A cross-cultural study of the influence of context on adaption-innovation.

' îTY c y

f-iOL^

^■,^l:j! %;KEST /

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY O f THE INFLUENCE

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT

ON ADAPTION-INNOVATION

A Final Thesis

Presented To

The Faculty Committee of

U.C.L. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

By

Bengi Oner

In Partial Fulfilment

Of The Requirements For

The Degree Of

Ph,D

In

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

uest.

ProQuest 10106578

Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC

789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346

I a m m o s t l y g r a t e f u l to my s u p e r v i s o r , D r . P e t e r L u n t f o r his v a l u a b l e

g u i d a n c e a n d a s s i d u o u s s u p p o r t t h a t m o t i v a t e d m e t o c o m p l e t e t hi s

t h e s i s . I a l s o t h a n k D r . M i c h e a l K i r t o n f o r m a k i n g his v a l u a b l e

r e f e r e n c e list a v a i l a b l e f or t hi s st udy. I f u r t h e r t h a n k T U B I T A K

( T u r k i s h S c i e n t i f i c I n s t i t u t i o n of R e s e a r c h ) , T u r k i s h M i n i s t r y o f

E n v i r o n m e n t a l I s s u e s a n d E K O i n § a a t g i r k e t i f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e in

c o n d u c t i n g my r e s e a r c h . I n d e e d , I a m g r a t e f u l f o r all t h e p e o p l e w h o

t o o k p a r t in t h e s u r v e y s o f t h e s t u d y a n d f or t h e all s t a f f in t h e

d e p a r t m e n t o f p s y c h o l o g y at M E T U ( M i d d l e E a s t T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y )

w h o w o r k e d r e a l l y h a r d in d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . I w o u l d a l s o

l i k e t o a c k n o w l e d g e my t h a n k s to Y Ô K ( I n s t i t u t i o n o f H i g h e r

E d u c a t i o n ) f o r t h e i r f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t . My s p e c i a l t h a n k s go to

P r o f e s s o r D r . O l c a y I m a m o g l u , w h o s e a c a d e m i c a n d p e r s o n a l t r u s t a n d

c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l o w e d m e to p r o c e e d my s t u d i e s in E n g l a n d .

T ypcscU ing Word procès sing & Printing by X * P . T é (Top Printing T hesis) London

L

i s t

of C

o n t e n t s

PAGE N°

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... iv

LIST OF C O N T E N T S ... V LIST OF TABLES ... v i i i LIST OF F I G U R E S ... xi

... x n

CHAPTER

O

1.1 A d a p t i o n - I n n o v a t i o n t h e o r y , a t h e o r y o f c o g n i t i v e s tyl e . . . 3

1.2 A s s u m p t i o n s o f t h e A d a p t i o n - I n n o v a t i o n t h e o r y ... 4

1.3 A d a p t o r s a n d i n n o v a t o r s ... 8

1.4 K i r t o n ’s A d a p t i o n - I n n o v a t i o n i n v e n t o r y ... ...11

1.4.1 The s u b s c a l e s ... 14

1.4.2 The use of KAI invenlory in testing the assumptions of the theory o f A d a p t i o n - I n n o v a t i o n ... 15

1.5 E l a b o r a t i o n o f “ l e v e l ” a n d “ s t y l e ” ...18

1.6 D i f f e r e n c e s in p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a d a p t o r s a n d i n n o v a t o r s ...23

1.7 C o g n i t i v e style a n d p e r s o n a l i t y ...23

1.8 A d a p t o r s a n d I n n o v a t o r s a t w o r k ... 26

1.8.1 How Adaptors and Innovators see each o t h e r at w o r k ... 2 6 1.9 D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s in t e r m s of A d a p t i o n - I n n o v a t i o n ...28

1.9.1 Innovators and adaptors in different c u l t u r e s ...30

1.9.2 Differences between occupational groups and within organisations in terms of Adaption-Innovation ... 33

1.10 H o w i n n o v a t i o n s a r e a d o p t e d by i n n o v a t o r s a n d a d a p t o r s . . 35

1.11 C r i t i c i s m s o f a d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n t h e o r y a n d t h e K i r t o n a d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n i n v e n t o r y ...37

1.12 R e p l i e s t o t h e c r i t i c s o f K A I ... 45

1.13 S u m m a r y ...51

A P I L O T S T U D Y ...54

2.1 A c r i t i q u e o f K A I ...55

2.2 S t u d y 1 ...60

2.2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ...60

2.2.2 Me t h o d ...61

2.2.3 Results ...61

2.2.4 D i s c u s s i o n ...71

2.3 Study 2 ... 71

2.3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ...71

2.3.2 Me t h o d ...72

2.3.3 Results ...72

2.4 Study 3 ... 72

2.4.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ...73

2.4.2 Me t h o d ...74

2.4.3 Results ...75

2.5 D i s c u s s i o n ... 90

CHAPTER ®

3.1 G e n e r a l i n t r o d u c t i o n ... 99

3.2 A c r o s s c u l t u r a l s t u d y o f a d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n a n d t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of c o n t e x t e f f e c t s ... 100

3.2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 100

3.2.2 Me t h od ...101

3.2.3 Results ... 103

3.2.4 D i s c u s s i o n ... 122

CHAPTER

O

4.1 G e n e r a l i n t r o d u c t i o n ... 136

4.2 “ K A I ” i n v e n t o r y a p p l i c a t i o n a m o n g a s a m p l e o f B r i t i s h u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n s ... 136

4.2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 136

4.2.2 Me t h od ... 137

4.2.3 Results ...137

4.2.4 D i s c u s s i o n ...159

4.3 A n a l y s i s o f K A I i n v e n t o r y in d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t a m o n g B r i t i s h s a m p l e ... 162

4.3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 162

4.3.3 P r oc e d u r es ...164

4.3.4 Results ... 165

4.3.4 D i s c u s s i o n ... 181

CHAPTER

0

5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 191

5.2 M e t h o d ...194

5.3 R e s u l t s ... 195

5.4 D i s c u s s i o n ... 201

CHAPTER ®

6.1 D e s i g n ... 211

6.1.1 M et h o d ...211

6 .1.2 Sampl e ...211

6.2 P r o c e d u r e ...211

6.2.1 I n t e r v i e w s ...211

6.3 R e s u l t s ...212

6.3.1 Basic coding unit ...212

6.3.2 R e l i a b i l i t y ...212

6.3.3 Codi ng f r a m e w o r k ...212

6.4 D i s c u s s i o n ... 217

P A G E N°

TABLES Chapter 1

T A B L E 1.1 Charact eri st i cs of Ad a p t o r s & I nnovat or s ... 9

T A B L E 1.2 KAI items ... 12

T A B L E 1.3 Ge n e r al p opul at i on results ... 13

T A B L E 1.4 F a c t o r analysis of the Torrance M a t r i x ...22

T A B L E 1.5 Model of relationship among abilities, traits, styles and b e h a v i o u r ...25

