, to become more innovative is to capitalize on their employees’ ability to create and to innovate. The purpose of this study is to understand the impact of demographic factors on innovative work behavior of engineers, working for 5th Highway Directorate in Turkey. The seven-item scale was used to assess employee innovative behaviors at the workplace. As a result most rated item by engineers, “I try to follow new techniques related to my job” is found. Furthermore, it is tested whether there are differences in the level of innovative work behaviors that can be attributed to demographic characteristics such as age, gender, experience, foreign language skills and found no significant differences according to demographic variables. The only significant difference has been found between positions of engineers and innovative work behavior. Keywords: Individual innovation; innovative work behavior; Innovative Work Behavior Survey; Item analysis. -----------------------------------------------------------------------* Corresponding author 277 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 1. Introduction The term ‘innovation’ has many meanings. It can refer to the inventive process by which new things, ideas, and practices are developed; it can mean the new thing or idea itself; or it can be the “process whereby an existing innovation becomes a part of an adopter’s cognitive state and behavioral repertoire” [1]. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Outcomes Approach (ABET) in the USA pointed out “initiative and innovation” in its proposed skills for Engineering Criteria List [2]. Innovative work behavior is of inevitable importance to organizational effectiveness and survival skills [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Many practitioners and scientists now endorse the view that individual innovation helps to attain organizational thriving [8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. To realize innovation, employees need to be both eager and able to innovate personally. Innovation is central to several famous management theories, including corporate venturing [13], total quality management [14, 15], organizational climate [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] continuous improvement schemes [22], Kaizen [23] and organizational learning [24]. In this current research, engineers’ innovative work behavior will be examined by means of the scale developed and inspired by authors in reference [4] in a six-item survey. The focus of this paper will also include a sub-research component related to the roles of demographic factors on innovative work behavior. 1.1Innovative Work Behavior Individuals’ innovative behavior at the workplace is among the essentials of any high performance for an organization. Indeed, a key to organizational survival is the process of creative destruction where an organization needs to weed out old competences and consistently improve new ones [25]. Innovative work behaviors have been studied in terms of personality characteristics, outputs, and behaviors for instance, [26] emphasized general intent to change as a personality-based aspect of individual innovation. Authors in reference [27] Measure of role innovation captures how many changes an individual has initiated in his or her job in comparison to the last role. Authors in reference [10] measure assess individuals' self-ratings of their suggestions and realized innovations. In terms of cognitive constructs, why cognitive biases are known now, structures, and processes impact creativity [28, 29, 30]. Researchers suggest that creativity entails traits such as intelligence and intelligent thinking [31], creative self-efficacy [32, 33, 34]. Unconscious thought processes [35], and openness to experience [36], all of which support the potential for innovative behavior at the workplace. In terms of affect, researchers have found discrepant results in that both positive ways [9] and negative ways affect [37, 38] contribute to creativity, indicating the importance of intervening factors. Finally, there are numerous researches detailing how and why work environments [9, 11, 16] and especially leadership [9, 14, 30] are correlated with innovation. According to reference [6], when individuals experience positive moods at work, their creative thinking and problem solving skills are facilitated. It was found that, when people experience positive emotions like vitality, they broaden their thought-action repertoire [39]. He elaborated on this term “thought-action repertoire” to explain that positive emotions trigger changes in cognitive activities for innovation and creation. Innovative behavior is a multi-stage process of problem recognition, a generation of ideas or solutions, the building of support for ideas, and the idea of the implementation of new procedures [4, 18]. 