Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory

Feedback Document

Your KAI Consultant:

Date:

Your Unique Code:

Background To Adaption-Innovation embark on changes involving a characteristic style closer to

their own than those involving a style that was markedly
I remember vividly, as a boy of six, an occasion when two different. As a result some changes, in some groups, went
loved and respected relatives fell out because each had been through with little or no discussion while others took years
sorting out some matter, in their different characteristic from the time first suggested to the start of implementation.
ways, which clashed. Each muttered darkly that the other The latter examples frequently required a dramatic
was “silly”. I remember saying to each one: “Oh! No, Uncle precipitating event to clear the path to acceptance - these
isn’t silly and he always does it this way.” For some reason seemed to be ones that needed a shift by the majority of the
the memory stuck and got added to by other examples from group in the way the problem was perceived before the
other people over the years. With added maturity and a solution proposed could be seriously considered. Until the
degree in Psychology, the principle gradually emerged: shift occurred some proposals looked risky or, worse,
people tend to perceive characteristic or inherent differences irrelevant and risky; whilst other proposed changes in
as differences of capacity (silly man - silly woman; silly old groups with a different “personality mode” were dismissed
fool - foolish youth; mad Englishman - funny Frenchman) as mere tedious tinkering, although their champions argued
which always leaves the speaker’s in-group as superior. This they would have led to some immediate improvement to
seems a natural inclination we may share with herd animals the current system. Adaption-Innovation Theory gives an
- in-group is familiar, safe and good - out-group is irrelevant understanding of the source and implications of these
or hostile. The notion of “different but equally valuable” differences and their effect on teamwork at all levels.
requires insight and time to learn.

The results and observations from a study in management

initiative also heavily influenced the development of
Adaption-Innovation Theory. In this study, I repeatedly
observed that “personalities” were seen to have characteristic
effects on the progress and success of group (corporate)
initiative in organisations. While all the managers studied
asserted that they were sensitive to the need for change and M.J. Kirton DSc
were willing to change, all of them seemed more willing to