T A B L E 1.6 I nt er co r rel a t io n s of the subscales of KAI ...37

T A B L E 1.7 The or e t ic al c ombi nat i on of scores on three subscales ... 40

FABLE 1.8 I nt er co r rel a t i on s of the KAI subscales on the 20-item i n v e n t o r y ... 44

T A B L E 1.9 I nt er co r rel a t io n s of the KAI subscales on the 13-item i n v e n t o r y ...44

T A B L E 1.10 Subscale i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ... 47

T A B L E 1.11 Cor r e l a t i ons among CPI-CT, MBTI-CI, and KAI s c o r e s ...49

FABLE 1.12 Cor r el at i ons between KAI and divergent p r o d u c t i on scores . . . . 51

TABLES Chapter 2 FABI.E 2.1 The a r gu me n t of abstractions for each item in KAI inventory . . . 59

FABLE 2.2 Que s t i o n n a i r e of study 1 61 T A B L E 2.3.1 Answers of individuals for question 1 ... 63

FABLE 2.3.2 Answers of individuals for question 2 ... 65

FABLE 2.3.3 Answers of individuals for question 3 ... 66

FABLE 2.3.4 Answers of individuals for question 4 ... 67

FABLE 2.3.5 Answers of individuals for question 5 ... 68

1 A B L E 2.3.6 Cont i ngency table ...69

T A B L E 2.3.7 Cont i ngency table ...70

T AB L E 2.4.1 Fa c t or loadings for KAI items in Turkish sample... ...78

FABF,E 2.4.2 The R s quares and the eigenvalues for the three f actors of each context s c a l e ... 79

FABl.E 2.4.3 Manova tables ... 82

T A B L E 2.4.4 Cor r e l a t i ons of total scores bet ween “g e n e r a l ” (G), “ family” (FA), “opposite sex” (S), and “ f ri ends hi p” ( F R) scales ...83

FABLE 2.4.5 Cor r el at i ons between subscales [originality (O); efficiency (E); rule/group conformity (R) for the four scales] . . . 84

T A B L E 2.5

T A B L E 2.6.1

T A B L E 2.6.2

T A B L E 2.6.3

T A B L E 2.6.4

T A B L E 2.6.5

V ariation s o f total scores o f each subject across differing

sca les ... 89

’’The item s and the instruction o f gen eral sc a le ” ... 94

’’The item s and the instructions o f fam ily sc a le ” ... 95

’’The item s and the instructions o f friendship s c a le ” ... 96

“The item s and the instructions o f op p osite sex s c a le ” ...97

A ltern ative instruction o f K A I ... 98

TABLES C hapter 3 T A B L E 3.1 D escrip tive statistics for KAI and its su b scales for the Turkish sam ple ... 104

T A B L E 3.2 Kirton A d ap tion -In n ovation Inventory Z o n e s ... 105

T A B L E 3.3 Factor loadings for KAI item s in Turkish sam ple ... 107

T A B L E 3.4 C orrelations b etw een subscale scores ...109

T A B L E 3.5 D escrip tive statistics for KAI inventory and the alternate form co n tex t scales ...113

T A B L E 3.6 The R squares and the E igen valu es for three factors o f each con text s c a l e ...113

T A B L E 3.7 C orrelations b etw een subscales o f originality, efficien cy , and rule/group c o n fo r m ity ... 114

T A B L E 3.8 V ariations o f total scores o f each subject across differing sca les 117 T A B L E 3.9 M anova tables ... 118

T A B L E 3.10 C orrelations betw een subjects’ scores on KAI and alternative con text scales and scores on the scale o f p referen ces for oth er p e o p le ’s s t y l e s ... 121

T A B L E 3.11 Item s o f gen eral scale ... 127

T A B L E 3.12 Item s o f fam ily scale ... 129

T A B L E 3.13 Item s o f op p osite sex s c a l e ... 131

T A B L E 3.14 Item s o f friendship scale ... 133

T A B L E 3.15 Item s o f sch ool s c a l e ...134

T A B L E 3.16 Scale o f w illin gn ess to have contact with adaptors or in n ovators 135 TABLES C hapter 4 T A B L E 4.1 D escrip tive statistics for KAI inventory and its su b scales for British student s a m p l e ...138

T A B L E 4.2 T A B L E T A B L E T A B L E T A B L E T A B L E 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 F actor load in gs for original KAI inventory am ong British student sam ple ...140

Four factor extraction o f scorings o f B ritish stu d en t sam ple . . . 144

C orrelations b etw een subscales o f original KAI am ong British student sam ple ...147

D escrip tive statistics for translated KAI and its subscale ...148

Factor load in gs for translated KAI, item s in British sam ple . . . 151

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

TA B L E

TA BLE

TA BLE

TA BLE

T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

TABLES T A B L E

T A B L E

T A B L E

TABLES T A B L E

T A B L E

4.9 C orrelations betw een scores o f translated version o f KAI

inventory am ong British student sam ple ...157

4.10 D escrip tive statistics for KAI inventory and its su b scales for the m ixed group o f British sam ple ... 165

4.11 F actor loading for original KAI inventory item s in British stu d en t sam ple ...167

4.12 The R square and the eigen valu es for three factors o f each con text scale ... 168

4.13 C orrelations betw een subscales o f original KAI am ong B ritish student sam ple ...170

4.14 V ariation s o f total scores o f each subject across differing scales ... 174

4.15 D escrip tive statistics for original KAI and alternate form s o f KAI ... 175

4.16 D escrip tive statistics for original KAI and alternate form s o f KAI ... 175

4.17 M anova tables ...177

4.18 C orrelations b etw een total scores o f KAI and alternate form s o f KAI ... 177

4.19 C orrelation s betw een subscales for the alternate form s o f KAI . 178 4.20 C orrelations betw een subjects’ scores on KAI and alternate con text scales and scores on the scale o f p referen ces for oth er p e o p le ’s s t y l e s ... 180

4.21 Item s o f general scale ... 185

4.22 Item s o f fam ily scale ... 186

4.23 Item s o f op p osite sex s c a l e ...187

4.24 Item s o f friendship scale ... 188

4.25 Item s o f translated version o f K A I ...189

4.26 Scale o f w illin gn ess to have con tact with adaptors and innovators ... 190

C hapter 5 5.1 D escrip tive statistics for KAI inventory and its su b scales for the Turkish working s a m p l e ... 195

5.2 Factor load in gs for KAI item s in working s a m p l e ... 197

5.3 C orrelations b etw een subscales scores on Turkish w orking s a m p l e ...199

C hapter 6 6.1 Interview f o r m a t ...211

L

i s t

of F

i g u r e s

P A G E N °

F I GURES 2

F I G U R E 2.1

F I G U R E 2.2

F I GURES 3

F I G U R E 3.1

F I G U R E 3.2

F I GUR E S 4

F I G U R E 4.1

F I G U R E 4.2

F I G U R E 4.3

F I G U R E 4.4

F I G U R E 4.5

F I G U R E 4.6

F I G U R E 4.7

F I G U R E 4.8

FI GURES 5

F I G U R E 5.1

F I G U R E 5.2

The scree plot ... 77

The model for confirmatory factor analysis ... 79

The scree plot ... 106

De n d r o g r a m using Average Linkage (bet ween g r o u p s ) ...112

The scree plot ... 141

The scree plot ... 145

D e nd r og r am using average linkage me t hod hierarchical cluster analysis for the original KAI items in British s a m p l e ... 146

I he scree plot ... 152

The scree plot ... 155

De nd r o g r am using War d met hod hierarchical cluster analysis for the t r anslated KAI items among British s t udent sample ... 158

1 he scree plot ... 169

De n d r og r am using Ward me t hod ... 172

The scree plot ... 198

Chapter

O

I N T R O D U C T I O N

h e g o a l o f t h i s t h e s i s is to e x a m i n e t h e s t r e n g t h s a n d

w e a k n e s s e s o f K i r t o n ’s ( 1976) t h e o r y o f a d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n

a n d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f its m e a s u r e ; t h e K i r t o n A d a p t i o n

I n n o v a t i o n I n v e n t o r y ( K A I ) .

