ANTECEDENTS OF CREATIVE OUTCOMES IN WORKING ENVIRONMENT – AN ANALYSIS OF COMPANIES IN VIETNAM

Acknowledge the results of previous researches on the individual and organizational creativity, my study only concentrates on the influence of work environment to creativity in Vietnam‟s

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research background

Nowadays, in the highly competitive marketplace, ability of making new ideas, better ways, and creative things is one of the main factors of a company‟s

survival Creativity is not only considered as an arsenal of a manager but also a competitive disadvantage of a company Creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain and successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization lead to innovation (Amabile et al, 1996)

From perceiving the important role of creativity, the need for organizations to be more competitive have fostered the interest of researchers and practitioners to better understand creativity in organizations Some researchers have tried to portray the relationship between individual creativity and organizational innovation (Amabile, 1996, Mumford et al., 2002) as well as demonstrate the relationship between individual, team and organizational aspects

of creativity (Woodman et al., 1993)

To encourage creativity organizations need to create a climate that supports and enables the creative thinking of employees (Amabile, 1988) In other words, organizations must try to remove barriers that might impede creativity and enhance the factors that enable creativity

According to the componential theory, creativity is determined by the effects of one extra-individual (outside the person) component and three intra-individual (inside the person) components on creative cognitive processing The extra-individual component is the external work environment, consisting of several features of the organizational climate, the work group climate, managerial behaviors, and task constraints – including time pressure for getting

the work done The theory focuses on an indirect route by which the work environment might influence creativity – through influences on the intra-

individual components However, although it is not explicitly predicted by the theory, a direct effect of time pressure is suggested by a metaphor in the most recent revision of the theory (Amabile, 1996) According to this metaphor, doing

a task or solving a problem is like getting through a maze; the comparison

derives from Newell, Shaw, and Simon‟s (1962) notion that creativity depends

on the exploration of the maze of available cognitive pathways Although satisfactory outcomes can be attained by following a straight path (a familiar task algorithm) out of the maze, creative solutions require exploration of unfamiliar territory One recent laboratory study designed to examine the applicability of this maze metaphor revealed that people who allocate more time to exploratory task behaviors are more likely to produce work that is rated by observers as creative (Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998)

From the preceding discussion, clearly, no one can deny the fact that making creativity is of great importance to developing of both individual and organization In the nearly years, there are many fundamental changes for organizations in Viet Nam The Vietnamese government has invested much funds and effort for the development of national economy As a result, the number of companies in Viet Nam has increased dramatically in recent years The accession of Viet Nam into WTO in 2007 has also posed a big challenge to Viet Nam business management Successful implementation of new programs, new product introductions, or new services depends on a person or a team having

a good idea and developing that idea beyond its initial state has become a challenge for Vietnam organizations as competition has become harsher

How is the work environment for creativity in Vietnam‟s organizations?

Which factors influence Creative Outcomes in the Vietnam‟s organizations? Is

this positive or negative effect? How can improve the work environment for creativity in the Vietnam‟s organizations?

This research is conducted in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Acknowledge the results of previous researches on the individual and organizational creativity,

my study only concentrates on the influence of work environment to creativity in

Vietnam‟s organization In this paper, we report a study analyzing the factors of

organizational environment influence to creativity The present study will review the literature related to the framework of the study, the methodology utilized for data analysis and discussion of recommendations

1.2 Research objectives

In this study, the author examines, gives comment and understands the influence of work environment in organizational to Creative Outcomes in Vietnam More specifically, it is targeted at measuring Organizational Innovation Climate (including Organizational Encouragement, Supervisory Encouragement, Workgroup Support, Freedom, Sufficient Resources, Challenging Work, and Organizational Impediments) affect to Creative Outcomes It also aims at finding out the factors contribute to the making creativity in Vietnam organization The effort is made to help business manager in the improvement of their organizational innovation climate

Accordingly, the study aims to answer these below research questions:

Question 1: What are Creativity and Innovation? What are differences

between them?

Question 2: Why are Creativity and Innovation important?

Question 3: How many factors effect to making creative thinking in

organizations? What are these factors? How measure them?

Question 4: How is the work environment for creativity in Vietnam‟s

1.3 Practical significances of the study

The results of the study are practically meaningful for impulse innovation and creative process in Vietnam‟s organizations The study helps organization to

master Organizational Innovation Climate and Creative Outcomes The results of the study will provide necessary measures to improve innovation and creative process, which results in improvement in performance and competition capability The study will also enrich necessary knowledge for people who want

to have innovative as well as creative ideas especially in organization environment

1.4 Scope and approach

The survey is carried out in Ho Chi Minh City, aiming at the following organizations: SaoViet Audit Ltd Co., HCMC Power Project Management Company, Power Engineering Consulting Joint Stock Company 3, Rebisco Ltd Co., Firmenich Vietnam Llc., Global Network Technology Ltd Co., Dutch Lady Vietnam Ltd Co and Bureau Veritas Vietnam

The study is conducted in 2 phase: pilot study and main study The purpose of pilot test is to test the content as well as the measurement of scales Then the main study is to test the hypotheses and research model

1.5 Research method

The study was carried out within 2 steps relating to two different methods:

Qualitative method: The author would use the qualitative method by

carrying out group discussions with five experienced people The purpose of this step is to adjust and amend the translated questionnaire suitable with the subjects

and purposes of the study

Quantitative method: Quantitative study would be carried out based on

the data collected from the questionnaire Quantitative study is implemented to evaluate the scale, verify the theoretical model The scale is preliminarily tested the reliability and validity using Cronbach alpha and exploratory factor analysis carried out by the SPSS 20.0 software Multiple linear regression analysis and hierarchical regression would be used to test the proposed model and the hypotheses of the study

1.6 Structure of the thesis

This study includes 5 chapters:

Chapter 1- Introduction, mentions about research background, research objectives and research scope and approach

Chapter 2 – Literature review provides theoretical and empirical background

supporting for hypothesized research model

Chapter 3 – Research methodology, is about the methodologies that author used

to conduct the research

Chapter 4 – Data analysis and findings, discusses about the analysis that author

conduct to test hypothesis and to answer the research question

Chapter 5 - Conclusion and implication, is about the results, implication, and recommendation for future research