© M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way. 1
 Problem Solving is the Key to Life Understanding Adaption-Innovation
The Adaption-Innovation Inventory measures thinking style. The Adaption-Innovation Theory is founded on the assumption that
Thinking is the means by which we solve problems and are all people solve problems and are creative - both are outcomes of
creative. Everything that lives has to manage the changing world the same brain function. The theory sharply distinguishes between
about it and acquire those things that it needs to survive. If level and style of creativity, problem solving and decision making
enough individuals of a species survive long enough to reproduce and is concerned only with style. Both potential capacity
successfully that species continues to survive. This is not easy, for (intelligence or talent) and learned level (such as management
most of the species that have ever lived have not survived. competency) are assessed by other measures. This means that
Mankind, one of the latest arrivals, must also manage change and innovators and adaptors can each be found at every kind of level -
diversity or perish. In one form or another, whether understood by from the highest to the lowest - see: “Misusing the Word
the individual or not, problem solving is the key to life. Every Innovation” on page 8. Adaption-Innovation Theory deals with
species does so differently. (and KAI measures) only differences in thinking (cognitive) style.
The theory states that people differ in the cognitive styles in which
All forms of life, Mankind included, have evolved a structure that they are creative, solve problems and make decisions. These style
fits all their survival needs, e.g. finding and absorbing appropriate differences, which lie on a normally distributed continuum, range
nutrient. This structure is also limiting, e.g., the eyes that are good from high adaption to high innovation. The key to the distinction is
in daylight are poor in half-light. Mankind has become expert in that the more adaptive prefer their problems to be associated with
overcoming many limitations, but the underlying structure remains more structure, with more of this structure consensually agreed,
the same. The astronaut may get to the moon but still walks to than do the more innovative. The more innovative prefer solving
the space vehicle; the image that is enhanced by the telescope problems with less structure and are less concerned that the
passes through the eye to a brain that has remained unaltered for structure be consensually agreed than are those more adaptive.
a 100,000 years. So problem solving needs to enhance not ignore The terms “more adaptive” or “more innovative” are more precise
these limits (coping behaviour may modify thinking style but at a than “adaptors” and “innovators” for describing a continuous
price). range and not two types - a very important distinction. For instance,
“tall” and “short” are also not absolute terms; you could be seen as
More advanced life forms have developed instincts. Instincts are so
tall in one country, average in a second and on the short side in a
complex (like building a nest) and yet so rigid that each one is
third - without changing height by a millimetre! Likewise, you could
immediately recognisable by experts as belonging to a particular
be seen as adaptive in a work team, as in the middle at the tennis
species. Each represents a whole problem solving process: problem
club and as an innovator at home. Your preferred style will not
identification, solution selection and implementation. The survival
change but you can be perceived differently by different people. So,
value of instincts is immense, for they can all be done without you may need to vary your behaviour (using coping behaviour,
learning; indeed without ever having been seen done by another. which is learned) as you may need to vary your role.
Yet they operate almost perfectly on the first occasion they are used
even if learning can be added on. The weakness is that they are hard Those scoring as more adaptive approach problems within the
wired: once triggered every individual must operate in the same way given terms of reference, theories, policies, precedents and
and changes to instincts can only come about by breeding not by paradigms and strive to provide solutions aimed more at being
thinking. Using this precise definition, Mankind is unique - having “better” than different. Their value is obvious, they are the experts
no instincts. When we perceive a danger ahead while driving we do in the current system and dedicated to its continuance and
not “brake by instinct”. We have learned to do so - perhaps so well efficiency - no organisation can survive long without adaption
that it is now a conditioned reflex but all learned, nevertheless. offered either by adaptors or by “coping” innovators. By contrast
What we need to know we must be taught. those more innovative tend to detach the problem from the way it
is customarily perceived and, working from there, are liable to
Learned problem solving, well developed in all higher order species, produce less expected solutions that are seen as being “different”
offers the widest potential range of responses and the greatest although it may be difficult to determine if they will be “better”.
problem solving flexibility. The advantages of problem solving are The more innovative are also critical to the organisation in that
obvious (Mankind’s achievements are huge compared to any other they more readily perceive the radical views and solutions that
organism) but the expense is high. Everything we do, except for re-arrange the very structure in which the problem resides,
those in-built structures, has to be learned: who are our enemies, although that involves more risk. One way of summing up is that
what to eat, how to get it, how to mate, how to give birth, or how the more adaptive can be said to prefer to solve problems by the
to nurture our young. As learning takes time and practice, our use of rules and the more innovative despite the rules.
young are more vulnerable, for longer, than those of any other
species. In order to survive, we need continually to learn. A-I Theory These differences in creativity style produce distinctive patterns of
emphasises two key issues: (a) When we problem solve we are behaviour. The whole range is essential for solving the wide diversity
limited by the way we are built (e.g., our intelligence, no-one has of problems that face individuals and groups over a long time,
endless capacity or flexibility) but we have no instinct to help or although these differences are less useful on particular problems
hinder us. (b) All of us are intelligent and creative, at different levels that obviously require mostly adaptive or innovative solutions. A
and with different styles, and, therefore, all of us are capable of diversity of problems requires a diverse team, which is difficult to
learning to contribute to team problem solving, as long as there is manage because each individual’s preference can also be seen to
both motive and opportunity. have disadvantages, especially by people not like them. The adaptor

2 © M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way.
tends to stay with the current paradigm (policy, theory) too long; People like us are, on balance, easier to get on with. People 20
i.e., when it is past the point that it can be saved by improvement. points or more apart on KAI (even if both are relatively adaptive or
The innovator tends to abandon the current paradigm too soon; i.e., both are relatively innovative) are as likely to fall out as collaborate.
when it still offers the promise of solving the immediate problem, with
the reduced risk of adaptation instead of the added risk of innovation. These differences are stable - no life experience (becoming more
So here we uncover a key problem in collaborative problem solving mature, knowledgeable or senior) will change them. Learn to use
- who decides when the “too” stage is reached? It is no problem if them well. The value of this knowledge for you is:
all in the group are agreed, except that the “all” in question could
be wrong - discovered mostly by hindsight! The more immediate • to give fresh insight into inter-person conflict (people with
problem is when all do not agree. Then the differences within the widely different styles tend to fall out),
group can be viewed with negative discrimination: “If you cannot • to use this insight to pave the way to more and more
see what I can see (which is so obvious?), you must be silly”. (Instead fruitful collaboration in teams,
of silly, one can also read: old, young, uninformed, foreign, pedantic, • to allow you to get on with others while remaining different
wild, or whatever is the term that puts you down and out of my way from them, by valuing the difference between you and them.
while I solve this critical problem!).