F r o m t h e t i m e K i r t o n p r e s e n t e d his t h e o r y a n d m e a s u r e m e n t i n v e n t o r y

in 1976 g r o w i n g a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n gi ve n to b o t h t h e t h e o r y a n d t h e

w a ys o f u s i n g t h e m e a s u r e . T h e t h e o r y is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c o g n i t i v e

s t y l e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h i c h a r e d e f i n e d by M e s s i c k as:

imtividual d ifferences in the ways o f organising and processing inform ation... These styles represent consistences in the m anner or form o f cognition as distinct from the content o f cognition or level o f skill displayed in the cognitive performance.** (M essick, 1976, p.5.)

T h u s , t h e e m p h a s i s is on t h e s t r u c t u r e o f style r a t h e r t h a n t h e c o n t e n t

( G o l d s t e i n a n d B l a c k m a n , 1981) . C o g n i t i v e s t yl es a r e d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e

l e v e l s a n d s k il l s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e ( M e s s i c k et al, 1976; Kir ton, 1978;

M c K e n n a , 1 9 8 3) . T h e y a r e d e s c r i b e d as s t a b l e p a t t e r n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n

p r o c e s s i n g a c r o s s t i m e a n d s i t u a t i o n s t h a t h a v e l i n k s w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y

t r a i t s ( M e s s i c k et al, 1976; G o l d s t e i n a n d B l a c k m a n , 1978; 1981;

M c K e n n a , 1 983) .

K i r t o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e a r e t w o d i s t i n c t s ty l e s in r e l a t i o n to

t h e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s o f c r e a t i v i t y , p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a n d d e c i s i o n

in their approach towards changes such that som e p e o p le make

innovative changes whereas others make adaptive changes. A person

w ho has an adaptive style makes changes aimed at im provem ent or

“doing things b e tte r ” (Drucker, 1969) without violating existing rules,

system s or paradigms. In contrast, a person who has an innovative style

tends to make radical changes aimed at “doing things d ifferen tly”

{Drucker, 1969), without having much consideration of the v iolation of

existing rules, systems or paradigms.

K irton’s theory draws a distinction betw een creative problem solving

a b ilities (le v e l) and cognitive processing of inform ation (style)

{Goldsmith, 1985). Richards and Puccio (1992) claim that K irton’s

theory leads to a reconsideration of some behaviours that may have

b e e n previously classified as uncreative as adaptive. Such behaviours

would not be the con sequence of a lack of ability in the subject but

rather the expression of a decision making style.

B ased on his theory of decision making Michael Kirton (1976) designs

a test for the purpose of measuring style where each individual can be

located on a continuum from adaptive to innovative. A daptive

characteristics are associated with three subscales, namely sufficiency

o f originality, efficiency and rule conformity. Innovative characteristics

are associated with a high interest in the originality of ideas, less

concern for efficiency and less concern about rule conformity. The

ex isten ce o f these subscales are determined by factor analysis of the

Kirton A d ap tion-Innovation Inventory (Kirton 1976).

T he originality subscale refers to the production of ideas. A daptors

tend to have a relatively modest number of sensible, original ideas

w hereas innovators tend to produce numerous ideas. E fficiency refers

IN T R O D U C T IO N Chapter O

b e m o r e o r g a n i s e d a n d c o n s i s t e n t , w h e r e a s i n n o v a t o r s a r e f o u n d t o b e

l e s s m e t h o d i c a l . R u l e c o n f o r m i t y r e f e r s t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f r u l e s o r

t h e a u t h o r i t y o f a g r o u p . A d a p t o r s a r e f o u n d to b e m o r e s u p p o r t i v e o f

g r o u p n o r m s a n d t e n d to “ c r e a t e in t h e g r o u p ” ( C a r l i a n d P r a t o

Previde, 1986 ). I n n n o v a t o r s t e n d to r e j e c t g r o u p n o r m s m o r e a n d to

“ c r e a t e a l o n e ” {Carli a n d P r a t o Previde, 19 86) .

T h i s c h a p t e r e x a m i n e s t h e a s s u m p t i o n s o f a d a p t a t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n t h e o r y .

In p a r t i c u l a r , I will e x a m i n e K i r t o n ’s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t y p i c a l a d a p t o r s

a n d i n n o v a t o r s a n d t h e K A I i n v e n t o r y . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n c o g n i t i v e style a n d p e r s o n a l i t y a r e a d d r e s s e d . S t u d i e s o f

i n n o v a t o r s a n d a d a p t o r s in v a r i o u s w o r k i n g s e t t i n g s a r e a l s o d i s c u s s e d .

C r i t i c a l c o m m e n t s o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s a r e a l s o p r e s e n t e d , t o g e t h e r

w i t h s t u d i e s w h i c h p r e s e n t r e s p o n s e s to t h e s e c r i t i c i s m s . F i n a l l y t h e

p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f t hi s t h e s i s a r e s t a t e d .

m

COGNITIVE STYLE

T h e r e h a s b e e n a l o n g s t a n d i n g i n t e r e s t in p s y c h o l o g y a n d s o c i o l o g y in

t h e i s s u e o f c r e a t i v i t y ( Ma s lo w, 1959; Rogers, 1959; O sb o rn , 1963;

Koestler, 1964; P or n e s a n d Noller, 1972; Torrance, 1974; M a c K i n n o n ,

Cff/yo/Y/, 79.97; 797^J; 7 9 % - 79.97^). It

m a k e s i n t u i t i v e s e n s e to t h i n k t h a t w h i l e h u m a n b e i n g s n e e d s t r u c t u r e

a n d o r d e r in t h e i r o wn t h i n k i n g a n d in t h e i r o wn s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s t o go

a b o u t t h e i r e v e r y d a y lives, t hi s n e e d s to b e b a l a n c e d by t h e a b i l i t y t o

b e c r e a t i v e a n d i n n o v a t i v e .

