STYLE MATTERS
UNDERSTANDING AND LEVERAGING
COGNITIVE DIVERSITY
The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory
(“KAI”)
Successful collaboration requires individuals to effectively manage and leverage
differences in problem-solving style, i.e., cognitive diversity. The challenge is that
while cognitive diversity generally means greater ability to solve a wider range of
problems, it can also distract from the work. Increasing awareness and
understanding of differences and their implications for collaboration is a
necessary step in developing strategies for both leveraging and reducing the
friction often resulting from different styles.
Because we work together to solve problems in both our personal and business
lives, understanding diversity makes for better personal relationships, work, and
working relationships.
The Paradox of Structure
At the core of problem solving is creativity, and all people are creative. All people
use their creativity to solve problems that arise from an ever-changing
environment. All people, however, do not similarly deal with a critical facet of
problem solving: the paradox of structure. The paradox of structure is the
seemingly incongruous fact that structure both enables and limits one’s ability to
solve a problem. The structure, whether it be in the form of rules, norms, or the
“way its always been done,” enables problem solving by providing the
mechanism or rules by which to solve a problem. The structure, however, also
limits one’s ability to solve a problem by eliminating options and delineating
strategies that are outside the paradigm or that break the rules and are therefore
not viable solutions.
People have a fixed preference for dealing with the paradox of structure. Some
prefer to use the structure to solve problems and more easily tolerate the
©2014 Arudia
Page 2 of 9
structure’s limitations because the structure provides a ready and workable
solution. Others prefer to ignore or fail to notice structure when problem solving.
The latter group is generally more focused on flexibility than efficiency and is less
attached to the system currently in place.
While people can and do utilize a variety of problem solving styles, it is important
to remember that behavior is not preference. Thus, people are able to solve many
types of problems and will use a nonpreferred style as appropriate. Thus, what a
person actually does to solve a problem is behavioral and not determinative of
preferred style.
The KAI
The KAI measures a person’s preferred way of managing the paradox of structure.
The KAI puts creativity and problem solving style on a continuum from more
Adaptive to more Innovative, as shown below. A valuable aspect of the KAI is
that it quantifies gaps in cognitive diversity and thus provides a framework for
understanding the corresponding implications. Gaps can occur between two
people, a person and a task, a person and a team, and between teams.
Understanding implications of the gap facilitates: (1) the understanding and
distinguishing between cognitive styles and levels; (2) the leveraging of one’s own
style and others’ styles for greater success; (3) the deliberate bridging and coping
(see below) for more effective collaborations; and (4) better teamwork.
The Adaption-Innovation Continuum
©2014 Arudia
Page 3 of 9
By measuring style on a continuum (above), the KAI quantifies problem-solving
strengths and challenges resulting from a person’s style relative to another. Scores
are normally distributed between 45 to 145, with a mean of approximately 95 and
a standard deviation of approximately 18 points. One’s score describes style not
level. Thus, a score of 130 is not better than a score of 60. Rather, the number
describes whether one is more Adaptive or more Innovative. In considering
scores, it is important to remember that the scores are relative and not absolute
(unless the person is at an extreme on the continuum). Thus, a person with a
score of 80 is more innovative than a colleague with a score of 65 even though 80
is more Adaptive than the mean of 95.
Adaption and Innovation Defined
In general, people with a more Adaptive style prefer to solve problems by
working within the structure, rules, or norms. In fact, they use the rules to solve
the problem. People with a more Innovative style prefer to solve problems
irrespective of the structure, rules, or whatever norms are in place. They ignore
the rules or solve problems in spite of the rules.
Most people are in the midzone, as reflected by the normal distribution above.
Their problem-solving style reflects their place on the A-I continuum. They may
use rules to solve certain problems and not others. Their solutions may ignore or,
at times, change the rules to solve any particular problem. They may be more
comfortable with less detail and more willing to pilot ideas than someone with a
very low score, i.e., a high Adapter. They likely will care more about “how things
are done” and group norms than a high Innovator. A person with a score in the
mid-zone is able to bridge the gap, or act as an interpreter, between people with
scores on either side of their score.
People who are close to each other on the continuum (i.e., within 10 points) will
have a very similar problem-solving style and will tend to work well together.
People who are more than 20 points from each other on the continuum will
approach problem solving differently. People with scores 40 points or more apart
will approach problem solving very differently and likely experience difficulty
collaborating unless they devise strategies for dealing with the gap. The table
below summarizes the differences in style.
