Foursight Thinking Profile (See Appendix A)

E.H.
Butler Library at Buffalo State College

Digital Commons at Buffalo State
Creative Studies Graduate Student Master's Theses International Center for Studies in Creativity
12-2013
Exploring Cross Culture Validity of FourSight with

Taiwanese Population
Yu-Mei Lien Ding
State University of New York Buffalo State, yumeilien@gmail.com
Advisor
Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D., Chair and Professor of Creativity
First Reader
Second Reader
Ruey-Yun Horng, Ph.D., Professor of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Chiao Tung
University
Department Chair
To learn more about the International Center for Studies in Creativity and its educational programs,
research, and resources, go to http://creativity.buffalostate.edu/.
Recommended Citation
Lien Ding, Yu-Mei, "Exploring Cross Culture Validity of FourSight with Taiwanese Population" (2013). Creative Studies Graduate
Student Master's Theses. Paper 21.
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/creativetheses
Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons, and the Technology and Innovation Commons
Exploring the Cross Culture Validity of FourSight with Taiwanese Population
by
Yu-Mei Lien Ding
An Abstract of a Thesis
in
Creative Studies
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
December 2013
State University of New York

Buffalo State
The International Center for Studies in Creativity
ii
Abstract
Exploring the Cross Culture Validity of FourSight with Taiwanese Population
The cross-culture validity of the theoretical construct of FourSight was explored with
Taiwanese participants in this study. A Chinese FourSight version 1.2 was developed by
translating FourSight version 6.1 into Chinese (Mandarin) and verified by comparing the
back-translated English version with FourSight version 6.1. The FourSight Chinese version 1.2
was administered to 224 Taiwanese participants, who are employees of three local Taiwanese
companies and the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI). The results of exploratory
factor analysis partially supported the four constructs postulated by FourSight: Clarifier, Ideator,
Developer and Implementer. Three constructs: Clarifier, Ideator and Implementer emerged from
results of the factor analysis structure. However, there is no clear indication that the construct of
Developer was present in the data. However 80% of the selected Taiwanese samples agreed that
their individual FourSight profile made sense to them, and the findings that the ITRI scientists
group and ITRI engineers group, possessing different job title and educational background, were
differentiated by four FourSight preference profiles. These lend further support of FourSight
theoretical construct for FourSight Chinese version 1.2 with Taiwanese samples.
Keywords: FourSight measure, Cross culture validity, Taiwanese thinking style profile, Creative
problem solving.
Yu-Mei Lien Ding

December 2013
iii
State University of New York
Buffalo State
The International Center for Studies in Creativity
Exploring the Cross Culture Validity of FourSight

with Taiwanese Population
A Thesis in
Creative Studies
by
Yu-Mei Lien Ding
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
December 2013
Approved by:
Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D., Thesis Adviser

Chair and Professor of Creativity Studies
International Center for Studies in Creativity
Ruey-Yun Horng , Ph.D., Thesis Co-adviser

Professor of Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
Management College, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan
Kevin Railey, Ph.D.

Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
iv
Thesis Committee
Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D.

Department Chair
Professor of Creativity Studies
Chairman of Committee
Thesis Advisor
Ruey-Yun Horng , Ph.D

Professor of Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
National Chiao Tung University
Taiwan
Thesis Co-Advisor
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements …………………………………………..……………………………… ix
List of Tables and Figures .……………………………………………………...................... xi
Chapter One: Statement of Problem …………………………………………………………. 1
Diversity, Cognitive Style and Team Innovation …………………………………………… 1
The challenge of measuring Cognitive Style in Taiwan’s Business ………….…………… 4
Purpose of This Study and Research Questions ……….……..…….…….…………………. 5
Statement of Significance ……………………..…………………………………………… . 6
Summary …………………………………..……………………………………………….. . 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review ………….…………………………………………………... 8
Cognitive Style ……………………………………………………………………………… 8
Definition of Cognitive Style …………………………………………………………….. 8
Characteristics of Cognitive Style ……………………………………………………….. 9
Theories of Cognitive Styles and Their Relationship to Creativity and Problem
Solving ………………………………………………………………………………… 11
Kirton Adaption-Innovation …………………………………………………………… 15
Adaption-Innovation Theory ………………………………………………………… 15
Characteristics of Adaptors and Innovators ……………………………………….. 17

vi
Kirton Adapation-Innovation Inventory ……………………………………………… 18
KAI’s Subscales ………………………………………………………………………... 19
The Link of KAI, creativity, problem solving and management of diversity in team 22
FourSight …………………………………………………………………………………. 30
Theory and FourSight Preferences ………………………………………………….. 30
FourSight Instrument …………………………………………………………………. 35
The relationship between FourSight, CPS training, and the management of diversity in
teams …………………………………………………………………………………. 43
Summary …………………………………..……………………………………………… 50
Chapter Three: Chapter Three: Methods and Procedures ……………………………………. 51
The Sample Population .....………………………………………………………………… 51
The sample for Construct Validation of FourSight Chinese Version …..……………… 51
The samples for studying FourSight model fit with Taiwanese Population …............... 52
The samples for comparing FourSight profile between scientists and engineers ……… 52
A Description of FourSight Chinese version ……………………………………………… 53
Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………. 54
Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… 56
Chapter Four: Presentation and Analysis of Data ………………………………………........ 57

vii
Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………………………………… 57
Reliability by Internal Consistency .………………………………………………………. 59
Construct Validation ………………………………………………………………………. 59
Item correlation matrix …………………………………………………………………. 60
Communalities ………………………………………………………………………….. 60
Factor Extraction ……………………………………………………………………….. 60
Factor Solutions ………………………………………………………………………… 64
FourSight Model Fit with selected ITRI Samples ………………………………………… 68
FourSight Profile among Taiwanese Population ………………………………………….. 71
Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… 78
Chapter Five: Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications …………………………… 80
Conclusions …………………………………….………………………………………….. 80
Recommendations …………………………………………………………...…………….. 85
Implications ………………………………………………………………...……………… 88
Summary ………………………………………………………………...………………… 91
Bibliography ………….………………………………………………………...…................. 93
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………… 100
A: FourSight Version 6.1 …………………………………...…………………………….100

viii
B: FourSight Chinese version 1.2 …………………………………………………………. 101
C: FourSight back-translated version …………………………………………………….. 102
D: Research Description and Consent ……………………………………………………. 103
E: Inter-items correlation matrix of FourSight Chinese version 1.2 …………………….. 104
F: FourSight Model Fit Interview Qualitative Results ………………………..…............ 118
Vita ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 134

ix
Acknowledgment
First of all, I want to thank Professor Gerard Puccio and Professor Ruey-Yun Horng,
without whom I will not be able to complete this master’s thesis. Being an international and
distance-learning graduate student who conducts research in Taiwan, I needed two advisors (one
in ICSC and another in Taiwan) in order to fulfill the requirements for this elective. I am very
fortunate to have two advisors who were willing to guide me in doing research on the
cross-cultural validation of FourSight construct. Sincere thanks go to Professor Puccio in helping
me with the overall direction, organization, content, and insights on cognitive style and Foursight
of this thesis. Special thanks also go to Professor Horng who was instrumental in advising me on
research design, sampling, the use of statistical software for the factor analyses, and interpreting
the results. I have learned invaluably under the helpful directions of these two advisors.
I would also like to acknowledge former colleagues from Creativity Lab, Industrial
Technology Research Institute (ITRI): Shian Wan, Hong-Hsien Chang, Haoming Chang, and
Ji-shiun Wang. They helped review the suitability of the translated FourSight Chinese version
(from FourSight version 6.1). My elder son I-Kang Ding and daughter-in-law Marian Tzuang
helped translating FourSight Chinese version back to English. They all played a role in the
development of the FourSight Chinese version.
Enid Tsai, Wen-Ren Hsu, Shiou-Mei Chen, Wen-Fa Kuo and Su-Ying Yang went out of
x
their way to assist in the successful recruitment of 224 research participants.
My sincere appreciation goes to I-Kang Ding, Marian Tzuang and Peiya Liao for their
assistance in reviewing and editing the thesis.
I want to thank Wen-Jean Hsueh, the founding director of Creativity Lab, ITRI and my
colleagues at Creativity Lab. They gave me first-hand experiences on the importance of
diversified cognitive styles on innovation team collaboration, as well as its managerial
challenges on the team leader. They are what motivated me to conduct this research. It is my
hope that findings from this research can serve as a useful tool for Taiwanese companies to
promote innovation team collaboration.
Lastly, I want to thank my husband Da-Wen Ding and my younger son I-Chung Ding for
their continuous support and encouragement over numerous challenges.

xi
List of Tables and Figures
Table 2-1 The cognitive styles of two basic cognitive style families ……………………….. 12
Table 2-2 The categories of KAI groups and their hollow square success rate……………… 24
Table 2-3 The correlation between employee creativity and extrinsic rewards as a function of job
complexity and A-I cognitive style .......…………………………..…………....................... 26
Table 2-4 An Overview of the Qualities of FourSight Preferences …………………………. 32
Table 2-5 Summary of the development of FouSight Versions ………………..……………. 38
Table 4.1 Mean and Standard Deviation of item scores for FourSight Chinese version
1.2 ………………………………………………………....................................................... 58
Table 4.2 Internal Consistency of FourSight Sub-scales ........................................................ 59
Table 4.3 Communalities of FourSight Chinese version 1.2 .................................................. 62
Table 4.4 Initial Eigenvalues for Factor Extraction ................................................................ 63
Table 4.5 Proportion of Variance Explained by 4 unrotated factors ....................................... 64
Table 4.6 Proportion of Variance Explained by 4 Factors After Equamax Rotation .............. 64
Table 4.7 Rotated Factor Matrixa of FourSight Chinese version 1.2 ...................................... 67
Table 4.8 Composition of Items for FourSight Theoretical Construct Scale Loaded on Rotated
Four Factor .............................................................................................................................. 68
Table 4.9 Correlation between Factors ................................................................................... 68

xii
Table 4.10 Test results of FourSight Chinese Version 1.2 responses ...................................... 70
Table 4.11 Mean scores and standard deviation of four FourSight construct scales for different
groups of Taiwanese participants ............................................................................................ 73
Table 4.12 The percentage of preferences of four FourSight Scales for different groups of
Taiwanese participants ............................................................................................................ 76
Figure 4.1 Bar chart of mean scores of four FourSight scale for different groups of Taiwanese
participants …………...…..…………………………………………………………………. 73
Figure 4.2 The percentage of four FourSight preferences for Total participants
group ……...…...…...……………………………………………………………………….. 77
Figure 4.3 The percentage of four FourSight preferences for ITRI employees
group ………..……………….……….................................................................................... 77
Figure 4.4 The percentage of four FourSight preferences for ITRI scientists group ……….. 78
Figure 4.5 The percentage of four FourSight preferences for ITRI engineers group ………. 78
Statement of Problem 1
Chapter One: Statement of Problem
The purpose of this study is to explore the cross-culture construct validity of FourSight in a
Taiwanese population. To my knowledge, no Chinese tools exist that measure cognitive styles in
Taiwan’s businesses. Therefore, this chapter begins with a review of diversity, cognitive style
and team innovation. Then it focuses on the importance of and challenges in measuring cognitive
styles in Taiwan’s businesses to effectively manage the diversity within group to foster
innovation. The chapters that following then examine FourSight and how it has been tested out in
a Taiwanese context.
Diversity, Cognitive Style and Team Innovation
Innovation is a worldwide issue for organizations. It is a top priority especially for
Taiwan businesses because they had lost their competitive advantages in manufacturing to
Mainland China. They need to transition to produce high performance products and to pursue
opportunities of emerging markets in Asia (Chao, 2004).
Most innovation in organizations is based on teamwork and promoted by cross-fertilization
of ideas (Dougherty & Takacs, 2004; West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998). Innovation now requires
a diverse mix of talent, for the challenges are more complex (IBM, 2006). From previous
studies, it suggested that the complexity of innovation task dictate the requirement for diversity
in regard to group members. More complex innovation tasks create requirements for a wider
range of group members’ diversity (West, 2002).
The diversity of group members need to be effectively managed to become a resource for
team innovation or team collaboration, or it will be a hindrance (Kirton, 2003; West, 2002). West
(2002) argued that “where the group is homogeneous then there will be strong pressure for
conformity, and where the group is heterogeneous there will be pressure to manage the
centrifugal forces of diversity that could lead to the disintegration of group” (p.365). He also
proposed that diversity of knowledge and skills will contribute to team innovation, dependent on
the sophistication of group integration processes. It has been concluded that the members will
learn integration skills and discover a safeness that fosters innovation, through effective
management of diversity. Kirton (2003), who developed the Adaption-Innovation theory, also
emphasized the important of management of diversity in team collaboration. He proposed that
people categorize group members into persons who are the same with self, and those who are
less similar with self. The former is safe, superior and useful, whereas the latter is unsafe, inferior,
not useful, and even hostile. With this perception, people will not use the potential of diversity
found in members of a group. Therefore people need to understand the diversity of group
members, and learn to manage the diversity. The first requirement in the learning of the
management of diversity is that diversity needs to be acknowledged. Generally people
considered that the wider diversity in group members is an advantage for problem solving or
team innovation, whereas Kirton reminded that the more diversity in group members for problem
solving, the more effort will be needed to put on the management of diversity. He argued that we
have two problems to be solved in the group of problem solving. One is Problem A to achieve
group common aim; another is Problem B to manage each other effectively. The successful
groups expended considerably more effort on Problem A than Problem B. He stated that
Adaption-Innovation is a kind of diversity, that people differ in cognitive (thinking) styles in
creativity, problems solving and making decision. The more adaptive prefer their problems to
be associated with more structure, and the more innovative prefer solving problems with less
structure. This diversity in members of a group needs to be effectively managed so that diversity
becomes a potential resource for problem solving and creativity (Kirton, 1999; 2004).
In recent years, cognitive style instruments, such as the Kirton Adaption-Innovation
Inventory (KAI) and FourSight ™, were used as the tool for selecting members to form the
innovative teams with balancing diversity of cognitive style (Barbero-Switalski & Kluk, 2008;
DeCusatis, 2008; Lien, 2010). It was supposed that these cognitive style tools can lead to
self-awareness of a team’s relative strengths and weaknesses, and provide opportunity to balance
the team membership to increase the prospects for long-term success of team innovation
(DeCusatis, 2008; Grivas & Puccio, 2012; Puccio, Mance, & Murdock; 2011).
The challenge of measuring Cognitive Style in Taiwan’s Business
Taiwan’s businesses also need reliable and validated cognitive style measures to assist in
forming innovative teams with balanced but diverse cognitive styles, and to effectively manage
the cognitive diversity for the success of team innovation. However, most of them know little
about cognitive styles and there is no existing Chinese cognitive style measure. It takes years to
develop a reliable and valid cognitive style measure; therefore, the most expedient way for
Taiwan’s businesses is to bring in a cognitive style measure that is commercially available and
well recognized.
KAI and FourSight have been proved to be reliable and valid measures of an individual’s
cognitive style and both are commercialized. The results of KAI and FourSight measure can
help the innovative teams understand the individuals’ cognitive preferences when they’re
problem-solving and make the best of everyone’s full potential based on their cognitive styles.
But the research of KAI and FourSight are based exclusively on the population of U.S. or other
countries, Taiwan was not included. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the current study, i.e.,
the exploration of the validity of established cognitive style measures in a Taiwanese sample.
Purpose of This Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the cross-culture validity of the FourSight
construct in Taiwan, as well as the Chinese version of FourSight.
Through more than ten years of study, Puccio (2002) has developed a measure called
FourSight that is useful in the identification of individual’s preferences in the Creative Problem
Solving (CPS) process. Evidences gathered through these initial research efforts support the
reliability and validity of this cognitive style inventory. FourSight measures individual’s
preference for the four thinking modes of problem solving or innovation, namely, Clarifier
(clarifying the situation), Ideator (generating ideas), Developer (developing solutions) and
Implementer (implementing plans). The FourSight scores help members of a team to
understand and appreciate everyone’s thinking styles. This is particularly important for long-term
success of team innovation.
This study intends to continue the research work on FourSight and to specifically examine
to what extent the constructs measured by this inventory work with a Taiwanese population.
Part of the study involves exploration as to whether a translation of FourSight into Chinese
(Mandarin) will yield the same four process preferences associated with the original English
version (i.e., Clarifier, Ideator, Developer and Implementer).

The research questions of this study are as follows:
- Will the FourSight construct still be valid among Taiwanese population?
- How is the reliability of the Chinese version of FourSight?
- Does the FourSight score or profile make sense to the participants in this study?
- Chinese are considered more like pragmatists; therefore, higher implementer score is
expected from Taiwanese samples in this research. Does the result support this
assumption?
- Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), in Taiwan, focuses on applied research.
Therefore, higher implementer scores are expected from a convenient sample of ITRI
employees in this study. Does the result support this assumption?
- According to my recent personal observation, engineers in ITRI often rush to get things
done without spending time on clarifying problem and situation. Consequently,
employees of ITRI with engineering major should have higher implementer scores, and
those with science major should have higher clarifier scores. Does the result of this
research support this assumption?
Statement of Significance
Initial research on FourSight has revealed acceptable levels of internal reliability (Puccio,
2002). Further research has begun to lay the groundwork for the validity of FourSight (see Rife,
2001; Wheeler, 1995, 2001).
To continue the research of FourSight, this research study focuses on the cross-culture
validity of FourSight among Taiwanese population. This will bring an opportunity for Taiwan’s
business to have a valid and reliable tool that will help understanding the individual thinking
preference in regard to CPS or innovation. People are the core for innovation; the more we
know about our thinking preferences, the more we can use each member’s thinking strength and
consequently enhance the possibility of achieving innovative results.
Summary
There is growing demand for innovation of Taiwan’s businesses. Innovation cannot be
successful without teamwork and the innovative effectiveness of a team can be enhanced if
Taiwan’s businesses can have a reliable and validated cognitive style measure to understand
individual thinking preferences. However, there are no cognitive style measures that are
available in Chinese for usage by Taiwan’s business. This study focuses on the cross culture
validity of FourSight among Taiwanese population and brings forth an opportunity for Taiwan’s
business to have a valid and reliable cognitive style measurement tool.
Chapter Two takes a close look at cognitive styles of KAI and FourSight and reviews
literature related to these two measures.