T h e p r e s e n t t h e s i s l o o k s a t t h e s o ci a l c o g n i t i o n o f a d a p t i o n -

i n n o v a t i o n . I n f l u e n c e d by K i r t o n ( 197 6) , r e c e n t d e b a t e s h a v e f o c u s e d

a n d a d a p t i v e n e s s . K i r t o n h a s a d o p t e d t h e vi ew t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s a r e d u e

t o c o g n i t i v e s tyle r a t h e r t h a n i n t e l l i g e n c e o r a b i l i t y . A d a p t i o n -

i n n o v a t i o n t h e o r y was o r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s e d by K i r t o n in 1976 a n d h a s

b e e n d e v e l o p e d by h im a n d o t h e r s o v e r t h e y e a r s in a s e r i e s o f a r t i c l e s .

In t h i s t h e s i s , we will t a k e K i r l o n ' s ( 1976) o r i g i n a l a r t i c l e as a m o d e l .

1.2 A SS U M PT IO N S OF THE ADAPTION-INNOVATION THEORY

A c c o r d i n g t o K i rt on ( 1989) c r e a t i v i t y , p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a n d d e c i s i o n

m a k i n g a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d c o n c e p t s . K i r t o n p r e s e n t s v a r i o u s r e a s o n s f o r

c o n n e c t i n g t h o s e c o n c e p t s . In t h e fir st p l a c e , d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d

p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a r e r e l a t e d to e a c h o t h e r . P r o b l e m s o l v i n g i n v o l v e s

p o t e n t i a l c h o i c e s o f s o l u t i o n s . W h e r e a s t h e a c t o f d e c i d i n g r e q u i r e s

r e a c h i n g “ a c h o i c e o f s o l u t i o n ” a f t e r t h o u g h t . If t h e r e is n o c h o i c e o f

s o l u t i o n t o a p r o b l e m , t h e n t h e r e is no n e e d f o r a d e c i s i o n . T h u s ,

d e c i s i o n m a k i n g o f t e n r e q u i r e s p r o b l e m solving. C r e a t i v i t y a n d p r o b l e m

s o l v i n g a r e a l s o s t a t e d by K i r t o n to be r e l a t e d c o n c e p t s as t h e y b o t h

r e q u i r e “ o r i g i n a l i t y a n d n o v e l t y ” (Kirton, 1 989). A n d y e t t h e s e t h r e e

i n t e r r e l a t e d c o n c e p t s ( c r e a t i v i t y , p r o b l e m s o lv in g, d e c i s i o n m a k i n g ) a r e

m o s t l y t r e a t e d as s e p a r a t e in r e s e a r c h . T h e r e a s o n f o r th is, a c c o r d i n g

t o K i r t o n , is t h e i r r a t h e r a m b i g u o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o i n t e l l i g e n c e .

I n t e l l i g e n c e h a s m a i n l y b e e n c o n s i d e r e d as a c o n c e p t o f c a p a c i t y o r

l e v e l a n d is s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s in p r o b l e m

s o l v i n g a n d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d

c r e a t i v i t y is m u c h less c l e a r b o t h t h e o r e t i c a l l y a n d e m p i r i c a l l y ( Kir ton,

1 9 89 ) . G u i l d f o r d ( 19 50 ) t r e a t s i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d c r e a t i v i t y as s e p a r a t e

c o n c e p t s a n d s u g g e s t s m o d e s t r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e m . G e t z e l s a n d

J a c k s o n ( 1 9 6 2 ) c l a i m t h a t p e o p l e w h o h a v e low i n t e l l i g e n c e will

d e f i n i t e l y n o t b e e x p e c t e d to be c r e a t i v e . H o w e v e r , b e y o n d t h e a v e r a g e

INTRODUCTION C hapter O

con cep ts. Empirically there is some evidence of p ossib le correlations

b etw een in telligen ce tests and certain creative talents but the extent of

the correlations is not conclusive {Guildford, 1950). Payne (1987)

reports correlation coefficients between 0.4 and 0.1. H ow ever, there is

the possibility that the overall relationship betw een in te llig e n c e and

creativity is shadowed by these correlations because for high lev els of

in te llig e n c e there may be no relationship betw een the two con cep ts at

all {Getzel & Jackson, 1962). Torrance (1962) found supportive evid en ce

that there is no significant relationship betw een creativity and

in te llig e n c e in subjects with IQ ’s over 120. Thus high lev els o f IQ do

not predict creativity.

What is implied by the term "creativity" is important. An action which

is creative is defined by Maddi (1972) as an act which contributes

som ething new and important and the creative person is defin ed as the

one who consistently produces creative acts. According to this

co n cep tio n , creativity is conceived as an ability and “individuals are

arrayed according to how much of this ability they p o s s e s s ” {Goldsmith,

1987, p. 317). Accordingly, instruments which intend to m easure

creative ability aim at ranking people. However, there is a lack of

convergen t validity for such tests and, in addition, those tests which

are designed to m easure creative ability have inconsistent relationships

with other traits and abilities {Hocevar, 1981).

A ccording to Kirton, creative measures confound level with style and

that is why there is a lack of convergent validity and a lack of

consistency in the creativity literature. Thus, Kirton (1976) by

distinguishing betw een level of creative ability and style of creative

action introduces a new perspective in the theory and m ea su rem en t of

creativity. His major emphasis is on the distinction b etw een level and

and cognitive style and allow the prediction of behaviours with a

greater degree of confidence. Kirton criticizes existing m easures of

le v e l for their lack of reliability and validity and claims that m easures

o f level are contaminated by such factors as in tellig en ce and know

-how. A m easure of style is not affected by these factors, how ever and

it may be p ossible to produce a valid measure of style. Kirton adapts

Messick's (1976, 1984) and Guilford's (1980) views of style as a basis

for his theory and conceives style as “being described as a marked

p referen ce, a character difference, a stable pattern linked to steady

personality traits” (Kirton, 1989, p.4).

Individual differences in style were firstly considered by Myers (1962)

who refers to the differences of individuals’ p references in their

p ercep tio n s and judgements. K om b (1979) refers to stylistic d ifferen ces

in learning and Synder (1979) refers to differences in s e lf m onitoring.

Kirton (1976) puts forward the idea that individuals differ in terms of

their styles of creativity, decision making and problem solving. The

im portance of the ways of thinking and problem solving is also

em ph asized by Leavitt (1972). There are other researchers who give

their op inions about the styles of creativity in different terms. Eisner

(1965) approaches the topic of creativity in a similar way to Kirton. H e

refers to “boundary pushing” and “breaking b ou n d a ries” as two basic

approaches to creativity. Boundary pushing involves fulfilling what is

p ossible, by extending what is given. In contrast, the second approach

involves breaking boundaries so that what has once existed is not

m aintained. Drucker (1969) applies E isn er’s descriptions in an

organizational context. Drucker refers to two styles as “doing things

b e tte r ” and “doing things differently”. Zaleznik (1977) distinguishes

individuals in their styles of organizational problem solving as

“le a d e r s” and “m anagers”. Leaders are described as being m ore active,

INTRODUCTION C hapter O

creating excitem ent at work and taking high risks. In costrast,

m anagers are described as being more reactive and more tolerant of

m undane work, more willing to co-ordinate and balance and as having

m ore com posure. Thus earlier observers {Eisner, 1965; Drucker, 1969;

Zaleznik, 1977) contribute to the recognition of the ex isten ce of

d ifferen ces in terms of style o f creativity, decision making and problem

solving (K irto n ,1989). Kirton (1976) uses these earlier descriptions and

furtherm ore, he presents a theory in which hypothetical relations can

be proposed and tested by researchers for further analysis {Kirton,

7 9 2 9 ) .

