The Adaptor Innovator
The Adaption – Innovation (A-I) theory defines and measures two styles of decision making (Kirton 1976, 1977, 1980) clarifying earlier literature on problem solving and creativity which concentrates more on defining and assessing level rather than style.
Adaptors are characterized by being able to produce a sufficiency of ideas, based closely on but not in entirety an existing agreed upon definition of a problem and likely solutions. Adaptors are in other words those who seldom deviate from a known solution or a likely path to a solution.
Innovators by contrast are at the other end of the spectrum, are more likely in the pursuit of change to reconstruct the problem, separating it from its enveloping accepted thought. In this sense they take a problem and view it from different perspectives and different paradigms to emerge with a less probable solution.
Two different styles of thinking
Adaptive solution lean more toward general conformity to the norm and/or agreed upon paradigms, which are easily grasped intellectually and therefore more readily accepted by most. In this sense even innovators who may not be directly involved in the problem are included. Should a solution fail the position of an adaptor would be more shielded as it the solution itself conformed to a something that was readily acceptable. In other words it is less damaging as the consequence of that said failure would be diverted away from the individual(s) concerned.
Innovative ideas, as they are not closely related to the group’s prevailing, relevant paradigms, and possibly even opposing consensus views, and their originators are liable to be treated with suspicion and even derision. This tends to be the case even after a successful solution has been implemented.
My take on things.
Innovators are seen by adaptors as abrasive and insensitive (Henry, 1999) by innovators because of their views and they often question conventional thinking. This is quite true I’ve noticed in myself that I often question why conformity is necessary when there could be other possible solutions. Though I am aware of the risks, as are all innovators, I do continue to pursue that direction of thought. Innovators also are seen to be at conflict with one another except when ideas occasionally converge as innovators have little or no respect for convention or set standards of behavior.
I have noticed that the education system especially in Malaysia tends to produce adaptors especially in the Chinese school of thought. Minds are often molded to conformity and discipline rather than freedom of expression and free will. With this in mind I do observe that Chinese educated working adults have a high productive value as compared to an innovator. Innovators tend to lose much interest (an observation on myself) if a project takes too long.
That being said, every organization has its own culture or ‘climate’ and most of its key individuals reflect the general outlook. This rubs off on others in the organization forcing conformity and this cognitive style will in time reflect the general organization ethos.
Bank employees and government officials for example are largely adaptors taking into account that these organizational structures require close conformity to rules. Adaptors are more likely to emanate within a production department and Innovators from departments that act as interfaces (sales, R&D). Studies in American R&D departments found that adaptors are valued for communications on the workings of the company and innovators being more valued for communications on advanced technological innovation. (Keller and Holland, 1979).
--
That’s it for now. In the next article I will write about the creative process, including the six and nine stage models as well as the process of identifying problems and ideation. I’m halfway through stuckyness so a breather will do me good.
According to the Adaption – Innovation theory, everyone can be located on a continuum ranging from highly adaptive according to their score on the Kirton Adaption – Innovation Inventory. The range of responses is relatively fixed and stable (Kirton 1977), and in the general population approaches the normal curve distribution.
Adaptors are characterized by being able to produce a sufficiency of ideas, based closely on but not in entirety an existing agreed upon definition of a problem and likely solutions. Adaptors are in other words those who seldom deviate from a known solution or a likely path to a solution.
Innovators by contrast are at the other end of the spectrum, are more likely in the pursuit of change to reconstruct the problem, separating it from its enveloping accepted thought. In this sense they take a problem and view it from different perspectives and different paradigms to emerge with a less probable solution.
Two different styles of thinking
Adaptive solution lean more toward general conformity to the norm and/or agreed upon paradigms, which are easily grasped intellectually and therefore more readily accepted by most. In this sense even innovators who may not be directly involved in the problem are included. Should a solution fail the position of an adaptor would be more shielded as it the solution itself conformed to a something that was readily acceptable. In other words it is less damaging as the consequence of that said failure would be diverted away from the individual(s) concerned.
Innovative ideas, as they are not closely related to the group’s prevailing, relevant paradigms, and possibly even opposing consensus views, and their originators are liable to be treated with suspicion and even derision. This tends to be the case even after a successful solution has been implemented.
My take on things.
Innovators are seen by adaptors as abrasive and insensitive (Henry, 1999) by innovators because of their views and they often question conventional thinking. This is quite true I’ve noticed in myself that I often question why conformity is necessary when there could be other possible solutions. Though I am aware of the risks, as are all innovators, I do continue to pursue that direction of thought. Innovators also are seen to be at conflict with one another except when ideas occasionally converge as innovators have little or no respect for convention or set standards of behavior.
I have noticed that the education system especially in Malaysia tends to produce adaptors especially in the Chinese school of thought. Minds are often molded to conformity and discipline rather than freedom of expression and free will. With this in mind I do observe that Chinese educated working adults have a high productive value as compared to an innovator. Innovators tend to lose much interest (an observation on myself) if a project takes too long.
That being said, every organization has its own culture or ‘climate’ and most of its key individuals reflect the general outlook. This rubs off on others in the organization forcing conformity and this cognitive style will in time reflect the general organization ethos.
Bank employees and government officials for example are largely adaptors taking into account that these organizational structures require close conformity to rules. Adaptors are more likely to emanate within a production department and Innovators from departments that act as interfaces (sales, R&D). Studies in American R&D departments found that adaptors are valued for communications on the workings of the company and innovators being more valued for communications on advanced technological innovation. (Keller and Holland, 1979).
--
That’s it for now. In the next article I will write about the creative process, including the six and nine stage models as well as the process of identifying problems and ideation. I’m halfway through stuckyness so a breather will do me good.
posted by UnkleBus at 10:46 PM
2 Comments:
Are you privy enough to the Chinese Education System in Malaysia to comment about it's producement of adaptors? Or is this simply an observation you make from those from chinese educated backgrounds that you have met.
If I'm not mistaken, Chinese educations takes a lot of pride in art, caligraphy and music. Although focusing on Chinese heritage, it is still far more advance in it's apperciation and expression that most of the art and music classes in the standard educations system in Malaysia.
Just my thoughts.
i must admit that it is simply from my observation from individuals of a chinese educated background. No studies were carried out with regards to this and i make quite a few assumptions. Perhaps i do generalize too much in this respect.
Point noted.
Post a Comment
<< Home