The value to be had from KAI is not to get a “score” and a description Which is better - intuition or logic?
of oneself compared to a national general population sample, so you It depends on the stage of the problem. Intuition is logic
can say: “I’m a high innovator” or “I’m a moderate adaptor.” Such and learning with the steps concealed. Its value is that
“boxes” are not very informative and are often misleading. The value its operation is wide ranging and fast, allowing a quick
is to use this information to help make better use of yourself and suggested answer which may have broken a barrier or two.
other people (particularly those not like you), for mutual benefit, in It is ideal for setting up some problems - it must never be
every group of which you are a member. taken as proof, for which we need every step to be laid
open to check and test.
As members of a group come to appreciate the value of diversity in
Each system should be used at the appropriate stage.
problem solving styles, they tend to become more tolerant and even
more appreciative of other diversities. A common mistake is to
capitalise on others’ weaknesses - it is mutually more profitable to Everyone is an Adaptor or Innovator
make use of others’ strengths. That leads them to make better use
of each others “strengths” to mutual benefit - remembering always Are there people who are in the middle, between adaptors and
that a “weakness” in one problem solving situation can well be a innovators, who are neither adaptors nor innovators? If so, how
strength in another. broad is such a middle category?

Do not tolerate differences between people - A part of this answer has already been given - an individual is more
welcome them - they are useful! or less adaptive (or innovative) than others. For a high adaptor, most
other people will be more innovative (and vice versa for high
Beware! It is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions that: adaptors innovators), however, even a high adaptor or innovator can sometimes
are against change whereas innovators are free of structure and like find themselves in the middle of an unusual group. All comparisons
all change. These positions are too extreme, as in reality: are relative - there are no absolute “boxes” into which people are
slotted. A person can be a middle scorer in a group of three people,
• No living creature, man included, can do without structure when one is more adaptive and the other more innovative. If one of
(advanced structure is needed for the complex affairs of the others leaves, there is then no “middle”; however if the leaving
mankind e.g., law, language, classification, theory); person is replaced, our example person could now become the most
• No living creature, man included, can survive without adaptive or the most innovative member in that group.
changing and managing change well.
• No-one (including high innovators) accepts all change; no-one All people problem solve and are creative.
(including high adaptors) rejects all change - Homo Sapiens is Adaptors and Innovators can be equally creative
highly selective! (can be equally good or bad at problem solving)
they just do so differently.
Innovators tend to overlook and even dismiss intra-structure change as
unimportant, mere tinkering, and the process of getting there boring.
A person is always an adaptor or innovator to someone else (unless
Adaptors are wary of “buying” innovative change that seems to treat
very close in score - i.e., less than 10 KAI points apart, irrespective of
essential structure too casually, to be overly risky and, by adaptor
where they fall on the scale). If these two people are the same style
standards, liable to be inefficient or even irrelevant to a shared problem.
then we can compare them with others with whom they interact. In
We all have the tendency to fancy our own style preference - seeing practice, therefore, there is no “featureless” middle and the range of
its virtues clearly but just as clearly seeing the faults of others’ “negligible difference” is quite narrow. People, however, who have
different style preference. This can readily lead us into the trap that scores that happen to fall into an intermediate position (between:
all people who are different from our own selves are so because they two people, a person and a group, two groups) could play the useful
can’t be like us, so they must be inferior (and if they do not agree role of “bridger”, but only if they choose to do it. If they do, we
they may be hostile as well!). hope they are skilful! Fortunately, skills can be learned.