Kirton (1976) basically assum es that adaption and innovation are two

cognitive styles o f individuals who are “involved in c h a n g e ” {Kirton,

1989, p . 3). Some individuals prefer to produce “a d a p tiv e” changes,

w h ereas others prefer “innovative” changes. T hese p referen ces are

“form ed early and are stable over time and in cid en t”. {Kirton, 1989,

p . 6) That is to say, regardless of type of change, the style o f the

person making the change seem s to show persisten ce and this

p ersisten ce even “seem s not to be readily altered by learning or

training” {Kirton, 1989, p . 3). As cognitive style is assum ed to be

distinct from cognitive capacity, the style of the person making the

change is expected to be unrelated to his or her in tellig en ce or success.

Thus the theory is claim ed to be “value fr e e ” and “non p ejo ra tiv e”

{Kirton, 1989, p . 3). Another assumption is that cognitive style is

in d ep en d en t o f coping behaviour, “a process that permits functioning

for lim ited am ounts and limited periods outside preferred cognitive

style when n eeds m u st” {Kirton, 1989, p . 3). Thus coping behaviour is

for the short term and o n e ’s style is more permanent. Individuals can

change their behaviours as a way of coping with certain situ ations but

T o s u m m a r i s e , a d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n is a s s u m e d t o b e a d i m e n s i o n o f

c o g n i t i v e s ty le w h i ch is r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l s ’ p r e f e r r e d c o g n i t i v e

s t r a t e g i e s i n v o l v e d in c h a n g e . Be i n g c o n c e i v e d o f a s a s t yl e it is

a s s u m e d t o b e d i f f e r e n t f r o m c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y . A d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n

is t h u s u n r e l a t e d to skill, i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d c o p i n g b e h a v i o u r , is s t a b l e

a c r o s s t i m e a n d s i t u a t i o n s a n d has l inks t o c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s .

T h e t h e o r y is v a l u e f r e e , t h a t is h a v i n g a c e r t a i n s tyle ( e i t h e r a d a p t i v e

o r i n n o v a t i v e ) d o e s n o t im pl y any p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e m e a n i n g (Kirton,

1.3 ADAPTORS AND INNOVATORS

theory, a critical characteristic o f the habitual adaptor when coufrouting a problem is to accept the generally recognised theories, p o licies, custom ary view points or, iu K uhn's (1970) terms ‘paradigms* in which it appears to be em bedded. By contrast the characteristic style o f the habitual innovator is eventually to detach the problem from , its cocoon o f accepted thought to reconstruct the problem and its attendant paradigm whilst in the pursuit o f a solution** (Kirton,

1989, p,6).

K i r t o n ’s t h e o r y c o n c e n t r a t e s on t he n a t u r e o f i d e a s g e n e r a t e d by

p e o p l e a t t h e t w o e n d s o f t h e a d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n d i m e n s i o n . A t o n e

e n d , t h e r e is t h e h a b i t u a l a d a p t o r a n d a t t h e o t h e r t h e r e is t h e

h a b i t u a l i n n o v a t o r . D r u c k e r ( 1969) d e f i n e s t h e “ h a b i t u a l a d a p t o r ’’

( Kir ton, 1 9 7 6 ) as o n e w h o s e e k s to c h a n g e t h i n g s f o r t h e b e t t e r a n d t h e

“ h a b i t u a l i n n o v a t o r ” , (Kirton, 1976) as o n e w h o p r e f e r s d o i n g t h i n g s

d i f f e r e n t l y . A s u m m a r y o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n a d a p t o r s a n d

i n n o v a t o r s is p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 1.1.

A d a p t o r s c o m m o n l y a t t e m p t to s olve p r o b l e m s w i t h a g e n e r a l

a c c e p t a n c e o f c o n c e p t u a l l y a g r e e d g u i d e l i n e s ( p a r a d i g m s ) , a n d t h e i r

a i m is t o i m p r o v e t h e s e exi s ti ng p r o c e s s e s . T h e y try “ s t r e t c h i n g ” t h e

p a r a d i g m s a n d w h e n t h e y p r o d u c e c h a n g e s t h e s e c h a n g e s e v e n t u a l l y

IN T R O D U C T IO N Chapter O

a p p r o a c h p r o b l e m s o l v i n g by q u e s t i o n i n g c o n c e p t u a l l y a g r e e d g u i d e l i n e s

( p a r a d i g m s ) . I n n o v a t o r s c o n s i d e r t h e e x i s t i n g p a r a d i g m as p a r t o f t h e

p r o b l e m , t h e i r a i m is t o p r o d u c e u n t r i e d , n e w s o l u t i o n s .

T h e A d n p l u r T h e l n n « v a l ( i r

C h a r a c t e r i s e d by p r e c i s i o n , r e l i a b i l i t y , e f f i c i e n c y ,

m e t h o d i c a l n e s s , p r u d e n c e , d i s c i p l i n e , c o n f o r m i t y .

C o n c e r n e d w i t h r e s o l v i n g r e s i d u a l p r o b l e m s t h r o w n u p by t h e c u r r e n t p a r a d i g m .

S e e k s s o l u t i o n s t o p r o b l e m s in t r i e d a n d u n d e r s t o o d w a y s .

R e d u c e s p r o b l e m s by i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d g r e a t e r

e f f i c i e n c y , w i t h m a x i m u m o f c o n t i n u i t y a n d s t a b i l i t y .

S e e n a s s o u n d , c o n f o r m i n g , s a f e , d e p e n d a b l e .

L i a b l e t o m a k e g o a l s o f m e a n s .

S e e m s i m p e r v i o u s t o b o r e d o m , s e e m s a b l e t o m a i n t a i n h i g h a c c u r a c y in l o n g s p e l l s o f d e t a i l e d w o r k .

Is a n a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n g i v e n s t r u c t u r e s .

C h a l l e n g e s r u l e s r a r e l y , c a u t i o u s l y , w h e n a s s u r e d o f s t r o n g s u p p o r t .

T e n d s t o h i g h s e l f - d o u b t . R e a c t s t o c r i t i c i s m by c l o s e r o u t w a r d c o n f o r m i t y . V u l n e r a b l e t o s o c i a l p r e s s u r e a n d a u t h o r i t y : c o m p l i a n t .

Is e s s e n t i a l t o t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n al l t h e t i m e , b u t o c c a s i o n a l l y n e e d s t o b e " d u g o u t ' o f

hi s s y s t e m .

