1999 Annual Meeting
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
January 1999
International Association of Facilitators
1999 Annual Meeting
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
January 1999
Thread #4: Problem Solving and Decision Making
Diane Houle-Rutherford
DHR & Associates
19 Waterford Way
Nepean, Ontario, CANADA K2E 7V4
Tel: 613-723-4757
Fax: 613-723-9582
email: dhrassoc@magi.com
www.actis.ca
Two of the main variables that will affect the performance of people in organizations are the capacity i.e. skills and motivation, and the preferred style of individuals as it relates to creativity, problem solving and change. The mental processes used in all three areas have been proven to be quite similar. The creativity literature, however, historically has concentrated its efforts on capacity and has often confused it with style. So how can we tell the difference? One sure way is by noticing the different questions we put forward when we need to measure either of them: for style the question could be: „In what manner or way does this person prefer to solve problems?" Whereas for capacity the question could be: „How good is this person at solving problems?"
So why learn about styles?
1. It offers a fresh insight into inter-person conflict
(people with widely different styles of problem solving tend to
fall out)
2. With this insight we can pave the way to more, as well
as more fruitful, collaboration between individuals (boss -
employees, colleagues, facilitators - clients, teams)
3. It allows us to get on with others while remaining different
from them, by valuing the difference between them and us.
How different are we? Looking at other
people around us we can easily identify various factors that
could be considered different: we may speak a different
language, we may have skin with a different color, we may be of a
different age group, gender, social or professional
background. As a society we try very hard to understand the
other groups. We have focused our attention on awareness,
understanding and appreciation of people that are obviously
different. We even have policies to ensure that people are
treated equally and fairly. We say we are „different
but equally valuable". People are also different at
another level. Less obvious on the surface, these
differences are nevertheless present and often
misunderstood. We have all experienced situations where our
level of comfort varies greatly depending on whom we are with;
there are some with whom we feel very comfortable yet others with
whom for some reason we do not seem to connect.
Difficulties that arise from those differences are sometimes
labeled „personality clashes". One of the
explanations for those differences resides in the characteristic
way that people prefer to solve problems. Understanding
these differences is the first step towards valuing
them. The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI)
measures a key difference in preferred style of problem solving
and being creative. Adaption-Innovation Theory shows
how every style is uniquely valuable to groups and
organizations. We are different AND equally valuable.
The development of the Adaption-Innovation theory began with the observations and the results from a management initiative study carried out some thirty-five years ago by Dr. Michael Kirton, a British psychologist. He concluded that personalities were seen to have an impact on the progress and success of corporate initiatives. While managers were indicating their belief in the need for change, their willingness to support and embark in a specific change seemed dependent on how closely the change was related to their own characteristic style. Consequently, some changes were made quickly with little or no discussion, while other changes were taking years between the time the issue came up to the time the change was implemented. From this original study, Dr. Kirton developed his theory about the difference in problem solving styles and designed an instrument to measure these styles. According to the theory, everyone can be located on a continuum ranging from highly adaptive to highly innovative and the general population approaches the normal curve distribution (Kirton, 1976).
The Adaption Innovation Theory postulates that people have a preferred style for dealing with change, solving problems, making decisions and using their creativity. The theory makes a crucial distinction between the level or capacity of an individual for solving problems (how good are they) and his or her style (how do they prefer to do it). The former is addressed by asking questions such as: How well? How much? or How good?, whereas the latter can be addressed by the question: In what way? Furthermore, research has shown that style and level are not correlated, that is one is not an indicator of the other. Many instruments, questionnaires and tools have been designed to assess the potential capacity (IQ or talent) or the skills and knowledge that people have acquired. The Kirton Adaption Innovation Instrument (KAI) assesses the problem solving style and it does not correlate with level measures.
So we are different, but how? Everyone makes decisions,
solves problems and deals with changes every day. What is
different is how we go about it. Some people will prefer to
operate i.e. solve problems, make decisions within a given
structure while others may work inside or outside the structure,
but will frequently be outside. These style differences are
normally distributed on a continuum ranging from highly adaptive
(a preference for a relatively high degree of structure) to
highly innovative (a preference for a relatively low degree of
structure). The more adaptive person prefers to deal with
problems associated with more structure - they can work more
comfortably within an existing paradigm while the more innovative
prefer to deal with problems with less structure and will be more
likely to work outside the paradigm. Both will look at the
same structure with a different outlook: one as enabling,
the other as restricting.
Our need or conversely our disregard for structure has an impact
on how we deal with problems, and the types of solutions we will
envisage.