Literature Review 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter reviews the literature related to this thesis. Specifically, it examines definitions,
characteristics, and theories of cognitive style, their relationships to creativity and problem
solving, the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and the FourSight, and their correlation to the
management of diversity in teams.
Cognitive Style
Definition of Cognitive Style
What is cognitive style? ‘Cognitive style’ was defined in general terms as consistent
individual differences in the ways people experience, perceive, organize and process information
(Martinsen & Kaufmann, 1999; Messick, 1976). Operational definitions of cognitive style have
been focused on a person’s typical mode of cognition as reflected in main dispositions in
perception, the organization of information in memory, the preference for different kinds of
general problem solving strategies, the speed and accuracy of decision making under uncertainty,
the preference for types of problem solving, or the profile of intellectual dispositions (Leonard,
Scholl, & Beauvalis,1998; Martinsen & Kaufman, 1999; Scholl, 2001; Witkin, Gogenough, &
Cox 1977). Scholl (2001) mentioned that one's cognitive style generally operates in an
Literature Review 9
unconscious manner. In other words, while an individual may be aware of the outcome of the
information processing process, he or she is often unaware of the mental processes that are used
to acquire, analyze, categorize, store, and retrieve information in making decisions and solving
problems.
Characteristics of Cognitive Style
Cognitive style is viewed along bipolar continuum (Allinson 1996; Kirton 1976; Riding
1991; Witkin et al.,1977). This means that one end of a style continuum should be associated
with certain characteristics while the other end is associated with other, often opposite,
characteristics (Martinsen & Kaufmann, 1999). However, the hypothesis of bipolarity had rarely
been examined. Some argued that both poles of stylistic constructs should be value free
(Martinsen & Kaufmann, 1999; Puccio, 1999a).
Cognitive styles are stable over time. Measured over a period of time an individual's
cognitive style will remain relatively the same (Witkin et al., 1977). Kirton (1999) mentioned
that our preferred cognitive style will not change but in different circumstances, we may use
some kind of use coping behaviors to change our ways of doing things. However, since this
coping behavior does not stem from our preferred cognitive style, it may create stress in the
long-run. Therefore it is recommended to minimize the use of coping behavior, unless in a crisis.
Literature Review 10
Messick (1976) argued that styles cut across diverse areas of behavior. For example, the style
that one possesses at work will most likely be present at home or play (Puccio, 1999a). Each
style possesses its own strengths and weaknesses and all styles are valuable and useful.
Most style researchers have made a distinction between cognitive style reflects 'how', rather
than 'how well', we perceive and judge information (Hough & Ogilvie, 2005). It emphasizes
individual preferences rather than cognitive ability, focusing on 'preferred styles' as opposed to
'more is better' psychometric measures such as IQ. Martinsen and Kaufmann (1999) stated that
cognitive styles are defined as how or in what way we process information, while cognitive
abilities are defined as how well we process information. Lack of, or low, correlation between
style and ability is commonly seen as a necessary condition for a style construct to be valid. Not
all the postulated style constructs have been found to be uncorrelated with measures of
intelligence. Take field-dependence/independence (FDI) construct for instance. FDI is commonly
known as a cognitive style. Individuals who are field-dependent (FD) exhibit high dependency
on the field and are less able to view things separate from the overall environment. They tend to
be affected by the prevailing field or context. Field-independent (FI) individuals exhibit low
dependency on the field and are good at identifying objects or details that have surroundings that
might obscure their view. They tend to see objects or details as discrete from their backgrounds.
Some researcher argued that FDI was more closely related to intellectual ability, whereas some
others asserted that FDI represents perceptual/special/visual preference pattern (Hayes &
Allinson, 1994; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Zhang, 2004). Zhang’s (2004) study of the relationship
between academic achievements, FDI and thinking style scores in students found that no
significant relationship between FDI and thinking style construct, and FDI scores were only
related to students’ achievement in geometry. It was concluded that the FDI construct represents
perceptual ability, not a cognitive style.
Kirton (2003) emphasized that cognitive level and cognitive style lie statistically
orthogonal to one another and provided the sharpest distinction within the level-style debate. A
considerable body of evidence (Mudd, 1996) supports the assumption that cognitive style is
uncorrelated with both cognitive level and manifest capacity. Isaksen and Puccio’s (1988) study
found that the difference between Kirton’s work on cognitive style and cognitive level is not as
significant, stating that “Although some may assert that style and level are opposite,
dichotomous or orthogonal constructs, relationships can and should be found depending upon the
context task and persons involved” (p. 668).
Theories of Cognitive Styles and Their Relationship to Creativity and Problem Solving
Since 1950’s, many theories of cognitive style have been proposed. Early researchers
focused on finding differences of individuals. Also, experimental methods are often

self-developed, and lack consistency. Little attention was paid to reconcile differences between
theories of cognitive styles proposed by other researchers. Therefore, the early theories of
cognitive styles were more fragmented and complex (Hayes & Allinson, 1994; Kozhevnikov,
2007; Witikin et al., 1977).
In 1990, researchers started to integrate and classify theories of cognitive style. Riding and
Cheema (1991) suggested that 30 labels referred to as cognitive style/learning styles, can be
divided into two basic dimension of cognitive style: (1) the holistic-analytic style of an
individual prefers to process information in wholes or parts (2) The verbal-imagery style of an
individual tend to represent information during thinking verbally or in images. The cognitive
styles that are related to these two basic classifications are listed in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 The cognitive styles of two basic cognitive style families*
Wholist-Analytic style family Verbal-Imagery style family
‧Field dependence-independence ‧Sensory modality preferences
‧Impulsivity-reflectivity ‧Verbalizer-Imager
‧Holist-serialist ‧Verbalizer-Visualiser
‧Leveller-sharpener
‧Simultaneous-successive
‧Diverging-converging
‧Tolerant-intolerant
‧Flexible control-constricted
‧Automatisation v. restructuring
‧Compartmentalization;
‧Conceptual articulation
*Source:Riding & Cheema (1991) cognitive style - an overview and integration.
Hayes & Allinson (1994) listed 22 types of cognitive styles and recommended classifying
them by three approaches: (1) Split brain and analytic-holistic-superordinate structure, which
classify the styles associated with left brain and right brain activities; (2) Relationship between
style and cognitive process, according to association with Miller's information processing model
of cognition (Miller, 1987), which describes the cognition processes as Perception, Thought, and
Permanent Memory; and (3) Functional distance of styles from the ability domain, based on the
degree of correlation with cognitive ability.
These classifications help people understand the similarities and differences in the
cognitive styles; at the same time, they also make connections to the related knowledge base in
cognition area. For example, the first classification mentioned above allows researchers to
investigate the correlation between cognitive styles and brain activities using tools such as brain
waves (alpha wave, beta wave). Classification of the different cognitive styles helps to
understand the similarities and differences between the many cognitive style theories, and also
help to make connection with other cognitive knowledge; however, these classifications does not
have strong connection with practical application of the field.
Research on the applied fields has been documented in the literature in the 1970’s. Hayes
and Allinson (1994) indicated that cognitive style is an important variable in fields such as
personal selection, internal communication, career guidance, task design, team composition and
conflict management. Kozhevnikov (2007) mentioned that many researchers discovered that the
cognitive style is a better predictor of individual’s success in a particular situation than general
intelligence or situational factor. There are some cognitive styles studied that are related to
creativity (Martinsen & Kaufmann 1999), problem solving (Kirton, 1976; Basadur, Graen, &
Wakabayashi, 1990; Puccio, 1999b; 2002) and teamwork (Armstrong & Priol, 2001; Basadur &
Head, 2002; Priola, 2004).
Murtinsen and Kaufmann (1999) have reviewed the relationships between several types of
cognitive styles and creativity, including field independent-dependent, reflectivity-impulsivity,
assimilation-exploration and adaption-innovation. The results from several studies of the
relationship between field independent-dependent and creativity established that
field-independents are more creative than field-dependents. Reflectivity-impulsivity theory
describes differences in decision speed under conditions of uncertainty. The relationship between
reflectivity-impulsivity and creativity had been found that reflected subjects, who are more
deliberate and have slower responses, scored higher than impulsive subjects, who make quicker
decisions but make more errors, on Torrance Tests of Creativity. The theory of
Assimilation-Exploration (A-E) describes individual differences in dispositions toward using
problem solving strategies. Assimilators are those who followed the pre-specified algorithm
throughout, and Explorers are those who spontaneously vary their solution strategies without any
prompting by task requirements or instructions. The A-E styles were found to interact with
motivations to achieve success. Assimilators performed better on creative problems solving
under high achievement motivation conditions whereas Explores performed better under low
achievement motivation conditions. It was expected that Explores have higher overall creativity
scores.
Kirton Adaption-Innovation theory (Kirton, 1976) is related to creativity style, and Creative
Problem Solving Profile (CPSS) (Basadur et al., 1990) and FourSight (Puccio, 1999b) are
cognitive styles which were developed based on Creative Problem Solving. These cognitive
styles have been studied with respect to their relationship with team collaboration (Kirton, 2003)
or team innovation (Basadur & Head, 2001; Grivas & Puccio, 2012). KAI, and FourSight are
reviewed in more detail in the following sections.
Kirton Adaption-Innovation
Adaption-Innovation Theory
The Adaption-Innovation Theory (A-I theory) was developed by Kirton (1976). It was
formulated from management initiative case studies in the 1960’s (Kirton, 1961). He found that
some of the management initiative cases were accepted much faster (sometimes years faster)
than others, and he attributed that to the creative style of the person who proposed these cases.
His research with people’s characteristics led to the development of the A-I theory. Before the
introduction of this theory, most researchers thought of creativity as an ability, where only
intelligent people have the ability. Kirton’s A-I theory asserts that everyone can solve problems
and be creative, just in different ways (Kirton, 1976, 2003). The theory makes a clear distinction
between “level” and “style” of creativity, problem solving and decision making; the theory is
concerned only with style. The theory states that people differ in the cognitive style that affects
their creativity, problem solving and decision making. Kirton (2003) explained that:
The key to the adaptive-innovative distinction is the way people prefer to manage
cognitive structure. The more adaptive prefer their problem to be associated with
more structure, with more of this structure consensually agreed; the more innovative
prefer solving problems with looser structure and are less concerned that the structure
they use is consensually agreed. Adaptors are likely to do so as an outcome of solving
problems with the help of the prevailing structure; innovators are liable to bring about
change by first altering the prevailing structure. (p.47)
The more adaptive prefer attaching to the structure, so they tend to solve problems within
the structure and do things better; the more innovative prefer escaping from the structure, so they
often find solutions outside the existing structure and do things differently (Kirton, 1976). These
two styles lie on a normally distributed continuum, ranging from high adaption (the adaptors) to
high innovation (the innovators). There is no good or bad with these two Kirton A-I cognitive
styles. It’s just that when confronted with different problems, people with different cognitive
styles may be needed to solve them. If the problem is within the structure, the adaptors may be
more suited to solve it, and innovators for a problem that is outside of the structure. Both
adaptors and innovators will need to come together when faced with the complex problems
found in today’s world.
Characteristics of Adaptors and Innovators
Kirton (1976) observed the characteristic behaviors of the adaptors and the innovators. The
adaptors tend to stay within the structure, and they show precision, reliability, and efficiency in
their behaviors. They like to do things better and won’t easily feel bored or frustrated when
they’re work is repetitive and detail-oriented. When problem solving, then want to know the
“boundaries,” find out as much information about the problem, and use readily known methods
and ways to solve the problem. They also pay more attention to authority issues, and seldom
challenge or disrupt existing rules. Unlike the innovators that sometimes don’t follow the rules,
the adaptors are often the stable force in a team (Kirton 1999; 2003).
The innovators prefer to escape from the structure, and often, people who work with them
feel that they are hard to predict because they are not well-organized. They like work that is
challenging or have never been done before. They often find solutions outside the existing
structure and do things differently. They want to hand it off to someone else as soon as it
becomes routine work. In addition, the innovators are accustomed to redefining problems,
willing to take risks, and propose unconventional solutions that are outside existing structures.
However, a side product of their challenging the structure and norms is that sometimes they are
not respectful of what the team agreed upon. They view the adaptors as conservative and rigid.
Kirton (1999, 2003) described innovators as those who can help with bringing forth
breakthroughs in a team.
We tend to expect people to act like us when we don’t realize that each of us has different
A-I cognitive styles. For example, the adaptors may want others in the team to be logical and
organized; and the innovators may expect others to be free from existing boundaries and be free
to do things differently. When we are aware of the fact different behaviors between adaptors and
innovators are deeply-rooted and developed early in one’s life, we can be more respectful of each
other and learn to utilize the mutual strengths, and avoid unnecessary conflicts.
Kirton Adapation-Innovation Inventory
Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) is the measure of adaption-innovation
construct (Kirton, 1994, 2003). Individuals are asked how easy or difficult it is for them to
present a certain image of themselves. It consists of 32 items, each of which is scored by the
subject on a scale from 1 to 5, giving a theoretical range of total scores from 32 to 160, with a
theoretical mean of 96 (Kirton, 1994). It distinguishes adaptors and innovators on a continuum
and assesses a person’s position on the continuum that corresponds to adaptive versus innovative
style of problem solving.
Kirton (1976) stated that the test’s reliability was .88 using the Kuder-Richardson Formula
20 coefficient. The test-retest reliability was .82, using a sample of 64 students in their final year
at secondary school, with a 7-month interval between tests.
KAI’s Subscales
The factor analysis with Varimax rotation suggested that the KAI is composed of three
unique sub-scales (Kirton 1976; 1999): Sufficiency of Originality (SO), Efficiency (EFF), and
Rule/Group Conformity (RGC).
SO-Sufficiency of Originality describes differences between people in their preferred way
of handling original notions or ideas. The more adaptive respondents tend to confine themselves
to existing structure, generate less novel ideas, and these ideas most often are ones that are
relevant, sound, safe, well-chosen, and useful. The ideas also appear to be direct solutions to the
problems, so they are quickly accepted. The adaptors will be able to generate more ideas if
requested; however, they usually consider it more efficient to generate only a few ideas at a time.
On the other hand, the more innovative respondents tend to generate ideas that span boundaries
and break paradigms. The ideas they generated can be either within the structure or outside the
structure. Sometimes, they will generate ideas that are not related to the original problem, or are
highly risky in execution. High innovators can generate ideas that are considered “ridiculous” or
“incomprehensible” by other people. Most people will think that the innovators’ ideas will not
succeed, or are too risky. The innovators won’t really care if the ideas result in failure, because
they considered it typical that only a fraction of the ideas will work. The bigger issue is that the
innovators tend to choose ideas that are more innovative, but with little regards for its trade-off in
input and outcome. On the other hand, the adaptors tend to support less innovative idea with
higher probability of success (Kirton, 1999).
EFF-Efficiency is parallel with Weber’s (1970) analysis on bureaucratic structure. Weber
concentrates on the adaptor role. He describes bureaucrats as concerning with precision,
reliability, discipline and efficiency (Kirton, 1994). The sub-score shows the preferred method of
problem solving. The more adaptive will use what he or she considers the efficient ways to
generate solution to do things better. Their methods include: carefully clarify the problem, search
extensively for the past case studies and data, and organize the relevant data. They are using the
creativity on aspects that can bring immediate benefits to the organization. They are also more
inclined to proceed at a controllable pace and adopt lower risk routes. The more innovative also
use what he or she considers the best way to generate solutions to do things differently. They
usually do not limit themselves to the immediate benefits of the organization, or burden
themselves with the requirement of detailed consideration or circumspection. This enables them
to think about the problem more broadly and come up with solution that steps out of boundaries
of existing structure. The way the innovators solve problems may appear inefficient from the
adapters’ point of view, because the problem solving may appear inconsistent, unpredictable, and
lack of key details, but this is the most efficient way for innovators to break paradigms (Kirton
1999; 2003). Both the adaptors and the innovators have their own preferences in problem solving,
and it is not something that can be changed in a short amount of time.
RGC-Rule/Group Conformity reflects Merton’s (1957) description of a person who fits
well into a bureaucracy for his respects of authority and rules. These qualities are related to the
adaptors’ quality, not the innovators’ (Kirton 1976; 1994). When the adaptors engage in problem
solving, they tend to conform to impersonal rules. They accept group conformity and maintain
themselves in personal and informal structure, so that the team can be more coherent and
collaborative. The more adaptive won’t conform to every rule or wish of the boss or powerful
people, unless these rules are related to consensus, prevailing paradigm or approved customs.
Otherwise, they will oppose it firmly. They respect rules and consider rules useful, and treat rules
as efficient guidelines. The adaptor assists members of the group to change step-by-step, and in
piecemeal. They are inclined to maintain the stability of the existing structure, so that it’s easier
to manage and achieve the change needed. The innovators, on the other hand, tend “not” to
conform to rules or group consensus. They are more able and willing to resist such pressures,
valuing more highly the development of their ideas. The more innovative thinks that only by
escaping from the boundaries of rules, group consensus, structure or prevailing paradigm can one
achieve the change they seek most efficiently. In the eyes of the adaptors, the kind of changes
that innovators seek means unnecessary abrasions and disturbance to the team’s peaceful balance
and brings forth unnecessary challenges.
The Link of KAI, creativity, problem solving and management of diversity in team
Kirton (2003) stated that the management of diversity is mostly set in the context of group
problem solving, and it needs to be taught and practiced. The first requirement of managing KAI
diversity is to acknowledge its existence. The more the group understands the correlation
between KAI, creativity, and problem solving, the more likely the group can acknowledge the
existence of KAI diversity and understand how to manage it.
Martinsen and Kaufmann (1999) pointed out that Kirton made a distinction between
creativity level and creativity style. Creativity level is a comparison between people’s creative
ideas or products. On the other hand, Adaption-Innovation is a comparison between type of
creativity. Adaptive creativity is directed towards improvements within the existing framework,
and innovative creativity is directed towards breaking the paradigm of the existing framework.
Adaptive creativity and innovative creativity both have their uses under the corresponding
circumstances. The group members need to understand how much of the diversity can be
immediately used and what might be useful in the future (Kirton, 2003)
Hammerschmist (1996) spent four years examining whether KAI group means can
influence group problem solving success rates. The sample in the study consists of 952 managers
separated into 8-member groups, 119 groups in total. Each group is to carry out a task called
“Hollow Square: A Communication Experiment.” Within each group, four members is in the
“planner” sub-team and the other four in the “implementer” sub-team. The planner sub-team has
received printed instructions which clearly instruct them how to plan and explain to implementer
sub-team the procedure to assemble 16 pieces into a hollow square with an open square in the
middle. The implementer sub-team, on the other hand, has vague instructions that only tell them
to follow the instructions from the planner sub-team to complete a task. Without informing the
participants, Hammerschmist categorized the teams based on homogeneity of KAI scores within
sub-team, KAI gap between sub-team, and conformity of role manipulation, and observed each
category’s success rate in completing the hollow square within a specified time. The team
categories and their success rates are shown in Table 2-2. The homogeneity was defined as KAI
scores within sub-team members less than 20 points apart. The pair sub-teams were defined as
similar if the gap of KAI mean of the pair sub-team was less than 20 points and dissimilar if the
gap was more than 20 points. Kirton (1999) stated that if the group KAI gap is more than 20
points apart, there might be difficulties in communication and team collaboration. In the role
manipulation, Hammerschmist considered that the role of planers is more structured and
therefore more suitable for adaptors, whereas the implementers role is less structured and more
suitable for innovators. This also defines the “Conformity”; the group is in conformity category
if the sub-team with adaptive KAI mean score acts as the planner and the other sub-team with
more innovative KAI mean score acts as the implementer. If the role is reversed, the group is in
the non-conformity category.
Results from the experiments showed that if the sub-teams’ KAI mean scores conformed
with the roles, the success rate is higher (82.35%, 87.50%). If the sub-teams’ KAI mean scores
did not conform with the roles, the success rate is lower (77.27%, 42.85%). The effect of
conformity versus non-conformity on success rate is especially significant when the KAI gap
between sub-teams is more than 20 points; under this circumstance, the conformity group has the
highest success rate (87.5%), and non-conformity group has the lowest (42.85%). When the team,
sub-team and the team roles are all randomly assigned, the success rate is also low (52.00%).
Table 2-2 The categories of KAI groups and their hollow square success
rate
Categories KAI scores KAI gap Role Success
within Sub-team between manipulation rate
sub-team
Category 1 homogeneous similar conformity 82.35%
Category 2 homogeneous dissimilar conformity 87.50%
Category 3 homogeneous Similar nonconformity 77.27%
Category 4 homogeneous dissimilar nonconformity 42.85%
Category 5 non-homogeneous random random 52.00%
Source: Hammerschmist (1996)
Hammerschmist’s research has important implications. If a team leader expects the team to
achieve high communication effectiveness and complete the responsible tasks successfully, then
the leader must take into consideration the KAI scores within each sub-team, KAI gap between
sub-teams, and the role of the sub-teams in the team task. Proper assignments should be made to
have the adaptive sub-team acting as the planner and the innovative team as the implementer. If
the communication between sub-teams is ineffective or if the tasks is not progressing smoothly,
the team leader can also explore the aforementioned factors and reassign team roles.
Baer, Oldham and Cummings (2003) studied a sample pool of 117 employees from two
manufacturing organization and studied two variables – namely, employee job complexity and
employee KAI cognitive style, and the effect of these two variables on relationship between
extrinsic rewards (e.g., pay and recognition) and employee creativity. Job complexity was
measured with three items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1980).
The complex job are those that provide job incumbents with independence, opportunity to use a
variety of skills, information about their performance, and chance to complete an entire and
significant piece of work. Employee creativity was assessed by their direct supervisor. Creativity
refers to the extent to which employee develops ideas, methods, or products that are both original
and useful to the organization. The research results indicate that for the adaptors in a simple job,
creativity and extrinsic reward has a positive correlation – the higher the extrinsic reward, the
higher creativity. On the other hand, for the adaptors in a complex job, there is a negative
correlation between creativity and extrinsic rewards. The case is different for the innovators. The
innovators in a simple job showed negative correlation between creativity and extrinsic reward:
the higher the extrinsic reward, the lower the creativity. On the other hand, the innovators in a
complex job, have creativity remained at a relatively high level (in fact, among the highest in all
categories), independent of the extrinsic rewards. The research results from Baer et al. are
summarized in Table 2-3. These results can be explained by the effect of intrinsic motivation.
The adaptors prefer to perform routine and simple jobs over complex jobs; therefore, the
adaptors have the internal motivation to perform simple jobs, and the creativity will increase
with increasing extrinsic reward. In performing complex jobs, the adaptors lack the internal
motivation, leading to negative correlation between creativity and extrinsic reward. The
innovators prefer complex jobs over simple jobs, and therefore have very high internal
motivation on complex jobs; they are capable of maintaining a high creativity irrespective of
extrinsic rewards. The lack of internal motivation for innovators on simple jobs explains the
negative correlation between creativity and extrinsic rewards.