S e e n a s u n d i s c i p l i n e d , t h i n k i n g , t a n g e n t i a l l y , a p p r o a c h i n g t a s k s f r o m u n e x p e c t e d a n g l e s .

C o u l d b e s a i d t o s e a r c h f o r p r o b l e m s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e a v e n u e s o f s o l u t i o n , c u t t i n g a c r o s s c u r r e n t p a r a d i g m s .

Q u e r i e s p r o b l e m s ’ c o n c o m i t a n t a s s u m p t i o n s :

m a n i p u l a t e s p r o b l e m s .

Is a c a t a l y s t t o s e t t l e d g r o u p s , ii r e v e r e n t o f t h e i i

c o n s e n s u a l v i e ws : s e e n a s a b r a s i v e , c r e a t i n g d i s s o n a n c e .

S e e n a s u n s o u n d , i m p r a c t i c a l , o f t e n s h o c k s hi s

c o l l e a g u e s .

In p u r s u i t o f g o a l s t r e a t s a c c e p t e d m e a n s w i t h l i t t l e r e g a r d .

C a p a b l e o f d e t a i l e d r o u t i n e ( s y s t e m - m a in t e n a n c e ) w o r k f o r o n l y s h o r t b u r s t s .

T e n d s t o t a k e c o n t r o l in u n s t r u c t u r e d s i t u a t i o n s .

O f t e n c h a l l e n g e s r u l e s , h a s l i t t l e r e s p e c t f o r p a s t c u s t o m .

A p p e a r s t o h a v e l o w s e l f - d o u b t w h e n g e n e r a t i n g

i d e a s , n o t n e e d i n g c o n s e n s u s t o m a i n t a i n c e r t i t u d e in f a c e o f o p p o s i t i o n .

I n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n is i d e a l in u n s c h e d u l e d c r i s e s , o r b e t t e r s t i l l t o h e l p a v o i d t h e m , if h e c a n b e c o n t r o l l e d .

W hen c o ll a b o r a ti n g with In novators: When c o il a b o r a ti n g with Ada pt ors :

s u p p l i e s s t a b i l i t y , o r d e r a n d c o n t i n u i t y t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p :

is s e n s i t i v e t o p e o p l e , m a i n t a i n s g r o u p c o h e s i o n a n d c o - o p e r a t i o n :

p r o v i d e s a s a f e b a s e o f t h e i n n o v a t o r ’s r i s k i e r o p e r a t i o n s .

s u p p l i e s t h e t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n s , t h e b r e a k w i t h t h e

p a s t a n d a c c e p t e d t h e o r y :

a p p e a r s i n s e n s i t i v e t o p e o p l e , o f t e n t h r e a t e n s g r o u p c o h e s i o n a n d c o - o p e r a t i o n :

p r o v i d e s t h e d y n a m i c s t o b r i n g a b o u t p e r i o d i c r a d i c a l c h a n g e , w i t h o u t w h i c h i n s t i t u t i o n s t e n d t o os s i f y .

T ab le 1.1:

S o u r c e :

Thus, when innovators produce solutions, their solutions usually

incorporate a “switch of the existing paradigm ” {Thomson, 1980).

Kirton bases his definitions of adaption-innovation on the acception or

rejection of “paradigms” in the sense introduced by K uhn’s (1970)

analysis of scientific progress. Adaptors are defined as operating within

paradigms, w hereas innovators break from existing paradigms. One

aspect of this is that innovators are not often readily w elcom ed . Their

innovative ideas do not appear to be solid and sen sib le to those

individuals who are accustomed to living within the prevailing

paradigm. That is why innovators often receive resistance to their ideas

in the beginning. They can becom e “creative lo n e r s ” {Rogers, 1959).

A ccording to Rogers (1959), as innovators depart from the traditional

know ledge or practice, they often tend to threaten or challen ge

consensus, and they becom e loners who try to p ersuade others to

change. W hile doing so they can end up being perceived as the cause

of problem s and disagreements. Even after their views have been

accepted, som etim es when they have further novel ideas, they still face

scepticism and rejection. Thus an innovative approach to problem

solving and decision making requires risk taking. The risk taking

involves the possible disadvantages and harm that can arise from the

failure o f the innovative idea, together with the social disapproval that

will be received.

Since innovative change has more risks compared to adaptive change,

adaptors are mostly associated with bureaucratic organisations, {Kirton,

1989). The bureaucratic structure as claimed hy Parsons (1951), Merton

(1957) and Weber (1970), needs “precision, reliability and e ffic ie n c y ”

{Kirton, 1989, p . 7) for its persistence. For this reason individuals who

work for bureaucratic organisations are expected to have a systematic,

d isciplined and persévérant m ode of thinking and acting, which may

IN T R O D U C T IO N Chapter O

p. 7). As s t a t e d by K ir t o n ( 1989) t h e a d a p t a t i v e a p p r o a c h is r e f l e c t e d in

t h e a n a l y s i s o f s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s in t h e a r e a : in o r d e r t o r e d u c e risk

as f a r as p o s s i b l e o r g a n i s a t i o n s in g e n e r a l {Whyte, 1957; B a k k e , 1965;

Weber, 1970; Mii lkay, 1972) , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y o r g a n i s a t i o n s w h i c h a r e

l a r g e in s iz e a n d b u d g e t , t e n d to f a v o u r a b u r e a u c r a t i c a n d a d a p t i v e

m i l i e u .

In c o n t r a s t , M i c h e a l K i r t o n ’s (1976) a r g u m e n t r e s t s o n t h e v i e w t h a t

b o t h a d a p t o r s a n d i n n o v a t o r s a r e n e e d e d in s o ci e t y . B o t h s t y l e s h a v e

t h e i r d i s a d v a n t a g e s a n d a d v a n t a g e s o v e r o n e a n o t h e r . H a v i n g a c e r t a i n

st yl e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b r i n g p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n . I n s t e a d ,

c a t e g o r i s a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s in t e r m s of style o f a d a p t i o n - i n n o v a t i o n

c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l i t y a n d t h e f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e i r c a p a c i t y

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d e m a n d s o f t h e j ob .