The Inventory (KAI) labels the ends of the continuum it measures: Adaptive Style Creativity and Innovative Style Creativity. Some people may find the terms surprising as they are used here in a way which differs from much of the literature. In brief:
The more one is an adaptor, the more one has regard for structure (policies, rules, paradigms) and consensus and will prefer to problem-solve or create by refining, extending and improving the current generally accepted pattern, usage, strategy or paradigm. Adaptors aim, in novel ways, at doing things „better".
The more one is an innovator, by contrast, the less tolerant of structure (policies, rules, paradigms) and less respectful of consensus one is. Innovators often prefer to „do things differently" and such major remolding or breaking of paradigms means loosening structure and challenging consensus until the new way is adopted and becomes the new structure or paradigm.
Behavior Descriptions of
ADAPTOR·
When collaborating with Innovators:
|
INNOVATOR·
When collaborating with Adaptors:
|
(Kirton, 1976)
| THESE PREFERENCES ARE STABLE AND QUITE RESISTANT TO CHANGE.IT IS THE BEHAVIOR THAT IS FLEXIBLE - PEOPLE WILL COPE WITH SITUATIONS BY MODIFYING THEIR BEHAVIORS, SOMETIMES TO A DEGREE THAT MAY BECOME STRESSFUL |
Whereas the list appears as two types, the
Adaption-Innovation dimension is a continuum; pure adaptors or
pure innovators do not exist. When comparing two people,
one could be either more adaptive or more innovative than the
other.
Many personality factors and cognitive processes are involved in thinking, learning, decision making or problem solving. Several instruments or questionnaires are currently available to help your understanding of yourself and others; but no one instrument or inventory can measure all of the aspects or factors: The quality and reliability of these instruments is also highly variable and their usage should be handled with care.
Kirton has developed a psychometric instrument for measuring
the A-I problem solving style. The KAI is one of the most
researched, and best-validated, instruments currently
available. The inventory consists of a list of 32 items
which ask respondents to indicate how easy or difficult they
would find it over a long period of time to maintain a range of
adaptive and innovative behaviors. The KAI gives
theoretical scores in the range of 32 - 160 with a theoretical
mean score of 96. Practically, the observed scores fall in
the range of 45 to 145 with a general population mean of 95.
(Kirton 1976). (Note: Successful completion of a
certification program is required to administer the KAI)
| 32 | 96 | 160 |
| High Adaptors | High Innovators |
„He who knows others is learned, he who knows himself is
wise" Lao Tse
Learning about style allows us to:
· understand our personal strengths and limitations
· identify the ways we prefer to work with challenges and
opportunities
· go beyond our tendencies
For working with others…
Learning about style when working with others provides an
opportunity to
· gain better knowledge about one another
· develop a common language for problem solving
· better synchronize the participation of all members
Learning about style when working with organizations enables
us to:
· understand the dynamic of, and possible sources of conflict
within organizations
· better understand the needs and expectations of the clients
· design interventions, sessions and workshops that will fit
with the needs of the members
The way people think (cognitive style) affects the way they behave. Different (cognitive) styles of leadership will influence the perception of the need for environmental changes (Rickards, 1980) and produce in the end completely different approaches and practices. The cognitive profile of those leaders will also be reflected in their vision and mission and in managerial decisions they make. Change is a permanent fact of life: how we manage change is a strategic factor for the future development of organisations.
Not only will the cognitive style of leaders affect their
perception of the need for change, but it will also impact on the
kind of problem solving and decision making approach they will
take. An adaptive approach aims at using the existing
paradigm and attempting to improve it - make things better - ,
while the innovative approach is likely to challenge the more
traditional way of doing things in order to create a radical new
way of doing things. Having an appropriate balance of
adaptors and innovators in key management positions at the right
time, will contribute to effectively coordinate continuity and
change. The key is understanding your clients’
needs!
Kirton (1980, 1994) has suggested that groups who either function across boundaries within an organization or have an orientation outside the organization would have a bias toward innovation and those groups with a much more inward focus of operation, or internally oriented departments such as production or maintenance, would show significantly more adaptive orientation.
Regardless of your position on the A-I continuum, you will be called on to deal with groups whose mean could be quite different from yours. The impact on the working relationship between you as facilitator and your clients may be important. As an example, research done by A. Tullett on project managers indicated that there was an important implication that arose from the fact that a project manager was likely to co-operate with a client manager who had a significantly more adaptive cognitive style. …In such situations it is unlikely that the client manager will mediate his/her preferences by modifying behaviour. Hence, in order to reduce conflict and promote a harmonious working relationship, it is the more innovative project manager, in the role of supplier, who will have to adopt a coping strategy. This will generally entail managing the project in a more structured manner than s/he would prefer, including paying more attention to detail, de-risking decisions, reporting progress at more frequent intervals and being more aware of consensually agreed rules, procedures and power structures. (Tullett, 1995). Kirton suggests that a difference of 10 points on the KAI scores is noticeable; 20 points, the differences are evident and communication problems begin; and 30 points, there will be major differences in approach and efforts will be needed to enable communication.