© M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way. 3
 Characteristics Of Adaptors And Innovators

Perceived Behaviour:
Adaptors are seen by Innovators: as sound, conforming, safe, Innovators are seen by Adaptors: as glamorous, exciting,
predictable, inflexible, wedded to the system, intolerant of ambiguity. unsound, impractical, risky, abrasive, threatening the established
system and causing dissonance.

In Problem Defining:
Adaptors tend to accept the problems as defined with any generally Innovators tend to reject the generally accepted perception of
agreed constraints. Early resolution of problems, limiting disruption problems and redefine them. Their view of the problem may be hard
and immediate increased efficiency are important to them. to get across. They seem less concerned with immediate efficiency,
looking to possible long-term gains.

In Solution Generating:
Adaptors prefer to generate a few novel, creative, relevant and Innovators generally produce numerous ideas, some of which may
acceptable solutions aimed at “doing things better”. These solutions not appear relevant or be acceptable to others. Such ideas often
are relatively easier to implement. contain solutions which result in “doing things differently”.

In Policy Formation:
Adaptors prefer well-established, structured situations. They are Innovators prefer less structured situations. They use new data
best at incorporating new data or events into existing structures or as opportunities to set new structures or policies. They are less
policies, to make them more efficient. protective of the current paradigm.

In Organisations:
Adaptors are essential for ongoing functions, but in times of Innovators are essential in times of change or crisis, but may have
unexpected changes may have some difficulty moving out of their trouble applying themselves to ongoing organisational demands.
established role.

In Collaboration:
The Principle: Groups need both adaption and innovation to be The Advantage The narrower the thinking diversity range, the more
effective over time. of Small Gaps: limited the range of problem solving potential;
within this restricted range high efficiency is the
The Problem The larger the gap between peoples’ scores on KAI, norm.
of Large Gaps the greater are the problems of communication
(20+ points): and collaboration. This is true even if the people Bridgers: Those who happen to have an intermediate score
concerned are all adaptors or innovators. The within a group could (if willing) be most helpful (if
problem is the size of the gap between people or also skillful) in acting as a bridger.
groups, not where they are located on the
inventory. Remember that no one is wholly Coping Allows people to play successfully a role to which
adaptive or innovative – almost everyone is at the Behaviour they are not naturally suited. It is stressful for
same time more adaptive than some people and people to be forced to behave very differently from
more innovative than other people. their preferred style, consistently, and over long
periods.
The Advantage The wider the difference the more effort and
of Large Gaps: tolerance is needed to stay together, but the and Leadership: Good leaders ask for minimum coping behaviour
greater is the group’s breadth of problem solving. most of the time: they get offered maximum
coping behaviour in a crisis.

32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 160 My Score:

A D A P T A T I V E – I N N O V A T I V E Compared with:
67% of people are in this range

4 © M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way.
Special Or Small Groups
When plotted, the distribution for large general populations of Table Of Occupational Differences
adaptors and innovators forms a normal curve: Mean Score Sample From
80-90 Branch Bank Managers, Civil Servants, UK, US, Italy,
Cost Accts, Plant Managers, Machine Canada,
Superintendents, Production Singapore,
Managers, Accts Supervisors, Australia,
Maintenance Engineers, Programmers. Slovakia

83 Apprentices (Tech. Engineers) UK

Population means are around 95. Males’ scores generally are
91-92 Secretaries, Nurses UK, US
normally distributed around a mean of 98 and females’ scores
around 91. Smaller groups can be more erratic but specialised 93-97 Teachers UK, US
groups can be both stable (reliable) and predictably different from
general populations. This is because the bulk of the problem 94-95 General Population UK, US, Italy
France,
solving in such groups requires more adaption or more innovation.
Slovakia,
If a group has been operating successfully for long enough, then Netherlands
by selection (and self-selection including turnover) its KAI mean
will reflect its problem-solving orientation with either adaptors or 95-97
Military Officers, Managers UK, US, Italy
innovators being in the majority, like this: generally, Engineers generally Canada,
Singapore,
Slovakia

101-103 R&D Managers UK, US

104-110 Marketing, Finance, Planning, UK, US, Italy

Personnel, Fashion Buyers Canada,
Singapore
S. Africa

Peoples’ style preference does not change.