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Achieving innovative organization has become the most important task in business recently The need for organizations to be more competitive has fostered the interest of researchers and practitioners to better understand creativity in organizations Some researchers have tried to portray the relationship between individual creativity and organizational innovation (Amabile, 1996, Mumford et al., 2002) as well as demonstrate the relationship between individual, team and

organizational aspects of creativity (Woodman et al., 1993)

To encourage creativity organizations need to create a climate that supports and enables the creative thinking of employees (Amabile, 1988) In other words, organizations must try to remove barriers that might impede creativity and enhance the factors that enable creativity Amabile et al (1996) identified five major work environment dimensions enhance or inhibit creativity

in organization Those dimensions are Encouragement of Creativity (consists of Organizational Encouragement, Supervisory Encouragement and Work Group Supports), Autonomy or Freedom, Resources, Pressures (Challenging Works, Workload Pressure) and Organizational Impediments

The aim of this paper is to find out and understand various factors that

effect to climate for creativity in organization This paper will review the

literature under each of those dimension headings and attempt to identify the characteristics and behaviors required in each to enhance organizational creativity

Chapter 2 defines and discusses the key variables in the hypothesized models The chapter is structured in the format of the conceptualization of each variable, concluding remarks after each conceptualization and their effect on Organizational Innovation Climate The theoretical framework is introduced to explain how work environment influence to creative ability in organization

2.1 The key words:

Before coming to the main part of literature review, we need to clarify some key words as follow:

Firstly, what is creativity? The Encyclopedia Britannica defines

creativity as “the ability to produce something new through imaginative skill,

whether new solutions to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form” Besides, in the Wikipedia, definition of creativity as “the ability

of a person to be creative, participate in creating or be useful in a creative

network of other people”

Secondly, how about innovation? What is its meaning? Is it differing from creativity? A convenient definition of innovation from an organizational

perspective is given by Luecke and Katz (2003) According to them, innovation

is generally understood as the introduction of a new thing or method and innovation is the embodiment, combination, or synthesis of knowledge in original, relevant, valued new products, processes, or services”

Innovation, it seems, typically involves creativity, but is not identical to

it: innovation involves acting on the creative ideas to make some specific and tangible difference in the domain in which the innovation occurs For example, Amabile et al (1996) suggest that all innovation begins with creative ideas They define innovation as the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization

Thirdly and finally, we find down the meaning of Climate and Climate

for creativity Climate is defined as the recurring patterns of behavior, attitudes,

and feelings that characterize life in the organization Climate for creativity is

that which promotes the generation, consideration, and use of new products, services, and ways of working (Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall, & Britz, 2001)

2.2 Creativity versus Innovation

In 1996, Oldham and Cummings cited that creativity is at the individual level, while innovation is at the organizational level Meanwhile, innovative is the ability to develop new products and services quickly, penetrate the market more effectively and easily

According to Amabile et al (1996), creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain and innovation is the successful implementation

of creative ideas within an organization Besides, at the individual level, through

idea generation and implementation, creativity likely develops the innovative products at the organizational level The employees‟ creative outcomes positively

influence organizational innovation and on the contrary, they are also affected by organizational innovation

Next, according to Ensor et al (2001) and Heye (2006), creativity is the generation of ideas and innovation is the implementation of these ideas Innovation has been seen as a process that begins with two creative acts: idea generation and opportunity recognition

The following chart summaries the innovation process:

There were many studies that related to the relationship between individual and organizational creativity Current views on organizational creativity appear to focus largely on outcomes or creative products – goods and

services A creative product has been defined as one that is both novel and original and potentially useful or appropriate to the organization (Amabile, 1996, Mumford and Gustafson, 1998)

In 1993, Redmond et al showed that the individual creativities are the primary source of any new idea while Shalley and Gilson (2004) stated that creative outcomes provide the foundation for organizational innovation Hence, theoretically, the creative performance of employees provides the raw material needed for organizational innovation (Oldham and Cummings, 1996)

At an individual level, Amabile‟s (1997) extensive body of research

suggests that individual creativity essentially requires expertise (knowledge, proficiencies and abilities of people to make creative contributions to their fields), creative-thinking skills (cognitive styles, cognitive strategies and

personality variables), and intrinsic task motivation (the desire to work on something because it is interesting, involving, challenging and rewarding) Her studies confirm that the higher the level that each of these three components, the higher and better the creativity

In the research presented in 1998, Mumford and Gustafson show that many different factors contribute to the generation of creative products at both individual and organizational level In organizations including businesses, through new ideas, creativity make and develop innovation (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003) Additionally, creative ideas must have utility for not only organization but also business organizations They must establish an appropriate response to fill a gap in the production, marketing or administrative processes of the organization Organizational creativity is linked to a risky balance of complexity, compromise and choice The creative organization needs to be flexible while

controlling risk, but at the same time provide the freedom to search for the „new‟

through learning and experimentation There is evidence that supports the view that an environment that is conducive to creativity is critical and is linked both to the culture, the climate, and the physical aspects of the environment There is a systems view of creativity which suggests that creative outcomes are produced in

a creative environment, where creativity as a culture is encouraged and rewarded

In this context, creativity is not confined to a few individuals, but all employees are encouraged to be creative for the benefit of the whole

In organizations, creativity is facilitated when individuals are given maximum discretion in how they organize their work, when self-efficacy is strong, and when information is of high quality Individual and organizational creative development is supported by structures and processes that ensure permeable boundaries, value increasing complexity, and provide safe psychological spaces

In general, individual creativity is concerned with the generation of ideas while team and organizational creativity is concerned with both the generation of ideas and the implementation of these ideas

2.3 The climate concept

Over many years, the climate concept has been consistently described as

employees‟ perceptions of their organizations These perceptions are assumed to

be primarily descriptive rather than affective or evaluative (Schneider & Reichers, 1983) More recent work contradicts this view, suggesting strong evaluative or affective components (Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004) At the

individual level of analysis, referred to as „psychological climate‟ (James &

Jones, 1974), these perceptions represent how working environments are cognitively appraised and represented in terms of their meaning to and importance to the employees in organizations (James & Jones, 1974; James & Sells, 1981)

