The ever changing…..
Charlie Hueber
11/02/00
What drives change?
What holds it up?
What is going on in us when we struggle either to survive change, or bring it about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone who wants to understand and facilitate change, Michael Kirton's Adaption/Innovation Theory (A/I Theory) is likely to be a useful source of nourishment.
Kirton's research suggests that there are two very different approaches or styles of bringing about change - Adapting or Innovating. Broadly, Adaptors prefer 'to make improvements in existing ways of doing things', while Innovators prefer 'to do things differently'.
According to A/I Theory, the majority of us incline one way or the other, even small differences being noticeable, also, all of us have coping behavior, an ability to reach into the style with which we are least comfortable. No value judgement is implied in A/I theory, 'style' refers only to a preference for a particular approach.
A/I theory and KAI, the inventory measure associated with it, are an outcome of occupational psychology research across more than 20 years. Perhaps because of this origin and its very scientific preoccupations with measurement and statistical validity, many people outside this kind of work may have over-looked it. This is a pity because it appears to shed a lot of light on the how and why of change.
The intention of this introductory article is to make A/I Theory more broadly accessible, so that it can be tried out in for example the experiential learning tradition.
For me A/I Theory and the KAI have provided both an illuminating (and disturbing) re-orientation of my attitude towards my own and other people's creativity, while at the same time supporting my intuition about how organizations and individuals can tap deeper into their creative potential.
As the possibility increases of being engulfed by some of the changes humankind has already set in train, understanding how and why we bring about or resist change, becomes more and more urgent. A/I theory appears to account for at least some of the underlying patterns of change-related behavior.
These screens are ideally used alongside the basic tool of A/I Theory, the KAI inventory, a well validated and widely used way of assessing 'the cognitive style you prefer to use when bringing about change'. However, if you don't have access to the KAI questionnaire presently only wish to have a taste of what A/I Theory offers, these screens should provide an initial introduction.
Adaptors and Innovators
I. A Spectrum of Creative Styles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research by Professor Michael Kirton suggests that there is a spectrum of creative style - the way that you prefer to approach bringing about change, or solving problems. At one end of the spectrum are Adaptors, who prefer 'to make improvements in existing ways of doing things'; while at the other are Innovators, who prefer 'to do things differently'.
Most of us are not at the extremes, although small differences can be quite noticeable. It is important to appreciate that no style is regarded as better than another, each has benefits and drawbacks, depending on the circumstances.
If you know yourself quite well it's likely that you will be able to make a guess at your own preferred style.
Below are some of the characteristics of Adaptors and Innovators.
Read through them and check out which of them represents your preferred creative style - are you inclined to be an adaptor - or an innovator?
Do remember, that while you may be able to guess accurately what your style is, getting an accurate score on the KAI Inventory is essential for serious practical applications of KAI theory, for example in team building or conflict resolution.
If your approach to bringing about change is ADAPTIVE you will be more likely than Innovators:
* to prefer improvement of existing structures over mould- breaking change
* to start work only on projects or schemes that you can complete
* to calculate decisions finely, taking core about the consequences of your
* to accept change so far as it improves or strengthens the status quo
* to be methodical and prudent
* to ensure widespread support for proposed changes before offering them
* to put a high value on being efficient within a system
* to resist 'sticking your neck out' against prevailing opinion
* to reject, or be very skeptical of changes that challenge the cohesion of the group
* to be interested in solving problems rather than looking for them
* to appear tolerant of boredom
* to respond to criticism from close colleagues with greater conformity
* to see innovative ideas for change as threatening or unsafe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive ideas are more likely to be accepted and pay off immediately
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your approach to bringing about change Is INNOVATIVE you will be more likely than adaptors:
* to prefer mould-breaking change over Improvement of existing structures
* to be reckless or neglectful of the consequences of your actions
* to see the 'status quo' as needing complete transformation
* to be seen as undisciplined and reckless
* to assume that ideas for radical change are self-evidently valuable
* to put greater value on thinking up new schemes than on implementing them
* to question basic assumptions about any problem that is being worked on
* to feel free to criticize proposals for change from any source without regard for the subsequent cohesion of the group
* to enjoy seeking out problems
* to become bored with routine
* to prefer to delegate routine tasks
* to live with rejection and hostility
* to see criticism from close colleagues as a challenge
* to tend to see Adaptive ideas for change as no change at all
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Ideas are more likely to be rejected - if they pay off they are more likely to be 'visible'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptors and Innovators
2. Insiders and Outsiders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your awareness of boundaries, rules, limits or territories and how you handle them when there is a problem to solve, is one of the clearest indicators of creative style.