Notes
Peoples’ behaviour can and does
by coping behaviour. The means of groups listed in the table are from research
studies; each based on hundreds of people.
A prediction of a group’s likely orientation can be made by
comparison with other groups, preferably in the same environment. • Although the average score of groups may vary, the range of the
A group that is more likely to have to solve most of its problems individual scores in them usually does not - the range is wide.
within one major paradigm (however large and complex) will tend Large groups often contain people with scores noticeably
to be more adaptive. Examples are: production, costing, information away from the average of their group. If the group is well
storage and retrieval systems. led these differences are a valuable resource.

Innovative groups often have to “find” problems or to juggle out • A difference of only 5 points between 2 groups is noticeable
puzzles that lie across more than one paradigm. Personnel, O & over time. A bigger gap can cause difficulties - e.g.
M and project management departments often find themselves between production and marketing.
between people and departments each with their own systems.
Marketing and Research Departments hence have one foot in the • A difference of 10 points between 2 groups is noticeable
company and one outside it, e.g. in the market place or in the over time; 20 points or more can lead to communication
university world, with other disciplines and with other people. problems; mutual respect, skill and coping behaviours are
See Table of Occupational Differences (right). needed to close the gap.

People’s scores do not change and coping behaviour can be

All people have original ideas “expensive” - so people with scores close to the group mean
are more likely to stay. A group that loses diversity may feel
KAI measures the differences between people’s
more “comfortable” - which may not be a major problem until
preferred style of idea generation.
Other ways of measuring originality can be defined by the environmental changes occur that alter the range and nature
questions they answer: how clever? or how successful? of the whole job - then comfort tends to evaporate.
or with what degree of knowledge? or in what field?
All of which are independent of style. So there are people
who are clever, successful adaptors, less clever successful
adaptors, clever unsuccessful innovators, etc. Evaluation of which is best, adaption or innovation, can only be
Don’t confuse style with level. done in relation to the intended aim of the change in question.