Table 2-3 The correlation between employee creativity and extrinsic rewards
as a function of job complexity and A-I cognitive style
A-I Cognitive Style
Job complexity
Adaptor creativity Innovator creativity
Extrinsic rewards in positive negative
simple jobs correlation correlation
Extrinsic rewards in negative no
complex Jobs correlation correlation
Source: Baer, Oldham & Cummings (2003)
The practical implication of aforementioned research by Baer et al. (2003) is that, in order
to facilitate team members to generate original and useful ideas, methods or products, it is
necessary for the team leader to understand more about Kirton adaption-innovation theory and
the adaptor-innovator attributes of team members. This will enable the team leader to utilize
different methods of reward depending on the type, thereby using the reward resources more
effectively. Such knowledge about KAI diversity is necessary for team leaders to effectively
manage diversity.
According to previous studies, the management of KAI diversity in team innovation can be
accomplished in several different aspects. First of all, the team members need to understand
Kirton adaption-innovation theory, which describes everyone’s place on the adaptor-innovator
continuum and preferences on styles of creativity, decision making and problem solving. Kirton
(1994) indicated that the personal cognitive style is usually settled by teenage and is not easily
changed afterwards. Adaptors prefer creative ideas that are within prevailing structures, and the
innovators prefer out of box, radical creative ideas. Both styles of creativity are valuable in
solving complex innovation challenges (Kirton, 1994, 2003). Puccio et al. (2011) reminded that
the society and organizations may have the misconception that only innovative style creativity
can be called creative. Such misconception may lead people to underestimate the value of
adaptor creativity. The leader of innovation team needs to value and recognize different styles of
creativity from each team member.
Secondly, the adaption-innovation styles of team members and sub-teams, and their
corresponding roles and tasks, should be well-matched and managed. The research by
Hammerschmist (1996) indicates that if the styles and roles are matched, than the team will have
a higher success rate in achieving goals. Puccio’s research (as cited in Puccio et al., 2011) found
that “a large gap between the creativity style employee believed was required by their jobs and
the style they preferred resulted in lower levels of job satisfaction and higher level of stress”
(p.250).
The third aspect is regarding the management of cognitive gap within team and sub-team,
and between sub-teams. Kirton (2003) suggested that the wider the cognitive gap, the wider
range of innovation challenges the team will be able to solve. With that said, the leader must
keep in mind that if the cognitive gap between members in the sub-teams is more than 20 KAI
score points, there may be some difficulties in communication. (Hammerschmist, 1996; Kirton
1999). Therefore, in order to facilitate communication, the cognitive gap within the sub-team
members should not be more than 20 points. If the cognitive gap is larger than 20 points and is
causing difficulties and/or clashes in communication, one of the solutions is to find a member
with KAI score in between as a bridge in communication. Kirton (1999) refer to team members
like this “the bridgers.” Furthermore, the coping behavior is also worth mentioning. The coping
behavior “is a learned technique available from cognitive resources; it occurs when behavior
needs to be in a style not in accord with preferred style” (Kirton, 2003, p.41). Coping behavior
allows team member to take on roles that is different from one’s personal preference. However, if
a team member consistently force oneself to take on roles that is opposite to his or her own
preference, this will result in high stress levels. Therefore, Kirton (1999) suggested that “good
leaders ask of minimum coping behavior most of the time; they get offered maximum coping
behaviors in a crisis” (p.4). In addition, the leaders must understand how to use extrinsic rewards
effectively. According to research by Baer, et al. (2003), extrinsic rewards is only effective in
increasing creativity for adaptors with simple jobs. Using extrinsic rewards actually could result
in the opposite effect of decreasing creativity for innovators with simple job. Lastly, Kirton
(2003) stated that the management of diversity needs to be learned and taught. Jablkow (2008)
stated that developing problem solving leadership is not only about learning the skills of problem
solving, but also understanding the problem solvers themselves. Consequently, Jablkow used
KAI cognitive style as a basic framework and designed problem solving curriculum for graduate
students in the fields of engineering, education, and management. The curriculum includes
understanding of KAI style of problem solver, team problem solving, and problem solving
leadership. The assessment of the program indicated positive results. Some students are able to
apply what they learned in this curriculum in the corporate world and get promotion or receive
rewards.
FourSight
Theory and FourSight Preferences
Puccio et al. (2011) stated that “FourSight is a developing theory that describes people’s
preferences within the creative process” (p. 253), and in operational aspect, it is also an
instrument “which identifies people’s preference for four fundamental mental activities within
the creative process (i.e., clarifying the problem, generating ideas, developing solution and
implementing solutions)” (p.253). The theory of preference of creative process is founded on the
following principles: (1) the creative process is a natural process that that takes place when one
person is solving problems in creative ways, and the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model
presents one way of the creative process; (2) the steps of creative process involve various mental
activities (e.g. thinking and information processing), and each step will require different mental
activities; and (3) people possess preferences for different mental activities. People engaged
naturally in creative process, which involves different mental activities. People also possess
different preference for mental activity, therefore, it is expected that people might possess
preference of different mental activities within the creative process (Puccio, 2002).
The development of FourSight is guided not only by these principles, but also by real-life
observation of practical experiences. During his experiences teaching CPS to different groups
CPS and observing each student learning to facilitate CPS with groups, Puccio (2002) noticed
that each person has different approaches in learning and applying CPS. He also mentioned:
For example, I have seen some learners really take to and enjoy the phase of the process in
which ideas are broken down and evaluated; meanwhile, others in the very same group
have reported frustration with these aspects of the process. They said it takes a lot of
energy for them to focus on evaluating ideas. In other cases I have seen course participants
dive headlong into the idea generation phase of the process. They said thinking in a
non-judgmental atmosphere and striving to produce many ideas felt really natural to them.
Others, meanwhile stand back and marvel at these individuals, saying, “I don’t naturally
think like this” or “I have a really hard time to thinking out-of-the box.” I have also
observed difference in how people facilitate the CPS process. Graduate students have
reported to me that they avoid areas of the process that they personally find less
comfortable. They seem to struggle with those areas of the process. It takes them more
energy to master the CPS stages, phase, and tools that do not align with their natural
preferences. (p.4)
These principles and insights from practical observation led to the development of the
FourSight theory and instrument.

The development of FourSight started in the early 1990’s. After several versions of
research and development (which will be described in detail in the next section), current version
of FourSight enables people to identify their preferences of mental activities within the creative
process, called Clarifier, Ideator, Developer and Implementer. Puccio et al. summarized the key
qualities of each preference, which are shown in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4 An Overview of the Qualities of FourSight Preferences

Clarifier Ideator Developer Implementer
Clarifiers are: Ideator are: Developers are: Implementers are:
‧Focused ‧Playful ‧Perfectionist ‧Persistent
‧Orderly ‧Social ‧Pragmatic ‧Determined
‧Serious ‧Flexible ‧Concrete ‧Action oriented
‧Methodical ‧Independent ‧Cautious ‧Decisive
‧Deliverate ‧Imaginative ‧Structured ‧Assertive
‧Probing ‧Adventurous ‧Playful ‧Risk takers
Clarifiers need: Ideator need: Developers need: Implementers

‧Details ‧Room to be ‧Time to consider need:
‧The fact and playful the option ‧The sense that
history ‧Consistant ‧Time to evaluate others are
‧Access to stimulation and develop moving just as
information ‧Variety and ideas quickly
‧To ask questions change ‧Timely responses
‧The big picture to their ideas
Clarifiers annoy Ideator annoy Developers annoy Implementers
others by: others by: others by: annoy others by:
‧Asking too many ‧Drawing ‧Beiging too ‧Being too pushy
questions attention to nitpicky
‧Readily
themselves
‧Pointing out ‧Finding flaws in expressing their
obsticles ‧Being impatient others’ ideas frustration
when other ‧Getting locked when others do
‧Identifying areas
don’t get their not move as
that have not into one
ideas quickly
been well approach
sought out ‧ Offering ideas ‧Showing their
‧Being too critical
that are too impatience in
‧Overloading ‧To ask questions
off-the wall regard to group
people with
‧Being too process
information
abstract
‧Being too
realistic ‧Not sticking to
one idea
Source: Puccio (2011)(as cited in Puccio, 2002)
Clarifiers, who possess preference of mental activities for clarifying the problem, desire to
define the problem accurately, collect a lot of detailed information, and ask many questions
relevant to the problem. They will carefully think about the relationship between collected
information and the nature of the problem, and usually refrain from rushing to a conclusion
unless a reasonable explanation can be found. They excel in examining the details, analyzing
situation and diagnosing problems. High Clarifiers are sometime too cautions and risk-averse,
which leads to them asking questions that other team members don’t understand or know how to
answer. This may annoy other team members and will hinder the progress of problem solving.
(Puccio, 2002; Puccio et al., 2011)
Pucccio (2002) stated that high Ideators enjoy generating ideas. It is easy for them to
generate a lot of ideas, many of which are out-of-box. The thought processes of ideators are
usually very broad and conceptual and based in intuition, and ideators tend to express their ideas
in more abstract terms. They are not good at handling details and usually leave such tasks to
other people. Handling details is a task that requires a lot of energy for them. Other team
members may consider ideators’ ideas unrealistic or weird. Others may be also annoyed that they
don’t understand how to process these ideas. (Puccio et al., 2011)
Developers enjoy refining and crafting a rough idea into a brilliant solution. They have the
tendency to pursue perfection and will continuously polish and improve the idea and make it
executable. The weakness of the developers is that they may spend too much time pursing
perfection. Others may consider developers hypercritical. This may also hinder the
implementation of the solution. (Puccio, 2002; Puccio et al., 2011)
High Implementers are people who can’t wait to take action. They like to make things
happen and bring things to closure. They may be too focused on implementation and are
sometimes impatient on listening to others for advices or explanations of pros and cons. They
may implement the solutions before the solution was fully developed, making the
implementation work futile. They are often very eager to execute and may sometimes annoy
others by being too pushy.
Puccio et al. (2011) also stated that some people have just one peak preference of
aforementioned four preferences. Others have combinations of peak preferences. People who
poses two peak preferences may enjoy both the Clarifier and Implementer preferences or both
the Ideator and Developer preferences, and people who have combinations of three peak
preferences may like the Clarifier, Ideator, and Developer preferences, or possess the Ideator,
Developer and Implementer preferences. People who do not have any peak preference of four
areas are called Integrator. Integrators have even energy to engage in all four fundamental mental
activities within creative process. They are flexible and can easily adapt to whatever the task
requires. Integrators are good team players, and they can easily communicate with people who
have different peak preferences. The potential drawback for Integrators is that they may hold
their opinions for the sake of team harmony.
FourSight Instrument
The current version of FourSight is a self-report instrument containing 37 items (first item
is not scored), each item a self-descriptive statement designed to reveal one of the four
preferences (i.e., Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, and Implementer) within the creative process.
Puccio (2002) stated that the development of FourSight items started in the fall of 1992. In the
beginning, the purpose was to create the item pool of 87 statements that can be used to evaluate
individuals’ preferences of mental operations for each CSP stages (i.e. Mess finding,
Data-finding, Problem-finding, Idea-finding, Solution-finding, and Acceptance-finding)
(Wheeler, 1995). The development of these 87 statements was carefully considered and included
the following criteria: the statements should be written in non-technical languages such that
people who have never learned CPS could understand; also, the statements should be able to
evaluate the preferences, and not abilities, within CPS stages. Afterwards, a CPS expert panel,
which consisted of six experts and graduate students, screened out 60 items from the original set
of 87. The panel then added 4 items into the mix in order to make the number of items in each
stage identical. Wheeler (1995) used these 64 items to conduct an exploratory study of
preferences associated with CPS. The study compared the CPS preferences to the learning style
and professional interests. Wheeler concluded that the preferences of CPS could be measured.
Afterwards, the developments of different FourSight versions began.
Puccio (2002) indicated that eight different versions of FourSight have been tested over a
seven-year time span with more than 1,000 participants. Table 2-5 summarizes the development
of FourSight versions. In order to develop ForeSight into a reliable and valid psychological
measure, researchers put in considerable efforts in several different aspects.
First of all, the effective response scale of items was changed several times. In version 1.0
and 2.0, the scale was in the force rank format (respondents ranked items within sets, the sets
contained items for each of the six CPS stages). The force rank format was eventually dropped
because of its weaknesses. The effective response scale was changed to Likert (very strongly
disagree to very strongly agree) scale in version 3.0, then changed again to scale ranging from
“not like me at all” to “very much like me” in version 4.0, and reverse items were added to
prevent response bias.
The factor analysis of FourSight constructs was added in version 3.0. The analysis
generated four factors: Conceptualizer (with Mess-finding and Idea-finding items), Implementer
(with Solution-finding and Acceptance-finding items that concentrated on moving ideas into
action), Problem Analyzer (with data-finding and problem-finding items) and Transformer (with
Solution-finding and Acceptance finding items that focused on refining ideas into practical
solutions). The factor analysis in version 4.1 produced five factors: Ideator, Developer, Executor,
Collector, and Clarifier. These factors were the same with version 3, except that data-finding and
problem-finding items were broken apart. (Puccio, 2002, p.10). The factor analysis of version 5
resulted in four clear factors, called Clarifier, Ideator, Developer and Implementer. Version 6 and
version 6.1 (current version) factor analysis resulted in four factors that are the same as in
version 5. In every development between versions, only items with factor loading larger than 3.0
were kept. The current version 6.1 consists of 36 items for assessing the four scales (Clarifier,
Ideator, Developer and Implementer) within creative problem solving process and each scale
contains 9 items (Puccio, 1999, 2002).

Table 2-5 Summary of the development of FouSight Versions

Versions # of Response Scale Data Collected Factors Measure
Items & Analyzed(N) emerged compared
V. 1.0 48 Force rank format Field Test - -
V. 2.0 54 Force rank format - - -
V. 3.0 54 Likert 180 4 factors KAI

From very strongly Conceptualizer
disagree to very Implementer
strongly agree Problem
analyzer
Transformer
V. 4.0 36 From “neutral” to Field Test - -
“very like me”,
then modified to
from “not like me
at all” to “very
much like me”.
Reverse items
added to prevent
response bias
V. 4.1 50 Same as ver. 4.0 198 5 factors: KAI
Ideator
CPSP
Developer
Executor
Collector
Clarifier
V. 5.0 36 Same as ver. 4.0 484 4 factors: KAI
Clarifier
MBTI
Ideator
Developer
Implementer
V. 6.0 36 Same as ver. 4.0 296 4 factors KAI
same as ver.5.0
V. 6.1 36 Same as ver. 4.0 - Current version -