Families, schools, companies, clubs and human groupings come to have a core consensus as to what the purposes, intentions and norms of the group are. This consensus is fluid with constant variations of what's in or out.
Adaptors prefer to act within the confines of rules and regulations and be respectful of custom and practice. They look to precedents for making changes and they are likely to be at home with and enjoy, agreed procedures.
Adaptors and Innovators tend to have very different attitudes to the consensus.
Adaptors approach problem solving from inside, and Innovators from outside, the consensus viewpoint.
Innovators have less respect for the boundaries of what is acceptable. They are likely to feel that rules are there to be broken. They tend to see virtues in bringing in information and ideas from outside the consensus.
For Adaptors this problem may seem already half solved because its familiar territory. Adaptors are likely to take the lead in successfully searching for a solution based on improvement and evolution which is likely to be realistic and viable.
For innovators this problem is likely to seem structural. i.e. due to the way the whole place has been organized. Innovators may well set about changing the structure as part of the problem itself.
Innovators will be more open than adaptors to seeing this type of problem for what it is. Their approach to finding a solution is likely to be based on the assumption that the present approach to it is inadequate and to put forward novel but not always reliable solutions.
Adaptors will tend to find it difficult to grasp this type of problem. So far as they are aware of it they are likely to perceive it as a threat to established values. The solutions they come up with are likely to be defensive, punitive, or restrictive.
Organizational Climate
The innovation/adaption balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three hypothetical organizations illustrate how the distribution of Adaptors and Innovators contributes to the climate for change.
In this organization there are enough adaptive people to keep the organization running well from day to day. There are enough lnnovators to ensure that when there is controversy over aims and policy their voices are heard. So long as it doesn't have to find a long run of original solutions to unprecedented problems. or a long run of intensive exploitation of a single system, the organization is likely to be able to embody both stability and reliability and responsiveness to changing circumstances.
This is typical of a well run company which values the strength that comes from diversity of styles and that has taken action to ensure that people responsible for hiring policy have not unwarily sieved out high Innovators. This pattern is typical of large groups, which contain many sub-groups across the spectrum of style.
In this organization Adaptors dominate the climate for problem solving. This is an organization, which is likely to be very good at maintaining precise, reliable, and prudent operations.
As long as the structures they devise, or maintain, are viable and not under threat from rapidly changing external forces, the organization is likely to be very efficient and provide a stable working environment. However, if circumstances change to its disadvantage, it is likely to be slow to heed voices putting forward a radical program of renewal. The small number of high innovators best suited to support this are likely to be right outside the core power establishment in marginal, barely tolerated niche roles. Examples of this kind of organization can be found among publishers who need to be very adaptive to produce and sell books successfully but who depend for innovation on free-lance authors.
This is an organization with a high proportion of innovators. They are likely to be a group of highly autonomous individuals who have come together for some short-term event or purpose such as a conference, think tank, performance, theatrical, musical or training event. In doing this they are likely to be dependent on the support of a few. much more adaptive people who handle the practical issues of food, lodging, travel, money and scheduling.
If they are wise, organizers of collections of such high innovators are likely to provide for a wide variety of different activities that these highly innovative people can join and leave at their own discretion. Sustaining such an organization for long periods is difficult because with so many high innovators coping behavior tends to be forgotten or switched off, and sooner or later the lack of attention given to group cohesion will lead to splitting, either into interest groups. or opposing factions.