© M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way. 5
 KAI Part Scores Those who are more innovative do not confine themselves to innovative
idea production only - that would suggest that they know (or care)
This inventory (KAI) measures Adaption-Innovation preferred style.
enough about the structure always to elect to work outside it. The
KAI total score breaks down into three inter-related sub scores - that
more innovative often also have problems in choosing among the ideas
is, these scores for most people can be closely predicted from their
they proliferate and picking one that pays off. Evidence suggests that
total score. Knowing about them re-enforces the main descriptions.
they are more likely to fancy their more innovative ideas - whilst adaptor
About a third of respondents show small but significant variations
assessors will be more likely to choose the innovators’ less innovative
between these part scores that a certificated KAI user can interpret
ideas as worthier of support. The innovator trade-off is that generating
on a one to one basis, adding to the descriptions given here. The
ideas that may “do differently” means a higher loss of their ideas.
names (and initials) of these part scores are: Sufficiency of Originality
(SO) relating to one’s style of idea generation; Efficiency (E) relating This theory is adamant that all people produce original ideas, whether
to one’s method of problem solving; and Rule/Group Conformity (R) at a higher or lower level, whether more adaptively or more
relating to one’s style of relating to structure, both impersonal and innovatively. People at higher levels can choose to produce ideas
personal. The general descriptions are below - but note that they below their best. Both adaptors and innovators prefer their own style
do not contribute equally to the total score. As for the total score, but a motive to complete a specific task may lead them to move away
high adaptors have low scores and high innovators high scores, from preferred style by “coping behaviour”. This costs more effort
without this having any level (capacity) meaning whatsoever - the than behaviour in preferred style.
“score” just indicates a place on a scale, like a map grid reference
(not like low golf scores or large test scores that are “good”).
The innovator’s originality appears more glamorous,
so the sterling value of adaptive originality
Idea Generation - Sufficiency Of Originality (SO) is too often undervalued.
This sub score helps show more clearly differences between people
in their preferred handling of original notions or ideas. As a matter
of preference (not as a matter of capacity) the more adaptive Methodology - Efficiency (E)
(compared to the more innovative) tend to produce a smaller This sub score helps show more clearly style differences of the
number of novel ideas that are generally agreed to be more preferred method of problem solving. The more adaptive will define
immediately relevant, sound, safe, well chosen and, therefore, the problem more carefully and tightly, will note precedent, search
useful. In organisations, particularly those that are successful and more methodically for relevant information and arrange data in more
well established, these ideas are viewed as “good bets”. Adaptive orderly ways. By working closer within the system (structure) they are
solutions to problems lead to improvements to current ideas, more likely to get the system to work for them and use their creativity
methods, practice, policy, structure (the paradigm). They often to refine, order, improve, and make more immediately efficient the
seem so fitting as to be relatively easily acceptable to most others; current structures and paradigms. They like their creative change to
indeed many of these ideas seem to be just what has been needed. keep the general structure stable. They like to achieve progress and
There is a danger here that such new ideas can be so readily avoid inflexibility at a more controllable speed and at lower risk than
accepted that they may not be examined with enough care, so some innovators. One element in adaptive preference in originality
do fail for that reason. Fortunately for the more adaptive problem- production is efficiency. Efficiency style overlaps originality style.
solver the very plausibility of their failures and their track record as
sound paradigm improvers tends to protect them; in this respect The more innovative problem solvers trade off the benefits of
innovators are, in general, less fortunate. immediate efficiency and lower risk by paying less attention to the
immediate structure enveloping the problem as perceived and less
Adaptors choose to confine their idea and solution generation to attention to meticulous detail and thoroughness. They gain, thereby,
agreed structure more closely than innovators. Therefore, innovators a wider overview, taking themselves out of the system in which they
can find themselves generating ideas across boundaries and began, often producing a much needed set-breaking idea, sometimes
breaking paradigms; sometimes the outcomes appear unrelated to threatening their “organisational fit”. Adaptors can work more easily
a given problem and seem risky to implement, unsound or even, in organisations, put up neater arguments and are less likely to find
especially for high innovators, bizarre. Most people, including high themselves supporting unworkable solutions. However, if the current
innovators, will expect many such ideas to fail. Their ideas are less system is failing to the point of needing a complete reformulation,
likely to be seen to have failed for unforeseeable, hard-luck reasons they are likely to go on trying to make it yet more efficient.
than are the idea failures of “good” adaptors. Hence, innovators are
less protected from failure of ideas than adaptors; on the other It is difficult at times to see the high innovator as efficient, operating
hand, discarding failed ideas is part of their being. with what, by most people’s standards is a lack of consistency,
predictability and key detail, yet this is the most efficient way of
Adaptive strategy is to produce spontaneously a sufficiency of producing something different, as distinct from something better.
ideas that are all linked to the problem in consensually agreed Innovative efficiency is the best way to break the paradigm - when
ways. If asked, adaptors produce more ideas - it is that they just find that should be needed.
it more efficient to produce a few at a time. Efficiency is another
part score dealt with below - see how these part scores overlap. Without the more adaptive, every organisation’s stability and continuity
Working within agreed structure, adaptors are more likely to would soon be in danger but the more innovative are better placed to
improve policies but less likely to generate mould-breaking notions force systems to make more radical change; even to justify their very
- this is their preferred trade-off. The more innovative preferred style existence. Good leadership balances the risks of any one style
is more likely, spontaneously, to produce many more ideas, some of dominating too much for too long. However, overdoses of innovation
which appear to be adaptive and others innovative. can destroy an organisation quicker than overdoses of adaption.