4 factors
same as ver.5.0
Source: Puccio (2002)
Puccio (2002) indicated that the alpha coefficients of FourSight (version 6.0) for all four
scales ranged from .78 to .81. This implies strong internal consistency of four FourSight scales.
The reliability is considered to be good.
Puccio (1999, 2002) also showed the validity of FourSight by comparing with established
measures, such as the Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory (KAI; Kirton, 1976), the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) and the Creative Problem
Solving Profile Inventory (CPSP; Basadur et al., 1990).
The studies of correlation between several FourSight versions and the KAI showed that:
(1) Ideator scale had significant positive relationship with the KAI total score (correlation
coefficients ranged from .36 to .53) and Sufficiency of Originality (SO) subscale on KAI
(correlation coefficients ranged from .43 to .76). These positive relationships indicate that, as
Ideator scale increases, the individuals who enjoy generating ideas also show more innovative
tendency and prefer to generate ideas that are cross-boundary and paradigm-breaking.
(2) The Clarifier scale and Efficiency subscale of KAI had moderate negative relationship
(correlation coefficients ranged from -.20 to -.37). It is expected that “Clarifier” individuals, who
prefer to clarify the problem within the creative process, are concerned with precision, reliability,
disciplined and efficiency.
(3) The Developer scale in three of four FourSight versions showed moderately negative
correlation with EFF subscale of KAI (correlation coefficients ranged from -.32 to -.36). As the
Developer scale increases, individuals prefer to be more thorough and efficient with
methodology.
These results indicate that FourSight is correlated to both Kirton’s adaption and innovation.
Innovators prefer to generate ideas, while the adaptors enjoy the activities of clarifying the
problem and refining ideas to solutions.
FourSight (version 5.0) was compared with MBTI, which is one of the most popular
personality measures. MBTI is based on Jung’s theory on psychological type, and it accesses
people’s preferences on four dichotomies (Puccio, 2002). The Extraversion-Introversion (E-I)
dichotomy examines where people focus their attention and get energy, which can be either outer
world (Extroversion) or inner world (Introversion). The Sensing-Intuition (S-N) dichotomy
refers to how people prefer taking in information. Sensing type prefer to take in information that
is real and tangible, while Intuition type prefer to take in information by seeing the big picture,
the relationship and patterns between facts. The third dichotomy, Thinking-Feeling (T-I), deals
with the preference of people making decisions. Thinking type tends to be very thoughtful in
decision making and consider logical consequences, while Feeling type prefers to use feeling in
decision making and consider consequences to them and to others involved. The final
Judging-Perceiving (J-P) dichotomy assesses how people deal with outer world in their life.
Judging type tends to live in planned, orderly way, and prefers structured and organized lives,
while Perceiving type prefers to live in a flexible, spontaneous way and keep open to last-minute
options and like to go with the flow (Myers, 1998).
Puccio (2002) indicated that the comparison between FourSight and MBTI (Form G) with
small samples (N=53) showed four significant relationships, three with J-P dimension and one
with S-N dimension. Both Clarifier and Developer have strong negative correlation (r=-.52 ,
r=.54, respectively) with J-P dimension on the MBTI. In other words, Clarifier and Developers
can relate to Judging type lifestyles with scheduling, being organized, systematic, methodical,
and having things clear-cut. Conversely, individuals who possess the Judging characteristics
would fit Clarifier and Developer preferences, for both Clarifiers and Developers tend to bring
structure into their preferred mental activities. The third significant correlation is that Ideator
scale shows negative correlation (r=-.33) with J-P dimension. High Ideators tend to have the
Perceiving preference and like to live in a flexible, spontaneous, open-ended way, and it is
expected individuals possessing Perceiving characteristics would enjoy generating ideas within
the creative process. Lastly, Ideator scale also showed a strong positive correlation (r=.68) with
S-N dimension. This indicates that high Ideators would have strong preference for Intuition type.
The characteristics of Intuitive types include imaginative, open to future possibilities, and
trusting inspiration; these are similar to the qualities of Ideators. In conclusion, the relationships
between FourSight and the MBTI could be reasonably explained.
Puccio (2002) indicated that three significant correlations emerge from comparing
FourSight (version 4.1) with CPSP measure with small sample (N=36). The CPSP (Basadur et al.,
1990) examines different preferences for Basasdur’s eight stages version of CPS called Simplex.
It is constructed on two dimensions. The first dimension consists of two opposite ways of
gaining knowledge, either in direct or abstract ways. The second dimension consists of two
opposite ways of using knowledge, either for ideation (i.e., divergent thinking) or evaluation (i.e.,
convergent thinking). These two dimensions generate four quadrants of different ways of gaining
and using knowledge. The quadrant I: Generator, individuals who have dominant preferences for
gaining knowledge through concrete direct experience and using knowledge for ideation. The
quadrant II: Conceptualizer, individuals who have inclinations of gaining knowledge by detached
abstract thinking and using knowledge for ideation. The quadrant III: Optimizer, individuals who
prefer gaining knowledge through detached abstract thinking and using knowledge for evaluation.
The quadrant IV: Implementer, individuals who like to gain knowledge through direst concrete
experience and using knowledge for evaluation. FourSight’s Ideator scale has significant positive
correlation (r=.37) with Conceptualizer, which seems easy to interpret because Conceptualizer,
who prefer to gain knowledge by abstract thinking and use knowledge for ideation, would enjoy
generating idea within creative process. Ideator also has significant negative correlation (r=-.46)
with Implementor on the CPSP, which make sense since the Ideators prefer the diverging
thinking mode, while Implementer prefer the converging thinking mode. The third significant
negative correlation (r=-.40) is between Implementer scale in FourSight and Optimizer in CPSP.
Optimizers, who enjoy generating criteria for assessing alternatives and focusing on developing
optimum ideas or solutions, might not like to jump into implementing solutions. In conclusion,
the correlation study showed that there is conceptual connection between FourSight and CPSP.
In summary, these studies comparing FourSight with KAI, MBTI and CPSP showed
evidences to support the validity of FourSight instrument.
The relationship between FourSight, CPS training, and the management of diversity in teams
Regarding the application in the fields, Puccio, Wheeler and Cassandro (2004) have studied
the relationship between FourSight (version 6.0) preferences and CPS training. The participants
included 84 students (73 graduates and 11 undergraduates) registered in CPS courses at Buffalo
State, The State University of New York. To understand the participants’ preferences of the
creative process, FourSight was administrated during the class in the beginning of the semester.
At end of each class, the students’ responses to the CPS course contents, including three
components, six stages, twelve principles and thirteen tools, were investigated with a three-part
pen-and-pencil survey. Part one of the survey was designed to reflect the students’ enjoyment of
learning about CPS components, stages, principles and tools. Part two asked students to evaluate
the value of the CPS course contents for them in the future. Questions in both part one and two
survey were in “ranking” format, from “the most” to “the least”. Part three of the survey included
open-ended questions to help researchers understand students’ opinions about: (1) the most
significant learning of the CPS courses; (2) the personal benefits from the courses, and (3) the
professional benefits from the courses (Wheeler, 2001). Puccio et al. (2004) studied the
relationship between students’ FourSight score and their rankings of CPS course contents
through multiple regression analysis. The standardized regression coefficient (ß) and the amount
of variation (R2) explained by all four FourSight preferences were calculated.
Overall, the research results seem to imply that subjects with different FourSight
preferences would have different perception and evaluation of the CPS course contents. For
example, the Developer preference showed high future value of the Defer Judgment principle (ß
=.43); however, both of the Clarifier and the Ideator preferences had lower future value of the
Defer Judgment principle (both ß =-.29). Puccio et al. (2004) discovered that there are two
different types of relationship between the FourSight preferences and responses to the CPS
course contents. One is the true-to-type relationship, which means that the participants’ responses
to the CPS course contents match their innate tendency of FourSight preferences. For example, it
was found that high Clarifiers are related with the enjoyment (ß =.34) and high future value (ß 
=.37) of the Gathering Data stage in CPS. It is expected that high Clarifiers enjoy and understand
the value of the Gathering Data stage of CPS because they prefer to clarify the problem, and
gathering data is a necessary stage for doing so. This is one of the findings of true-to-type
relationship. The other findings included that the Ideator responded high value (ß=.34) to the
Visual Connections tool; the Developer associated high value of the Praise First tool (ß=.36), a
tool that helps to evaluate the positive side and concerns of a solution, and the Implementer
showed the enjoyment (ß=.23) of the Plan for Action stage.
The other type of relationship found between the FourSight preferences and the CPS course
contents is complementary relationship. In such a relationship, participants indicated the
enjoyment or the future value of the CPS course contents that complemented their innate
tendency, and held in lower regard the parts of the CPS course that they were already familiar
with. For example, low Ideators theoretically would be disinterested in the stage of generating
ideas, and were supposed to hold in lower regard divergent thinking principles and the tools, but
it was found unexpectedly that they responded the usefulness of the Defer Judgment principle
and the Stick ‘em Up Brainstorming tool in the future lives. It was also found that low
developers, those who disliked the solution developing process, saw the value of the Evaluation
Matrix tool, which is a tool associated with solution development. On the other hand, high
Ideators, those who have strong preference for generating ideas, did not appreciate the value of
the divergent thinking tools. On contrary, they saw the value of the Prepare for Action
component, which puts ideas into solutions and action plans. It appeared that high Ideators
perceived higher value in the Action components, which help them move their ideas forward to
more practical solutions and action plans, than in the diverging tools, which might just help them
generating more ideas. The high Developers, those who strongly enjoy the solution developing
process, also showed the complementary relationship. It is indicated that high Developers did not
value the Evaluation Matrix tool, but they saw the usefulness of the Defer Judgment principles. It
seemed that high Developers might want to improve skills that they already have
complementarily with divergent thinking principles, rather than with convergent thinking tools.
The results of this study showed that individuals who possess different FourSight
preference react to CPS training course contents in different ways. This implies that there is no
single CPS training course content that is suitable for all types of students. Those who teach CPS
or other kinds of creative processes may need to deliberately design or balance the course
contents for the students with diverse FourSight preferences. For example, they might put both
low Ideators and high Ideators into consideration, for the former appreciated the value of
divergent thinking tools, while the later appreciated the usefulness of the Prepare for Action
components instead. Puccio et al. (2004) also suggested that FourSight could be a part of CPS
training program, for the instrument can help individuals understand their own preferences and
consequently choose CPS course contents that are complementary to their own innate tendency
and skills. This will, in turn, expand one’s own skill sets and improve versatility in creative
problem solving.
In managing diversities in teams, the leaders need to be aware of the effects of broad range
of FourSight preferences in team members. Puccio et al. (2011) stated that “this synergy of
differences can lead to creative potential or can cause conflict, which can undermine this
potential” (p. 260). The diverse FourSight preferences within team members may cause frictions.
Puccio et al. (2011) indicated that there are at least of two forms of friction: personality clash,
and process clash. The personality clash emerges when individuals do not understand much
about FourSight preferences, and consequently would possess prejudices or negative judgment
toward other people with different preferences from themselves. For example, those who have
Clarifier preference in FourSight might consider it unwise that other people with different
preferences often proceed with problem solving without fully clarifying the problem. On the
other hand, high clarifiers may be perceived by others as spending too much time on gathering
information, and consequently delaying the team achieving task goals. Prejudices and negative
judgments like these will lead to frictions, misunderstandings and miscommunications among
team members, and are detrimental to effective teamwork. In order to alleviate personality clash,
the leaders can use FourSight instruments to help team members understand the FourSight
preferences of one another, and that each preference has its own values, and neither one is “better”
or “worse”. This, in turn, will enable team members to treat other members with different
preferences with a positive attitude, and the team can therefore use the complementary skills to
cooperate and achieve the task goals. Puccio et al. also suggested that team leaders should pay
attention to the members with different FourSight preferences from leaders themselves. These
members may provide judgments and constructive challenges to group thinking, as well as
different points of view that are useful in breaking the bottlenecks. Also, the leaders should foster
a collaborative climate that enables all members with different FourSight preferences to develop
their maximum creative potential.
The other form of friction is process clash. Process clash arises when the team lacks an
universally-agreed creative process such as CPS; consequently, team members, each with
different FourSight preferences, want to dominate the creative process based on one’s own
preference. For example, the high Clarifiers may prefer the team to focus on clarifying the
situation, the high Ideators prefer to start the idea generation process, the high developers
consider refining the ideas of utmost importance, and high Implementers may push the team to
start discussion about action plans. Such internal friction may result in in-fighting and prevent
the team from achieving task goals. Puccio et al. suggested that it could be useful as part of the
team building process to conduct FourSight measurement on team members in a workshop

setting. This will allow team members to discover FourSight preferences of one another,
understand beforehand the potential conflicts during the creative process, and consequently
alleviate the internal frictions and facilitate effective collaboration.
In addition, Puccio et al. also encouraged the leader to use the CPS process to overcome
both of the personality and process clash. This is because CPS has clear components, stages,
principles and tools, which can help team members with different FourSight preferences to
proceed with creative process in a structured method while focusing on outcomes and
performances. Furthermore, team members can also use CPS principles and tools to complement
other stages where they have lower FourSight preferences. As previously mentioned in the
research regarding the relationship between FourSight preferences and CPS course contents, low
Ideator may use the Defer Judgment principle and brainstorming and forced connection tools to
learn to think and act like a high Ideator, and the low developer may use the Evaluation Matrix
tool to become familiar with the thought process of a high Developer. These may help bridging
the gap in perception between members with different FourSight preferences and facilitate team
collaboration.
In short, FourSight can enable team members to understand one another’ differences in
creative problem solving preferences, and recognize the potential in such diversity. This, coupled
with using CPS process as an universally-accepted creative process, will allow the team to take
advantage of each member’s stronger traits and achieve task goals more effectively.
Summary
In this chapter, first, the general definition, characteristics, and theories of cognitive style
and their relationship to creativity and problem solving are reviewed. Then, the theory, the
instrument and the sub-scales of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation and it’s correlation to creativity,
problem solving and the management of diversity in teams are presented. Finally, the theory,
instrument and characteristics of FourSight preferences, and their link to CPS training and
management of diversity in teams are described. In next chapter, the methods and procedures
will be presented. In this chapter, first, the general definition, characteristics, and theories of
cognitive style and their relationship to creativity and problem solving are reviewed. Then, the
theory, the instrument and the sub-scales of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation and its correlation to
creativity, problem solving and the management of diversity in teams are presented. Finally, the
theory, instrument and characteristics of FourSight preferences, and their link to CPS training
and management of diversity in teams are described. In next chapter, the methods and procedures
will be presented.
Methods and Procedures 51
Chapter Three: Methods and Procedures
The purpose of this chapter is to outline the methods and procedures used to conduct this
study. General characteristics of the research participants are provided along with a brief
description of the FourSight and FourSight Chinese version, and how the latter measure was
administered to the participants. The statistical analysis method and procedures of surveying
the validity of participants’ FourSight profile were also discussed. The chapter concludes with an
overall chapter summary.
The Sample Population
There are three sets of sample populations in this study. The first sample consists of 224
participants used to conduct construct validation of FourSight Chinese version. There are 30
participants in the second set used to survey whether the FourSight model fits with the Taiwanese
culture. And the last one was used to compare the FourSight profiles between scientists and
engineers with 30 participants in each group. These three sets of samples are described in the
following sections. All subjects were recruited by convenience sampling.
The sample for Construct Validation of FourSight Chinese Version
The 224 participants in this study were recruited from three different companies and
Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) in Taiwan. 46 (21%) participants worked at a
motorcycle company (MC company), 39 (17%) at a mechanical parts manufacturer (MP
company), 34 participants at a semi-conductor manufacturer (SC company), and 105 (47%)
participants at ITRI. Among 224 participants, there were 179 (79%) men and 48 (21%) females,
who all had Bachelor degrees or above. Their mean age was 38.0 ± 7.3 (SD) years, and the
mean working experience was 12 ± 7 (SD) years. The group of 224 participants is called “Total
group”, and the group of ITRI’s 105 participants is called “ITRI employee group”.
The samples for studying FourSight model fit with Taiwanese Population
The 30 participants in this study were selected from 105 ITRI’s participants with
diversified FourSight profile. There are thirteen styles of FourSight profile among thirty subjects,
including four styles of one peak preference, i.e. Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, and Implementer,
four styles of two peak preferences, four styles of three peak preferences and one style of no
peak preference, i.e. Integrator. They were all familiar with the author and willing to answer the
research question whether the personal FourSight profile make sense to them and provide further
personal information or opinions related to the FourSight profile. There were 15 men and 15
females and their mean age was 42.0 ± 8.6 (SD) years, and the mean working experience was
16.9 ± 8.7 (SD) years.

The samples for comparing FourSight profile between scientists and engineers
The next sample featured 30 scientist and 30 engineers who were selected from the ITRI
employee group (N=105). The 30 scientists (ITRI scientists) recruited had a job title of
research scientist and majored in chemistry. The 30 engineers (ITRI engineers) had a job title of
engineer and majored in chemical engineering or mechanical engineering.
A Description of FourSight Chinese version
FourSight Chinese version was developed through three steps. First, the author translated
FourSight version 6.1 (Appendix A) into Traditional Chinese (Mandarin) (version 1.0). Then, the
author formed a four-person FourSight Chinese version review team (Team FCR). The team
members, were fluent in both English and Chinese, had studied in United States and worked at
the Creativity Lab for more than two years. Additionally, all were familiar with Creative Problem
Solving. Both FourSight version 6.1 and FourSight Chinese version 1.0 in paper form were sent
to Team FCR individually. The author then collected the translations of FourSight version 1.0
from the members of Team FCR and revised the FourSight Chinese to version 1.1. The
FourSight Chinese version 1.1 were reviewed again and revised to FourSight version 1.2
(Appendix B) through the same process as above. Finally, FourSight Chinese version 1.2 was
translation back to English by an independent translator who is familiar with the English
language, and had not seen FourSight version 6.1 before. Each item of the FourSight
back-translated version (v.BT) (Appendix C) was compared to the relevant item of FourSight
version 6.1 by the author. Some words were changed in FourSight version BT, but the meaning
was the same with FourSight version 6.1. So, FourSight Chinese version 1.2 was used in
reliability and construct validation studies.
Methodology
The FourSight Chinese version 1.2 was administrated to all participants, taking them
approximately 20 minutes to complete. Before administration of FourSight, all subjects were
asked to participate on a voluntary basis and were informed of the purpose of the research,
participants' rights, and instructions on completing the measure. All participants also signed a
consent form (Appendix D), giving permission to use their data for research purpose.
The participants at MC and MP companies completed the measure after a CPS workshop
they attended. The participants of SC company and ITRI (including 30 ITRI scientists and ITRI
engineers) participated through a request sent out by e-mail, then the measures were sent to them
via inter-office mail. They were also instructed to return the completed measures; responses in
most cases were received 7-10 days.
The results of the FourSight Chinese version 1.2 of participants were scored and graphed
as their FourSight profile. The FourSight peak preference was identified by two horizontal lines:
one was drawn five points below the highest score, and the other one was drawn five points
above the lowest score. Any point that appeared above the top line was considered a peak
preference or high preference, and any point that appeared below the lower line was considered a
low preference. The data was entered into Excel spreadsheet for statistical analysis.
The statistical analysis was done using commercially available package of SPSS program
by IBM. The program “Reliability” was used for item analysis and calculation of Cronbach’s
alpha, which gives a measure of the internal consistency of the FourSight Chines version 1.2.
The program “Factor Analysis” was used to validate the constructs of FourSight Chinese version
1.2.
In studying FourSight model fit with Taiwanese, 30 selected participants were interviewed
via telephone. The questions for the participants were: (1) Does the results of FourSight profile
make sense to you? (2) Do you think the results of FourSight profile adequately describe your
preference and process to solve a problem that you have no prior experiences? Before the phone
interview was conducted, the participants received their measurement result of FourSight
Chinese version 1.2 including scores and profile, and were informed the purpose and questions
of the interview via e-mail. During the interview, first the meanings of the results of personal
FourSight Profile were explained to the participant. Then the answers and feedback from
participant were collected, and the reasons associated with the answers and feedback were
further elaborated by the participants.
Summary
This chapter describes the methods and procedures used in administering the FourSight
Chinese version, statistical analysis, and survey of validity of the measure result. Once the data
was gathered and entered into Excel spreadsheet, the results were analyzed.
Chapter Four provided the results and analysis of the data gathered by this study.
Presentation and Analysis of Data 57
Chapter Four: Presentation and Analysis of Data
The focus of Chapter Four is to present the findings and the analysis of the data gathered for this
study. The descriptive data, reliability, correlation coefficients among the FourSight Chinese
version 1.2 items, and the results of factor analysis are presented. The fit of FourSight model
with ITRI samples, and the FourSight profile of Taiwanese population are also presented. The
chapter concludes with an overall summary.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 4.1 presents 224 Taiwanese participants’ mean scores on items of the FourSight Chinese
version 1.2. Mean scores of items for the FourSight Chinese version 1.2 range from 3.13 to 4.14.
Item 37 for Implementer scale “I tend to look for a quick solution and then fly with it” has the
lowest mean score of 3.13, and item 22 for Clarifier scale “I like to focus on the key information
within a challenging situation” has the highest mean score of 4.14.

Table 4.1
Mean and Standard Deviation of item scores for FourSight Chinese
version 1.2 (N=224)
Item (theoretical scale) Mean STDV Minimum Maximum
Item 2 (Developer) 4.05 1.00 1 5
Item 3 (Clarifier) 4.09 0.97 1 5
Item 4 (Implementer) 4.13 0.92 1 5
Item 5 (Developer) 3.78 1.08 1 5
Item 6 (Ideator) 3.33 1.16 1 5
Item 9 (Ideator) 3.65 1.15 1 5
Item 10 (Developer) 3.63 1.05 1 5
Item 11 (Developer) 3.86 0.98 1 5
Item 13 (Developer) 3.70 1.03 1 5
Item 14 (Ideator) 3.66 1.10 1 5
Item 15 (Clarifier) 3.80 1.10 1 5
Item 16 (Ideator) 3.96 0.89 1 5
Item 17 (Ideator) 3.80 1.09 1 5
Item 18 (Clarifier) 4.00 0.93 1 5
Item 20 (Clarifier) 3.61 1.07 1 5
Item 21 (Ideator) 3.69 1.08 1 5
Item 22 (Clarifier) 4.14 0.85 1 5
Item 23 (Developer) 3.92 2.25 1 5
Item 26. (Implementer) 3.98 0.87 1 5
Item 28 (Clarifier) 3.90 0.98 1 5
Item 29 (Ideator) 3.69 1.11 1 5
Item 31 (Developer) 4.00 0.91 1 5
Item 32 (Clarifier) 4.12 0.94 1 5
Item 33 (Developer) 3.96 0.92 1 5
Item 34 (Ideator) 3.79 1.04 1 5
Item 35 (Ideator) 3.88 1.03 1 5
Item 36 (Developer) 3.87 1.01 1 5
Reliability by Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha was used as a measure of the internal consistency of the items in FourSight
Chinese version 1.2. The results indicate a coefficient alpha of .91 (N=224) for all 36 item of
FourSight Chinese version 1.2. Table 4.2 shows internal consistency for the four FourSight
construct scales. The coefficients alpha for the four FourSight construct scales are as
follows: .78 for Clarifier, .82 for Ideator, .75 for Developer, and .71 for Implementer. These
results indicate a reasonable level of internal consistency for the FourSight Chinese version 1.2.
Table 4.2
Internal Consistency of FourSight Sub-scales
FourSight Construct Range in Item- Cronbach
Scale (n) Scale Correlation Alpha
Clarifier (n=224) .11 to .56 .78
Ideator (n=224) .06 to .62 .82
Developer (n=224) .13 to .57 .75
Implementer (n=224) -.06 to .74 .71
Construct Validation
Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the construct validity of the FourSight Chinese
version 1.2 in Taiwanese sample. The factors were first extracted by the principle component
analysis, followed by Equamax rotation.