Most empirical studies have used a synthetic unit of analysis, such as the work group, department, or organization (hence group, departmental, and organizational climate structures) Such climates have been operationally built by aggregating activity of individuals with appropriate level and using the mean to represent climate at that level

2.4 Organizational Climate

The organizational climate theory was first introduced by Kurt Lewin in

1930 in psychological climate study There are proliferations of meanings regarding to the organizational climate definition According to Litwin, the climate itself is powerful, as it can influence the behavior of those who experienced the climate (Stringer, 2002) Ekvall (1996) who had intensively done research for creativity and innovation climate defines climate as an organization attribution, a conglomerate of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors which characterizes life in the organization and exist independently of the perception

and understandings of the organization‟s members As stated by West & Ritcher

(2008) climate refers to the perceptions of the work environment and the term climate can designate description and perception at the individual, group or organizational level of analysis

As the organizational climate can designate the individuals, it is also believed to increase intrinsic motivation of the employees (Goepel, 2011, Ayranci, 2011, De Jong & Den Hartog, 2003 & Ahmed, 1998) According to Vallerand (1997) intrinsic motivation relates to the pleasure perception of doing

behavior Meanwhile, intrinsic motivation is believed to be the most crucial factor to develop innovative work behavior within employees (Amabile, 1996, Patterson, 2005, Hunter et.al, 2007, Ekvall, 2010) This finding also supported by Amabile (2008) who found that in the componential theory, creativity or innovativeness is influenced by three components within the individual; 1) domain relevant skills, 2) creativity relevant processes, 3) intrinsic motivation and one component outside the individual the work environment or

organizational climate

Organizational climate is a concept that can be perplexing (Guion, 1973) Much

of this confusion arose from the plethora of articles that were published around the period the concept became of interest to researchers (Guion, 1973) Since climate is a generic concept, it thus represents many things If climate emphasizes an organizational structure, for example, then the climate definition

will reflect that emphasis If climate emphasizes a person‟s characteristic, then the climate definition reflects that emphasis It‟s the lack of specification that has

created the confusion Powell and Butterfield (1978) emphasized that although organizational climate definitions have changed, it has for the most part been viewed as a property of the organization According to Forehand and Gilmer

(1964), organizational climate is a “set of characteristics that (a) distinguishes it

from other organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) influences

the behavior of people…” (p 362)

This definition of organizational climate has stirred criticism For example, the construct can create an overlap between climate and other organizational variables such as technology (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974) Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) specified several examples: (a) when climate questionnaire items are amassed from satisfaction scales they can create a disconnection; (b) when measurement methods are invariant they can assess less integrally; and, (c) when

a person‟s desirable or undesirable predisposition is glaring, it can confound a climate measure‟s assessment of perceptions; the problem here is that climate

questionnaires are designed to evoke perceptual responses and not attitudinal ones Organizational climate here is the property of the organization (Powell & Butterfield, 1978) Organizational climate is based on the theory that people from

different employee groups have the same perception of organizational climate According to Schneider & Hall (1972), a climate stems from perceptions of many objective events that are produced by an organization and from individual perceptions of values, beliefs, and desires Organizationally produced events

form an interplay between individual perceptions and organizational climate

However, the lack of a theoretical basis for many climate measurement tools have led to many variation in climate dimensions applied in different measures For example, Wilderom, Glunk, and Maslowski (2000) located and summarized 10 studies relating climate to organizational performance They reported that different aspects of climate emerged as important in different studies This diffuse pattern of results partly seems to result to the diversity of methods of assessment of climate used in these studies

The inability to draw clear research conclusions because of insufficient theory and subsequent inconsistent operationalization of climate is complicated The climate instruments have not been confirmed With the exception of some domain-specific climates such as Schneider‟s service climate (Schneider et al.,

1998), there are few measures with demonstrated reliability and validity

A number of culture questionnaires have been published over the last 25 years, but they can also be seen as measures of climate as they tap the surface manifestations of underlying cultural assumptions (Schein, 2000) Again, these instruments suffer from a number of problems including a lack of a theoretical basis, little validity information (Ashkanasy et al., 2000), little or no confirmatory

studies and/or small sample sizes used for their development

A further weakness of climate methodological research is described vaguely or poverty of many items in many climate scales Each item on climate questionnaire should focus clearly on the specific collective unit which

corresponds to the climate being studied (team, department, or organization) Unfortunately, in many studies respondents have not been instructed to focus on

a specific organizational unit, rather than providing descriptions related to their

„working environments‟ (Howe, 1977; Schneider & Reichers, 1983) This

ambiguity is in the frame of reference of climate items It can lead to misunderstand in individuals perceptions Someone thinks that these items asks

them to describe their department and the others suggests these item relates

to the organization (Rousseau, 1988)

A related issue concerns the type of respondents included in studies of organizational climate Organizational climate is a characteristic of an entire

organization and, as Wilderom et al (2000) argue, „it seems crucial that

researchers investigate all sorts of organizational members, representative of all the various hierarchical, departmental, divisional and/or professional entities‟ (p

207) However, investigations often focus only on managerial employees (Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Sheridan, 1992; Denison, 2001; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Weber, 1996) Clearly, for inclusiveness, we need measures of organizational climate that assess the experiences of employees throughout the workforce The content and wording of such measures should therefore be relevant and comprehensible to all organizational members

2.5 Existing measures of Organizational Climate

There are six organizational climate dimensions were analyzed consisted from organizational climate by Stringer, 1968 (Rogers, Miles & Biggs, 1980), Siegel and Kaemmerer (1978), Ekvall (1983), Amabile (1996), Anderson and West (1998), and Patterson (2005) The similarities of the six dimensions are clustered and placed together The table below indicates dimensions and taxonomies found by six scholars

Table 1: Dimension and taxonomies of organizational climate

Authors Name of the mesurement Dimensions

Stringer (1968) Organizational Climate

Questionnaire (OCQ)

Structure, Resposibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standard, conflict and identity

Siegel and Siegel Scale of Support for Leadership, Ownership, Norms for

Kaemmerer (1978) Innovation (SSSI) diversity, Continuous development, and

Consistency Ekvall (1983) Creative Climate Questionnaire

(CCQ)

Challenge/involvement, freedom, trust

& openness, idea time playfulness/humour, conflict, idea support, debate and risk-taking