6 © M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way.
 Management of Structure - Summary & Points To Remember
Rule/Group Conformity (R) First thoughts for you to take away from this presentation on
This sub score helps show style differences in the management of adaption-innovation are:
structures within which problem solving occurs. Adaptors abide • Your problem solving style is innate and has made you successful
by Rule Conformity (impersonal structure) the better to solve their (whatever you may think of yourself at this moment, you are
problems. They accept Group Conformity (staying within personal successful or you would not be in the position of reading this!)
or informal structures) to ensure group cohesion and collaboration but you are always learning better coping behaviour.
in problem solving. Obviously these structures overlap as it is • If your team is efficient, you benefit. One of your key jobs is to
people, especially those in close contact, who interpret the help keep your team efficient.
formal rules, policing those that are of importance to the group.
• The more you know yourself and value others who are different,
Much more than innovators, adaptors use agreed structure to
the more your team can turn diversity to mutual advantage.
solve problems. The more adaptive abide by both rule and group
structure in order to make changes efficiently. Some thoughts applying to teams:

Research confirms that adaptors do not conform to every rule or • If it’s harder for you to shine in a team made up of people not
like you, remember this is true of everyone else.
to all the wishes of any boss. They prefer to have rules as efficient
guidelines and take good note of the ways and wishes of the • Teams made up of people with different problem solving styles, are
group of which they are members. For them, good rules accord harder to recruit and find it harder to work together, but they have
with consensus. So even powerful people who threaten group the potential to be successful over a wide range of problems.
cohesion by rules unrelated to consensus, to prevailing paradigms • Teams made up of people with the same problem solving style
or to approved custom, in short, who seem to require conformance may be easier to recruit and find it easier to work together, but
to arbitrary standards, will find adaptors in firm opposition. The they have the potential to be successful only over a narrow
more innovative, having less regard for structure, consensus, range of problems.
tradition or cohesion, are more likely to solve problems by • Do not think of adaptors and innovators as closed in-groups,
bending or even breaking the rules. For those who cherish rules you are an adaptor to some and an innovator to others.
because they see them as useful, these more innovative colleagues (Beware measures that put people into boxes - with a KAI of
too often appear as abrasive, disturbers of the peace, 114, you are an innovator to someone of 100 and an adaptor
undependable and unnecessarily challenging to consensus. to someone of 127).

The more adaptive help make members of a group work together • Remember, then, not to expect the others to do all the coping
to bring about change. They generate ideas acceptable to the behaviour and that it goes both ways.
group and within the general structure, modifying the rules more Examples of uses of KAI:
cautiously and in more piecemeal fashion, but gradually achieve This theory (and KAI) can be used wherever there is a person
great changes, for the better (in terms of the paradigm), at a safer thinking. It has been used to:
more manageable pace. Their type of creative problem solving is
• enhance individual awareness,
vital to any organisation particularly those that are large and
successfully established. The more innovative are much more • facilitate problem solving in teams,
capable of bringing about challenging, unexpected changes swiftly • help resolve conflict between two people or two teams.
at the expense of a current order within the group, which may, at
It can be used in any problem solving situation, for example:
times, need such a shake up. So all groups, in large or small doses,
in one place or another, at one time or another, also need Marketing:
innovators. Hence, in order to manage problems both widely and Research shows that all people like some, but not all, new
well, especially in groups, we need to be able to manage diversity products, but most marketing personnel believe that buyers of
well - a critical problem in itself! new products are innovators. This is not true: adaptors and
innovators tend to be attracted to different products.

Total Score: Project Management:

Research shows that project managers tend to be innovative, but
that their clients tend to be adaptive. Part of the job is bridging
My scores: the gap.
Sufficiency of
Originality Consultancy:
Consultants often need to enhance adaption among innovators
Efficiency and innovation among adaptors (taking professional risks in doing
so), but unless they teach the management of diversity successfully
Rule/Group they may only promote power struggles.
Conformity
Promotion:
Note: These 3-part scores are not independent; Both adaptors and innovators can reach the top. The more
e.g.: no-one can be a high innovator on one and a powerful leaders become the more they must ensure that their
high adaptor on another. individual style does not over balance the group.