SUMMARY PROBLEM-SOLVING STYLES
More Adaptive Style
More Innovative Style
Prefer less structure
Prefer more structure
©2014 Arudia
Page 4 of 9
Sensitive to norms/people’s expectations
Target ideas
Master details
Consistent
More prudent risk takers
Prepared to ruffle groups
Proliferate ideas
Less constrained by how it’s been done
Challenge assumptions
More daring risk takers
The KAI score is comprised of three components: sufficiency of originality,
efficiency, and rule and group conformity. Sufficiency of originality describes
idea-generation style. Efficiency describes methodology of problem solving. Rule
and group conformity describes the management of structure in terms of both
impersonal structures such as rules and personal structures such as collaboration
norms. Summary tables, provided below, give an overview of each component in
the context of more Adaptive and more Innovative styles.
Originality = Idea Generation
The more Adaptive are likely to
Produce fewer ideas
Ideas are manageable, concrete
Relevant, sound, safe and
for immediate use
Expect high success rate
The more Innovative are likely to
Produce many ideas
Some seen as exciting
‘Blue sky’ or
‘New dawn’
Tolerate high failure rate
Efficiency = Methodology
The more Adaptive are likely to
The more Innovative are likely to
©2014 Arudia
Page 5 of 9
Be precise, reliable, methodical, thorough
Pay attention to detail
Welcome change as an improver
Seek solutions to problems
in tried and tested ways
Think tangentially
Approach tasks from unsuspected angles
Welcome change as a mold breaker
Manipulate the problem, questioning
its basic assumptions
Rule & Group Conformity = Management of
Structure
The more Adaptive are likely to
Be prudent with authority
Solve problems by use of rules
Challenge rules rarely and usually
when supported by consensus
The more Innovative are likely to
Be radical
Alter rules to solve problems
Challenge rules, customs and
consensual views
Style v. Level
The KAI measures style, not level, of creativity in problem solving.
Distinguishing style from level is critical because failure to do so can result in
undervaluing others and their potential for solving the problem at hand.
Remember:
Style is how a person solves problems.
Level is how well a person solves problems.
The failure to distinguish style from level can distract from collaboration because
people often mistake differences in style for incompetence, i.e., that others are low
level. It sounds something like:
“Adam is in such a rut. In fact, I don’t think he’s ever
even looked outside the box much less had a good idea.”
or
“Ian is so impractical. I wish he’d stop wasting our time
with his ridiculous ideas. We have work to do!”
©2014 Arudia
Page 6 of 9
Whether one is more likely to dismiss Adam, who is more Adaptive, or Ian, who
is more Innovative, depends on one’s own style. Moreover, disdain for Adam or
Ian is likely a consequence of one’s own failure to distinguish difference in style
from lack of ability. Thus, recognizing cognitive diversity and its benefits is
critical to transforming annoyance and contempt for differences into appreciation
and the power to truly leverage another’s style to effectively resolve a broader
range of problems.
Bridging
When two people working together have KAI scores with a difference of greater than 20
points, a bridger can facilitate effective collaboration between the more Adaptive and
the more Innovative. The goal is to help others communicate and collaborate more
effectively so that the team can accomplish its goals, leveraging each member’s style.
Whether a bridger is helpful depends on the distance between the scores not whether
the scores are on different sides of the mean of 95. Thus, a bridger could facilitate
collaboration between a person with a scores of 110 and 145 but is unnecessary if the
scores are 90 and 99.
Coping
People often “cope,” which means using a nonpreferred style to effectively deal with a
gap between preferred style and another person’s style, task, or group. It is stressful to
cope consistently over a long period of time. So, for example, if a person with a score of
124 has a role that constantly requires a score of 65-style creativity and problem solving,
that person is likely to be stressed and is advised to consider strategies delegating or
reassigning work so that the person uses his or her own style more regularly.
KAI Applied:
Examples
The KAI score distribution reflects a typical team or variation among individuals.
The examples below demonstrate how knowing one’s KAI style and making
educated guesses about others’ style can yield valuable insight, and hence
foresight, regarding more effective collaboration, managing, leading, working
with existing clients and wooing business, as the case may be.
The KAI Team Score Distribution
©2014 Arudia
Page 7 of 9
Internal-Team Example: Ned (145) is the CFO and is responsible for managing the
accounting department. Anna (70), Lou (83), Todd (85), and Jon (86) are continually
frustrated and stressed by Ned’s lack of direction and crazy ideas. Anna has already
begun interviewing for another position in the company. Ned is frustrated – he
complains that his team is “stuck in the weeds.” He is tired of managing the team,
needs to spend time on more important, big-picture issues, and decides to have his
deputy Monica (110) take over day to day management of the team.
Monica knows the team well and begins to “translate” Ned’s directives into more
concrete terms, acting as a bridge. She first makes sure she understands his goals, and
then works with the team to devise a plan. The team is relieved that Monica steps in
and bridges the gap.
Monica coaches Anna, Lou, Todd, and Jon to cope, i.e., employ a more innovative style
when working with Ned. She suggests that they accept Ned’s seemingly nebulous style
and tangential thinking when working directly with him. For example, when
brainstorming with Ned, Monica says, “Don’t worry about implementation -- focus on
the ideas and possibilities instead.” She also suggests that they take Ned’s direction as
the guidelines for creating a plan for resolving the issue and empowers them to
generate an implementation plan with milestones. This way they have the structure
necessary to solve the challenges they face.