Supervisory encouragement, Work group supports, Freedom, Sufficient resources, Challenging work, organizational impediments, and workload pressure

Anderson and

West (1998)

Team Climate Inventory (TCI) Vision, Participative safety, Task

orientation, and Support for innovation Patterson et al

(2005)

Organizational Climate Measure (OCM)

Human relation model, internal process model, open system model & rational goal model

2.5.1 Organizational Climate Questionnaire (OCQ)

One of the best-known general measures of organizational climate is the Organizational Climate Questionnaire (OCQ) by Litwin and Stringer (1968) It comprises 50 items that assess nine dimensions of climate Some studies (e.g., Sims & LaFollette, 1975; Muchinsky, 1976) have suggested that a six-factor structure is more appropriate and pointed out that the current nine scales showed poor split-half reliabilities A review by Rogers, Miles, and Biggs (1980) showed that most studies had found six factors and that there was virtually no agreement among researchers regarding the best loaded items on the different factors They concluded that the OCQ lacked validity and was not a consistent measurement device Such measurement problems are not unusual in this area of research and prompted the development of the measure described here

Therefore, in 2002, Stringer has revised his first climate dimensions where

he claims that reward, warmth and support are overlapping each other Thus, Stringer had formulated new climate dimensions which tell all work environment aspects will likely have some influence over how people act There are six

distinct dimensions newly proposed by Stringer; 1) structure, 2) standards, 3) responsibility, 4) recognition, 5) support and 6) commitment These entire six distinct dimensions would assists to increase intrinsic motivation among employees themselves Subsequently, the successful dimensions in actual situation will help people to increase their performance by acting appropriate behavior

2.5.2 Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (SSSI)

Siegel and Kaemmerer (1978) developed a measure to assess organizational climate factors that are found in innovative companies It is it called the Siegel Scale for Innovation (SSSI) In the SSSI, climate is viewed as subjectivistic The measure was based on an analysis of two projects that were launched to simulate creative organizations and that would facilitate the creativity of its employees (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004) The analysis generated

5 dimensions and they are: Leadership, Ownership, Norms for diversity,

Continuous development, and Consistency

2.5.3 Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ)

Ekvall (1983) initiated an extensive review of climate literature From this review, Ekvall, Arvonen, and Waldenstrom-Lindblad (1983) extracted several factors conducive to creativity in the workplace These factors totaled four, namely, mutual trust, challenge and motivation, freedom, and pluralism, which were utilized to create a 50-item questionnaire that contained 8 dimensions

Ekvall and Tångeberg-Anderson (1986) published another version describing 12 dimensions: vision and goals that are shared; the strategies used to obtain goals; leadership; the physical attributes of the work setting; the characteristics of the individuals; the work itself; the system for arranging work; the overall context in which the work unit is imbedded; and the values and norms shared by members of the group) Later that year, Ekvall made modifications and presented a 50-item measure named the Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ), which contained 10 dimensions, namely, dynamism, challenge, freedom, trust and openness, idea support, conflict, debate, idea time, playfulness/humor, and risk-taking

Ekvall (1983) suggested that climate affects how organizational members communicate, solve problems, make decisions, handle conflicts, learn and motivate, and thus, can be reflected through the efficiency and productivity of the organization As a way of illustrating this intervening nature of climate, Ekvall (1996) proposed a model depicted in Figure 2

Figure 2

Ekvall (1983) designed the CCQ to measure creative climate through a snapshot of employee perceptions; in other words, perceptions are based on the present what employees perceive at the time a CCQ is administered to them in lieu of perceptions that reference future or historical perspectives

Ekvall (1987) referred to this perspective as a phenomenological/ subjectivistic model of behavior in organizations in so far that it assumes employees make their conclusions about their perceptions based on interpretations and not on observations (a realistic/ objectivistic model of behavior)

Jones & James (1979) suggested there are some aspects of organizations that are phenomenological rather than objective James (1982) argued that climate measures are designed to identify psychological meaning from responses

As a consequence, “the unit of theory should be the individual” (p 220) This is

of import because Ekvall (1987) did not intend the CCQ to generalize employee

perceptions as representing the whole organization (From Lauer, 1994) This is also important because it poses a similar etic-emic problem, as described in Chapter One, that researchers indiscriminately impose their views and assume that their perceptions of the dimensions are organizationally universal The danger in these assumptions is that researchers are more likely to disseminate information that misrepresents and inadequately understands the whole organization

2.5.4 KEYS

Burnside, Amabile, & Gryskiewicz (1988) developed an inventory, called the Work Environment Inventory (WEI) It arose from a large number of interviews conducted with 120 scientists from research and development laboratories The WEI items were extracted from results of the content analysis

of interviews The results are described below The intent of the 20-minute interviews was to distinguish the personal and environmental aspects, which contributed to workplace creativity and innovation Scientists were given the questions prior to the interview The critical incident technique was applied in the study to exclude personal bias At the time of the interview, they were asked to share examples of a highly creative event at work; the same applied to a situation

at work that included low amounts of creativity

The scientists were told that they could use their discretion to deem what

is creative With permission, interviews were recorded for accuracy Content analysis was applied to the narrative data Results from the content analysis produced four categories: environmental stimulants to creativity; environmental obstacles to creativity; favorable personal characteristics, and unfavorable personal characteristics (Amabile et al 1988)

The environmental stimulants are freedom and control, which includes

control over one‟s own work and ideas; a good project manager who champions

ideas by breaking political boundaries and protects organizational members from pressures and company politics; access to sufficient resources such as facilities,

information, funds, and people, encouragement, which includes management‟s

excitement for and commitment to idea research, a non evaluative atmosphere,

and management‟s orientation towards risk-taking; various organizational

characteristics such as a mechanism to consider ideas or effective communication between departments; recognition and feedback for work completed; sufficient time for experimenting with and developing ideas; challenging work; appropriate amount of pressure; and, a miscellaneous category which included stimulants

outside the organization or within the scientist‟s field

The environmental obstacles are: poor organizational climate, which included factors such as unfair distribution of rewards; lack of cooperation; procedures and communication channels, political problems, mobility within the workplace; work constraints such as lack of freedom in deciding what projects to complete and how it should be completed, and the lack of empowerment over

one‟s work; organizational disinterest, which involves a lack of psychological

support; poor project management, which includes unclear goals, poorly defined problems, and poor scientific or managerial skills; evaluation and pressure; insufficient resources; insufficient time to work on tasks; emphasis on the status quo; miscellaneous other factors such as technological innovation that had an adverse influence on output or working alone; and competition such as interpersonal rivalry