278 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 Creativity (i.e., the production of novel and useful ideas; reference [9] is thus an important part of innovative behavior. In addition to being affected by knowledge and abilities [9], innovative behaviors are discussed as a largely motivational issue [9]. This makes it of crucial interest to organization behavior researchers [16, 4]. According to reference [4] individual innovative behavior in the workplace have three stages: First, the individual recognizes a problem and comes up with new solutions and ideas. Second, the individual seeks ways to promote her or his solutions and ideas, and builds legitimacy and support both inside and outside the organization. Third, the individual makes the idea or solution concrete by producing a prototype or model of the innovation [18]. As such, innovative work behavior encompasses all three parts in this current research. It is thereby reasoned that self-perception of engineers may be an important catalyst of innovative behaviors at the workplace. According to the first dimensions of [4], learning and growing at work in a favorable position leads to the identification of problems and their relative solutions. Second, the dimension of vitality at work allows for the likelihood of the energy and motivation that is required to feed innovative thoughts. Vitality is the source of positive emotions that are experienced when a person is capable of and eager to engage in a particular behavior or attempt to undertake a risk [20, 21]. In addition, authors in reference [32] have shown that vitality facilitates employee involvement in innovation at work. Innovative work is not a status that is passive, and it requires promoting and championing ideas in a way that requires energy. Innovative work is a natural and proactive kind of manner [15] where individuals seek out new technologies, processes, and techniques. 2. Methodology 2.1. Measurement and Research Hypothesis To examine engineers’ self-perceived IWB scores and influential demographic factors, seven items developed and inspired by [4] were used to gather the required data. In the literature below, surveys are mostly in use. Scott and Bruce Bunce and West 5 6 items Sample 1 Managers of 172 α = 0.89; significant engineers, correlation Sample 1 435 employees from a items Spreitzer 4 items national Subordinates of 393 α = 0.91; no validity an industrial company; managers of reported Other- ratings, multiple source Basu and Green 4 Supervisors of 225 α = 0.93; no validity Printing manufacturer; items employees of a reported Other- ratings, single source Kleysen and Street 14 items 225 employees from α = 0.97; no support of different organizations; validity (inadequate fit Self-rating, of structural equation source 279 single model) International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 Existing literature on innovation helped to improve the main and sub research hypotheses as seen below: Positive self-perception will be positively associated with innovative work behaviors for engineers. Selfperception of IWB varies according to demographic factors of engineers’. 2.2. Research Model Analysis of the existing literature on innovation helped to improve the current research model as seen in Figure 1 below: Learning and growing at work Employees’ self perception about innovation at work Take a risk to innovate Learning and growing at work Supprot others for innovation Following recent advancement INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR AT WORK Innovation friendly working conditions. Figure 1: The Hypothesized Research Model. 2.3 Sampling and Procedure This study was conducted in 2015 with the engineers of a large government organization located in Mersin/Turkey, the 5th Regional Directorate of Highways. The majority of employees are professional engineers, engineering administrative or engineer managers. The sample of the research is 65 engineers who agreed to participate in this research. 2.4 Measurement To assess employee innovative behaviors at work, the 6-item scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994) was translated in a scientific manner to the 7-item scale. Employees were asked to report on the extent to which they engage in and display innovative behaviors at work. The resulting sample items are provided in Table 4. Responses were made on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1= “totally disagree” to 5 = “totally agree”. 3. Findings Engineers’ self-perceptions about innovative work behavior have been examined and have been examined and the relative results are outlined below. 3.1 Some Statistics About The Sample 65 engineers were accepted to participate in the study. Of these; 30.8% of them were women and 69.2% were 280 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 men. 33.8% of the main group falls within the age range of 24-30 and 29.2% of the main group falls within the age range of 38-44. Thus, the majority of the sample group ranges between the ages of 24 and 44 years old. Another demographic variable of the sample is the tenure of the engineers. The majority of the sample has 1-10 years’ experience, which is 56.4% of the total. Major proportion of the sample is comprised of engineer’s administrative position with 83.2 percent, 9.2%, general and regional vice directorate of with 7.7%. Finally, the foreign language skills of engineers were asked. 63.1% speak a second language, and the rest of the sample, comprising 36.9%, has no foreign language skills. While 83.1% of the group report positively for self-perceived innovativeness, the rest of the sample rate themselves as not innovative (16.9%). Higher scores indicated a higher degree of innovativeness. Normality tests were ran by SPSS program features. Table 1 below shows that research data does not have significant value for Kolmogorov-Smirnov,( value is higher than 0.05). Therefore, it is assumed that the data is normally distributed. Table 1: Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Statistic IWB Score Df 0.097 Shapiro-Wilk Sig. 65 0.200 Statistic Df 0.963 Sig. 65 0.146 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction Table 2: Reliability Analysis Cronbach Alpha Value Number of Item 0,843 7 Table 3: Item Total Statistics Item Scale Mean if item Scale Variance if item Corrected item-total Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted deleted correlation deleted I1 21,7385 23,821 ,684 ,812 I2 22,2615 24,259 ,448 ,846 I3 21,8308 23,924 ,646 ,816 I4 23,0462 23,138 ,497 ,841 I5 22,3077 23,279 ,649 ,814 I6 22,0000 23,594 ,694 ,810 I7 22,2615 21,696 ,663 ,812 Despite the results of the normality test, the Skewness (-,809) and Kurtosis (+,923) values are also checked for normality, and in [40] as indicated in the aforementioned literature, values between -1.5 and +1.5 show that data is normally distributed. 