PEC A management team of an Adaption- Pp reliminary trials within a service industry Innovation Inventory. The KAI as a Survey- feedback Instrument ‘Tudor Rickatds: Kirton’s work has its origins in empirical observations of behaviours in organisations, and the failure to explain such behaviours in terms of conventional theories of creativity or innovation, Kirton proposed an explanation premised on individual cognitive style, labelling one extreme style “innovative” and the other ‘‘adaptive". His early research suggested that the innovative type espoused major changes, while the adaptive type espoused modest changes. However, the innovative types were less able to convince colleagues of the validity of their proposed ideas, whereas the more adaptive person had considerable credibility in gaining acceptance of their ideas. From these ‘empirical observations Kirton established a measure of his proposed siyle differences (KAD, which incorporated three subscales. The individuals with highest scores will have high scores on O(Sufficiency versus proliferation of originality); on £ (where high scores indicate a lack of concer for efficiency); and on R (high scores indicate lack ‘of concern for rule conformity). Conversely, individuals with strongest adaptive styles, implied by the lowest KAT score, will have low scores on O (these individuals seek aan adequacy of novelty); low scores on E (high concern for efficiency); and low scores on R (high concern for rule conformity), ‘The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory has attracted widespread interest as a wellvalidated measure of innovation style. By 1987 over one hundred articles and scholarly references to the measure had been noted|t| Mudd has recently catried out a careful assessment of the instrument and concluded that it offered one of the most promising measures of personal innovation styles mee and highlighted the need for further practical trials(2). One underreported use is as an instrument for organisational intervention and change. Its use as a counselling instrument has been demonstrated to resolve a clash of cognitive style(3]. Its credentials are formidable and compare well with other reported survey-feedback instruments(4}. In practical contexts the instrument should: © ‘tap dimensions with face validity for the organisational respondents; © be easy to administer; © be capable of interpretable results at a level significant to the respondents; © have a body of theory which adds validity and weight to the interpretation; © indicate explanations of organisational behaviour and possible starting points for desired change. ‘The KAI was considered promising on all these counts and opportunities to investigate its merits were sought Background to the KAI Instrument Kirton's theory of adaption-innovation posits that everyone can be located on a continuum ranging from highly adaptive to highly innovative. The characteristic is one of style, not, competence, although knowledge of innovative style also permits predictions regarding problem solving, creativity and various behaviours|5j. ‘The characteristic can be measured by the KAT, a simple-to-administer instrument now available in a self-scoring format. Of particular significance to survey-feedback work in teams is the evidence that innovators and adapters, as measured on the KAI, fail to understand and respect the merits of each others’ behaviours. Such behaviour was initially observed and described by Kirton and led subsequently to the development of the Adaption-Innovation theory, recently elaborated as: Innovators are generally seen by adapters as being abrasive and insensitive, despite the former's denial of these traits, . adapters can also be viewed pejoratively by inmovators....(whom they tend to see as)...stufly and unenterprising, wedded to systems, rules and norms, ..s0 often innovators seem to overlook how much of the smooth running of ll around them depends on good adaptiveness[ ‘Thus, under conditions of turbulent organisational change, these different perceptions might easily lead to conflict Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved.[4 Jf _ JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 14,6 and ineffectual teamwork. If team members were to become more aware of how differences in perception might lead to conflict, a focal point for more constructive behaviours might be created. The Experimental Trial An opportunity arose to explore the potentiat of the KAL as a survey-feedback tool. A team of researchers was invited to carry out a three-day training workshop by the director of the medical recorls department within a health services group. His concern was expressed as 2 failure in the ranks of his department to grasp the implications of new technology and the need to change accordingly, His hope from the seminar was to raise the level of awareness of the potential for change in the organisation and instil greater levels of commitment and responsibility for change at all levels. The Organisational Culture In what follows some details have been modified to preserve the department's, and company's, anonymity. The culture could faitly be described as one which had remained comfortably bureaucratic for many years. The largely female staff were traditionally recruited from relatives of existing employees direct from school ‘Turnover was low, and would have been even lower except for those ladies who, after starting their families, chose not to return to their jobs. Promotion was a matter of Buggins’ tur. .-.the advent of new technology. . .forced many unwelcome changes on to the medical records group | | Within the last decade the advent of new technology. especially computerisation, forced many unwelcome changes on to the medical records group. These changes helped “destroy the old atmosphere" (as one senior assistant put it). The records group now faced further changes, after the recent appointment of Andrew, the director, who had previously been in charge of personnel and training for a computer company. It was Andrew who had decided on the need for the training workshop. The Training Workshop Participants Andrew had proposed to the external trainers a workshop ‘on site’” at which woukl be assembled the key staff from allevels of responsibility within the department. Andrew ‘was working on a plan for restructuring that would produce a “flatter” structure, but at present the group still had a long chain of command. ‘There was Andrew himself and ‘a deputy (Constance) who had beer with the company ‘many years. Constance had nominal charge of two kinds, of records, Acute and General, each with an Administrative ‘The administrative officers. ative Assistants 10 look rad four or five young Admit after, and who looked after the daily record maintenance, a well as various other office duties. In addition, there ‘was a newly appointed database manager who answered directly