Page 1 of 8
STYLE MATTERS
UNDERSTANDING AND LEVERAGING COGNITIVE DIVERSITY
The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (“KAI”)
Successful collaboration requires individualsto effectively manage and leverage differences in problem-solving style, i.e., cognitive diversity. The challenge is that while cognitive diversitygenerally means greater ability tosolvea wider range of problems, it can also distract from the work. Increasing awareness and understanding of differences and theirimplications for collaboration is a necessary step in developingstrategies for both leveraging and reducing the friction often resulting from different styles.
Because we work together to solve problems in both our personal and business lives, understanding diversity makes for better personal relationships, work, and working relationships.
The Paradox of Structure
At the core of problem solving is creativity, and all people are creative. All people use their creativity to solve problems that arise from an ever-changing environment. All people, however, do not similarly deal with a critical facet of problem solving: the paradox of structure. The paradox of structure is the seemingly incongruous fact that structure both enables and limits one’s ability to solve a problem. The structure, whether it be in the form of rules, norms, or the “way its always been done,” enables problem solving by providing the mechanism or rules by which to solve a problem. The structure, however, also limits one’s ability to solve a problem by eliminating options and delineating strategies that are outside the paradigm or that break the rules and are therefore not viable solutions.
People have a fixed preference for dealing with the paradox of structure. Some prefer to use the structure to solve problems and more easily tolerate the structure’s limitations because the structure provides a ready and workable solution. Others prefer to ignore or fail to notice structure when problem solving. The latter group is generally more focused on flexibility than efficiency and is less attached to the system currently in place.
While people can and do utilize a variety of problem solving styles, it is important to remember that behavior is not preference. Thus, people are able to solve many types of problems and will use a nonpreferred style as appropriate. Thus, what a person actually does to solve a problem is behavioral and not determinative of preferred style.
The KAI
The KAI measures a person’s preferred way of managing the paradox of structure. The KAI puts creativity and problem solving style on a continuum from more Adaptive to more Innovative, as shown below. A valuable aspect of the KAI is that it quantifies gaps in cognitive diversity and thus provides a framework for understanding the corresponding implications. Gaps can occur between two people, a person and a task, a person and a team, and between teams.
Understanding implications of the gap facilitates: (1) the understanding and distinguishing between cognitive styles and levels; (2) the leveragingof one’s own style and others’ styles for greater success;(3) the deliberatebridging and coping(see below) for more effective collaborations; and (4) better teamwork.
The Adaption-Innovation Continuum
By measuring style on a continuum (above), the KAI quantifies problem-solving strengths and challenges resulting from a person’s style relative to another. Scores are normally distributed between 45 to 145, with a mean of approximately 95 anda standard deviation of approximately 18 points. One’s score describes style not level. Thus, a score of 130 is not better than a score of 60. Rather, the number describes whether one is more Adaptive or more Innovative. In considering scores, it is important to remember that the scores are relative and not absolute (unless the person is at an extreme on the continuum). Thus, a person with a score of 80 is more innovative than a colleague with a score of 65 even though 80 is more Adaptive than the mean of 95.
Adaption and Innovation Defined
In general, people with a more Adaptive style prefer to solve problems by working within the structure, rules, or norms. In fact, they use the rules to solve the problem. People with a more Innovative style prefer to solve problemsirrespective of the structure, rules, or whatever norms are in place. They ignore the rules or solve problems in spite of the rules.
Most people are in the midzone, as reflected by the normal distribution above. Their problem-solving style reflects their place on the A-I continuum. They may use rules to solve certain problems and not others. Their solutions may ignore or, at times, change the rules to solve any particular problem. They may be more comfortable with less detail and more willing to pilot ideas than someone with a very low score, i.e., a high Adapter. They likely will care more about “how things are done” and group norms than a high Innovator. A person with a score in the mid-zone is able to bridge the gap, or act as an interpreter, between people with scores on either side of their score.
People who are close to each other on the continuum (i.e., within 10 points) will have a very similar problem-solving style and will tend to work well together. People who are more than 20 points from each other on the continuum will approach problem solving differently. People with scores 40 points or more apart will approach problem solving very differently and likely experience difficulty collaborating unless they devise strategies for dealing with the gap. The table below summarizes the differences in style.
