The Nature of Innovation Part II - Creative Styles
In my first post I discussed the two different broad categories of innovative change - doing things better (evolutionary change) and doing things different (revolutionary change). Now I discuss the connection between these two categories and individual creative style.
Creative style theory’s main proponent is M.J. Kirton, father of the Kirton Innovative-Adaptive (KAI) theory and inventory. This short video from the KAI website is a nice introduction to creative style. Kirton believes creative style is ‘hard wired’ into your cognitive processes, like personality. I suppose that is debatable because I don’t think there’s been a lot of research in the effects of creating thinking training on creative style. Anyway, Kirton believes there are two types of creative styles - one geared to doing things better (adaptive) and one geared to doing things differently (innovative). The KAI inventory assesses how adaptive or innovative you are.
The KAI is not nearly as widespread or well-known as Myers-Briggs (MBTI) - you can take a MBTI assessment online for a fee, whereas to take the KAI you must find a certified practitioner to administer the assessment directly (you are mailed a form, which you fill out and return manually). The KAI assessment consists of 33 questions focused on how hard it is for you to present yourself in various ways. The output of the assessment is a score between 32 and 160. The low end of the scale is purely adaptive, the high end purely innovative. KAI scores for the general population form a familiar bell curve, with the big end of the bell centered on the mean score of 96. My KAI is 118, which puts me on the innovative side of the mean.
Adaptive people crave structure and routine. Their creative energy is focused on performing day to day tasks in the most efficient, effective ways possible. So when you ask an adaptive person to solve a problem, their ideas focus on how to make things better - improvements and efficiencies. Further, an adaptive individual doesn’t necessarily like to share ideas unless asked - they don’t aspire to create change in their environment. Adaptive activities might include plumbing, environmental cleanup, shipping and receiving, logisitics - fields where getting things done is the priority of the day.
In contrast, innovative people seek to disrupt the status quo. They produce and share ideas on a constant basis, and their ideas tend to focus on novelty and ‘breaking the mold.’ Innovators are attracted to fields like strategic planning and research. Ask an innovator to solve a problem and you’ll get big ideas to do big things outside the norm. A lot of their ideas won’t be practical - for every 20 or so ideas, only 5 might be regarded as useful. But more of their useable ideas will result in revolutionary breakthroughs.
Adaptors don’t like innovators because they aren’t practical and don’t care about getting things done to solve today’s crisis. Innovators like to focus on having big ideas, not implementing them, and as a result the task of making their ideas work falls into the laps of others. Innovators don’t like adaptors because they resist change and are naturally critical of novel thinking - they’ll focus on why the big ideas CAN’T work, in an effort to keep the status quo intact.
What’s missing is a ‘translator’ class - those who can interface effectively with both adaptors and innovators. This is often the role of those whose scores cluster around the mean. They often serve as ‘bridgers’ - the ones that take innovators’ ideas and turn them into practical solutions, and work with adaptors to mitigate the negatives and turn ideas into action. Bridgers also make good facilitators.
When I learned about creative style theory, it was as if someone had turned on the light. My degree is in engineering but I never felt I ‘fit the mold’ due to the largely theoretical nature of engineering training. It is very nuts and bolts oriented, often tedious and detailed, concentrating on the science behind the technology. My KAI score of 118 shows I am far from a nuts and bolts person - I gravitate more towards high level systems focus, strategic planning and broad goals setting. There isn’t much room for that kind of thinking in the engineering department - maybe I was better suited for a more creatively focused curriculum (there are no classes on creativity in the engineering department). Eventually I settled into the field of planning and learned innovation facilitation - now my creative energies have a more effective outlet.
By taking the KAI inventory you can learn alot about your creative thinking and your strengths and weaknesses. You can also learn your best ‘fit’ in the organization and who you can relate to the easiest. After a while you can guess others’ creative styles by observing how they react to certain situations and how they respond to problems. By knowing others’ creative styles you can learn how to better relate to them. If I know you are adaptive I will tend to stress the aspects of my ideas which you’ll connect with - improvements and efficiencies. If I know you are innovative I will help you work out the practical aspects of your big ideas so they’ll have a better shot at succeeding.
Next: Using Creative Style Effectively
Sphere: Related Content