to Andrew. Andrew, in turn, reported to a regional director of Health Services who was widely considered to be one of the more dynamic holders of the post. Andrew's original plan was to keep the office running with a minimum of stafi while the workshop was being conducted, and for the remainder of the department to attend. In the end there were several last-minute withdrawals due to “unavoidable circumstances’’. The director did not seem convinced about some of the stated reasons, and commented that he would have te look more closely at the matter once the workshop was over. The final workshop team was: the director (Andrew); and (in order of seniority), Constance, a deputy director; Dawn, a relatively young administrative officer responsible for A records, whose promise had been noticed by Andrew, and who was earmarked for further promotion; Evelyn, the other administrative officer, responsible for G records; Frank, the recently appointed database manager; Gill, Hilary, Imogen and Jayne, all administrative: assistants of various lengths of tenure. In the director's judgement, the range of job levels did not matter in this particular organisaton — a point that vas not shared by Constance who, at the outset, declared she worried about whether openness was possible ‘when there are juniors present”. ‘The external facilitators considered the group members to have various levels of unwillingness to open up on key, issues and felt the ditector to be rather optimistic in hi view of their openness. As the workshop developed, thi view was rather reinforced, although the more junior staf ‘were far from being overawed, willing to join in and express, opinions about their jobs, the organisation and the challenges of change. Yet there were some unstated concerns about the organisation's culture. ‘The consultants were approached by several of the participants and picked up hints of issatisfaction about "the way things get done — or don't, get done”. Andrew had a clear picture of his leadership role, and what was required. He did not want to take all the ‘decisions and was trying hard to encourage participative management. Other group members expressed indirect comments which suggested they would have liked a clearer lead from Andrew. In an exer: during the workshop on “blocks to implementing change" Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved.CEA with information supplied anonymously, there was a strong vote for ‘lack of leadership’. ‘After two (out of three) days, the consultant's position was summed up by one of them as “there's a lot going on underneath the surface, but when we set up opportunities for open discussion they back off at any really important issue"’. The situation appeared ripe for some sort of intervention but the “how and when” remained unclear. The results from the KAI administered at the start were to provide the opportunity for a constructive intervention. The Results from the KAI Measure The KAI results were calculated at the end of day 2. The original intention was to assess the general climate for innovation in the department and for the KAI results to be presented very briefly at the start of day 3. The thinking behind this design arose from a suspicion held by the consultants after preliminary contact with the group that its members were primarily adaptive, and therefore feeling stressed and resistant to the rather innovative changes and restructuring being imposed on them. The KAI was intended to be the vehicle to promote discussion about the problems of coping in an environment that has changed from one favouring a rather adaptive mode of operating to one where there were more demands for innovative behaviours. When the results were calculated by the consultant/ trainers they presented a vivid and revealing picture (Table 1). Both Andrew and Frank emerged as extreme innovators (133-134) within the Kirton population at large, or indeed within any sub-sample, The others (all female) had asrather homogeneous distribution of scores (mean 98.3, range 91-112). In view of the known unhappiness of Andrew and Frank about the resistance to change in the other group members, it was felt that rather more time should be devoted to feeding back the results as a potentially powerful intervention for personal understanding and group development. The Feedback Procedure Our preferred form of feedback of KAI datas to request permission from the group to share the results openly. ‘Then the individual scores are compared with available statistics from appropriate comparative samples based on our own data collected during management training programmes, or from data recorded in the literature. Here, however, the small size of the group; the very skewed distribution of scores, and a rather low level of numeracy within the team, made statistical comparisons worthless. Instead, a modified procedure was employed. First, a brief presentation was made on adapter-innovator theory. Emphasis was placed on the following points: EECIN I s Scores and Notes about Team Members Name Io R Notes 133. 60 25 48 Director (50+), relatively new, brought in to manage changes Constance 94 45 10 39 Long-established deputy director (50+) Dawn 112 52-2832 Admin, officer, high flyer (late 20s) Evelyn 92-34-1939 Admin. officer, long- established (late 40s) Frank 134 63.1655 Newly appointed data- base manager (early 303). Note high efficiency need Andrew Git 107 47 22 38 Admin. assistant (ate 208) Hilary 91 35 22 34 Admin, assistant (late 208) Imogen 93 49-15-29 Admin. assistant (early 20s) Jayne 99 31 24 44 Admin. assistant (early 208) (1) These results are going to show differences in the way you think about things and do things. (2) The differences of the individual scores indicate if you prefer to work closely to accepted guidelines and standards, or whether you prefer to challenge old ways of doing things and like introducing new ways of doing things. (3) Usually people with differing styles do not get on — especially if they do not understand the reasons for the disagreements. (4) Bach style is useful and important. ‘Then the results were exhibited, still anonymously, on a flipchart, while at the same time, each individual received his or her personal score in’a style shown in ‘Table IL ‘What happened next can only be reported on the anecdotal level. The group appeared fascinated by the results. An intense discussion sprang up, leaving the trainers as outside witnesses. Individual scores were examined and discussed. Although the norm of anonymity was not totally destroyed, it was well eroded. People made comments that were fairly obvious revelations of their own style and scores, and well-grounded beliefs and those of others. Group members seemed to know who were the two highest innovators, and how past behaviours might be explained and were in line with the theory outlined. Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reseved.