Two Types of Creativity: Kirton Adaption-Innovation Indicator

In his book Adaptors and Innovators, Dr. Michael Kirton described Adaption-Innovation as a cognitive style, a "preferred mode of tackling problems at all stages." He emphasizes that scores on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), are value-free: "Very high, very low or intermediate KAI scores are neither laudatory nor pejorative." All of us can use both styles of creative problem solving, but we have a preference for either Adaptive/Resourceful or Innovative/Original Creativity.

Adaptive/Resourceful

People who score on the KAI as Adaptive tend to accept the paradigm within which a problem is embedded (current theories, policies, points of view). They're likely to produce a few ideas that aim at continuity with the practices, norms, and current way of doing things, but bring about a better way of doing them. They often (not always) show a preference for Sensing on the MBTI. To be successful over time, most organizations (except the most innovative in their products and/or services) will necessarily be adaptive in their orientation. It's more costly and risky to continually do things in a different way. Kirton remarks that Adaptors are at their best "in the smooth, efficient operation of an existing system; creatively refining, improving, and extending the thinking that underlies it."

Innovative/Original

People who score on the KAI as Innovative tend to "detach the problem from its cocoon of accepted thought," to step out of the "box" or paradigm. They tend to redefine a problem, produce many ideas, break through what the organization perceives as givens and restraints, provide solutions aimed at doing things differently. They often (not always) show a preference for Intuition on the MBTI. While a company is growing and maintaining itself in predictable ways and in a predictable market, innovative solutions are not necessarily preferable; but organizations cannot survive if they're unable to break through with new thinking when necessary.

The Dilemma of Differences

Studies at the Center for Creative Leadership suggest that each problem mode has its advantages, and the most successful organizations (and leaders) are those able to use both problem-solving styles flexibly. In many organizations, though, Innovators experience problems in communication because it's difficult to get others to see outside the box, and they're often met with skepticism.

Perhaps as a consequence, Innovators tend to be condescending to Adaptors, who can be very resourceful and come up with excellent solutions to ongoing problems, but who tend to work within the rules, to seek consensus, and to prefer change that occurs gradually. Thus, Adaptors are often seen by Innovators as unimaginative, stuck, resistant to change, always focused on problems vs. solutions, and/or lacking a view of the big picture.

Because innovative solutions are less easily understood and have unpredictable outcomes, and because such break-through change is threatening, Innovators are often seen by Adaptors as undisciplined, impractical, irreverent, abrasive, and/or insensitive to people. Clearly, a better understanding of these different creative styles -- and the value of each under certain circumstances -- can lead to stronger, more flexible teams and more successful organizations.

Teamwork: An Individual Skill

For all of you who have had your fill of touchy-feely exercises and teambuilding retreats... Teamwork does not depend on group "bonding" or on some group facilitator's magic art. [It's] based on individual skills and attitudes (review by Terry O'Keefe of Avery, Walker and O'Toole's Teamwork is an Individual Skill).

There are four individual skill areas covered in Teamwork is an Individual Skill: 

1. shared focus (insuring that proposals work for each team member), 
2. individual commitment (matching personal motivations so each is fully invested), 
3. shared agreements (including honest but fair feedback), and 
4. harnessing differences (diverse opinions lead to breakthrough thinking) 

These individual skills can be richly enhanced by recognizing and valuing different personality styles. I use both the MBTI and the Enneagram with my clients, as demonstrated in the excerpts below from one of my articles in Enneagram Applications. 

“We’re going to be executing some major changes in the next few months,” said Dick Malone over the phone, “and there may be some psychological effect on the people here. Our whole organization is undergoing restructuring and there will be an announcement of my reassignment around the time of the team session, but I’d still like to go forward with it. Can we learn about the Enneagram and help prepare for these changes?"

This group had several clusters of personality styles – four  Enneagram Sixes, three Nines (including Dick), two Sevens – as well as a One and a Two. On the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) all but three were Extraverts. Almost half had a Feeling preference. They attributed their cluster of MBTI preferences and Enneagram styles to the fact that they had a consulting role to other operating functions in the corporation. Most of them had a collaborative/democratic style and a group orientation that served them well in their jobs. The two Sevens were visionaries. The One (Two wing) and Two (One wing) both wanted to help their internal customers solve their problems.

The theme for this group was "transitions." We started by looking at their own experience with change and wove observations of their personality strengths and needs into understanding each other better. We talked about the potential impact of their styles on the upcoming changes in the organization, including what kind of support they'd need from each other during the upcoming period of change. The team member who was a Two described the support he needed as asking that those who worked for him "come to me if they have concerns." He was the only member of the group who was unable to identify a need of his own! He and the others discussed how his helping behavior played out in the group, and he received some useful feedback about how he helped to create this pattern.

Whether you're part of a family, a work group, or a community organization, conversations about the diversity of personalities in the team can make a huge difference in the group's well-being, effectiveness, and impact.

You Might As Well Be In Ittoqqortoormiit

If I could pass on one message from my long life, it's this:

NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU!

 
You like lemons? You eat lemons all day long? Go for it! But please do not assume lemons are the only fruit worth eating, and--especially--don't assume the rest of us SHOULD eat only lemons.

We live in a diverse world and we have access to the most remote locations on earth--want to go to Tristan da Cunha? Mutuo? Oymyakon? Kerguelen Islands? Ittoqqortoormiit? Just Google it.

While there, you surely won't expect everyone there to look like you, talk like you, eat the same foods you do, have the same interests, dreams, perspectives, or behaviors you do. Well, bring that same perspective home:

Every place you go, every group you join, 

every team you're on at work or play,

every family gathering,

you might as well be in Ittoqqortoormiit
(pronounced "It-oh-kwa-kwaor-tow-mEEt")!

Which also means that your way of doing things is not necessarily the best way in a given situation, and certainly not the only way. EVER!

There are countless personality models, organized descriptions of human characteristics--cognitions, emotions, motivations, behaviors, self-perceptions, values, attitudes--that describe the differences among us. I happen to prefer the Enneagram. You may find the MBTI more useful, or Tilt365, The Leadership Circle, The Big Five or one of many others.

But please, please, in your everyday interactions, keep in mind the implications of acknowledging our differences, as described by "Allison" in my book with C.J. Fitzsimons  (Somebody? Nobody? The Enneagram, Mindfulness and Life's Unfolding, p. 5):

"I'd assumed everybody thought the way I did and was aware of right and wrong, that people couldn't be good if they didn't do what was clearly right. It never occurred to me that others might have a different focus of attention than I do. That opened up the question, If I could be so mistaken about the way the world is, could I not be mistaken about a great many other things?