Item correlation matrix
The inter-item correlation matrix is presented in Appendix E. The range of inter-item correlation
coefficients is from -.076 to .741. Most of the items showed positive correlation with other
items. Item 37, “I tend to look for a quick solution and then fly with it”, had no significant
correlation (the correlation coefficients are less than .30) with the other items.
Communalities
The communalities is the sum of the squares of factor loading across all factors. It is a measure
of the amount of variance the item (variable) shares with all the other items in the scale. Table
4.3 presents the communalities of each item of FourSight Chinese version 1.2 extracted by the
principle component analysis method with Equamax rotation. The results of principle component
analysis show that communalities for 36 items range from .10 to .67. Most of the
communalities of the items are greater than .30, except item 2 (.25), item 23 (.18) and item 37
(.10). This suggests that there is a common factor among most of items.
Factor Extraction
Table 4.4 shows the initial eigenvalue after factor extraction. There are nine factors with
eigenvalue greater than 1. The screen test suggests that after 4 factors, the incremental changes
in eigenvalue even out. Therefore four factor solutions were chosen; along with the consideration
that FourSight has four constructs. Results of factor analysis with 4 factors indicate that these
four factors were rotated with Equamax rotation. Table 4.5 presents the total variance explained
by rotated factors. Proportions of variance accounted by each factor were 14.03% for factor 1,
12.19% for factor 2, 11.83% for factor 3, and 7.36% for factor 4.
Table 4.3
Communalities of FourSight Chinese version 1.2
Extraction
Items Sums of
initial
(theoretical construct) Squared
Loadings
Item 2 (Developer) 1.000 0.25
Item 3 (Clarifier) 1.000 0.52
Item 4 (Implementer) 1.000 0.35
Item 6 (Ideator) 1.000 0.39
Item 14 (Ideator) 1.000 0.48
Item 16 (Ideator) 1.000 0.43
Item 17 (Ideator) 1.000 0.52
Item 21 (Ideator) 1.000 0.66
Item 26. (Implementer) 1.000 0.54
Item 29 (Ideator) 1.000 0.56
Item 34 (Ideator) 1.000 0.43
Item 35 (Ideator) 1.000 0.34
Extraction Method: Principle Component Analysis
Table 4.4
Initial Eigenvalues for Factor Extraction*
Factor Eigenvalues % of Variance Cumulative %
1 10.61 29.47 29.47
2 2.23 6.19 35.66
3 2.03 5.63 41.29
4 1.52 4.23 45.51
5 1.34 3.71 49.22
6 1.27 3.52 52.74
7 1.18 3.29 56.03
8 1.07 2.98 59.01
9 1.01 2.81 61.81
10 0.94 2.61 64.43
11 0.89 2.47 66.89
12 0.86 2.38 69.27
13 0.77 2.15 71.42
14 0.74 2.04 73.46
15 0.73 2.03 75.49
16 0.68 1.89 77.38
17 0.65 1.80 79.18
18 0.63 1.76 80.94
19 0.62 1.71 82.65
20 0.57 1.59 84.24
21 0.53 1.47 85.70
22 0.48 1.34 87.04
23 0.47 1.30 88.34
24 0.45 1.25 89.59
25 0.43 1.20 90.79
26 0.42 1.16 91.95
27 0.39 1.09 93.04
28 0.37 1.02 94.07
29 0.36 1.01 95.07
30 0.35 0.97 96.04
31 0.31 0.86 96.90
32 0.28 0.79 97.69
33 0.25 0.70 98.38
34 0.21 0.57 98.96
35 0.19 0.54 99.49
36 0.18 0.51 100.00
*Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 4.5
Proportion of Variance Explained by 4 unrotated
factors *
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 10.61 29.47 29.49
2 2.23 6.19 35.66
3 2.03 5.63 41.29
4 1.52 4.23 45.51
*Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Table 4.6
Proportion of Variance Explained by 4 Factors after
Equamax Rotation*
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.05 14.03 14.03
2 4.43 12.19 26.32
3 4.26 11.83 38.15
4 2.65 7.36 45.51
* Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Factor Solutions
Table 4.7 shows the factor loadings of factor analysis results for FourSight Chinese version 1.2.
The factor loadings indicate the correlation of each item with the extracted 4 factors. The
higher factor loading means the item has stronger correlation with the factor. Only items with
loading greater than .30 are shown in Table 4.7. These loadings define core meanings of the
factor. To help with the interpretation of the four factors, the FourSight construct scales for
which the items were theoretically designed to measure are noted in parentheses.
Among 36 items, item 37 is the only one that has loadings less than .3. There are sixteen items
that load on only one factor, the remaining eighteen items load on two factors.
For a clearer interpretation, the items loaded on each factor are decomposed into items of four
FourSight theoretical construct scales (Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, and Implementer). Table
4.8 shows the compositions of items that load on each factor. Twenty items that load on factor
1, are composed of seven items from Clarifier, three from Ideator, seven from Developer, and
two from Implementer. Item 20 (Clarifier) has the highest loading .70 on factor one.
Therefore, factor 1 is presumed to have the strongest link with the Clarifier construct than the
other three constructs, and the Developer construct also has significant correlation with factor 1.
Factor 2 is comprised of one Clarifier item, nine Ideator items, three Developer items, and one
Implementer items. The largest loading on factor two is .68 for item 9 (Ideator) and item 21
(Ideator). Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate that factor 2 is most closely aligned with the
Ideator preference among the four constructs. Thirteen items load on factor 3 (two Clarifier
items, two Ideator items, three Developer items, and six Implementer items), and the highest
loading is .76. for item 30 (Implementer). Hence, it is proposed that factor 3 has fairly high
consistency with the Implementer construct. Factor 4 is comprised of three Clarifier items, one
Developer items, and three Implementer items. Item 15 (Clarifier) has the largest loading .70 on
factor 4. Therefore, factor 4 appears to be most closely associated with Clarifier and Developer.
The correlations between the four rotated factors are shown in table 4.9. The correlation
coefficients between factor 1 and factor 2, 3 and 4 are .52, .53 and .32, respectively. Hence,
factor 1 has significant positive correlations with the other three factors. The correlation
coefficient between factor 2 and factor 4 is .39, and between factor 3 and factor 4 is .48. From
these results, the four rotated factors indicated substantial correlations with each other. This
might explain the reasons why many items are factorially complex (load on two factors), and
each of four rotated factors are loaded by more than one FourSight construct’s items, as shown in
table 4.7. Consequently, the construct validation for FourSight Chinese version 1.2 is only
partially supported in this study.

Table 4.7
Rotated Factor Matrixa of FourSight Chinese version 1.2
Items (theoretical scales) Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Item 2 (Developer) 0.45
Item 6 (Ideator) 0.56
Item 7 (Clarifier) 0.56
Item 19 (Implementer) 0.67
Item 26. (Implementer) 0.40 0.57
Item 37 (Implementer)
Note: Only items that load greater than .30 are shown .In bold are the highest loadings for
each item among the four factors and in bold and italic are the itemswith the largest
loading for each factor. Rotated Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Table 4.8
Composition of Items for FourSight Theoretical Construct Scale
Loaded on Rotated Four Factor
FourSight
Theoretical
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Construct
Scale
Clarifier 7/20 1/14 2/13 3/7
Ideator 3/20 9/14 2/13 0/7
Developer 7/20 3/14 3/13 1/7
Implementer 2/20 1/14 6/13 3/7
Note: The items’ number of FourSight theoretical Construct Scale, that loaded on
the rotated factor, over the total items’ number loaded on the rotated factor.
Table 4.9
Correlation between Factors
Factor 1 2 3 4
1 0.59 0.52 0.53 0.32
2 -0.77 0.50 0.13 0.39
3 -0.12 -0.69 0.53 0.48
4 0.24 -0.04 -0.65 0.72
Note: Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization
FourSight Model Fit with selected ITRI Samples
To study the FourSight model fit for Taiwanese, thirty selected participants, who all
worked in ITRI and possessed diverse styles of FourSight profile, and were familiar with the
author, were interviewed. The questions for the samples are: (1) Does results of FourSight profile
reflect your understanding about yourself? And (2) Would you agree that the results of FourSight
profile adequately describes your process solving a problem that you don’t have previous
experiences? They were presented the result of their FourSight profile and their responses and
reflections are analyzed. Table 4.10 shows the test results of FourSight Chinese version 1.2. for
the 30 participants, with original four FourSight constructs, and participants’ responses from
interviews. The detailed interview qualitative results are presented in Appendix F.
The styles of Foursight profile of the participants are quite diverse. There are 13 styles of
FourSight profile among 30 subjects, including four styles of one peak preference, i.e. Clarifier,
Ideator, Developer, and Implementer, four styles of two peak preferences, four styles of three
peak preferences and one style of no peak preference, i.e. Integrator. Twenty-four out of thirty
participants (80%) thought that the results of FourSight profiles made sense to them. One
participant (5%) felt that the result of FourSight profile made sense to him only in the work
setting, and it might change in different settings. There are three participants (10%) who
thought that the Developer scores were not what they expected, two of the three participants
thought the scores were lower than expected, the other one thought the score was higher than
expected. One participant (5%) was surprised that her Ideator score is higher than Clarifier score,
and one participant (5%) was not sure whether the result of FourSight profile makes sense to her.
These data suggest that the FourSight four construct model (Clarifier, Ideator, Developer
and Implementer) fits intuitively with most (80%) of the 30 selected ITRI subjects’
self-perception, but the model does not fit well for the remaining 20% of the selected
participants.
Table 4.10
Test results of FourSight Chinese Version 1.2 responses
Sample Scores of FourSight FourSight Styles of Participants
Construct Scale Preferences FourSight responses to test
Number C Id D Im C Id D Im Profile* result
MFS-1 32 40 34 27 － H － L H-Ideator Make sense
MFS-2 33 42 31 43 － H － H H-Ideator & Make sense
H-Implementer
MFS-3 26 33 33 39 L －－ H H-Implementer Developer score is
higher than expected;
the other three scores
make sense.
MFS-4 33 30 22 34 H H L H H-Clarifier & Make sense (It fits
H-Ideator &
H- Implementer my way).
MFS-5 32 39 22 34 － H L H H-Ideator & I was surprised that
my Ideator score is
H-Implementer
higher than Clarifer
score.
MFS-6 43 38 37 34 H －－ L H-Clarifier Make sense
MFS-7 41 37 45 39 － L H L H-Developer Make sense
MFS-8 30 32 34 38 L L － H H-Implementer Make sense
MFS-9 32 42 39 42 L H － H H-Ideator & Make sense (It looks
H-Implementer quite like me).
MFS-10 41 44 43 33 H H H L H-Clarifier & It makes sense to me
H-Ideator & in the work context. I
H- Developer might change my
preference in
different context.
MFS-11 39 38 37 42 －－－－ Integrator Make sense (It looks
just like me).
MFS-12 24 24 24 29 －－－－ Integrator Uncertain
MFS-13 36 33 29 41 －－ L H Implementer Make sense
MFS-14 44 40 36 32 H H L L H-Clarifier & Make sense (very
H-Ideator accurate)
MFS-15 36 24 28 35 H L L H H-Clarifier & Make sense
H-Implementer
MFS-16 40 33 39 32 H L H L H-Clarifier & Make sense
H-Developer
MFS-17 33 40 34 33 L H L L H-Ideator Developer score is
lower than I expected
Table 4.10 (continued)
MFS-18 42 38 35 33 H H L L H-Clarifier & Make sense
H-Ideator
MFS-19 29 33 24 35 － H L H H-Ideator & Not make sense,
H-Implementer Developer score
should be higher.
MFS-20 39 43 36 30 H H － L H-Clarifier & Make sense
H-Ideator
MFS-21 36 27 30 40 H L L H H-Clarifier & Make sense
H-Implementer
MFS-22 32 23 31 33 H L H H H-Clarifier & Make sense
H-Ideator &
H-Implementer
MFS-23 38 37 33 43 －－ L H H-Implementer Make sense
MFS-24 34 40 39 38 L H H H H-Ideator Make sense
H-Developer
H-Implementer
MFS-25 35 26 31 30 H L －－ H-Clarifier Make sense
MFS-26 36 38 37 42 L －－ H Implementer Make sense
MFS-27 42 17 29 32 H L －－ H-Clarifier Make sense
MFS-28 31 26 36 28 － L H L H-Developer Make sense
MFS-29 39 34 38 37 －－－－ Integrator Make sense
MFS-30 38 41 37 32 H H － L H-Clarifier & Make sense
H-Ideator
* FourSight profile was confirmed by each selected participant..
C: Clarifier; Id: Ideator; D: Developer; Im: Implementer.
Bold: scores with high or low preference;
H: High preference; L: Low preference; －: No preference
FourSight Profile among Taiwanese Population
The mean scores and FourSight profiles of four groups of participants (Total participants,
ITRI employees group, ITRI scientists group, and ITRI engineers group) were analyzed to test
further research questions. The results of mean scores of FourSight for all four groups are
presented in Table 4.11 and Figure 4.1. Participants in all groups scored the highest on the
Clarifier scale (m=35.8 for total participants, followed by ITRI employees 36.1; ITRI scientists
36.3 and ITRI engineers 36.8), not just for ITRI scientists group, as the research question
suggested that ITRI scientists have higher Clarifier scores. Participants scored the lowest on
the Ideator scale (m= 33.5, 34.1, 33.6, and 33.7 for total, ITRI employees, ITRI scientist and
ITRI engineer group of subjects, respectively). The ITRI engineers group has relatively higher
Developer mean score (m=36.3) than Implementer mean score (m=35.4), while the ITRI
employees group and ITRI scientists group has lower Developer mean scores (m=34.9; 34.5,
respectively) than Implementer mean scores (m=35.1; 35.4, respectively). The differences of
FourSight mean scores between four groups are not significant by t-test.
These FourSight mean scores data sets do not support the assumption of research
questions that Taiwanese participants and ITRI employee group would be higher on Implementer
scores, the ITRI scientist group would be higher on Clarifier score and the ITRI engineer group
would be higher on Implementer score.

Table 4.11
Mean scores and standard deviation of four FourSight construct scales for different groups
of Taiwanese participants
Total ITRI ITRI ITRI
FourSigh participants employees scientists engineers
(N=224) (N=105) (N=30) (N=30)
Scales
Mean STDV Mean STDV Mean STDV Mean STDV
Clarifier 35.8 5.3 36.1 5.3 36.3 6.0 36.8 5.2
Ideator 33.5 6.2 34.1 6.4 33.6 7.1 33.7 6.0
Developers 34.6 5.8 34.9 5.6 34.5 4.9 36.3 5.8
Implementer 34.1 5.0 35.1 5.0 35.4 4.7 35.4 5.2
Bold: the highest mean score among the group.
Underline: the lowest mean score among the group
Figure 4.1
Bar chart of mean scores of four FourSight scale for different groups of
Taiwanese participants
38
37
36
Clarifier
35
Mean Scores
34 Ideator
33 Developers
32
Implementer
31
participants employees scientists engineers
Groups of Taiwanese Participants
When four FourSight scores of the four groups of participants were examined to see if
there was any pattern of FourSight preference profiles between them, results (Table 4.12, and
Figure 4.2 to Figure 4.5) indicate that there is no uniform pattern between these four groups of
participants. But both the total participants and ITRI Employees have larger portion of
high-preference of Clarifier (31%, 34% respectively) and smaller portion of high-preference of
Ideator (17%, 23%, respectively), compare to high-preference of Developer (22%, 21%,
respectively) or Implementer (18%, 26%, respectively). These results are consistent with the
findings that these two groups of participants have the highest mean score on the Clarifier scale
and have the lowest mean score on the Ideator scale. On the other hand, the ITRI scientists group
has a relatively larger proportion of those with high preference of Clarifier (47%), followed by
Ideator (33%), Implementer (33%) and Developer (20%). The results (Table 4.12 and Figure 4.5)
also indicate that the ITRI engineers group has relatively larger portion of high-Clarifier (30%)
and high-Developer (33%) than high-Ideator (13%) or high-Implementer (17%). These show that
even though these two groups of participant have almost the same mean score of Clarifier
(m=36.3 for ITRI scientist, m=36.8 for ITRI Engineers) and Ideator (m=33.6 , m=33.7,
respectively), their four FourSight preference profiles are quite different. These results agree
with the expectation that the ITRI scientists and ITRI engineers, who possess different job title
and educational background, have different four Foursight preference profiles. The larger portion
of high -Clarifier and high-Ideator of ITRI scientists are expected, but larger portion of
high-Clarifer and high-Developer of ITRI engineers are not expected. In fact, with the exception
of the ITRI scientists, the data (Table 4.12) indicate that more than 50% of the other three groups
of participants are categorized as having no preference of FourSight constructs. This is consistent
with the data demonstrating that there is a larger portion of Integrator (46%, 38%, 30%, 50%, for
Total participants, ITRI employees, ITRI scientists and ITRI engineers, respectively) in all four
groups of participants.
Table 4.12
The percentage of preferences of four FourSight Scales for different groups of Taiwanese
participants
Preferences of participants employees scientists engineers
FourSight (N=224) (N=105) (N=30) (N=30)
Scales
N % N % N % N %
High Preference for Clarifier 69 31% 36 34% 14 47% 9 30%
Low-preference for Clarifier 27 12% 18 17% 5 17% 2 7%
No peak preference for
128 57% 51 49% 11 37% 19 63%
Clarifier
High Preference for Ideator 37 17% 24 23% 10 33% 4 13%
Low-preference for Ideator 61 27% 28 27% 10 33% 9 30%
126 56% 53 50% 10 33% 17 57%
Ideator
High Preference for
49 22% 22 21% 6 20% 10 33%
Developer
Low-preference for
33 15% 18 17% 7 23% 3 10%
Developer
142 63% 65 62% 17 57% 17 57%
Developer
High Preference for
40 18% 27 26% 10 33% 5 17%
Implementer
Low-preference for
53 24% 24 23% 6 20% 4 13%
Implementer
131 58% 54 51% 14 47% 21 70%
Implementer
Integrator 102 46% 40 38% 9 30% 15 50%
Bold: the highest percentage of preference of FourSight scale among the group.
Figure 4.2 The percentage of four FourSight preferences

for Total participants group
100%
80% 57% 56% 58%
63%
60%
No-preference
40% 12%
27% 15% 24% L-Preference
20% 31% 22%
17% 18%
0% H-prefereence

for ITRI employees group
100%
80% 49% 50% 51%
62%
60%
17% No-preference
40% 27% 23%
17% L-Preference
20% 34% 26%
23% 21% H-prefereence
0%

for ITRI scientists group
100%
37% 33%
80% 47%
57%
60% 17% 33% No-preference
20%
40%
23% L-Preference
47%
20% 33% 33%
20% H-prefereence
0%

for ITRI engineers group
100%
80% 57% 57%
63% 70%
60%
No-preference
40% 7% 10%
30% 13% L-Preference
20% 30% 33%
13% 17% H-prefereence
0%
Summary
In this chapter, the results of FourSight scale administered