The favorable personal characteristics included: (1) various personality traits such as curiosity, energy, honesty, persistence, (2) self-motivation, (3) special cognitive abilities like creative thinking, (4) risk orientation, (5) expertise

in the area, (6) group qualities such as synergy and social qualities, (7) diverse experience, (8) social skills, (9) brilliance, and (10) naiveté of new hires, for example, that generate ideas based on the unfamiliar surroundings and without imposed organizational cultural constraints The unfavorable personal characteristics included: (1) unmotivated, (2) unskilled or inexperienced, (3) inflexible, (4) externally motivated, (5) miscellaneous, and (6) socially unskilled

Items were extracted from the environmental stimulant and obstacle sub themes to create the WEI The Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina, had used both the WEI and interviews to determine an

organization‟s creative climate Results were utilized to make recommendations

to stakeholders for improving their work climate The WEI was further

developed into a questionnaire that is now referred to as KEYS It is a 78-item questionnaire that asks employees to rate their perceptions of their current work environment according to ten scales that are subsumed in three primary categories The categories and scales are described below

The KEYS category for assessing environmental stimulants to creativity has six subscales: (1) organizational encouragement, (2) supervisory encouragement, (3) work group supports, (4) freedom, (5) sufficient resources, and (6) challenging work The KEYS category for assessing environmental obstacles to creativity has two scales: (1) organizational impediments, and (2) workload pressure The KEYS category for assessing work outcomes has two scales: (1) creativity, and (2) productivity The psychometric properties of KEYS are strong in light of the twelve years that have been invested in developing the instrument

Figure 3 illustrates a conceptual model that underlies KEYS In this model, the plus sign indicates a positive relationship between the scale and creativity and is referred as a stimulant scale The minus sign indicates a negative relationship between the scale and creativity and is referred as an obstacle scale

Figure 3

KEYS is based on the notion that climate is an intervening variable and uses definitions closely associated with those of Ekvall (1983) and Schneider (1975) in that they see organizational climate as an ongoing interaction between people (e.g., different styles, personalities) and the organizational setting KEYS and its underlying model, as shown below, focus on individuals‟

perceptions and how they influence creativity at several levels of the organization (Amabile et al 1996) The level of analysis employed by KEYS is multiple and takes into account the total work environment (Amabile et al 1996)

2.5.5 Team Climate Inventory (TCI)

Anderson and West (1998) developed the TCI as means to measure work group climate for innovation The measure targets team development initiatives

to foster creativity (Anderson & West, 1998) This measure was created using a four-factor model hypothesizing climate factors that foster creativity in teams and they are: Vision (the extent to which clarity exists between team goals and visions); Participative safety (the extent to which shared decision making exists

in teams and the environment is perceived as non-threatening); Task orientation (the extent to which team members share similar concerns regarding excellence

in quality of task performance); and, Support for innovation (the extent to which there exists expectation, approval, and practical support when introducing new ways of doing things) TCI items were extracted from measures such as the

SSSI that fit the four-factor model

2.5.6 Organizational Climate Measure (OCM)

Patterson et al (2005) published a proprietary tool they called the Organizational Climate Measure (OCM) The OCM demonstrated sound psychometric qualities for 17 lower-order work practices While hypothesizing a higher-order factor structure mirroring the four factors of the Competing Values Framework (including factors for human relations, internal processes, open systems and rational goal; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983), Patterson et al found only weak empirical support for such a higher-order structure A possible explanation for their limited success may have been their use of a model of values to develop a measure of climate If, as discussed earlier, practices and values are separate subsets of culture, and if climate can be equated to the measurement of practices, it is perhaps not surprising in hindsight that a factor structure for values may not map neatly on a factor structure for climate

2.5.7 Choosing Measurement for organizational innovation climate:

From these above instruments, only two instruments (KEYS: Assessing the Climate for Creativity and Team Climate Inventory) had acceptable scientific quality method and were well documented in literature (Mathiesen and Einarsen, 2004) The difference between the two instruments is that the KEYS approach sees climate as individual perceptions of environmental factors on different levels: organizational, supervisory, group and individual, whereas the Team

Climate Inventory‟s approach views climate as Shared perceptions and assesses

team climate Mathiesen and Einarsen (2004) conclude that the key finding from these studies is work environment quality Have an impact on the level of creativity and innovation in group and organizations?

Ensor et al (2001, 2006) produced some interesting studies on the work

environment for creativity in the UK advertising industry using the KEYS tool‟s

dimension model: the first study consists of 30 in-depth interviews whereas the latter makes use of the KEYS instrument tool and aims to identify whether the work environment of advertising agencies display the key elements of the conceptual categories that Amabile et al hypothesis influence organizational creativity On the whole, Ensor et al ‟s (2006) findings support Amabile et al.‟s

conceptual framework, however further refinements of the KEYS instrument are suggested especially on the challenging work and workload pressure scales, which seems to reinforce Mathiesen and Einarsen (2004)‟s findings concerning

the need to further improve the KEYS instrument

Although creativity is a desirable skill to nurture, there are some people who advocate a more balanced view on managing innovation and change In The Ambidextrous Organization, Birkinshaw and Gibson (2005) advocate the achievement by organizations of the right balance between adaptability (the ability to plan for the future) and alignment (the ability to deal with present) They use the example of Ericsson which was hit hard during a crash in the telecom industry and was forced to concentrate on the present and to close many

of its technology centers This shows the negative impact when this balance is not achieved They also stress the need to assess their organizational context and offer a simple tool to use but it gives a quick indication of some quantitative measurement

KEYS was designed to provide reliable and valid assessments of aspects

of organizational work environment perceptions that are likely to influence the generation and development of creative ideas (Amabile et al., 1995) Each item addresses all positive and negative aspects of the work environment described as

in Figure 3 KEYS was intended to serve as a tool for research and theory development, particularly for scholars interested in understanding contextual influences on creative behavior in work organizations The Center for Creative Leadership has been contacted to get the questionnaire KEYS This instrument retests reliability, their convergent validity, and their discriminate validity This instrument is an acceptable scientific quality and is well documented in peer-

reviewed literature (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004) The current version of KEYS includes 78 items, 66 describe the work environment, the remaining 12 items are i two work performance criteria: the creativity (6 items) and productivity (6 items)