1 4 K IR T O N ’S ADAPTION-INNOVATION INVENTORY

K i r t o n ’s A d a p t i o n - I n n o v a t i o n I n v e n t o r y ( K A I ) ( S e e T a b l e 1.2) is t h e

i n s t r u m e n t K i r t o n p r o d u c e d b a s e d on t h e t h e o r y o f A d a p t i o n -

I n n o v a t i o n . T h e K A I is d e s i g n e d f or use w i th a d u l t s w i t h e x p e r i e n c e

of life a n d w o r k . T h e i n v e n t o r y c o n s i s t s of 32 i t e m s w h i c h K i r t o n u s e s

to t e s t t h e r a n g e o f t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s in his t h e o r y . T h i s g i v e s t h e

s c al e c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y . H e p r o c e e d s in t he s t a n d a r d m a n n e r t o d e v e l o p

t h e s c a l e . H e a d m i n i s t e r s t h e s c al e a n d f a c t o r a n a l y s e s t h e r e s u l t s to

s e e if t h e m u l t i p l e a t t r i b u t e s in his t h e o r y f o r m c o h e r e n t s u b s c a l e s

L I S T O F I T E M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

A p e r s o n w h o is p a t i e n t A p e r s o n w h o c o n f o r m s

A p e r s o n w h e n s t u c k a lw a y s t h i n k o f s o m e t h i n g A p e r s o n w h o e n j o y s t h e d e t a i l e d w o r k

A p e r s o n w h o s o n n e r c r e a t e s o m e t h i n g t h a n i m p r o v e it

A p e r s o n w h o is p r u d e n t w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h a u t h o r i t y o r g e n e r a l o p i n i o n A p e r s o n w h o n e v e r a c t w i t h o u t p r o p e r a u t h o r i t y

A p e r s o n w h o n e v e r s e e k s to b e n d ( m u c h le ss b r e a k ) t h e r u l e s A p e r s o n w h o li k e s b o s s e s a n d w o r k p a t t e r n s w h ic h a r e c o n s i s t e n t A p e r s o n w h o h o l d s b a c k id e a s u n t i l t h e y a r e o b v i o u s l y n e e d e d A p e r s o n w h o h a s f r e s h p e r s p e c t i v e s on o ld p r o b l e m s

A p e r s o n w h o li k e s t o v a r y s e t r o u t i n e s a t a m o m e n t ’s n o t i c e A p e r s o n w h o p r e f e r s c h a n g e s to o c c u r g r a d u a l l y

A p e r s o n w h o is t h r o u g h A p e r s o n w h o is a s t e a d y p l o d d e r

A p e r s o n w h o c o p e s w i t h s e v e r a l n e w i d e a s a n d p r o b l e m s a t t h e s a m e t i m e A p e r s o n w h o is c o n s i s t e n t

A p e r s o n w h o is a b l e t o s t a n d o u t in d i s a g r e e m e n t a l o n e a g a i n s t a g r o u p o f e q u a l s a n d A p e r s o n w h o is s t i m u l a t i n g

A p e r s o n w h o r e a d i l y a g r e e s w it h t h e t e a m a t w o r k A p e r s o n w h o h a s o r o g i n a l id e a s

A p e r s o n w h o m a s t e r s a l l d e t a i l s p a i n s t a k i n g l y A p e r s o n w h o p r o l i f e r a t e s id e a s

A p e r s o n w h o p r e f e r s t o w o r k on o n e p r o b l e m a t a t i m e A p e r s o n w h o is m e t h o d i c a l a n d s y s t e m a t i c

A p e r s o n w h o o f t e n r i s k s d o i n g t h i n g s d i f f e r e n t l y A p e r s o n w h o w o r k s w i t h o u t d e v i a t i o n in a p r e s c r i b e d way

A p e r s o n w h o li k e s t o i m p o s e s t r i c t o r d e r o n m a t t e r s w i t h i n ow n c o n t r o l A p e r s o n w h o li k e s t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p r e c i s e i n s t r u c t i o n s

A p e r s o n e h o fits r e a d i l y i n t o t h e ‘s y s t e m ’

A p e r s o n w h o n e e d s t h e s t i m u l a t i o n o f f r e q u e n t c h a n g e A p e r s o n w h o p r e f e r s c o l l e a g u e s w h o n e v e r r o c k t h e b o a t ' A p e r s o n w h o is p r e d i c t a b l e

T a b l e 1.2: K A I I T E M S

The item s are scored by subjects on a scale from 1 to 5, giving a

th eoretical range o f total scores from 32 and 160, with a th eoretical

mean score of 96. Subjects who score well above the mean are

considered to have an innovative style whereas subjects who score

below the m ean are considered to have a tendency to adaptiveness.

(R e la tiv e Adaptors, KAI <101; M iddles, KAI = 101-114; and

Innovators, KAI > 1 1 4 ) {Richards and Puccio, 1992). In addition to

rating th em selv es on the adaption-innovation items the respondents are

asked to indicate the degree of ease and difficulty they have in

maintaining specific adaptive or innovative behaviours over time.

There is great deal o f literature regarding the instrum ent’s validity and

IN T R O D U C T IO N Chapter O

r e p o r t s b e t w e e n 1976- 1985, M i i d d (1986) f i nds a m e a n of 96. 0, a

s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of 14.9 ( n = 1 7 1 9 ) , a n d a hi gh r e l i a b i l i t y ( C r o n b a c h ’s

a l p h a = .86, n = 2777) . E v i d e n c e f r o m s e v e r a l s t u d i e s r e g a r d i n g g e n e r a l

p o p u l a t i o n s (i n UK, Kirton, 1972, N = 562; in Ital y, P r a t o Previde,

1984, N = 835; in U S A , G o l d s m i t h , 1985, N = 294) s h o w s t h a t t h e

s c o r e s of i n d i v i d u a l s in v a r i o u s p o p u l a t i o n s a p p e a r t o b e n o r m a l l y

d i s t r i b u t e d . T h e r e p o r t e d m e a n s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h e s e

g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n s t u d i e s a r e gi ve n in T a b l e 1.3.

(N) S.d. Range

U K 562 94.99 17.9 45-145

Italy 835 94.07 17.7 46-146

USA 214 94.98 13.9

-Tabl e 1.3: Source;

Gener al Popul at i on Results Kinton, 1989, p. 15

F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e of

t h e r o b u s t n a t u r e

o f r e s u l t s f r o m t he

K A I i n v e n t o r y is

a v a i l a b l e f r o m

f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c

s t u d i e s . C o n s i s t e n t

f a c t o r i a l

c o m p o s i t i o n i n t o t h r e e s u b s c a l e s is f o u n d a c r o s s s e v e r a l p o p u l a t i o n s .

K i r t o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) s t u d i e d t he g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n in B r i t a i n , ( N = 286) ; 431

J u n i o r m i d d l e hi gh s c h o o l t e a c h e r s a r e s t u d i e d in U S A ( P u l v i n o , 1979);

Si xt h F o r m hi gh s c h o o l s t u d e n t s ( N = 303) a r e s t u d i e d by M u l l i g a n a n d

M a r t i n ( 1 9 8 0 ) in N e w Z e a l a n d ; a g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n s t u d y ( N = 2 7 0 ) is

c o n d u c t e d by G o l d s m i t h ( 1985) in t h e U S A ; U S A u n d e r g a d u a t e s

( N = 2 8 9 ) a r e s t u d i e d by B e e n e a n d Z e l h a r t ( 1988) ; a n I r i s h s t u d e n t

s a m p l e ( N = 374) is s t u d i e d by H a m m o n d ( 1986) ; Br i t i s h m a n a g e r s

( N = 2 0 3 ) a r e s t u d i e d by D e C i a n t i s ( 1987) . A s t a b l e s t r u c t u r e is f o u n d

in e a c h of t h e s t u d i e s . O n a v e r a g e 83 p e r c e n t of t h e 32 i t e m s a p p e a r e d

in t h e s a m e f a c t o r s ( K i r t o n 1989) as in t he o r i g i n a l s t u d y of K i r t o n

( 1 9 7 6 ) . T h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n a l s t u d i e s wh i c h f i nd t wo f a c t o r s ( K e l l e r

a n d H o l l a n d , 1978) or f o u r f a c t o r s ( T a y l o r , 1989; Fo x a l l a n d H a c k e t t ,

in the literature (Foxall and Hackett, 1992; Bagozzi and Foxall, 1995).