ered to the Taiwanese sample were
analyzed. The construct of FourSight Chinese version is partially validated by the results of
factor analysis. The total variance explained by the four rotated factors is 45.69%. Factor 1 is
comprised mainly of items that measure Clarifier. Factor 2 is comprised mainly by items
associated with the Ideator preference. Factor 3 features items mainly associated with the
Implementer scale and Factor 4 is comprised of items that measure Clarifier, Developer, and
Implementer. When participants’ four scores from FourSight scale were presented to them, 80%
of them agree that the pattern of their test scores made sense to them. This lent some intuitive
support for FourSight’s validity with Taiwanese samples. Looking at participants’ profiles on
four FourSight preferences, a large number of participants (46%) were classified as Integrator,
which means they did not show any peak of preference among four FourSight constructs. But
when separate group of participants were analyzed, results show that among Total participants,
and ITRI employees, there are larger portion of high preference Clarifier and lower portion of
high preference Ideator. But for ITRI scientists, there is higher proportion on both high
preference Clarifier and Ideator. For ITRI engineers, there are more people who are classified as
high on Clarifier and Developer. These findings, which differentiate FourSight preference
profiles for different groups of participants, provide further support to the validity of FourSight
theoretical construct for FourSight Chinese version 1.2. with Taiwanese samples.
Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications 80
Chapter Five: Conclusions, Recommendations, and
Implications
The purpose of this chapter is to conclude and discuss the findings of this study, and
present recommendations for future research. The research questions identified in Chapter One
and the implications of this study are addressed.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to explore the validity of theoretical construct of the
FourSight Chinese version with Taiwanese samples. The results of exploratory factor analysis
partially support the four constructs postulated by FourSight: Clarifier, Ideator, Developer and
Implementer. Three constructs: Clarifier, Ideator and Implementer emerged from results of factor
analysis structure. However, there is no clear indication that the construct of Developer was
present in the data. However 80% of the selected Taiwanese samples agreed that their individual
FourSight profile made sense to them, and the findings that the ITRI scientists group and ITRI
engineers group, which possess different job titles and educational backgrounds, are
differentiated by four FourSight preference profiles. These lend further support of FourSight
theoretical construct for FourSight Chinese version 1.2 with Taiwanese samples.
The following section addresses the research questions raised in Chapter One.
Will the FourSight construct still be valid among Taiwanese population?
The Foursight construct (Clarifier, Ideator, Developer, Implementer) was only partially
supported by the results of exploratory factor analysis in this study. The rotated four factors
with FourSight Chinese version 1.2 only explained 45.7 % of total variance. The correlations
between the 36 items of FourSight version 1.2 and the four rotated factors were complex. The
majority of the 36 items loaded on more than one factor, and each factor was composed of more
than one FourSight construct items. In addition, the rotated four factors were highly correlated
with each other. Consequently, it was difficult to clearly define the correlations between the
FourSight four constructs and the rotated four factors of FourSight Chinese version with
Taiwanese population.
How reliable is the Chinese version of FourSight?
The results of Cronbach’s alpha indicated a reasonably high level of internal consistency
for the 36 items of the FourSight Chinese version 1.2 (.91) and for the four FourSight construct
scales (.71~.82). This would indicate that the measurements of FourSight Chinese version were
reliable.
Does the FourSight scores or profile make sense to the participants in this study?
The FourSight scores and profile made sense to the majority of the selected Taiwanese
samples. These subjects mentioned during the interview about the individual steps of solving
problems, including clarifying the problem, generating ideas, developing ideas to solutions and
implementing the solutions. These steps were the same as the four constructs of FourSight.
They also thought that the preferences of problem solving steps in real life are the same as the
individual FourSight profile presented. To give a few examples, one subject who had a high
score for Clarifier, liked to clarify the nature, the causes, and the purposes of the problem, and
the goals and the resources to solve the problem; another subject who has low preference for
Clarifier and high preference for Implementer was not patient with the step of clarification, and
put lot of time and energy to realize an idea; the other participant who is an Integrator, having no
peak preference of all the four FourSight constructs, went through the four steps of problem
solving (clarifying the problem, generating ideas, developing solutions and implementing plans)
with the same amount of energy.
A small group (15%) of selected participants felt that the individual FourSight profile did
not make sense. Three of them responded that the score of Developer was higher or lower than
their expectations. It was found that three out of nine Developer items of FourSight 6.1 were
new items without factor analysis data. As a result, the modification of Developer items of
FourSight 6.1 might need to be considered.
Chinese are considered more pragmatic; therefore, higher implementer score is expected from
Taiwanese samples in this research. Does the result support this assumption?
Unexpectedly, the total Taiwanese participants do not have a higher Implementer mean
score, but have the highest mean score on Clarifier and the lowest mean score on Ideator. The
results of four FourSight preference profiles of total Taiwanese participants also indicate larger
proportion of high-Clarifier and smaller proportion of high-Ideator than high-Developer and
high-Implementer. These results do not support the assumption.
Looking back, the assumption might have been incorrect. The pragmatic Taiwanese might
not have higher Implementer score because they may solve problems in a practical and sensible
way rather than by having fixed ideas or theories. They may care more about if they solve a
practical problem or not, than to develop or implement an idea. Therefore, the higher Clarifier
mean score and larger proportion of high-Clarifier for total Taiwanese participants can be
explained. Furthermore, it is not surprising that Taiwanese had lower mean scores of Ideator and
smaller proportion of high-Ideator. Taiwanese have a tendency to want quick and practical
answers to problem solving. For example, a person who works at a Taiwanese’s company
might feel pressured to take slightly more time on generating new ideas, for people around are
anxious to and get things done.
Industrial Technology Research Institute, ITRI, focuses on applied research. Therefore,
higher implementer scores are expected from samples of ITRI’s employees in this research.
Does the result of this research support this assumption?
The ITRI employees groups’ FourSight profile was almost the same as the total Taiwanese
participants, with higher Clarifier and lower Ideator mean scores, and having larger proportion of
high-Clarifier and smaller proportion of high-Ideator. The assumption that ITRI’s employees
who focus on applied research on a daily basis will have higher Implementer scores is not
supported by the results. On the other hand, the assumption might be wrong. ITRI employees
who focus on applied research have the tendency first to clarify whether the research topic is
practical to local industries or not, rather than generate ideas, develop or experiment with the
ideas. Therefore, the higher Clarifier score should be expected, and not the Implementer score.
The practical ITRI employees like to work on realist ideas, rather than non-practical or
theoretical ideas. Therefore, the lowest mean score on Ideator and smaller proportion of
high-Ideator seem reasonable.
According to my recent personal observation, engineers in ITRI often rush to get things done
without spending time on clarifying problem and situation. Consequently, employees of ITRI
with engineering major should have higher implementer scores, and those with science major
should have higher clarifier scores. Does the result of this research support this assumption?
The results indicate that ITRI engineers group have the highest Clarifier mean score,
followed by Developer, Implementer and Ideator. These results do not support the assumption
that ITRI engineers have higher Implementer score. On the other hand, the ITRI scientists group
had a higher Clarifier mean score, and larger proportion of high-Clarifier (47%), as expected. In
addition, the ITRI scientists group and ITRI engineers group can be differentiated by four
FourSight preference profile, the former has larger portion of high-Clarifier, high-Ideator and
high-Implementer (33%), the latter has a larger proportion of high-Clarifier (30%),
high-Developer (33%). It shows that the preferences of FourSight cannot be assumed by
observation of behaviors, they need to be measured by a reliable and valid instrument.
Beside these results, which addressed the research questions, the major interesting findings
are that all four groups of participants (total Taiwanese participants, ITRI employees, ITRI
scientists, and ITRI engineers) have a high percentage of Integrator, especially in the total
Taiwanese participants (46%) and the ITRI engineers group (50%). From these results, the
pragmatic Taiwanese and ITRI engineers are likely to solve problem with a very even approach
to the four basic steps, i.e. finding the facts and identifying the challenges to overcome, enjoying
generating promising ideas, developing the ideas to workable solutions or plans, and putting
them into action. Contrary to popular beliefs, Taiwanese can, in fact, be very good team players,
for they have no peak or valley preference of FourSight constructs, and can easily work with the
people who have different FourSight profiles. The high percentage of Integrator in total
Taiwanese participants is probably the main reason for the unclear correlations between the four
FourSight constructs and the four rotated factors of FouSight Chinese version 1.2. The cross
culture construct validity of FourSight Chinese version with Taiwanese population needs to be
further studied in the future.

Recommendations
This study is a first attempt at validating cross culture FourSight constructs with Taiwanese
samples. The high percentage of Integrators among the Taiwanese participants likely affected
the results of factor analysis of the correlation between the items of four FourSight constructs
and rotated factors of FourSight Chinese version 1.2. This high percentage of Integrator might
have originated from the nature of participants. All subjects in this study were employees of
Taiwanese companies and ITRI, with the latter highly connected to Taiwan industries in their
work. These subjects are often expected to be well rounded when they solve problems in their
daily work; therefore, the result of seeing more Integrators among them. Future research could
repeat the study of cross-culture FourSight construct validation with a diverse pool of
participants, such as including subjects from the general public, students from universities, et
cetera. If the findings still show high percentage of Integrators among the participants, it is
recommended to redesign the study and perform factor analysis to examine the correlations
between the four FourSight constructs and rotated factors of FourSight Chinese version without
using ‘Integrator’ samples. This will likely bring the results closer to the fact.
The next recommendation is to re-design the FourSight measurement using Chinese item
pool, instead of using direct translation from English to Chinese of the FourSight version 6.1, in
order to obtain more reliable and more valid measurement of FourSight thinking preferences
among Taiwanese. The mental activities involved in problem solving are culturally related, and
in many cases not precisely presented by another language. No matter how good the translation
of FourSight version 6.1 into FourSight Chinese versions was, there is still quite a gap between
the words used in items of FourSight Chinese version and the real mental activities of Taiwanese
when problem solving. In the long run, it is worth considering developing the Chinese item
pool based on the concept of FourSight constructs, for better understanding of the preference of
mental activities of Taiwanese regarding the Creative Problem Solving process and linking it to
the management of FourSight diversity of innovation teams.
Another recommendation is that the high Clarifier mean score and the proportion of
high-Clarifier among Taiwanese participants need to be reconfirmed in future studies. The results
of rotated factor analysis indicated that 20 items of FourSight Chinese version 1.2 are loaded on
factor 1, which is presumed to have the strongest link with the Clarifier construct. These might
affect the results of Clarifier mean score, and the proportion of high-Clarifier.
The last recommendation is to recruit a larger sample of ITRI scientists and engineers in
another study and look at whether there exists and maintains differences between their FourSight
preferences profile. If there are, we can further explore whether they persist in scientists and
engineers outside of ITRI. Scientists and engineers play important roles in innovations. Findings
from this study suggests that the FourSight preference profiles for ITRI scientists and ITRI
engineers are different, which means that the FourSight preference profiles could be a potential
tool to differentiate the thinking profile of scientist and engineers and can facilitate them in
realizing their full potential in the different stages of innovation. The sample size in this study is
too small (only 30 participants in each group), therefore limited in making this interpretation.
Implications
The result of this study indicates that 46% of total Taiwanese participants are Integrator,
which means that 54 % are non-Integrators who have at least one peak preference of four
FourSight constructs, either high or low preference; and those non-Integrator Taiwanese
participants have the largest proportion of high-Clarifer, and the lowest proportion of
high-Ideator. Taiwanese culture might be a strong contributing factor to these findings.
Broadly speaking, Taiwan is a small but populous country. People have frequent and often
close contacts with one another, making the mental activities that are needed when creative
problem solving to be impacted more easily by each other as well, with no special preferences.
This may explain why we saw a high percentage of Integrators in this study. In addition, job
descriptions are usually not clear in Taiwanese organizations. People are expected to solve all
kinds of problems in their job and most of the time by themselves, no matter what the problems
are, and what background the person possess or what resources the person has. In this context,
people may need to develop their abilities in problem solving, which enables them to be a
well-rounded problem solver as it fits in an Integrator’s FourSight Profile. Another cultural
issue is the test-oriented education system in Taiwan. In order to pursue higher scores in the
local or national entrance examinations, Taiwanese students usually put effort on reinforcing
their weak subjects instead of developing their interests and preferences. This may be
generalized to that in Taiwanese adults they would rather improve their weaknesses instead of
developing what they really prefer when placed in the context of problem solving. This
explains why there were more Integrators than the other styles of Foursight profile cultivated
among Taiwanese. Furthermore, this is the first time for most of the Taiwanese participants in
using a thinking preference profile measurement such as FourSight. Some of them may not know
their own preferences, and some of them may not be willing to disclose their preferences, for
whatever reasons, therefore choosing to respond in the middle ground. This may also explain
why there is a higher proportion of Integrator among Taiwanese participant.
Among non-Integrator Taiwanese participants, culture may also explain why there is a
higher percentage of high-Clarifier and lower percentage of high-Ideator. As mentioned earlier,
in Taiwanese culture, people are taught to obey rules. For example, you need to respect your
parents and seniors; you need to be polite and be cautious about what you say, etc. These
influence people to take a more cautious approach when dealing with issues. When confronted
with a problem or challenge, the usual response is to wait and observe before making any moves.
Therefore, a higher percentage of high-Clarifies is to be expected. The low proportion of
high-Ideator among non-Integrator Taiwanese participants implies that Taiwanese, who have
peak preference of FourSight constructs, have lower preference of mental activity for ideation.
This may be the result of the longitudinal effects of the test-oriented educational systems in
Taiwan. Students are accustomed to problems that have a standard (and often only one) answer.
When there is no clear answers toward a certain problem or challenge, they are less accustomed
to thinking about alternative options or exploring or generating ideas from other angles, as
reflected by a lower proportion of high-Ideators in this study. Moreover, as previously mentioned
Taiwanese are practical thinkers and judge things very much so on practicality. They tend not to
spend too much time on generating non-practical or theoretical ideas, contributing to the low
percentage of high-Ideators we see in this study.
Another implication is that participants in the 4 groups can be differentiated by four
FourSight preference profile, including the proportion of Integrator and non-Integrator who has
at least one peak preference of FourSight constructs. Although the sample sizes are small, the
ITRI scientists group can be easily differentiated from ITRI engineers group, with 38% of
Integrator, and larger proportion of high-Clarifier, high-Ideator, these mean that they have the
tendency to engage in finding problems and opportunities, and are patient in coming up with
ideas. On the other hand, ITRI engineers group have 50% of Integrator and larger proportion of
high-Clarifier and high-Developer, these implies that there are 50% of ITRI engineers who take a
very even approach to each steps of creative problem solving, another 50% of them enjoy the
steps of clarifying the situation and developing the ideas to become solutions. With the FourSight
instrument, ITRI scientists and ITRI engineers could understand the team FourSight profile, the
weaknesses and the strengths of the team in creative problem solving, and find strategies to
become a successful team.
A final implication is that FourSight Chinese version 1.2 might still be useful to help
understand the Taiwanese’s individual thinking profile, for the majority of the selected
Taiwanese thought the results of individual FourSight profile made sense. But the scores of
construct scale need to be confirmed by the person who takes the FourSight measurement,
especially the score of Developer, for several participants responded that the Developer scores
were not the same as their expectations.
Summary
This chapter presented the overall conclusions of this study and addressed the research
questions. Although the cross-culture construct validation of FourSight was only partially
supported by the results of this research, the majority of the selected Taiwanese samples thought
the results of individual FourSight profile made sense. Recommendations for future research
were identified, including the replication of this study with a more diverse pool of participants,
perform factor analysis without using ‘Integrator’ samples, and re-design the FourSight
measurement using Chinese item pool, instead of using direct translation from English to
Chinese of the FourSight version 6.1. Finally the implications were presented that Taiwanese
culture might be a strong contributing factor that a high percentage of Integrators were found,
and FourSight Chinese version might still be a useful tool to help understand the Taiwanese’s
individual and team thinking profile and aid innovation teams to develop their strength and
reinforce their weakness in creative problem solving.

Bibliography 93
Bibliography
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition-analysis
for organization research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 118-135.
Armstrong, S. J. and Priola, V. (2001). Individual differences in cognitive style and their effects
on task and social orientations of self-managed work teams. Small Group Research, 32, 3,
283-312.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity when does it really
matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569-586.
Barbero-Switalski, L. and Kluk C. (2008). A successful real-world application of Creative
problem Solving: A case study in Merck Mexico. International Conference on Creativity
and Innovation Management, Conference Proceedings. 58-70, Buffalo N.Y.
Basadur, M., Graen, G., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990) Identifying individual differences in creative
problem solving style. Journal of Creative behavior, 24, 111-131.
Basadur, M., and Head, M. (2001) Team performance and satisfaction: A link to cognitive style
within a process framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 4, 227-248.
Chao, W. (2004). Recovery, but not perfect. Taipei, Taiwan: Royal Publish.
DeCusatis, C. (2008). Creating, growing, and sustaining efficient innovation teams. International
Conference on Creativity and Innovation Management, Conference Proceedings. 221-235,

Bibliography 94
NY., Buffalo.
Dougherty D. and Takacs C. H. (2004). Team play: Heedful interrelating as the boundary for
innovation. Long Range Planning, 37, 569-590.
Grivas C. and Puccio G. J. (2002) The innovation team: Unleashing creative potential for
breakthrough results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hage and Dewar (1973). Elite values versus organizational structure in prediction innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 279-290.
Hammerschmidt, P. K. (1996) The Kirton adaption innovation Inventory and group problem
solving success rates. Journal of Creative Behavior. 30, 1, 61-74.
Hayes, J., and Allinson, C. W. (1994). Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice.
British Journal of Management, 5, 53-71.
Hough, J.R., and Ogilvie, D. (2005). An empirical test of cognitive style and strategic decision
outcomes. Journal of Management Studies 42, 2, 417-448.
IBM. (2006), Global innovation outlook 2.0.
Isaksen, S. G., and Puccio, G. J. (1988) Adaption-Innovation and the Torrance Test of Creative
Bibliography 95
Thinking: the level-style issue revisited. Psychological Reports, 63, 659-670.
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J.; Wilson, Gl. V. (2003). An examination of the relationship between
personality and cognitive style. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 4, 343-354.
Jablokow, K. W. (2008). Developing problem solving leadership: A cognitive approach. Int. J.
Engng Ed., 24, 5, 936-954.
Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions
for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169-211.
Kirton, M. J. (1961). Management initiatives. London: Acton Society Trust.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A description and measures. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 61, 5, 622-629.
Kirton, M. J. (1994). Adaptors and Innovators: Style of Creativity and Problem Solving. London
and NY: Routledge
Kirton, M. J. (1999). Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory Feedback Booklit.
Berkhamsted, Herts, UK: Occupational Research Center.
Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaption-innovation in the context of diversity and change. London and NY:
Routledge.
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007) Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an
integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 3, 464-481.

Bibliography 96
Leonard, N. H., Scholl R. W., & Beauvalis L. L. (1998) An empirical study of group cognitive
style and strategic decision making. Retrieved December 3, 2005, from
http://www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/Papers/Group_Cognitive_Style.html
Lien, Y. (2010) Creative Approaches 6+1. Taipei, Taiwan: Business Weekly Publications.
Martinsen, Ø., Kaufmann G., (1999). Cognitive Style and Creativity. Encyclopedia of Creativity.
Volume II, p. 273~282. NY: Academic Press.
Messick, S. (1976), Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity in Messick, S. (Ed.),
Individuality in Learning. San Fraancisco, CA: Jossey Bass,.
Merton, R.K. (ed.) (1957) Bureaucratic Structure and Personality in social Theory and Social
Structure. NY: Free Press of Glencore.
Miller, A. (1987). Cognitive styles: an integrated model. Educational Psychology, 7(4), 251-268.
Mudd, S.A. (1996). Kirton’s A-I theory: Evidence bearing on the style/level and factor
composition issues. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 241-254.
Myers, I. B., (1998). Introduction to TYPE: a guide to understanding your results on the
Myers-Briggs Type Indication, revised by Kirby, L. K., & Myers K. D., 16th ed. Mountain
View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985) A Guide to the Development and Use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bibliography 97
Priola, V., Smith, J. L., & Amstrong S. J. (2004). Group Work and Cognitive Style: A Discursive
Investigation. Small Group Research, 35, 5, 565-595.
Puccio, J. G. (1999a). Two Dimensions of Creativity: Level and Style. Retrieved from
http://www.buffalostate.edu/orgs/cbir/readingroom/html/Puccio-99a.html, December 3,
2005.
Puccio, G. J., (1999b) Creative Problem Solving Preferences: Their identification and
implications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8, 171-178.
Puccio, G. J., (2002). FourSight: The Breakthrough Thinking Profile: Presenter’s Guide.
Evanston, IL: Thinc Communications.
Puccio, G. J., Mance, M. & Murdock, M. C., (2011). Creative Leadership: Skills that Drive
Change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: SAGE publications.
Puccio, G. J., Wheeler, R. A., & Cassandro, V. J. (2004). Reaction to creative problem solving
training: Dose cognitive style make a difference. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38,
192-216.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive style: An overview and integration. Educational
Psychology, 11(3/4), 193-215.
Riding, R. J. (2000). Cognitive style: A review in Riding R. J. and Rayner S. G (Eds)
International Perspectives on Individual Differences 1. 315-344. Stanford, CT: Ablex.

Bibliography 98
Rife, S. L. (2001). Exploring the personality composition of the four preferences measured by the
Buffalo Creative Process Inventory. Unpublished master’s thesis. Buffalo, NY: State
University of New York College at Buffalo.
Scholl, R. W. (2001). Cognitive style and the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI). Retrieved
December 3, 2005, from http://www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/Notes/Cognitive_Style.htm
Weber, M. (1970) in H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (eds and trans.) From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
West M. A., Borrill, C. S. and Unsworth K. L., (1998) Team effectiveness in organization,
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 13, Chapter 1, 1-47.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity
and innovation implementation in Work. Applied Psychology: An international Review,
51(3), 355-424.
West, M. A. et al. (2003). Leadership and team innovation in health care. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14, 393-410.
Wheeler, J. W (1995). An exploratory study of preferences associated with creative problem
solving. Unpublished master’s thesis. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York College
at Buffalo.
Wheeler, R. (2001). Improving the understanding of the impact of creative problem training
Bibliography 99
through an examination of individual differences. Unpublished master’s thesis. Buffalo, NY:
State University of New York College at Buffalo.
Witkin, H. A., Gogenough, D. R. and Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent
cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47,
1-64.
Zhang, L. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability? -
Validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual
Differences. 37, 1295-1311.