SUMMARY PROBLEM-SOLVING STYLESMore Adaptive Style / More Innovative Style
Prefer more structure
Sensitive to norms/people’s expectations
Target ideas
Master details
Consistent
More prudent risk takers / Prefer less structure
Prepared to ruffle groups
Proliferate ideas
Less constrained by how it’s been done
Challenge assumptions
More daring risk takers
The KAI score is comprised of three components: sufficiency of originality, efficiency, and rule and group conformity. Sufficiency of originality describes idea-generation style. Efficiency describes methodology of problem solving. Rule and group conformity describes the management of structure in terms of bothimpersonal structures such as rules and personal structures such as collaboration norms. Summary tables, provided below, give an overview of each component in the context of more Adaptive and more Innovative styles.
Originality = Idea Generation
Produce fewer ideas / Produce many ideas
Ideas are manageable, concrete / Some seen as exciting
Relevant, sound, safe and
for immediate use / ‘Blue sky’ or
‘New dawn’
Expect high success rate / Tolerate high failure rate
Efficiency = Methodology
Be precise, reliable, methodical,thorough / Think tangentially
Pay attention to detail / Approachtasks from unsuspected angles
Welcome change as animprover / Welcome change as a moldbreaker
Seek solutions to problems
in tried and tested ways / Manipulate the problem, questioning
its basic assumptions
Rule & Group Conformity = Management of Structure
Be prudent withauthority / Be radical
Solve problems by use of rules / Alter rules to solve problems
Challenge rules rarely and usually
whensupported by consensus / Challenge rules, customs and
consensualviews
Style v. Level
The KAI measures style, not level, of creativity in problem solving. Distinguishing style from level is critical because failure to do so can result in undervaluing others and their potential for solving the problem at hand. Remember:
Style is how a person solves problems.
Level is how well a person solves problems.
The failure to distinguish style from level can distract from collaboration because people often mistake differences in style for incompetence, i.e., that others are low level. It sounds something like:
“Adam is in such a rut. In fact, I don’t think he’s ever
even looked outside the box much less had a good idea.”
or
“Ian is so impractical. I wish he’d stop wasting our time
with his ridiculous ideas. We have work to do!”
Whether one is more likely to dismiss Adam, who is more Adaptive, or Ian, who is more Innovative, depends on one’s own style. Moreover, disdain for Adam or Ian is likely a consequence of one’s own failure to distinguish difference in style from lack of ability. Thus, recognizing cognitive diversity and its benefits is critical to transforming annoyance and contempt for differences into appreciation and the power to truly leverage another’s style to effectively resolve a broader range of problems.
Bridging
When two people working together have KAI scores with a difference of greater than 20 points, a bridgercan facilitate effective collaboration between the more Adaptive and the more Innovative.The goal is to help others communicate and collaborate more effectively so that the team can accomplish its goals, leveraging each member’s style. Whether a bridger is helpful depends on the distance between the scores not whether the scores are on different sides of the mean of 95. Thus, a bridgercould facilitate collaboration between a person with a scores of 110 and 145 but is unnecessary if the scores are 90 and 99.
Coping
People often “cope,” which means using a nonpreferred style to effectively deal with a gap between preferred style and another person’s style, task, or group. It is stressful to cope consistently over a long period of time. So, for example, if aperson with a score of 124 has a role that constantly requires a score of 65-style creativity and problem solving, that person is likely to be stressed and is advised to consider strategies delegating or reassigning work so that the person uses his or her own style more regularly.
KAI Applied: Examples
The KAI score distribution reflects a typical team or variation among individuals. The examples below demonstrate how knowing one’s KAI style and making educated guesses about others’ style can yieldvaluable insight, and hence foresight, regarding more effective collaboration, managing, leading, working with existing clients and wooing business, as the case may be.
The KAI Team Score Distribution
Internal-Team Example: Ned (145) is the CFO and is responsible for managing the accounting department. Anna (70), Lou (83), Todd (85), and Jon (86) are continually frustrated and stressed by Ned’s lack of direction and crazy ideas. Anna has already begun interviewing for another position in the company. Ned is frustrated – he complains that his team is “stuck in the weeds.” He is tired of managing the team, needs to spend time on more important, big-picture issues, and decides to have his deputy Monica (110) take over day to day management of the team.
Monica knows the team well and begins to “translate” Ned’s directives into more concrete terms, acting as a bridge. She first makes sure she understands his goals, and then works with the team to devise a plan. The team is relieved that Monica steps in and bridges the gap.
Monica coaches Anna, Lou, Todd, and Jon to cope, i.e.,employ a more innovative style when working with Ned. She suggests that they accept Ned’s seemingly nebulous style and tangential thinking when working directly with him. For example, when brainstorming with Ned, Monica says, “Don’t worry about implementation -- focus on the ideas and possibilities instead.” She also suggests that they take Ned’s direction as the guidelines for creating a plan for resolving the issue and empowers them to generate an implementation plan with milestones. This way they have the structure necessary to solve the challenges they face.