Kirton interprets these three factors as ‘originality’, ‘ef ficiency’ and

‘rule conformity’.

1.4*1 The Subscales

Originality: The originality subscale measures the number of ideas that

individuals generate. Adaptors score low on this subscale as they are

expected to generate less ideas compared to innovators, even though

their ideas appear to be solid and relevant as they lie within the scope

of the prevailing “paradigm”. Innovators, in contrast, are expected to

score high on this subscale as a result of their tendency to produce

ideas even though their ideas are not accepted immediately since they

are not within the scope of the prevailing paradigm.

Efficiency: The efficiency subscale refers to the way tasks are

mastered. A low score in this subscale reflects an adaptive tendency,

which refers to the mastering of tasks in detailed, systematic and well

disciplined ways. Adaptors are expected to keep an eye to everything

related to the relevant task, whereas a high or moderate score of

efficiency reflects an innovative tendency which refers to relatively less

consideration of the details of a task. Rather than being systematic and

methodical, innovators tend to look at things in a more haphazard way.

Kirton (1976) calls this subscale Methodical Weberianism since “it

describes at one extreme the kind of a person Weber claimed that is

ne ed ed in organisations - precise, disciplined and re l ia b l e” {Kirton,

1976, p . 620).

Ru le/ Gro up Conformity: The rule/group conformity subscale refers to

the preference to operate within rules and structures. A high score

reflects an innovative tendency which indicates less concern for rules

INTRODUCTION C hapter O

indicates more of a concern with rules and group norms. The subscale

is also described by Kirton (1976) as Mertonian conformism, since it

reflects Me rt on ’s (1957) description of the person who fits well into a

bureaucratic organisation. The Mertonian conformist accepts both the

goals and the means of the society. He/she tends to accept

conventionally agreed guidelines or paradigms.

||i | i : The use of KAI inventory in Testing the A s sum pti on s of the

Theory of Adaption-innovation

The consistent data related to the existence of three factors as

subscales, the normal distribution of scores and the overall means seem

to give support for the assumptions of the theory that adaption

innovation dimension is stable over time and situations. Prato Previde

(1991) who applied the Italian version of KAI inventory suggests that

the “concept of cognitive style... is international and might also underly

culture” (Prato Previde, 1991, p . 8). Indeed, the similar findings of the

Italian version of KAI inventory is interpreted by Kirton (1989) as

evidence that the instrument measures phenomena that correspond to

the theory and even suggests that “the concept may well lie for the

most part at a deeper level than culture.” (Kirton, 1989, p. 19).

The short term stability of Kirton’s style of adaption-innovation has

been studied by using test-retest reliability measurement and high

reliabilities are reported in Kirton (1989) where the correlation

coefficients are found to be between .82 and .84 for the published

studies (Gryskiewicz, Hills, Holt and Hills, 1987; Kirton, 1978) and .86

for the unpublished studies (Prato Previde in Italy, Pottas in South

Africa) where the duration of above studies ranged from 3 to 17

months. Three longitudinal studies (Goldsmith and Kerr, 1991; Murdock,

Isaksen and Latter, 1993 and Watts, 1985) applied training intervention.

findings that are reported in the studies of Murdock et al. (1993) and

Watt (1985) indicate that adaption-innovation scores did not change

after training. The reliability coefficients were found to be within the

range of .82 and .84 which is the range derived from studies that do

not use any training intervention methodology. Whereas the studies of

Goldsmith and Kerr (1991) indicated a relatively lower (r = .69)

stability. In Clapp’s (1993) longitudinal study, the findings indicate a

high test-retest coefficient of .82 after a period of 3.5 years. The

adaption-innovation of children and adolescents are also studied across

time. A study of 64 New Zealand students {Kirton, 1987) who are 17-18

year olds, reported .82 test-retest reliability after a seven month

interval. Whereas, a study {Taylor, 1994) of 45 fourteen year old

British schoolchildren shows reasonable test-retest reliability of r = .67

( p < . 0 0 1 ) for an interval of 3 years. Thus longitudinal studies on

adaption-innovation give support for the stability of style across time.

Studies also show that the social desirability influence of the inventory

is low. That is, there is no one particular pole of the scale that

individuals find favourable {Goldsmith and Matherly, 1986; Goldsmith,

Matherly, Wheatley 1986). Various social desiribility measures are used

such as Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale {Goldsmith, Matherly,

1986); the Lie Scale from the Eysenk Personality Inventory (the

LEPI-Lie Scale) {Goldsmith, Matherly, 1986) and, yea-saying {Goldsmith,

Matherly, Wheatley, 1986). These studies report that social desirability

is not significantly correlated with overall scores on the KAI. However,

one study {Furnham, 1990) gives evidence that the KAI inventory is

susceptible to faking. In Furnham’s study, each student (N = 55) is

asked to com ple te four personality measures (KAI Inventory,

Fundamental Interpersonal relations Orientation-Behaviour,

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Vocational Preferences Inventory). For three of

INTRODUCTION C hapter O

for certain jobs (librarian, advertising executive, baker) and for one

measure (for control) they were asked to give honest responses. It is

concluded that all measures were susceptible to faking, as different

profiles emerged related to different jobs. And yet, since the number

of subjects were divided to four conditions, the total sample responded

to KAI as e.g. librarians were only a quarter of the total sample. The

N for each comparison is therefore small {Kirton, 1991). In addition,

the control group KAI mean score which is 50, is IVi standard

deviation below the norm. It is therefore a rather extreme mean score

in the KAI literature.

In respect of the originality subscale, some studies report significant

correlations with social desirability {Goldsmith, Matherly, 1986; Elder

and Johnson, 1989). In Goldsmith and Matherly’s (1986) study the

correlation between the originality subscale and scores on the Marlowe

Crowne Scale is found to be significant (r = .21, p = .008), the

originality subscale and a lie scale are also positively correlated (r =

.33, p = .01). In Elder and Johnson’s study, the social desirability

which is measured by the K scale (D efensiveness Scale) is also found

to be significantly correlated with the originality subscale. In the study

of Elder and Johnson (1989) correlations of p e o p l e ’s presentations of

themselves consciously versus unconsciously in terms of socially

desirable terms are examined in relation to KAI scale. K scale

( D ef en s i v en es s Scale) is used for conscious, and Edwards (Social

Desiribility) scale is used for unconscious presentation of terms. The

results suggest that innovators unconsciously tend to present

themselves more favourably than adaptors. And yet, consciously, both

adaptors and innovators present themselves equally favourably.

In terms of research into the validity of the KAI, Mudd (1986) reviews