From the above discussion, the author decide use Keys as measurement scale in this study Before come to the other part, it is necessary to clarify dimensions of this instrument

2.5.7.1 Organizational Encouragement

The organizational encouragement focus on the organizational orientation towards the innovation and the organizational supportation for the creativity and the innovation The organizational encouragement refers to several aspects within the organization (1) The first is encouragement to give a value to the creativity Cabrales, Medina, Lavado & Cabrera (2008) show that the development of risk-taking attitudes within the organization is associated with radical innovation (2) The second main aspect is reward Amabile (1993) showed that reward perceived as a bonus can stimulate creativity, whereas the mere engagement in an activity to obtain a reward can be detrimental toward it

In a recent study, Farmer, Tierney & Kung-McIntyre (2003) revealed that third aspect is recognition A study showed that different dimensions of work motivation and satisfaction are significantly correlated and reward and recognition have great impact on motivation of the employees (Danish & Usman, 2010) Godkin, Parayitam & Natarajan, (2010) found that the source of recognition and attitude towards recognition is positively related to preference for rewards

This drives us to hypothesis 1a: The encouragement of organization has

great impact on creative outcomes

2.5.7.2 Supervisory Encouragement

Several studies have pointed to the role of project managers or direct supervisors (1) The main aspect is goal clarity Arvey, Dewhirst, & Boling (1976) showed that goal clarity were factors linearly and positively related to individual satisfaction Goal clarity is very important to create a vision

perspective (2) The second aspect is the open interactions between supervisors and subordinates Some studies have been focused on the relationship between exchange quality and supervisor and subordinate attitudes and behaviors (Wayne

et al., 1990) Because exchange quality can significantly affect the job-related behaviors, it is important to understand what determines or influences this dimension of the supervisor subordinate working relationship The procedural relations have a negative effect whereas the support, the encouragement, autonomy, the confidence and the valorization of the creativity have a positive effect Indeed, the styles of supervision are harmful when they define a hierarchical environment intimidating and not leaving to the creative individuals‟

opportunity of being expressed personally (3) The third aspect is supervisory support of a related to supervisor support and guidance

Thus, the author expects:

Hypothesis 1b: the supervisor encouragement is positively related to

creative outcomes

2.5.7.3 Work Group Supports

Research on work teams is focused on factors that affect team effectiveness The group literature suggests a variety of factors that can inhibit or facilitate teamwork and creativity A “work group” is a social entity embedded in

one or more larger social systems The work group support refers to several aspects within the organization The first relevant aspect is trust A number of studies have shown employee trust to be a critical variable affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations (Mayer & Davis, 1999; Searle et al., 2009) In the context of inter-organizational relationships, trust has been identified as essential to foster innovation (Bachmann, 2001) Dirks & Ferrin, (2001) and Mayer & Davis (2007) show that trust has positive effects on attitudes, perceptions, behaviors, and performance outcomes within organizational settings Empirical work of Dirks and Ferrin (2001) confirmed that trust supports cooperation Schoorman, Mayer & Davis (2007) propose an integrated model of organizational trust This model argued that trust lead to risk taking in relationship The second relevant aspect is mutual help Madjar,

Oldham, & Pratt (2002) found that work support, as help, from both colleagues and supervisors positively predicted employee creativity

Consequently, the author predict:

Hypothesis 1c: Work group supports are positively related to employee

creativity

2.5.7.4 Autonomy or Freedom

Intrinsic motivation is a fundamental basis for creativity and innovation Intrinsic motivation emerges when team members are provided with the autonomy to carry their task and to be responsible for its completion (Amabile, 1993)

Several researchers have concluded that creativity is fostered when individuals and teams have relatively high autonomy in the day-to-day conduct

of the work and a sense of ownership and control over their own work and their own ideas (Bailyn, 1985; King & West, 1985; Paolillo & Brown, 1978; Pelz & Andrews, 1966; West, 1986) Studies of creativity have revealed that individuals produce more creative work when they perceive themselves to have choice in how to go about accomplisbing the tasks that they are given (e.g., Amabile & Gitomer, 1984)

The author predicts:

Hypothesis 1d: The freedom of individuals has positive relation with the

employee creativity

2.5.7.5 Resources

Some researchers have suggested that resource allocation to projects is directly related to makers in work environment deals with the efficient and equitable allocation of scarce resources to individuals and groups (Eek & Selart, 2009)

Hypothesis 1e: The resources has positive relation with the employee

creativity

2.5.7.6 Pressures

Some research has found that the intellectual challenging nature of a problem could have a positive influence on creativity Performance team has been investigated in challenging work environments (Haas, 2006) It is necessary

to distinguish two distinct forms of pressure, excessive workload pressure and challenge, the first should have a negative influence on creativity and the second should have a positive influence

Some researchers have found that extreme workload pressure could undetermined necessary to distinguish two distinct forms of pressure, excessive workload pressure and challenge, the first should have a negative influence

on creativity and the second should have a positive influence

This drives us to these hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 1f: Challenging work has a positive effect with creative

Bases on the discussion, the author expects:

Hypothesis 2b: Organizational Impediments have negative impact on creative outcomes

2.5.8 Hypothesized Research Model

For innovation to occur, something more than the generation of a creative idea or insight is required: the insight must be put into action to make a genuine difference, resulting for example in new or altered business processes within the organization, or changes in the products and services provided

From the mentioned above, in general, the author shows that:

Hypothesis 1: The work environment stimulant scales on KEYS will he

rated significantly higher in projects rated as highly creative than in projects rated as less creative Thus, ratings should be significantly higher in the high- creativity projects than in the low-creativity projects for the following scales: (la) organizational encouragement, (lb) supervisory encouragement, (lc) work group supports, (1d) freedom, (le) sufficient resources, and (1f) challenge

Hypothesis 2: The work environment obstacle scales on KEYS will be

rated significantly lower in projects rated as highly creative than in projects rated as less creative Thus, ratings should be significantly lower in the high- creativity projects than in the low-creativity projects for the following scales: (2a) workload pressure and (2b) organizational impediments