Client Example: Greta (110) is the general counsel of a computer software firm that is
seeking to acquire a start up in order to get its hands on proprietary software and
eliminate its competition. Greta hires Medium Law to close the deal. Oscar (125) and
Madison (145) head the multi-disciplinary legal team. Overall, Greta is satisfied with
the firm’s work. There’s just one thing: Madison drives her nuts with crazy ideas that
seem to have no grounding in reality or hope of succeeding. She worries that Madison
is sloppy or ignores the practicalities and details. “What kind of lawyer is she!? How
©2014 Arudia
Page 8 of 9
can she expect anything to work if she doesn’t spend the time to figure it out?” Greta
complains.
Oscar senses there is a problem and wants to be sure that they don’t lose the client or
that Greta kicks Madison off the team. He values Madison’s insight and different way
of thinking. Oscar pulls Madison aside and explains that Greta needs strategies and
ideas to be more fully thought through and detailed for her to understand and adopt
them. He further explains that Greta is mistaking Madison’s big picture, out-of-the-box
thinking for sloppiness.
They devise a strategy for working more effectively with Greta: (i) Madison will
present ideas to Oscar first so that he can help her figure out the best way to present her
thinking to Greta and (ii) Oscar will participate in most of the calls and meetings so that
he can “translate” and bridge the gap between Madison and Greta.
Oscar also coaches Madison to cope so her interactions with Greta are more effective.
Madison focuses on making her ideas more concrete and detailed so that Greta can see
the possibility for success, rather than be distracted and concerned by the lack of detail.
Madison also learns that when she introduces truly new thinking – something that she
now acknowledges can overwhelm others – she lets others know the ideas need a lot of
work before being seriously considered as a strategy. Oscar agrees to give Madison “the
look” in meetings with Greta when she needs to be more concrete.
Greta’s CEO Penelope is another story. Penelope (85) can’t stand lawyers -- even her
own general counsel at times. She doesn’t understand how they get anything done
with all of their crazy thinking. She thinks it is ironic that lawyers go to school to figure
out how to work with rules, yet seem to disregard them at every turn. After years of
working together, Greta has figured out how to cope with Penelope. Before presenting
an idea to Penelope, Greta works through all the details, making sure she can explain
step-by-step how the idea would be implemented. While Greta always manages to
overlook an issue, Penelope seems to have warmed up to her and respects her counsel.
For Penelope, Oscar and Madison are another matter. Greta has learned not leave
Penelope in a room alone with them. Doing so is counterproductive because Penelope
thinks that Oscar and Madison are the worst kind of lawyers: slick hucksters that have
a lot of ideas without a lick of business judgment. They are really good, Penelope
admits, but she still doesn’t like the process. Greta’s strategy is to push Oscar (he
actually seems to get it) and Madison to flesh out strategies along with pros and cons
before talking to Penelope. Then, before they meet, Greta grills them with all the
questions she thinks Penelope will ask. During the meeting with Penelope she’ll jump
in when necessary to translate between Penelope and the lawyers. In this way, she both
helps the lawyers cope with Penelope and she bridges the gap so that they can have
meaningful discussions.
©2014 Arudia
Page 9 of 9
Business-Development Example: Daphne (145) is a financial-products tax lawyer who
struggles with developing business. Her colleague, Henry (125) notices that whenever
she starts talking about her work, others’ eyes glaze over. He heard a prospective client
comment, “A theoretical physicist would be more concrete!” Obviously, he didn’t hire
Daphne. Henry likes working with Daphne; he thinks she’s smart, and believes the two
of them can develop business together. Over lunch, he suggests just that. Daphne
agrees and at the next networking event, they stick together. Henry interjects questions
so that Daphne makes her ideas more concrete and they work together to get follow-up
meetings and eventually are hired by several companies. Even though Henry is more
innovative than most, he is able to bridge the gap between Daphne and most
prospective clients because his style is between Daphne’s and most other people’s style.
Henry is also able to help Penelope cope. He coaches her to be more concrete and to
listen to the kinds of questions prospects ask her so she can respond in a more Adaptive
style, meaning with more detail and sequential step-by-step analysis.
Conclusion
The KAI measures style of creativity as applied to problem solving. Differences in style
of idea generation, methodology, and management of structure regularly manifest in
the workplace and in personal situations. Thus, investing time in understanding one’s
own style yields great insight into one’s own personal effectiveness as well as how to
more effectively collaborate with others, leveraging one’s own and others’ style to solve
problems. Appreciating and valuing the differences is vital to leading, collaborating,
and personal effectiveness.
©2014 Arudia