Using Ekvall's criteria, my current employment received a total score of 21, indicating a moderately creative environment. I see why indicators and dimensions used to assess creative output in the workplace include playfulness and humor. Dynamism and vitality are two of the most common metrics to evaluate creativity. The criteria used are adequate for gauging the level of creativity present in a given workplace. Providing administrative backing and the readiness to financially back workers' inventive ideas crossed my mind. For instance, a positive working environment may encourage employees to share their thoughts and suggestions, particularly those from upper management. Considering these factors, I do not need to add other aspects to this evaluation. * Due to the difficulty in gauging employees' levels of intrinsic motivation to work toward the organization's long-term goals, assessing risk-taking and conflict dimensions is particularly tricky. Conflict exists in all workplaces but rarely escalates to the point where it becomes destructive. Based on the results, I have high hopes for the creative culture. Freedom, Idea Time, and Idea Support all received good marks. The lowest score was risk-taking, debate, and conflict. We can thank this dismal result partly for the company's lack of originality. 

1. Do you agree or disagree with the need for additional dimensions?
2. Were you surprised that Ekvall included only one dimension that is negatively correlated?
3. What conclusions can you draw from that fact? Do you agree or disagree with the post about the dimension that is the most difficult to assess?