281 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 The scale has a coefficient alpha of 0.843, illustrating that reliability of the questionnaire is of a very high degree. Considering total item correlations, Cronbach alpha value is calculated between 0,810 and 0,846, demonstrating that the scale is a reliable instrument. Considering into adjusted item correlations, it is seen that all values are higher than 0.25. In this case, all items are correlated and the reliability of the scale is found to be of a high degree. Table 4: Item Explanation Item Number Explanation I1 I try to follow new techniques related to my job. I2 I attend conferences, congresses and seminars. I3 I prefer to use new techniques and methods at my job. I4 My working condition is suitable for innovation. I5 I don’t hesitate to take risks at work. I6 I support my peers for innovation. I7 Innovation is an essential component of my job. Totally agree Average Sd. Agree No comment Disagree Items Totally disagree Table 5: Item Analysis f % f % f % f % f % I1 2 3,1 3 4,6 3 4,6 31 47,7 26 40 4,16 0,944 I2 7 10,8 4 6,2 8 12,3 32 49,2 14 21,5 3,64 1,20 I3 2 3,1 3 4,6 7 10,8 29 44,6 24 36,9 4,07 0,97 I4 12 18,5 15 23,1 16 24,6 14 21,5 8 12,3 2,86 1,29 I5 1 1,5 9 13,8 21 32,3 18 27,7 16 24,6 3,60 1,057 I6 1 1,5 6 9,2 9 13,8 31 47,7 18 27,7 3,90 0,96 I7 5 7,7 8 12,3 12 18,5 20 30,8 20 30,8 3,64 1,25 The most rated item is I1 with 40% totally agree and an average of 4.16 agreement out of five. Secondly, rated item is I3 with 36.9 totally agree rate value and average of 4.07 agreement out of five. The least rated item is I4 with totally disagree rate value of 18.5 percent and average of 2.86 agreement out of five Hypothesis 1: H0: Engineers’ IWB score does not vary according to sex. H1: Engineers’ IWB score does vary according to sex. 282 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 Table 6: Sex and IWB Scores t Test Result Sex N Mean Std. Deviation df T P F 20 3,48 0,84 63 -1,46 0,147 M 45 3,79 0,76 The P result of the T test is calculated higher than 0.05 so hypothesis H0 is accepted. Also, there is no difference regarding IWB scores according to sex of the engineers. Hypothesis 2: H0: Engineers’ IWB score does not vary according to age. H1: Engineers’ IWB score does vary according to age. Table 7: IWB Scores and Age Anova Test Result Source of Variance Sum of df Mean Square F P 0,69 0,598 Squares Between Groups 1,79 4 0,44 Within Groups 38,72 60 0,64 Total 40,51 64 P value is found as 0,598 higher than 0.05 so there is no difference at IWB scores according to age of engineers. Hypothesis 3: H0: Engineers’ IWB score does not vary according to position. H1: Engineers’ IWB score does vary according to position. Table 8: IWB Scores and Position Anova Test Result Source of Variance Sum of df Mean Square F P 4,63 0,013 Squares Between Groups 5,27 2 2,63 Within Groups 35,24 62 0,56 Total 40,51 64 P value has been found as 0,013 lower than 0.05 so there is a statistically significant difference at IWB scores according to age of engineers. 283 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 Table 9: IWB Scores According to Position Position Mean N Sd Engineer 3.58 54 0.79 Head of the Engineer 4.52 6 0.58 Regional Vice and Gen. , Directorate 4.00 5 0.31 Total 3.70 65 0.79 The highest score, considering to position is the group head of engineer with 4.52 mean values. Engineer has the lowest mean 3.58, IWB score. Hypothesis 4: H0: Engineers’ IWB score does not vary according to experience. H1: Engineers’ IWB score does vary according to experience. Table 10: IWB scores According to Experience Anova Result Sum of Source of Df Mean Square F P 1,42 0,246 Squares Variance Between Groups 2,64 3 0,88 Within Groups 37,87 61 0,62 Total 40,51 64 P value is calculated as 0,246 which is higher than 0.05 so there is no statistically significant difference between group according to engineer’s experience. Hypothesis 4: H0: Engineers’ IWB score does not vary according to foreign language skill. H1: Engineers’ IWB score does vary according to foreign language skill. Table 11: IWB scores According to Foreign Language Skill Anova Result Source of Sum of df Mean Square F P 0,90 0,44 Squares Variance Between Groups 1,72 3 0,57 Within Groups 38,79 61 0,63 Total 40,51 64 284 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 P value is calculated 0,88 which is higher than 0.05 so there is no statistically significant difference according to foreign language skills of engineers. 