Appendix 100
Appendix A
FourSight Assessment version 6.1
Not Like Very
Like me me Much
at all Like
me
1. Generally I don’t approach problems in a creative manner
2. I like testing and then revising my ideas before coming up with the final solution
or product
3. I like taking the time to clarify the exact nature of the problem
4. I enjoy taking the necessary steps to put one of my ideas into action
5. I like to break a broad problem apart to examine it from all angles
6. I find it difficult to come up with unusual ideas for solving a problem
7. I like identifying the most relevant facts pertaining to a problem
8. I find I don’t have the temperament to sit back and try to isolate specific causes
of a problem
9. I enjoy coming up with unique ways of looking at a problem
10. I like to generate all the pluses and minuses of a potential solution
11. Before implementing a solution to a problem I like to break it down into steps
12. Transforming ideas into action is not the part of the creative process that I
enjoy most
13. I like to generate criteria that can be used to identify the best option(s)
14. I enjoy spending time looking beyond the initial view of the problem.
15. I find I don’t naturally spend much time focusing on defining the exact problem
to be solved
16. I like to take in a situation by looking at the big picture.
17. I enjoy working on ill-defined, novel problems
18. When working on a problem I like to come up with the best way of stating it.
19. I enjoy making things happen.
20. I like to focus on creating a precisely stated problem
21. I enjoy stretching my imagination to produce many ideas.
22. I like to focus on the key information within a challenging situation
23. I enjoy taking the time to perfect an idea
24. When it comes to implementing my ideas I find it difficult to bring them to
fruition
25. I enjoy turning rough ideas into concrete solutions
26. I like to think about all the things I need to do to implement an idea
27. I really enjoy implementing an idea
28. Before moving forward I like to have a clear statement of the problem
29. I like to work with unique ideas
30. I enjoy putting my ideas into action.
31. I like to explore the strengths and weaknesses of a potential solution.
32. I enjoy gathering information so that I can identify the root causes of a
particular problem.
33. I enjoy the type of analysis and effort it takes to transform a rough concept into
a workable idea.
34. My natural tendency is not to generate lots and lots of ideas for problems
35. I enjoy using metaphors and analogies to come up with new ideas for problems
36. I find that I have little patience for the effort it takes to refine or polish an idea.
37. I tend to look for a quick solution and then fly with it.
Appendix 101
Appendix B
FourSight Chinese version 1.2
Appendix 102
Appendix C
FourSight back-translated version
Remember that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. Just your opinion Not like Like Very
about yourself. Me at me like
all me
1. In general, I will not use creative way to solve problems
2. I like to put my idea into test and modify it before coming up with the optimum solution
or final product.
3. I like to spend time on clarifying what the problems are really about.
4. I enjoy taking the necessary steps to take one of my ideas into actions.
5. I like to break a broad problem into its parts and examine it from all the angles.
6. I found that it is difficult to come up with a unique idea to solve problems.
7. I like to find out the most relevant facts that correlate to the problems.
8. I find that I don’t have enough patience trying to find out the exact causes of the
problem.
9. I enjoy finding out unique perspectives to a problem.
10. I like to list all advantages and disadvantages of a potential solution.
11.Before putting the solution of a problem into action, I like to break down the solution into
steps.
12.Turning ideas into actions is not the part of the creative process that I like most.
13. I like to find out criteria of evaluation in order to confirm the optimum solution.
14. I like to spend some time thinking beyond the initial point of view of the problem.
15. I find that it is not my nature to spend time focusing on defining the exact problem that
needs to be solved.
16. I like to view the condition by looking at the whole picture.
17. I like to deal with the novel problems that are not clearly defined.
18. When dealing with a problem, I like to come up with the most proper statement of the
problem.
19. I enjoy making things happen
20. I like to focus on generating a precisely defined problem.
21. I like to expand my imagination in order to generate a lot of ideas.
22. I like to focus on the critical information within a challenging situation.
23. I like to spend time developing an idea until it is perfect.
24. When putting ideas into actions, I find it hard to implement my ideas.
25. I like to transform rough ideas into tangible solutions.
26. I like to think about all the things need to do when implementing an idea.
27. I really enjoy the process of putting an idea into implementation.
28. Before taking the next step, I like to have a clear statement of the problem.
29. I like to spend time thinking about unique ideas.
30. I enjoy putting my ideas into actions.
31. I like to explore the strengths and weaknesses of a potential solution.
32. I like gathering information in order to find the root cause of a specific problem.
33. I enjoy the efforts and analytical processes involved in the transformation of a rough
concept into a feasible idea.
34. Intrinsically, I don’t come up with a lot of ideas for problems.
35. I like to use metaphor and analogy to come up with new ideas in problem solving
36. I find myself impatient in paying efforts to improve and perfect an idea.
37. I tend to look for solutions that are immediately usable, and then executing it.
© 2002 Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D
Appendix 103
Appendix D
Research Description and Consent
Appendix 104
Appendix E
Inter-items correlation matrix of FourSight Chinese version 1.2
Variable (Construct) Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10
Item 2 (Developer) 1 .396** .238** .248** -0.048 .218** 0.055 0.091 .179**
Item 3 (Clarifier) .396** 1 .441** .438** 0 .368** .262* .210** .335**
Item 4 (Implementer) .238** .441** 1 .422** -0.053 .197** .177** .198** .341**
Item 5 (Developer) .248** .438** .422** 1 0.126 .221** .152* .324** .481**
Item 6 (Ideator) -0.048 0 -0.053 0.126 1 0.018 .213** .273** .144*
Item 7 (Clarifier) .218** .368** .197** .221** 0.018 1 .139* .196** .225**
Item 8 (Clarifier) 0.055 .262** .177** .152* .213** .139* 1 .266** .145*
Item 9 (Ideator) 0.091 .210** .198** .324** .273** .196** .266** 1 .361**
Item 10 (Developer) .179** .335** .341** .481** .144* .225** .145* .361** 1
Item 11 (Developer) .250** .431** .363** .498** .155* .304** .185** .329** .558**
Item 12 (Implementer) 0.049 -0.058 -0.013 -0.052 -0.075 0.075 0.131 -.168* 0.045
Item 13 (Developer) .219** .290** .337** .336** 0.038 .238** .147* .260** .345**
Item 14 (Ideator) .200** .364** .306** .409** 0.07 .271** .160* .373** .376**
Item 15 (Clarifier) 0.033 0.213 .160* 0.071 0.083 0.112 .272** 0.05 .137*
Item 16 (Ideator) .146* .353** .322** .439** 0.076 .281** .205** .356** .360**
Item 17 (Ideator) .205** .474** .335** .507** .192** .307** .231** .334** .391**
Item 18 (Clarifier) .292** .308** .260** .360** 0.078 .398** .157* .258** .328**
Item 19 (Implementer) 0.053 .223** .232** .356** .327** 0.128 .159* .382** .393**
Item 20 (Clarifier) .249** .313** .246** .206** -0.043 .322** .172* .167* .313**
Item 21 (Ideator) .240** .209** .393** .496** .265** .209** .221** .494** .471**
Item 22 (Clarifier) 0.115 .326** .258** .374** 0.07 .376** .205** .246** .324**
Item 23 (Developer) .216** .295** .329** .276** 0.025 .323** .221** .235** .344**
Item 24 (Implementer) -0.022 0.042 .188** 0.115 .168* -0.007 .162* -0.048 0.119
Item 25 (Implementer) 0.122 .244** .393** .325** 0.01 .191** .149* .168* .357**
Item 26 (Implementer) .271** .260** .378** .358** 0.028 .330** 0.126 .223** .380**
Item 27 (Implementer) .240** .316** .343** .319** .135* .242** .270** .300** .432**
Item 28 (Clarifier) .236** .402** .289** .300** 0.019 .284** .224** .146* .298**
Item 29 (Ideator) 0.102 .177** .291** .323** .235** .135* .189** .452** .281**
Item 30 (Implementer) .230** .251** .351** .268** 0.077 .188** 0.133 .268** .361**
Item 31 (Developer) .167* .309** .322** .411** 0.065 .250** .166* .234** .497**
Item 32 (Clarifier) .212** .351** .353** .364** 0.021 .268** .184** .198** .440**
Item 33 (Developer) .195** .268** .433** .389** 0.08 .230** .191** .276** .405**
Item 34 (Ideator) 0.102 .135* .344** .328** .230** 0.058 .157* .281** .278**
Item 35 (Ideator) .283** .280** .288** .447** 0.097 .254** .226** .245** .368**
Item 36 (Developer) .159* .172* .221** 0.114 0.086 0.082 .304** .191** .234**
Item 37 (Implementer) 0.104 -0.076 0.081 -0.022 0.047 0.003 -0.029 -0.038 -0.089
* p< 0.05 **p<.01 Red: r >.30
Appendix 105
Inter-items correlation matrix of FourSight Chinese version 1.2 (Continued)
Item 2 (Developer) .250** 0.049 .219** .200** 0.033 .146* .205** .292** 0.053
Item 3 (Clarifier) .431** -0.058 .290** .364** 0.213 .353** .474** .308** .223**
Item 4 (Implementer) .363** -0.013 .337** .306** .160* .322** .335* .260** .232**
Item 5 (Developer) .498** -0.052 .336** .409** 0.071 .439** .507** .360** .356**
Item 6 (Ideator) .155* -0.075 0.038 0.07 0.083 0.076 .192** 0.078 .327**
Item 7 (Clarifier) .304** 0.075 .238** .271** 0.112 .281** .307* .398** 0.128
Item 8 (Clarifier) .185** 0.131 .147* .160* .272** .205** .231** .159* .159*
Item 9 (Ideator) .329** -.168* .260** .373** 0.05 .356** .334** .258** .382**
Item 10 (Developer) .558** 0.045 .345** .376** .137* .360** .391** .328** .393**
Item 11 (Developer) 1 -0.015 .452** .416** .181** .416** .442** .435** .321**
Item 12 (Implementer) -0.015 1 -0.086 -.140* .197** 0.035 -0.046 -0.086 -0.091
Item 13 (Developer) .452** -0.086 1 .368** 0.073 .360** .261** .449** .216**
Item 14 (Ideator) .416** -.140* .368** 1 .180** .460** .415** .349** .383**
Item 15 (Clarifier) .181** .197** 0.073 .180** 1 .236** .207** .227** 0.128
Item 16 (Ideator) .416** 0.035 .360** .460** .236** 1 .542** .355** .279**
Item 17 (Ideator) .442** -0.046 .261** .415** .207** .542** 1 .433** .372**
Item 18 (Clarifier) .435** -0.086 .449** .349** .227** .355** .433** 1 .250**
Item 19 (Implementer) .321** -0.091 .216** .383** 0.128 .279** .372** .250** 1
Item 20 (Clarifier) .265** -0.005 .435** .282** 0.127 .218** .301** .564** 0.104
Item 21 (Ideator) .493** -0.036 .362** .507** .201** .501** .485** .376** .437**
Item 22 (Clarifier) .408** -0.074 .283** .491** .154* .504** .407** .339** .253**
Item 23 (Developer) .340** 0.014 .367** .272** 0.132 .200** .345** .336** 0.115
Item 24 (Implementer) 0.104 .211** -0.019 0.03 .320** .114* 0.083 0.017 .137*
Item 25 (Implementer) .313** .167* .169* .315** 0.133 .367** .325** .231** .242**
Item 26 (Implementer) .397** .224** .294** .259** .164* .381** .391** .396** .179**
Item 27 (Implementer) .398** .185** .210** .346** .223** .385** .442** .287** .358**
Item 28 (Clarifier) .398** -0.027 .398** .206** .207** .290** .409** .499** .171*
Item 29 (Ideator) .290** -.165* .262** .409** 0.09 .319** .341** .260** .387**
Item 30 (Implementer) .334** .187** .247** .268** 0.132 .335** .335** .249** .257**
Item 31 (Developer) .476** 0.077 .441** .429** .151* .437** .408** .374** .333**
Item 32 (Clarifier) .396** 0.103 .501** .332** .195** .406** .339** .337** .187**
Item 33 (Developer) .511** 0.02 .356** .404** 0.128 .361** .401** .281** .266**
Item 34 (Ideator) .315** 0.071 .219** .248** .149* .308** .319** .176** .327**
Item 35 (Ideator) .370** -0.006 .245** .360** 0.102 .216** .360** .360** .291**
Item 36 (Developer) .140* 0.133 .150* .135* .236** .161* .163* 0.067 .144*
Item 37 (Implementer) -0.05 0.04 -0.019 -0.041 -0.017 0.003 -0.018 0.096 0.057
* p< 0.05 **p<.01 ; Red: r >.30
Appendix 106
Item 2 (Developer) .249** .240** 0.115 .216** -0.022 0.122 .271** .240** .236**
Item 3 (Clarifier) .313** .209** .326** .295** 0.042 .244** .260** .316** .402**
Item 5 (Developer) .206** .496** .374** .276** 0.115 .325** .358** .319** .300**
Item 6 (Ideator) -0.043 .265** 0.07 0.025 .168* 0.01 0.028 .135* .284**
Item 7 (Clarifier) .322** .209** .376** .323** -0.007 .191** .330** .242** .284**
Item 8 (Clarifier) .172* .221** .205** .221** .162* .149* 0.126 .270** .224**
Item 9 (Ideator) .167* .494** .246** .235** -0.048 .168* .300** .300** .146*
Item 10 (Developer) .313** .471** .324** .344** 0.119 .357** .380** .432** .298**
Item 11 (Developer) .265** .493** .408** .340** 0.104 .313** .397** .398** .398**
Item 12 (Implementer) -0.005 -0.036 -0.074 0.014 .211** .167* .224** .185** -0.027
Item 13 (Developer) .435** .362** .283** .367** -0.019 .169* .294** .210** .398**
Item 14 (Ideator) .282** .507** .491** .272** 0.03 .315** .164* .346** .206**
Item 15 (Clarifier) 0.127 .201** .154* 0.132 .320** 0.133 .164* .223** .207**
Item 16 (Ideator) .218** .501** .504** .200** .114* .367** .381** .385** .290*
Item 17 (Ideator) .301** .485** .407** .345** 0.083 .325** .391** .442** .409**
Item 18 (Clarifier) .564** .437** .253** .253** .137* .242** .179** .358** .171*
Item 19 (Implementer) 0.104 .437** .253** 0.115 .137* .242** .179** .358** .171*
Item 20 (Clarifier) 1 .245** .290** .402** -0.076 0.099 .353** .209** .479**
Item 21 (Ideator) .245** 1 .461** .349** 0.111 .398** .357** .481** .321**
Item 22 (Clarifier) .290** .461** 1 .395** 0.047 .353** .290** .324** .397**
Item 23 (Developer) .402** .349** .395** 1 0.074 .255** .416** .405** .512**
Item 24 (Implementer) -0.076 0.111 0.047 0.074 1 .262** 0.076 .192** 0.039
Item 25 (Implementer) 0.099 .398** .353** .255** .262** 1 .451** .524** .307**
Item 26 (Implementer) .353** .357** .290** .416** 0.076 .451** 1 .485** .414**
Item 27 (Implementer) .209** .481** .324** .405** .192** .524** .485** 1 .363**
Item 28 (Clarifier) .479** .321** .397** .512** 0.039 .307** .414** .363** 1
Item 29 (Ideator) .242** .620** .298** .340** 0.068 .269** .233** .428** .321**
Item 31 (Developer) .360** .430** .414** .310** .153* .404** .468** .524** .364**
Item 32 (Clarifier) .437** .390** .392** .354** 0.114 .389** .453** .369** .377**
Item 33 (Developer) .287** .456** .408** .423** .220** .524** .515** .545** .435**
Item 34 (Ideator) 0.041 .510** .197** .209** 0.126 .314** .287** .371** 0.131
Item 35 (Ideator) .276** .395** .283** .276** 0.043 .234** .326** .408** .284**
Item 36 (Developer) 0.099 .195** 0.066 .293** .146* .185** .205** .217** 0.078
Item 37 (Implementer) 0.063 0.085 0.034 0.015 0.049 0.088 0.02 .155* 0.022
* p< 0.05 **p<.01 ; Red: r >.30
Appendix 107
Item 2 (Developer) 0.102 .230** .167* .212* .195** 0.102 .283** .159* 0.104
Item 3 (Clarifier) .177** .251** .309** .351** .268** .135* .280** .195** 0.085
Item 4 (Implementer) .291** .351** .322** .353** .433** .344** .288** .221** 0.081
Item 5 (Developer) .323** .268** .411** .364** .389** .328** .447** 0.114 -0.022
Item 6 (Ideator) .235** 0.077 0.065 0.021 0.08 .230** 0.097 0.086 0.047
Item 7 (Clarifier) .135* .188** .250** .268** .230** 0.05 .254** 0.082 0.003
Item 8 (Clarifier) .189** 0.133 .166* .184** .191** .157* .226** .304** -0.029
Item 9 (Ideator) .452** .268** .497** .198** .276** .281** .245** .191** -0.038
Item 10 (Developer) .281** .361** .497** .440** .405** .405** .278** .234** -0.089
Item 11 (Developer) .290** .334** .476** .396** .511** .315** .370** .140* -0.05
Item 12 (Implementer) -.165* .187** 0.077 0.103 0.02 0.071 .370** 0.133 0.04
Item 13 (Developer) .262** .247** .441** .501** .356** .219** .135* .150* -0.019
Item 14 (Ideator) .409** .268** .429** .332** .404** .248** .360** .135* -0.041
Item 15 (Clarifier) 0.09 0.132 .151* .195** 0.128 .149* 0.102 236** -0.017
Item 16 (Ideator) .319** .335** .437* .406* .361** .308**. .216** .161* 0.003
Item 17 (Ideator) .341** .335** .408** .339* .401** .319** .360** .163* -0.018
Item 18 (Clarifier) .260** .249* .374* .337** .281* .176** .360** 0.067 0.096
Item 19 (Implementer) .387** .257** .333** .187** .266** .327** .291** .144* 0.057
Item 20 (Clarifier) .242** .254** .360** .437** .287* 0.041 .276* 0.09 0.063
Item 21 (Ideator) .620** .443** .430** .390* .456** .510* .395 .195* 0.085
Item 22 (Clarifier) .298** .296** .414** .392** .408** .197** .283** 0.066 0.03
Item 23 (Developer) .340** .390** .310** .354* .423** .209** .276* .293** 0.01
Item 24 (Implementer) 0.068 .233** .153* 0.114 .220** 0.126 0.043 .146* 0.049
Item 27 (Implementer) .428** .720** .524** .369** .545** .371** .408** .217** .155*
Item 28 (Clarifier) .321** .369** .364** .377** .435** 0.131 .284** 0.078 0.022
Item 29 (Ideator) 1 .427** .400** .303** .307** .356** .330** .202** 0.114
Item 30 (Implementer) .427** 1 .578** .443** .554** .204** .377** .194** 0.099
Item 31 (Developer) .400** .578** 1 .664** .553** .242** .349** .148* -0.003
Item 32 (Clarifier) .303** .443** .664** 1 .520** .245** .346** .256** 0.019
Item 33 (Developer) .307** .554** .553** .520** 1 .353* .455** .185** 0.02
Item 34 (Ideator) .356** .204** .242** .245** .353** 1 .302** .365** 0.034
Item 35 (Ideator) .330** .377** .349** .346** .455** .302** 1 .155 -0.009
Item 36 (Developer) .202** .194** .148* .256** .185** .365** .155* 1 -0.071
Item 37 (Implementer) 0.114 0.099 -0.003 0.019 0.02 0.034 -0.009 -0.071 1
* p< 0.05 **p<.01; Red: r >.30
Appendix 108
Appendix F
FourSight Model Fit Interview Qualitative Results
This appendix contains the qualitative results of interviewing thirty selected Taiwanese
sample for studying in FourSight model fit. The questions for the samples are (1) Does results
of FourSight profile reflect your understanding about yourself? And (2) would you describe the
link between the results of FourSight profile and the process for you to solve a problem that you
don’t have previous experiences?
MFS-1－female, scores: 32, 40, 34, 27. H-Ideator, L-Implementer.
‧ The FourSight profile looks just like me. I feel that I already have finished the work when I
think it over. I don’t really like to actually do it.
‧ It is my nature that if I have done something once, I won’t do it again. For example, last
time I need to make a speech to the public. The CEO was worried about my talk, and wanted
me to give a rehearsal to him. After the rehearsal, I had lost my interest to make that
speech.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks the results of FourSight reflect her understanding about
herself.
Appendix 109
MFS-2－female, score: 33, 42, 31, 43. H-Ideator, H-Implementer, L-Clarifier, L-Developer. .
‧ The profile is really like me. The similarity is about 90%. When I solve the problem, I don’t
like just sitting there and clarifying what the problem is or whose responsibility it is..
‧ If you have a problem, just solve it. I don’t like to just talking without any action. I can’t
tolerate such situation.
‧ Conclusion: The subject agrees that results of FourSight reflect her understanding about
herself.
MFS-3 – male, scores: 26, 33, 33, 39. L-Clarifier, H-Implementer.
‧ The result isn’t very surprising, other than that my Clarifier score is lower than I expected.
Usually when I am in part of the team working on a project, or when seeing a friend is upset
or down, I always ask myself “what can I do?”
‧ I usually make sure that I clarify the problem before starting to work on the solution. That is
why I am quite surprised that I have a low clarifier score. Maybe that means even if I try to
clarify before proceeding, this doesn’t necessarily imply that I like to do the clarifier’s work.
‧ I still prefer the duties of developer and implementer. When I am in a team, I always focus
my attention on the execution side of things, and the details associated with it.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding about himself,
Appendix 110
although he was expecting a higher developer score.
MFS-4 – female, scores: 33, 30, 22, 34. H- Clarifier, H-Ideator, L-Developer, H-Implementer.
‧ The FourSight Profile is reasonably close to my problem-solving preference. I usually focus
more attention on clarifying the problem and generating idea in solving it. Afterwards I will
start doing immediately. It is important for me to have done something preliminary before
coming back and develop it further. Having something preliminary to work on makes the
development work easier.
‧ I usually spend more time on the clarification and ideation. If I found later that I don’t have
enough time, I will usually focus on generating the framework, and come back to develop the
details if time allows.
‧ If I am in charge of executing a plan, I usually choose to start doing first and work on
developing the details later.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect her understanding about herself.
MFS-5 – female, scores: 32, 39, 22, 34. H-Ideator, L-Developer, H-Implementer.
‧ The results of FourSight make sense to me. A lot of the ideas that I generated actually occur
during the implementation process. I found it difficult to develop the details before
implementation; the details naturally emerge during the implementation.
‧ When I am not feeling well, I will generate a lot of ideas to make myself feel better
Appendix 111
(H-Ideator).
‧ My strength in a team is in my ability to implement. I rely on others for ideation and
development.
‧ I am a little bit surprised that my Ideator score is higher than my Clarifier score, since I
usually clarify a problem before start working on it. I prefer ideation over clarification.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding about himself,
but is surprised that his Ideator score is higher than the Clarifier score.
MFS-6 – female, scores: 43, 38, 37, 34. H-Clarifier, L-Implementer.
‧ The results of FourSight make sense to me. I think the result comes primarily from my job
function. My job function is mainly about asking questions and clarifying the problems;
implementation is not my responsibility. I often ask about the purpose of the plan: “What’s
the purpose of doing this? Does your plan really accomplish what you intended to? Why are
you doing A or B?” For example, when I was in a discussion about pay raises, I would ask,
“what is the result of the statistical analysis? Where is the data? How do you know the data is
representative?” If the data is not representative, then no more conversation is needed. I ask
“why” so often to the extent that it sometimes makes my colleagues upset.
‧ At work people usually come and ask me questions. I am not that interested about developing
the details. In terms of implementation, the implementer is usually more experienced than I
Appendix 112
am, so I usually respect their opinion. Another reason that I am not as interested in
implementation is that it involves a lot of collaboration with other people, and I can’t stand
the emotional reactions that involve working with others. Also, I am a shy and introvert
person, and I am skittish in working with others to do the implementer’s work.
‧ Conclusion and implication: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect her understanding
about herself. H-Clarifier is a result of the job function. L-Implementer is because of the
introvert nature, which makes her less inclined to take on the implementer’s work, which
requires extensive interfacing with other people.
MFS-7- male, scores: 41, 37, 45, 39. H-Developer, L-Ideator.
‧ My FourSight Profile makes sense to me. I like clarifying the problem as a Clarifier over
diverge thinking as an Ideator.
‧ I am a very patient person. When I am responsible for interviewing outside experts, I will
think in advance “what aspects of the project can we control? What aspects should we
control?” I will then focus the interview on the aspects that we can control, so that we can get
the answers to the most important questions from the outside experts.
‧ When I approach a project, I will always make sure that I fully understand the expectations. I
seldom take on jobs that I don’t feel prepared about. It is the same when I am writing an
article – I always collect as much data as possible, and start writing only after I think I have
Appendix 113
collected all the data. Sometimes, even after the article was submitted, I will still ask myself
“is there anything I can make better?”
‧ I have a very high self-discipline and self-expectation. It causes problems if I try to extend
the same expectations to others.
‧ In a team I often serve the role of strategist. Most of the times, I am responsible for adjusting
or remaking the framework that other people made.
‧ Conclusion and implication: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding
about himself. As a H-Developer，he will always make sure that I fully understand the
expectations before deciding whether he should take on the project or not.
MFS-8 – male, scores:30, 32, 34, 38, L-Clarifier, L-Ideator, H-Implementor.
‧ The FourSight profile of the subject is an increasing straight line from Clarifier to
Implementer. When asked if he thinks the result make sense, the subject pondered for a long
time before answering, “the result generally makes sense. If I spend too much time in the first
three aspects, I don’t feel that comfortable. I prefer to quickly start implementing one or two
possible solutions, and come back to think about the first three aspects (Clarification,
Ideation, Development) later.”
‧ My previous work experiences often require me to fix the symptoms first, and worry about
root causes second. Also, during a new product development, we usually have to use
Appendix 114
marketing research to get the concept right, before we go ahead and implement the ideas.
‧ Conclusion and implication：The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding
about himself. The subject thinks that H-implementer indicates his preference to quickly start
implementing one or two possible solutions, and come back to think about the first three
aspects (Clarification, Ideation, Development) later. L-Clarifier and L-Ideator indicates that
he doesn’t feel comfortable spending too much time on these aspects, and spending too little
time on the implementation. In other words, his preference to drive toward Implementer is
stronger than his urge to spend time on Clarifier and Ideator.
MFS-9—female, scores: 32, 42, 39, 42. L- Clarifier, H-Ideater, H-Implementer.
‧ I think the results of the FourSight measurement match my understanding about myself.
When I am solving problems, I think it is very important to find and treat the root cause, as
opposed to beating around the bush and fix the symptoms. Finding the root cause may take
longer time, but is a better use of the resources because you can fix the problem once and for
all.
‧ My approach to problem solving is to look at the problem from a holistic view, and
formulating ideas through my past experiences and my thoughts. Sometimes I also read
books or watch movies for inspiration.
‧ I often play the role of “making things better”. My zodiac sign is Taurus, known for its
Appendix 115
practicality. For example, when I am trying to solve my relationship issues with my
mother-in-law, “Everything was fine before my husband and I got married; after the marriage,
everything changed. It is as if my mother-in-law is a different person now. After careful
observation, I found the root cause – she was worried that I am taking away all the money
from her son. Therefore, I asked my husband to open an account for my mother-in-law, and
tell her that we will deposit money to her account so that she can have her own money,
separated from the father-in-law. Afterwards, she was very nice and trusting to me again.”
‧ If I know of the FourSight Profile of my teammates, I will take that as an existing fact, put
myself in others’ shoes, and think about how to work with others toward maximum
effectiveness.
about herself. Her answers on the questionnaire are connected to her past experiences. For
example, L-Clarifier: she thinks it is far more practical to learn through experience and then
come up with ideas (H-Ideator). Just sitting in the back trying to clarify the problem is not
very effective. For this subject, “Clarifier” means to clarify verbally; and in her experience,
clarifying verbally only deals with the symptoms and not the root causes. Therefore she will
not try to clarify verbally. Rather, she will find the root cause of the problem through careful
observation. Maybe she is actually a H-Clarifier, but the way she clarifies is different from
Appendix 116
other people. She does have the clarification process; it’s just that it is done by observation as
opposed to verbal questioning. According the way the questionnaire is set up, she is classified
as a L-Clarifier, and that’s why the result makes sense to her. This also means that there are
rooms for further exploration and improvement in the Clarifier aspect.
MFS-10 – male, scores: 41, 44, 43, 33. H-Clarifier, H-Ideator, H-Developer, L- Implementer.
‧ I think the results of my FourSight Profile is more like what I focus my attention on. When I
was answering the questionnaire, I set up a hypothetical scenario at work. In this scenario,
the result fits my understanding about myself. However, my problem solving preferences
also change depending on the scenario. I indeed prefer Developer activities over Implementer
activities.
‧ In my problem solving process, I usually envision my entire plan all the way to the final
result. I derive a lot from this process – reward, sense of accomplishment, emotional
reactions, and applauses. During the actual implementation, sometimes the project still
proceed out of my expectations, but most of time it follows my plan fairly well.
‧ It is a very rewarding experience for me to envision the plan in my brains. I derive sense of
accomplishment from this process. After I come up with a plan, I am fully confident that I
can implement it; implementation is more to actually communicate with people. Since I
already know the result during implementation, I don’t feel particularly satisfying to
Appendix 117
implement.
‧ Ordinary people have to make something tangible before knowing for sure what it looks like.
However, I usually have a complete image in my brain before I start to work on it. I do all the
modification process in my brain before I actually implement the final product. This is a sign
of H-developer and L-Implementer.
‧ Knowing my teammates’ preferences of problem solving, I will take this into account when
dividing up work.
‧ Usually I won’t tell others what I am thinking in my head. I have said more to you than I
often say to others.
about himself. The scenario that subjects imagined during the questionnaire will affect the
result of the measurements. Most people is setting the scenario in the work place. He drive
most of the sense of accomplishments during the Ideator and Developer stage – a classical
description of metal activities of the Hare.
MFS-11 – female, scores:39, 38, 37, 42. Integrator.
‧ My FourSight Profile fits me very well. When filling out the questionnaire, I relied on my
instincts.
Appendix 118
‧ The result of the measurements is relevant to my background (PhD in food science and a
MBA degree). If it is a research project, I will adopt the scientific research method and think
deeply about the project; if the project is about holding an international conference, my MBA
discipline will also kick in, and I will take information from both sides and doing by practice.
Last time I was attending a speech by the President of ITRI; he also has a MBA degree, so I
can distinguish his thought processes. I use different thought processes depending on the
scenario.
‧ I will usually start with a logical clarification and ideation process. After ideation, I will
critically evaluate whether the plan is able to be implemented. I also think it is very important
to clarify the goals and milestones. Without this, we’d be just doing things that don’t need to
be done. This is harmful to the impression that others will project on the team. It is important
to have a demo as a result of our implementation. Without demo, the plan is only one’s
thought; the demo will put everyone on the same page. When executing a demo, you would
need to work with others, since no one have all the necessary expertise to complete the
project. I would usually make sure the teammates have complementary skills so that every
aspect of the demo project is covered. Working on demo as a team also is beneficial for team
building, everyone feels that there are in this together, and will therefore be more motivated.
‧ A lot of my coworkers find me a breeze to work with. This is because I share as much
Appendix 119
information with my teammates as possible; I consider this an important aspect of
team-building. For example, if three team members are working on a proposal together, I will
make sure that everyone is able to read each revision. I think good communication is very
important. I don’t want any of my team members feeling left out and doesn’t know what he
or she should do.
‧ I am a very detail-oriented person. This is probably a result of my past training in biology –
you have to be pay attention to all the detail, otherwise your experiments will likely fail. This
is different from engineering disciplines, which is mostly about mathematics and less about
different variables. In biology, too many things are unexpected. Because of my training in
biology, I can think about a problem in many different aspects. I also pay a lot of attention to
team-building; it is crucial to getting things done.
‧ I think the information from FourSight is helpful for team building. It helps team members to
realize that everyone has different preferences in problem solving.
about herself. She is involved in the entire process of problem solving, all the way from
Clarifier and Implementer. This is because she considered it important to have a demo project
for everyone to establish mutual understanding. Her attention to demo makes her pay
attention to all stages of problem solving. Her educational background and research
Appendix 120
experience also enable her to be detail oriented and take a holistic view of the problem. This
indicates that a subject’s past learning and experiences will affect his or her preferences in
FourSight Profile.
MFS-12 – female, scores: 24, 24, 24, 29. Integrator.
‧ I think my FourSight Profile is a result of my past experiences and job responsibilities. I
don’t really have a preference for any of the four stages of mental activities.
‧ When I was just starting out, I didn’t pay attention to my personal preferences. My work
responsibilities now often requires only a little bit of clarification and mostly implementation.
This is also because the work place is result oriented, so I often follow my instincts and start
implementation immediately.
‧ I often think about the following questions before start implementation: “can we do this? If
not, why?” As to Ideator, I was in a meeting held by the head of center of creativity, and saw
the attendees throwing out ideas out of the blue, and I thought that is the way it should be.
It’s not until recently that I got involved with the IDEO project did I realized that there is a
systematic way of ideation.
‧ I think I can actually choose the stages of a project I want to participate, depending in my
personal preference in the FourSight Profile. For example, I can get involved in the business
Appendix 121
aspects after the ideation process is completed. Before starting on implementation, I can also
perform some Developer’s work and rehearse the possible scenarios. But usually I don’t do
much developing before starting implementing.
‧ Conclusion and implication：The subject doesn’t have too many feedbacks on FourSight
measurements. She thinks that her FourSight Profile is mainly a result of her job
responsibilities, and not her innate preference. Her area of work is very result-orientated,
which makes her more inclined to be an implementer over other roles. She thinks one can
actually choose the stages of a project he/she want to participate, depending in one’s personal
preference in the FourSight Profile.
MFS-13 – female, scores: 36, 33, 29, 41. L-Developer, H-Implemeter.
‧ I think results of FourSight reflect my understanding about myself. Implementation is what I
like to do. I think it is more satisfying than just sitting there and talking about plans. I think
this is a sign of my matureness. As for the development work, I am not as detailed oriented as
some people, so I don’t think I am that good at it.
‧ I am very good at execution and time management. For example, last Wednesday I brought
my mom to her physical therapy session. In order the same the time in traffic, I also make her
appointment with the doctor an hour before.