What are the implications for you and on how you might have to
manage situations where your style and that of your client are
very different? Of course knowing about styles provides a
good framework for your analysis of the situation and possible
strategies. To help you understand what might be happening
when working with groups, I would like to provide a framework:
Whether interventions take an hour or take place over a period of
several days, and at the risk of over simplification, the
intervention process can be summarized as a three step model:
1. Understanding, defining the problem or issue or
objective at hand
2. Looking for or generating ideas, solutions, options,
etc.
3. Coming to a decision and planning its implementation
In order to demonstrate the difference, the following behavior
descriptions refer to groups where the average score of members
are either highly adaptive or highly innovative.
1. When understanding, defining the problem, issue or
objective,
Adaptors: will tend to accept the problem as given
will prefer being very structured
will focus on key issues - identify the important
data
will carefully state problems
may focus too much on current reality
Innovators: will be likely to re-define the problem
will likely focus more on the desired future instead
of the current reality
2. When generating ideas, solutions or options
Adaptors: will generate a variety of practical and useful
ideas
Innovators: may readily generate many novel and unusual
ideas, that may be seen as not directly
related to the problem statement
| TIPS to facilitate an idea generation session: The creativity literature is full of exercises, tools and techniques to help a group of people generate new ideas with the aim of helping groups to „think outside the box". One can easily be made to believe that the only valuable outcome is one that breaks paradigms. The reality is that not all problems require it, nor is everyone comfortable with it. With the A-I theory, we realize that people will differ in their preferences with regard to this choice, their definition of problems, and the types of solutions they will expect. Their preferences will also impact their level of comfort with certain creativity tools. So before you start:
|
3. When planning for action:
Adaptors: may generate many criteria to analyze new ideas
will be thorough and patient in working out details
Innovators: will try to maintain the presence of novelty
when generating criteria and preparing to
gain acceptance of the solutions
need to sell the new paradigm as well as a solution.
Of course, the motivation, values, skills, knowledge and
culture of the people within organizations will have an impact on
how they will behave in groups. However, the question
of the problem solving style will also play an important
role and may provide an alternate explanation for situations
otherwise hard to explain. Needless to say, your own style
will also affect how you deal with groups in terms of the
precision, the level of detail, the structure, the scope and the
expectation of the work to be done. One way to view your
role as a facilitator, in terms of A-I Theory is: to guide
the group in selecting and successfully using the correct, and
correct amount of, structure to effectively solve the problem
your group is dealing with. To determine the correct amount
of structure requires consideration of the style of the:
problem, desired solution, members of the group and of process
owner.
KIRTON, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A
description and a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 61, 622-629
KIRTON, M. J. (1984). Adaptors and Innovators - Why New
Initiatives Get Blocked. Long Range Planning, Vol. 17,
137-143
KIRTON, M. J. (1994). Adaptors and innovators - styles of
creativity and problem solving. London: Routledge
RICKARDS T. The KAI as a Survey-Feedback Instrument.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 1990, no. 14, pp.3-7
TULLETT, Arthur D. (1995). The Adaptive-Innovative (A-I)
cognitive styles of male and female project managers: some
implications for the management of change. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology.
Diane Houle-Rutherford has over seventeen years experience in
Human Resources Management within the Canadian Public
Service. In 1994 she started her own consulting firm - DHR
& Associates Consulting. She consults to both public
and private sectors, in Canada, in Europe and in the United
States, on issues such as Creative Problem Solving, Creativity,
Change and Transition Management, Team Building, Process
Improvement and Group Facilitation. Diane is a licensed
practitioner of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Instrument
and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI); she is certified by
William Bridges to deliver his "Managing Organizational
Transition" seminar; and she is certified by the Center for
Creative Leadership to administer the KEYS instrument to assess
organizational climate for creativity. Diane was an invited
speaker at the Toastmaster International Conference - District
61, the International Society for Performance Improvement (Ottawa
Chapter) and at the Innovation Salon (Federal Public
Service). Diane is an Associate of the Center for Research
in Applied Creativity, is a certified facilitator and trainer in
the Simplex™ Creative Problem Solving methodology, and is
fluent in both English and French.