K.A.I. and Changes in Social Structures: on the Anatomy of Catastrophy
by:
Popko P. van der Molen
chapter in
Adaptors and Innovators, Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving
edited by Michael J. Kirton
1989, Routledge, London & New York
Support
The writing of this chapter 7 by P.P. van der Molen has been supported by a grant of the ANO foundation. Comments and criticism from Michael Kirton, Vernon Reynolds and Robin Dunbar were of great help to improve the text, which is not to imply that they are responsible for any flaws in the basic line of argumentation defended here. The help of Ben Hoffschulte in refining and presenting this text is also gratefully acknowledged.
Preface to Adaptors and Innovators, Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving by Michael J. Kirton
The mental processes which underlie concepts of creativity, problem solving and decision making are of continuing interest to researchers and teachers and are increasingly recognised by managers as directly relevant to the problems which they encounter in introducing change. There are good logical reasons for linking the three concepts. A decision is essentially based on the choice of solution to a problem - in other words, if there is no choice of solution to a problem no decision is needed. Further, both creativity and problem- solving have in common at least the implication of originality and novelty. Most often the three concepts have been kept apart, in theory and in research design and practice. One possible reason for this may be a lack of clarity in their relationship to intelligence. All scholars class intelligence as a concept of capacity or level; most accept that intelligence is heavily implicated in observed individual differences in problem solving and subsequent decision making. There is, however, much less clarity or certainty on what relationship should be hypothesized between creativity and intelligence. Studies that are founded on comprehensive reviews of pertinent literature and involve careful measurement, have on occasion added to the general confusion by not being able to make a clear prediction.
Guilford (1950) whilst predicting a modest relationship between intelligence test scores and many types of creative performance concludes: 'we must look well beyond the boundaries of IQ if we are to fathom the domain of creativity'. Getzels and Jackson (1962) emphasized: 'we are not saying there is no relationship between IQ and creative thinking. Obviously the feeble minded by IQ standards are not going to be creative. But at the high average level and above the two are sufficiently independent to warrant differentiation.' These standpoints have a tentative air that do not make for sharp hypotheses that can be the subject of a clear test.
In contrast Adaption-Innovation theory takes an unequivocal stance. It postulates and through its measure, the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) demonstrates, that the preferred cognitive style of the individual is wholly unrelated statistically to that individual's level, i.e., capacity. That key distinction between level and style has wide implications, which are explored in this book, for the management of organizations and for the direction of future research. It brings clarity to the debate when the factors affecting an individual's response in a particular situation are being considered. It makes it possible to examine the concepts of creativity, problem solving and decision making of individuals and to predict their behaviour and that of the groups which they make up, with a greater degree of confidence than has previously been possible. It is, however, made clear that level and style are only two of the variables which affect the performance of individuals. Other individual variables; motivation, knowledge, social skills and many others and the particular activity and organizational context in which the activity takes place, will all have a powerful impact on the outcome. It is, however, apparent from the volume of research already carried out into the application of adaption-innovation theory, in more than a dozen countries, that there is value in- being able to demonstrate the existence of a stable preferred form of behaviour in the individual and to measure it with confidence. One example of the value of re-examining assumptions, in the light of the clear level-style distinction which Adaption-Innovation offers, is in the concept of creativity as applied to occupational groups. Artists are generally accepted as being creative people (e.g. Myers, 1962). Architects are also often so accepted, aided no doubt by MacKinnon's (1962) seminal work on them; businessmen or engineers have so far received scant attention (e.g. MacKinnon, 1987), mainly because they are so often viewed as lacking in creativity. If, however, the level-style distinction is here applied, then a more precise differentiation can be made that is closer to general experience.
The members of these or any other profession may differ in ability, and even more widely in experience and behaviour, however defined and measured. They may also range widely over the Adaption-Innovation dimension, working closely to their relevant paradigms or not, in accord as far as possible with their preferred cognitive style. The first chapter of this book sets out the theory, explores these and other underlying assumptions, describes typical adaptors and innovators, introduces the theory's measure: the KAI and uses it to test some of the theoretical standpoints taken. The principal issues addressed are the distinctness of cognitive capacity and cognitive style; the stability, persistence and early setting of style; the relationship to personality and the concept of coping behaviour as an intervening variable.
The second chapter is written by a psychologist in management, Professor Ronald Goldsmith, at The Florida State University. With style firmly separated from level, the way is clearer to relate cognitive style to personality trait. Goldsmith puts forward a number of propositions: that KAI is a summary measure of behaviour, acting as a substitute for aggregate measures of behaviour over time; that Adaption-Innovation may lie in scope between personality traits and any individual behavioural act, being more specific than the former and more general than the latter; schematically, however, Adaption-Innovation may underlie personality trait clusters. He touches also on interesting measurement issues.
Chapter three reviews the structures, nature and performance of the KAI from the validation studies in the early 1970s, to its present widespread international use by scholars and practitioners. Steven de Ciantis, of Shell UK Ltd, shares the authorship of the next chapter which assembles the evidence from numerous studies for the notion of cognitive climate, placing it as an element within organizational climate. We examine the possible impact on the individual and the coping behaviour and clashes that may result.
Harry Schroder built a scholarly reputation as a Professor at Princeton University in the study of cognitive complexity and group functioning. He now continues to build this reputation as a scholar and practitioner in the theory and measurement of management competencies and their use in his Center for Organizational Effectiveness at the University of South Florida. He shows that as Adaption- Innovation theory predicts, management competencies being measures of capacity are unrelated to cognitive style. When taken together the effect is that groups of adaptor managers will exhibit their competency in clearly characteristically adaptive ways. The converse for innovators is also true. This has obvious teaching value for training departments as well as academics.
The penultimate chapter is by psychologist Gordon Foxall, Professor of Marketing at Strathclyde University. He reviews studies based on decades of expectation in marketing and marketing research that a secure link should exist between personality characteristics and early or late adoption of novel products. His research shows that 'innovative consumers' in marketing terminology cannot be simply equated to innovators as measured by the KAI. One significant complication is the degree of innovativeness of the novel product. Another significant factor is the extent to which the buyer may be assiduously collecting products within a novel range. These applications seem amenable to being unravelled by the Adaption-Innovation theory and successfully tested by use of KAI. The implications for marketing may be that old intuitions may yet be supported by more relevant theory, sounder measures and more sophisticated research design.
Popko van der Molen's work at the State University of Groningen in the Netherlands spans biology, psychology and sociology and both animal and human behaviour. In this final chapter, he explores the implications of the conflict which exists in all social animals between the drive to satisfy individual physical needs and the urge to maintain social contact and interaction. The importance of the Adaption- Innovation orientation of individuals as a basic determinant of human behaviour in such conflicts, led van der Molen to theorize that the Adaption-Innovation dimension had a biological root and he marshals data from a wide range of research on human and animal behaviour to sustain the argument. He considers the impact of this approach for the apparent cyclical rise and fall of social groups and the need for man to find a compromise between the all too slow evolutionary process of change and the all too disturbing revolutionary alternative.
The central aim of the book has been to bring together the work already done in refining and applying Adaption- Innovation theory and to consider its wider implications. The conclusions in it are based on reliable data and will, I hope, lead to a wider application of the theory and measure. Where there is speculation it will, I hope, stimulate further research including cross-disciplinary research where that is appropriate.
In order to achieve fluency the masculine personal pronoun has been used throughout the book. Where he, him and his has been used please read also she, her and hers. Notes have been grouped at the end of each chapter and referred to in the text.