Table 2 Effect of Independent variables on Dependent Variable Summary Independent

Figure 4 Conceptual Research Model

Encouragement of Creative

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2 states the basic literature of creativity, organizational innovation, the way to measure the elements influence to climate for creativity The literature is the foundation of the research on Chapter 3

Chapter 3 will introduce the methodology that is utilized for this research

in adjusting and assessing the measurement scale Special attention will be given

to the survey, the population sample, the instrumentation, and data analysis and data collection The main content of this chapter consists of two parts:

(1) Research design states research process, qualitative, quantitative method

(2) The measurement scales assesses concepts that is mentioned in this study as follow: Organizational Encouragement, Supervisory Encouragement, Work Group Supports, Autonomy or Freedom, Sufficient Resources, Challenging Work, Workload Pressure, Organizational Impediments and examines the impact of these factors on Creativity

A descriptive is objected “to portray an accurate profile of persons, events

or situation” (Robin, 2002) It may either be an extension of a piece of

exploratory research or explanatory research (Saunder et al., 2009) It often

answer the questions- who, what, where, when and how

An explanatory research is used to established causal relationship between variables (Saunder et al., 2009) This study often answers the questions – what and why

Regarding to this thesis, the research purpose is mainly explanatory and partly descriptive It is mainly explanatory because it explains how the factors of

organizational environment affect the creative outcomes It is partly descriptive because it aims to bring a clear picture of the climate for creativity in Vietnam‟s

Research Model and Hypothesis

Draft questionnaire - Pilot test

(Wording (n=5) and scale’s internal

There are 2 sub-phases in the pilot study The sub-phase 1 refers to the pre-defined interview with a group of 5 target participants The study was carried out to check up the content and meaning of words in the measurement scales The sub-phase 2 was conducted using face-to-face interview with a larger group

of 50 target participants It was done to ensure the internal consistency and quality of response in order to examine the internal consistence of measurement scales, response rate, and quality of response It served as the background for modifying the measurement questions Based on the results, necessary adjustments were made and the final questionnaire could be completed for the main study in next step

After the pilot study, the main study was conducted using combination of face-to-face and online survey The purposes of the main study were to testing the reliability and validity of the scale, to analyze multiple linear regressions of the independent variables on the dependent variable, to test the hypotheses and to confirm the research models

3.3 Questionnaire design

3.3.1 Questionnaire development

A questionnaire, also called measuring instrument is defined as a formalized set of questions for obtaining information from respondents (Malhotra, 1996) Any questionnaire has three specific objectives First of all, it should transform necessary information related to the study into a list of questions that the respondents could answer Secondly, the questionnaire should bring about good dynamic, thus encourage respondents to participate in the interviews and complete the questionnaire Thirdly, the questionnaire should ensure minimum response errors (Malhotra, 1996)

According to componential parameters (Amabile et al., 1996), the current version of KEYS includes 78 items, 66 describe the work environment, the remaining 12 items are included to gauge the respondent‟s assessments of two

work performance criteria: the creativity (6 items) and productivity (6 items) In our study, in order to reduce the number of question, we have chosen an abbreviated version of KEYS instrument and focus on the factors influence to creativity The questionnaire in this study contained 2 main sections:

The first part consisted of total 38 items divided into 9 groups responding

9 factors requiring measurement in the research model: Organizational Encouragement, Supervisory Encouragement, Work Group Supports, Autonomy

or Freedom, Sufficient Resources, Challenging Work, Workload Pressure, Organizational Impediments and Creativity In this part, the respondents were asked to identify the extent to which they agree/disagree with the statements related to creative climate in the work environment of their organization To avoid confusion among the respondents, eeach item was measured on seven-

point scale on which 1 represents “strongly disagree” and 7 represents “strongly agree” Minor changes to questionnaire response formats do not affect their

validity (Matell & Jacoby, 1971) and a magic seven number with a neutral position is suggested as an optimal choice (Cox III, 1980; Preston, 2000; Tang, Shaw, & Vevea, 1999)

The second part of the questionnaire consisted of some demographic information on gender, age, marriage status, education level, experience years, occupation, wage, type of business and working address

Table 3 Number of Items in each variable

Original Keys scale Abbreviated

the organization Organizational Encouragement would be evaluated based on abbreviated KEYS scale with 4 criteria that is signed from OE1 to OE4

OE1: We are encouraged to develop new ideas

OE2: Creative work is valued and recognized

OE3: People receive fair and constructive feedback about their new ideas OE4: We know what our organization wants to achieve

3.3.2.2 Supervisory Encouragement

The supervisor encouragement regards to the actions of a supervisor, who serves as a good work model, such as sets goals appropriately, supports the work group, values individual contributions, encourage and foster the subordinate staff and shows confidence in the work group This variable consisted of 5 items:

SE1: My boss serves as a good work model

SE2: My boss shows confidence in my work

SE3: My boss sets goals appropriately

SE4: I can talk freely and openly with my boss

SE5: My boss encourages me to take risks and failure is acceptable

3.3.2.3 Work Group Supports

A diversity skilled work group, in which supports 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 Group Supports was measured by 6 items:

WGS1: We get along well and treat each other fairly

WGS2: People‟s different backgrounds help us to develop new ideas

WGS3: We respect everyone‟s contributions

WGS4: We like to pick each other‟s brains as it offers a variety of options

to resolve problems

WGS5: We have a shared commitment to make our project a success WGS6: We constructively challenge each other‟s ideas

3.3.2.4 Freedom

Freedom in deciding what work to do or how to do it; a sense of control

over one‟s work Freedom was evaluated by 3 items:

FR1: I have freedom to decide what work to do

FR2: I have freedom to decide how I am going to carry out my own work FR3: I have freedom the sense of control over my work

3.3.2.5 Sufficient Resources

Sufficient Resources includes resources such as funds, materials, facilities and information Sufficient Resources was measured by 4 items:

SR1: I can get the fund I need for my work

SR2: I can get the materials I need for my work

SR3: I can get the facilities I need for my work

SR4: I can get the information I need for my work

3.3.2.6 Challenging Work

Challenging Work has a sense of having to work hard on challenging tasks and important projects Challenging Work was evaluated by 4 items:

CW1: My work provides me with stimulating challenges

CW2: The tasks in my work are challenging

CW3: I feel challenged by the work I am currently doing

CW4: I have to work hard on challenging task and important projects

3.3.2.7 Workload Pressure

Workload Pressure means extreme time pressures, unrealistic expectations for productivity, distractions from creative work Workload Pressure was measured by 4 items They are:

WL1: I have too much work to do in too little time

WL2: I feel a sense of time pressure in my work

WL3: Deadlines have a positive impact on my work

WL4: I feel too often distracted by colleagues, emails …

3.3.2.8 Organizational Impediments

Organizational Impediments are impediments that effect to creativity through internal political problems, harsh criticism of new ideas, destructive internal competition, an avoidance of risk, and an overemphasis on the status quotation Organizational Impediments was evaluated by 3 items:

OI1: There are many political problems in my organization

OI2: The internal competition is high and people do not trust each other.OI3: I don‟t dare doing anything different for fear of failing or being

negatively criticized

3.3.2.9 Creative Outcomes

This scale with five items was used to measure creativity across individuals, teams, and organizations was combination of Amabile et al.‟s

(1996) creativity scale and Scott and Bruce‟s (1994) innovative behaviour scale

The scale is:

CREA1: I believe that I am currently very creative in my work

CREA2: A great deal of creativity is called for in my daily work

CREA3: Overall, my current work environment is conducive to my own

creativity

CREA4: At work, I always promote and champion ideas to others

CREA5: I always investigate and secure the funds needed to implement

new ideas

3.4 Translation of the Questionnaire

3.4.1 Structure of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of two main parts, of which the first part was concerned with the level of agreement or disagreement of the respondents upon different factors The other part investigated respondents‟ demographic

information which included gender, age, marriage status, education level, experience years, occupation, wage, type of business and working address

Table 4: Description of Scales adopted in the study

1 Organizational Encouragement abbreviated version of KEYS

No Key factors Scale adopted

5 Sufficient Resources abbreviated version of KEYS

8 Organizational Impediments abbreviated version of KEYS

(Amab ile et al.‟s, 1996)

9 Creative Outcomes (Amabile et al.‟s, 1996)

and Scott and Bruce‟s (1994)

Table 5: Demographic characteristic questions and range of responses

No Questions Paper-based Questionnaire Web-based Questionnaire

working at

Engineer/Marketing/ Accountant/ Advertising/ Architect/Sales/ Consultant/ Other Under 5 mil VND/ 5-10/ 11-15/ above 15 mil VND Private/ Corporation / State / Foreign Hochiminh City/ Hanoi/

Da Nang/ Nha Trang / Other

3.4.2 Method of translation

Surveys were translated and back-translated into Vietnamese in line with cross cultural translation procedures (Harkness & Schoua-Glusberg, 1998) Translation procedure used the committee approaches Committee or parallel translation requested the participation of some translators Based on the original questionnaire, as instructed by Brislin (1980) (cited in Harkness & Schoua-Glusberg, 1998), the translations were simultaneously and independently

implemented The purpose of back translation was to compare and refer the translated version with the source language version, so that the quality of the translated version could be evaluated After that, the translators compared different translation versions and chose the final one

Based on back translation, the process of translation was done in a rather careful and complicated manner in the present study At the beginning step, the original English Questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese by three different people, who did the translation independently After that, the three English-Vietnamese translation versions were translated by three other different people once again but in the contrary direction from Vietnamese into English Therefore, there were totally three new English versions of the Questionnaire, from which a foreign expert, specifically an English native lecturer, was asked to choose the version that had the most similar meaning with the original English Questionnaire Finally, the Vietnamese version, from which the English Questionnaire was translated and chosen as the best-translated by the native lecturer was taken for the Survey

3.5 Research strategy

3.5.1 Qualitative pilot study

When the translation of the questionnaire was completed, the pretest or called alpha test would be carried out with the participation of 5 individuals similar to the target sample Participants of this study would not be interviewed

in the main study in next step

Wording

- There was no typographical error and no misspelled word ensuring that

respondents have read exactly what was asked in Vietnamese

- A number of words were quite academic and for some of them, respondents

needed longer time and could understand in different meanings Therefore, these were replaced by more simple words

- A common error in translating was that, for a number of items, English

literary style was still present after translation Therefore, revision was made to transform the translation closer to Vietnamese literary style

- Some items were sensitive to cultural barriers For example, people might

not want to state age or the highest level of completed education By putting these items at the end of the questionnaire they did not have negative effect on answering other questions and missing data was also reported in only a few cases

The comments related to the translation of the questionnaire were mainly suggestions concerning words and phrases that make the translations better and the questions more understandable for Vietnamese respondents, e.g “Tôi tin rằng” was revised to “Tôi cho rằng”, “yêu cầu cao về sáng tạo” was replaced to

“đòi hỏi sự sáng tạo rất nhiều”, “cầu tiến và bảo vệ ý kiến” was revised to “phát huy và bảo vệ ý tưởng”, “luôn nghiên cứu và đảm bảo chi phí cần thiết” was

replaced to “luôn tìm nguồn tài trợ để đảm bảo đủ vốn”, “luôn nêu gương” was

revised to “là tấm gương sáng”, “tự do” was replaced to “quyền” After the

revision finished, the author had the final draft questionnaire

Designing

- Font Arial at size 10 was easy and clear for respondents to read

- The length of the questionnaire was suggested to be 2 pages only The

introduction paragraph should be as short as possible (i.e., around 10 lines) and it should be placed at the top of the first page but not the whole first page

3.5.2 Quantitative pilot study

In this quantitative pilot study (or beta test), the author used the final draft questionnaire completed in the above qualitative pilot study to carry out interviews with subjects of the study The author distributed 57 questionnaires to

57 people Based on the data collected, the evaluation of the questionnaire was processed, e.g did the subjects of the study understand the questions correctly? Did they have information to answer? Were they willing to provide information?

In this step, the author received 50 answered questionnaires from the respondents The reliability and validity of the measurement scales was preliminarily tested with collected data using Cronbach alpha and exploratory factor analysis Based on the preliminary results, the author made necessary adjustments, so that the final questionnaire could be ready for the main study