Client Example: Greta (110) is the general counsel of a computer software firm that is seeking to acquire a start up in order to get its hands on proprietary software and eliminate its competition. Greta hires Medium Law to close the deal. Oscar (125) and Madison (145) head the multi-disciplinary legal team. Overall, Greta is satisfied with the firm’s work. There’s just one thing: Madison drives her nuts with crazy ideas that seem to have no grounding in reality or hope of succeeding. She worries that Madison is sloppy or ignores the practicalities and details. “What kind of lawyer is she!? How can she expect anything to work if she doesn’t spend the time to figure it out?” Greta complains.
Oscar senses there is a problem and wants to be sure that they don’t lose the client or that Gretakicks Madison off the team. He values Madison’s insight and different way of thinking. Oscar pulls Madison aside and explains that Greta needs strategies and ideas to be more fully thought through and detailed for her to understand and adopt them. He further explains that Greta is mistaking Madison’s big picture, out-of-the-box thinking for sloppiness.
They devise a strategy for working more effectively with Greta: (i) Madison will present ideas to Oscar first so that he can help her figure out the best way to present her thinking to Greta and (ii) Oscar will participate in most of the calls and meetings so that he can “translate” andbridgethe gap between Madison and Greta.
Oscar also coaches Madison to copeso her interactions with Greta are more effective. Madison focuses on making her ideas more concrete and detailed so that Greta can see the possibility for success, rather than be distracted and concerned by the lack of detail. Madison also learns that when she introduces truly new thinking – something that she now acknowledges can overwhelm others – shelets others know the ideas need a lot of work before being seriously considered as a strategy. Oscar agrees to give Madison “the look” in meetings with Greta when she needs to be more concrete.
Greta’s CEO Penelope is another story. Penelope (85) can’t stand lawyers -- even her own general counsel at times. She doesn’t understand how they get anything done with all of their crazy thinking. She thinks it is ironic that lawyers go to school to figure out how to work with rules, yet seem to disregard them at every turn. After years of working together, Greta has figured out how to cope with Penelope. Before presenting an idea to Penelope, Greta works through all the details, making sure she can explain step-by-step how the idea would be implemented. While Greta always manages to overlook an issue, Penelope seems to have warmed up to her and respects her counsel.
For Penelope, Oscar and Madison are another matter. Greta has learned not leave Penelope in a room alone with them. Doing so is counterproductive because Penelope thinks that Oscar and Madison are the worst kind of lawyers: slick hucksters that have a lot of ideas without a lick of business judgment. They are really good, Penelope admits, but she still doesn’t like the process. Greta’s strategy is to push Oscar (he actually seems to get it) and Madison to flesh out strategies along with pros and cons before talking to Penelope. Then, before they meet, Greta grills them with all the questions she thinks Penelope will ask.During the meeting with Penelope she’ll jump in when necessary to translate between Penelope and the lawyers. In this way, she both helps the lawyerscope with Penelope and she bridges the gap so that they can have meaningful discussions.
Business-Development Example: Daphne (145) is a financial-products tax lawyer who struggles with developing business. Her colleague, Henry (125) notices that whenever she starts talking about her work, others’ eyes glaze over. He heard a prospective client comment, “A theoretical physicist would be more concrete!” Obviously, he didn’t hire Daphne. Henry likes working with Daphne; he thinks she’s smart, and believes the two of them can develop business together. Over lunch, he suggests just that. Daphne agrees and at the next networking event, they stick together. Henry interjects questions so thatDaphne makes her ideas more concrete and they work together to get follow-up meetings and eventually are hired by several companies. Even though Henry is more innovative than most, he is able to bridge the gap between Daphne and most prospective clients because his style is between Daphne’s and most other people’s style.
Henry is also able to help Penelope cope. He coaches her to be more concrete and to listen to the kinds of questions prospects ask her so she can respond in a more Adaptive style, meaning with more detail and sequential step-by-step analysis.
Conclusion
The KAI measures style of creativity as applied to problem solving. Differences in style of idea generation, methodology, and management of structureregularly manifest in the workplace and in personal situations. Thus, investing time in understanding one’s own style yields great insight into one’s own personal effectiveness as well as how to more effectively collaborate with others, leveraging one’s own and others’ style to solve problems. Appreciating and valuing the differences is vital to leading, collaborating, and personal effectiveness.
©2014 Arudia