© M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way. 7
 This exercise page should be used with the help of a certificated KAI user

Linking Exercise An Exercise

Try linking information on Adaption-Innovation with other related • Why not, for the group’s benefit, share scores in the group?
knowledge and skills. Mark them on a KAI scale (on a flipchart). Keep handy the
descriptions given earlier
Creativity “techniques” (e.g., brainstorming, synectics) and
management “tools” (e.g., Taguchi concepts, Pareto analysis, • Note how the scores cluster and note any person(s) out on an edge
fishbone diagrams) enhance (usually in groups) either innovative or • Ask yourselves: do the majority cluster around a “score” that
adaptive styles of problem solving. Don’t pick the technique you reflects the group’s “climate”?
fancy, use the one needed to crack the problem. • Do the majority’s “score” reflect the style of solutions that it is
currently trying to reach?
Ensure the team has available a “tool-kit” of tried and tested
techniques and tools, honed for use on the appropriate problem. • Are these problems “simple” (mostly adaptive or innovative) or
“complex”?
Now Try Relating A-I To The Management Of Diversity: • Are the majority of problems of the same style as the rarer but
A-I theory emphasises that every one of us has a preferred style of more critical ones?
problem solving. • Is the person “on the edge” well used, like being empowered to
So every one of us approaches every problem with a bias! find solutions suited to that style?
• What are the other questions, relating to style of problems and
If we can manage, well, the diversity of the way in which we tackle
people, that need resolving?
problems then other kinds of diversity that we need to manage
(like age, culture, colour, religion, experience, knowledge, class or To help set up the team to address these kinds of questions, first try
whatever) may not appear so difficult. these individually:

• List important things in this job I find easy to do and those I find hard.
Misusing The Word “Innovation”
• Note how I exploit those things I find easy.
Innovation is a trendy term, so widely used that it is losing any
precise meaning. In creativity circles it can mean the same as • Note how I cope with things I find hard.
“new”, “creative”, or even the implementation of creativity. It also • Note how I collaborate with colleagues of similar thinking
implies being “good” and “high level”. The disadvantage of style to me.
having all these different meanings is that it cannot be measured • Note how I collaborate with colleagues of different thinking style
well and therefore cannot be applied to people fairly - if the from me.
meaning of a term is unclear it is unethical to rate people on it! • When ready, compare these notes with colleagues -
develop a “group diversity audit”.
A-I research shows that innovation has no correlation with level
(an innovator can have any intelligence or capacity for any Now try tackling the first set of issues above.
competency - as can an adaptor). If this were not true then
comparatively few people would be creative. Nonsense, we are To manage change both broadly and well
the most intelligent beings on earth! In A-I theory, just as everyone we need to manage diversity well.
is intelligent but are so at different levels, every one is also creative,
which we measure in two independent ways: how much (level) Advanced Exercise
and in what way (more adaptive to more innovative). As said
Discuss and then explore how to apply any information learned:
earlier, brain function does not discriminate between problem
solving and creativity - the distinction is linguistic not scientific. As • People with same (within 10 KAI points) or similar (within 20
everybody problem solves at different levels (e.g., intelligence, skill, KAI points) score:
knowledge) and in different styles, it is of long term mutual benefit - feel comfortable in each other’s company because they do not
to each of us to let others, with whom we interact, make best use need to expend effort in “coping behaviour”.
of their diversity, as often as possible. This is a core message of - feel they can manage some changes really well, but may be “too
Adaption-Innovation Theory. comfortable” to want to explore some suggested changes that
might disturb the climate.
The more adaptive modify the paradigm
as an outcome of their creativity. • People with close KAI scores have a feeling they “fit”.
The more innovative modify or break the paradigm • People with close SO scores feel they communicate with each
to facilitate their creativity. other well.
Which is best is what is needed. • People with close E scores feel they work together well
• People with close R scores feel they can trust each other well
About KAI Have you heard this before?
To learn more about Adaption-Innovation Theory read:
’Adaption - Innovation in the context of Diversity & Change’ • The more I am around people who “fit”, the easier it is to
(ISBN: 0-415-29851-2) or contact us directly at: dist@kaicenter.com dismiss “misfits”. Why don’t they try harder?
www.kaicenter.com • I am never a “misfit” - but I do try to provide the group with some
KAI Distribution Centre Ltd very necessary diversity of view. Pity it is not always valued. They
55 Heronsgate Rd, Chorleywood, Herts WD3 5BA, UK lack insight.

8 © M. J. Kirton 1985, 1992, 1999, 2015. All material in this booklet is protected by copyright law, and must not be copied in any way.