4. Conclusion and Discussion The main purpose of this study is to understand the self-perceived innovative work behavior of employees. The results are in line with the existing literature, as the most rated item by engineers, “I try to follow new techniques related to my job” was highly correlated with development and vitality at the job [41]. According to reference [41], there are three stages of the innovation process: generation of ideas (production of new ideas and improvement of the recent ones); harvesting ideas (gathering, examining and evaluating the ideas); and developing and implementing the ideas (study, testing, enhancement and development of the ideas and implementing them). All stages require development at job as an essential component of innovation. Besides other researchers in reference [16, 18, 27, 42], emphasizes the importance of being proactive to innovate, which is strongly related to development at job and Item 1. The less rated item in the scale is Item 4: “My working condition suitable for innovation.” Empirical support for a positive connection between providing resources and applicable behavior is widely available. A frequently mentioned example of providing resources for employees is that of 3M, the multinational company where scientists and R&D professionals are encouraged to spend 15 per cent of their working hours on their own innovative projects [43, 44]. Many researchers revealed the perceived working condition’s importance on innovative work behavior [45, 46, 47]. Also, perceptions of organizational climate and culture have been shown to influence organizational performance and effectiveness [48, 49, 50]. Since then, the literature has confirmed many times over that perceived support and working conditions are essential triggers of innovation. The directorate of highways should consider this finding in order to provide an innovation-friendly working environment. Contrary to previous literature findings about a significant relationship between gender, age, experience, foreign language skill and innovative work behavior, in this current study there are no significant relationship. In this research, it is tested whether there are differences in the level of innovative work behaviors that can be attributed to demographic characteristics such as age, gender, experience, foreign language skills and found no significant differences. The only significant difference has been found between positions of engineers and innovative work behavior. The highest rate belongs to supervisor of the engineers who are the technically experienced and who have not yet achieved an administrative role. The literature on innovation in reference [42] emphasizes the role of individual factors such as age, gender, and level of education. According to reference [4], innovative behavior is the outcome of an extended process comprised of antecedents, processes, and results. The antecedents identified by authors in reference [4] are the demographics of the individual. Past research has consistently related level of education and tenure to innovative behaviors. In this study it was found that there is a statistically significant difference only between supervisor position and regular engineers’ IWB scores. Supervisory position engineer’s IWB score is higher than regular engineers’ IWB score based on self-perception. 285 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 These current findings are also in line with the findings that exist in the previous literature. In the research of [32], with the exception of gender, they did not find any significant effects of demographic characteristics on innovative behaviors. The results of the study have several implications for managerial practices and organizations emphasizing innovation, especially in terms of perceived innovation support and their willingness to develop new techniques and innovate at work. According to current research result, supervisory engineers IWB scores are higher than regular engineers which means human resource managers should motivate lower level engineers to innovate and create. This study contains several limitations and can be further developed in future research. In this study, the random sampling method was used. Thus, generalizations may not be appropriate for the entire population of engineers. In addition, it did not examine specialties within engineering, which could have yielded differences in groups. Another limitation of the study is was not being longitudinal. As such, different results may be observed for long-term studies. Engineers’ cultural background and income was not examined, both of which could have possibly yielded differences in innovative work behavior. References [1] G. Zaltman,., R. Duncan and J. Holbek. Innovations and Organizations, New York,Wiley. 1973 [2] M. Dodrige. Generic Skill Requirements for Engineers in the 21st Century, 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, November 10 - 13, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1999 [3] G.R. Oldham .and A. Cummings. “Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work” Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634, 1996 [4] S. G. Scott & A.R. Bruce “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp.1994 [5] C. E. Shalley, C. E.”Effects of co-action, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity”. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503, 1995 [6] M. A. West, G. Hirst, A. Richter,and H. Shipton “Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 269–299.2004. [7] R.W. Woodman, , J.E. Sawyer and R.W. Griffin. “Toward a theory of organizational creativity” Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. 1993. [8] A. Van de Ven, “Central problems in the management of innovation” Management Science,1986 [9] 9. T.M. Amabile, S.G: Barsade, J.S. Mueller, and B. M. Staw. “Affect and creativity at work” Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403, 2005 [10] C.M. Axtell, D.J., Holman, K.L.. Unsworth,., T.D. Wall, P.E. Waterson, and E.Harrington,.. “Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas” Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 265-85.2000 [11] G.P. Smith, The new leader: bringing creativity and innovation to the workplace, Conyers, Georgia. Chart Your Course.2002 [12] K.L. Unsworth, and S.K. Parker, “Proactivitiy and innovation: promoting a new workforce for the new workplace”, in Holman, T., Wall, T.D., Clegg, C.W., Sparrow, P. & Howard, A. (Eds), The New 286 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Work Practices, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 175-96. 2003 [13] B. O. Ehigie, and R.C. Akpan “Roles of perceived leadership styles and rewards in the practice of total quality management”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 24-40.2004 [14] I. McLoughlin, I. and M. Harris, Innovation, Organizational Change and Technology, Thompson, London. 1997 [15] M.D. Mumford.,C. Blaır,L. Dailey, L.E. Lerıtz,And H.K. Osborn “Errors in creative thought: Cognitive biases in a complex processing activity”. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 75-109.2004 [16] D.C. Pelz, and F. M. Andrews. Autonomy, coordination, and stimulation in relation to scientific achievement. Behavioral Science, 11, 89–97. 1996 [17] W.A.Fischer, and C.M. Farr, “Dimensions of innovative climate in Chinese R and D units”. R and D Management, 15: 183-190.1985 [18] R.M. Kanter, The Change Masters. Simon and Schuster, NY.1983 [19] R.K. Jain. and H.C. Triandis, Management of R and D Organizations, NY, Wiley.1990 [20] H. Nystrom,. Technological and Market Innovation. NY, Wiley. 1990 [21] W.E. Souder, W.E. Managing New Product Innovations. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA 1987 [22] H. Boer, H.and J Gieskes,- Continuous Improvement – From Idea to Reality, Enschede, Twente University Press., 1998. [23] M. Imai, Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.1986 [24] P. Senge, , The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY.1990 [25] J.A. Schumpeter,. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper. 1996 [26] H.T. Hurt, , K. Joseph, and C.D. Cook,.”Scales for the Measurement of Innovativeness”, Human Communication Research, 4(1): 58-65. 1977 [27] M.A. West. “A measure of role innovation at work”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 83- 85.1987 [28] R.A. Finke “Imagery, creativity and emergent structure”. Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 381-393.1996 [29] R.S. Friedman, and J. Forster, “The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on creative cognition”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 41-55, 2002 [30] M.D: Mumford, G.M. Scott, B. Gaddis, and J.M. Strange, “Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships” The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.2002 [31] W.R. Spence,. The communication of change in ideas, practices and products. London: Chapman & Hall.1994 [32] A. Carmeli., and J. Schaubroeck, “The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work”. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35-48. 2007 [33] S. Phelan, and A.M. Young,. “Understanding creativity in the workplace: An examination of individual styles and training in relation to creative confidence and creative self-leadership” Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 266-281.2003 [34] P. Tierney,and S.M. Farmer “The Pygmalion process and employee creativity” Journal of Management, 30, 413-432.2004 [35] C Martindale,. Cognition and consciousness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.1991 [36] R.R. Mccrae, “Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience”. Journal of Personality and 287 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2015) Volume 24, No 4, pp 277-288 Social Psychology, 52, 1258-1265.1987 [37] J. George, J., and J. Zhou, “Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687-697. 2002 [38] L.L. Gilson, and C.E. Shalley, “A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes”. Journal of Management, 30, 453-470. 2004 [39] B. Fredrickson, “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden and build theory of positive emotions” American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.2001 [40] B.G. Tabachnick,and L.S.Fidell,. Using Multivariate Statistics , 6th ed. Boston : Pearson.2013 [41] N. Thomas Adair on creativity and innovation. India: Viva book private Limited.2006 [42] O. Janssen,.” Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior” Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 287-302.2000 [43] A. Brand, A. “Knowledge management and innovation at 3M”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 179-84.1998 [44] G. Ekvall, and L. Ryhammer,. The creative climate: its determinants and effects at a Swedish university, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 303-10. 1999 [45] A. Abby and J.W. Dickson, “R and D work climate and innovation in semiconductors”. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 363-368.1983 [46] S.T. Hunter, K.E. Bedell,and M.D. Mumford, “Climate for creativity: A quantitative review”. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69-90. 2007 [47] B. Schneider”Organizational climates: an essay”. Personnel Psychology, 28: 447—479. 1975 [48] D.R. Denison, and A.K. Mishra,” Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A theory and some preliminary empirical evidence”. Academy of Management Proceedings: 168-172. 1989 [49] J. Kotter, J.and J. Heskett, Corporate Culture and Performance. Free Press, NY. Lawler, 1992 [50] G. Gordon, and N. Ditomaso. Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 783-798. 1992 288