Appendix 122
‧ I am good at coming up with ways to get things done. And I can do it quickly. For example,
last time we were holding an activity for 20-30 people, and there weren’t enough beverages
to go around. It will take too long to pour the beverages one cup at a time, so I would find
ways to speed it up. I have many experiences like this.
‧ There are many times that I haven’t received much instructions form my boss, but I can still
get things done. When I decide I need to do something, I will do everything I can to get
things done. I know where to find resources and come up with shortcuts.
‧ I think the knowledge on FourSight Profile will help mutual understandings of the teammates
and reduce the chances for conflicts.
‧ Conclusion and Implication: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect her understanding
about herself. She is proud of her H-Implementer score, and she has many experiences of
getting things done in a pinch. She thinks the L-Developer result makes sense because she is
not very detail oriented. The subject is a coworker that I work with closely, and I think her
FourSight Profile matches my understanding of her as well.
MFS-14 – male; scores: 44, 40, 36, 32. H-Clarifier, H-Ideator, L-Implementer.
‧ I think my FourSight Profile makes perfect sense to me! To me, the most important aspects
are clarification and ideation; getting these things done right will make the rest much easier. I
Appendix 123
don’t think one can start development or implementation until he or she has a clear picture
what the problem is (Clarifier), and knowing what the ideas are in solving the problem
(Ideator).
‧ My metal activities in Developer involve arguing on both sides. For example, when I am
solving a physics question, after I have an idea, I would jump to the opposite side and think
about any fallacies in my argument.
‧ My role in a team usually is an observer. I will listen intently to the discussion and collect the
information. When the discussion is still all over the place, I would keep listening and keep
thinking. Other people may feel like I was just sitting there quietly, but I am constantly
observing. When I spoke, that means I am certain what the conclusion is.
‧ The feedback from FourSight Profile is the same with the feedbacks I received from the
counselor, “why don’t you try implementing and making plans as it goes?”
‧ Conclusion and Insight: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding
about himself. The feedback from FourSight Profile is the same with the feedbacks he
received from the counselor. The interview provided real-life examples about his FourSight
Profile. For example, as a H-Clarifier, he will not proceed with the project until he is fully
clear on the problem. Also, even though he often is very quiet during a meeting, that doesn’t
mean he isn’t thinking. It just meant that he doesn’t think he has thought this thoroughly
Appendix 124
enough to speak out. Furthermore, he is a MBTI introvert type.
MFS-15 – male, scores: 36, 24, 28, 35. H-Clarifier, L-Ideator, L-Developer, H-Implementer.
‧ I think my FourSight Profile makes sense to me. Ideation and Development aspects are too
abstract to me. Clarifier is easy for me to relate to because there are real scenarios to work
with. I am not good at coming up with ideas, but I am good at evaluating other’s ideas.
Implementation is very concrete and is something I can relate to.
‧ When I act as a Clarifier, I would try to look at a problem from different points of view and
avoid the dichotomy (right or wrong). I also collect a lot of data to help with the clarification
process. During implementation, I would think, “What are the successful examples? Who
succeeded? What should I be working on first?”
‧ The value of FourSight Profile to the team is to know the strengths of each team member.
When the project is stuck, the team should know who are the people to come up with ideas.
The team needs to be an integrator and know how to divide up work according to each
person’s strengths and preferences.
‧ Conclusion and Implication: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding
about himself. He thinks the Ideator and Developer aspects are too abstract. Clarifier and
Implementer aspects are more concrete.

Appendix 125
MFS-16 – male, scores: 40, 33, 39, 32. H-Clarifier, L-Ideator, H-Developer, L-Implementer.
‧ The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding about himself. I can clarify a
problem very quickly, and I rely on others for ideas. I am good at connecting the dots.
‧ For example: recently I was late to a meeting about a new course. Initially I listened to the
discussion and connecting the information together, and I got the whole picture pretty fast. I
will then spend time developing others’ ideas. I am not that interested about implementation.
about himself. As a L-Ideator, he relies on others to come up with ideas.
MFS-17 – female, scores: 33, 40, 34, 33. H-Ideator, L-Clarifier, L-Developer, L-Implementer.
‧ My developer score is lower than I expected. Ideation is a sparkling process and attracts me
greatly. During the development, I would evaluate whether the solutions will work, which is
interesting and painful at the same time. As an example for my ideation, when I think of the
idea “breathable home”, I would extend the idea and think about “breathable light”, and on
and on. I like to come up with ideas and I dare to dream.
‧ Conclusion: The subject doesn’t think results of FourSight reflect her understanding about
herself. The developer score is lower than she expected.

Appendix 126
MFS-18 – female, scores: 42, 38, 35, 33. H-Clarifier, H-Ideator, L-Developer, L-Implementer.
‧ The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect her understanding about herself. When I am
doing research, I will make sure I think the project through before starting the experiments. I
won’t start the experiments until, after careful evaluation, I am certain of its necessity.
Otherwise it is just a waste of time. You can’t do all the possible experiments; you must
evaluate, “should I do this? Why should I do this? What is the advantage of doing this
experiment?”
‧ I do this because I don’t want to waste energy. Doing experiments uses a lot of energy. Rather
than working on stupid experiments, I want to spend time thinking about the most effective
way of using the resources. This stem from the concept of “protecting the environment”. You
have to not only work hard, but also work smart.
about himself. As an example, he applies his concept of “protecting the environment” on his
research. The idea that one’s values can affect his or her FourSight Profile is worth exploring.
MFS-19 – female, scores: 29, 33, 24, 35. H-Ideator, H-Implementer, L-Developer.
‧ I don’t think that results of FourSight reflect my understanding about myself. I think the
developer score should be higher.
‧ My thinking type is not 100% defined. I probably use the style described in my FourSight
Appendix 127
Profile 80% of the time; the other 20% of the time, not so. I will use different styles
depending on the problem. I don’t believe one’s thinking style is cut in stone and can be
evaluated by such questionnaire.
‧ Conclusion and implication: The subject doesn’t think that results of FourSight reflect her
understanding about herself. She thinks the developer score should be higher. The subject
doesn’t believe one’s thinking style is cut in stone and can be evaluated by such
questionnaire.
MFS-20 – male, scores: 39, 43, 36, 30. H-Clarifier, H-Ideator, L-Implementer.
‧ The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding about himself. For example,
when I developed the Creative Opportunity System (COS), I started back in 1985 as a small
group. It depends a lot on the opportunity. Sometimes, if the timing is not right, that means it
is not a true opportunity.
‧ I spend most of my working time thinking and less about implementing. I would push very
hard in the ideation stage, but I would become more cautious during the implementation
stage. During development stage, I will try to accomplish the mission using the minimum
resources possible.
‧ In a team I would come up with ideas and help teammates get what they want. This is very
Appendix 128
important for team-building.
about himself.
MFS-21 – female; scores: 36, 27, 30, 40. H-Clarifier, L-Ideator, L-Developer, H-Implementer.
‧ The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect her understanding about herself. I will focus
on clarifying what it is that needs to be done; then I’ll do it. It is important to start
implementation, only then will you know whether the project will work or not. I hate people
who promise they will do something but eventually; didn’t do it As to ideation, I don’t often
generate brand new ideas. As I said, I am a doer.
about herself. According to the interview, the subject’s FourSight Profile may be a cause of
her values.
MFS-22 – male; scores: 32, 23, 31, 33. H-Clarifier, L-Ideator, H-Developer, H-Implementer.
‧ I think results of FourSight reflect my understanding about myself. This fits my traits as an
engineer. I don’t often come up with brand new ideas; I often seek others for inspiration.
FourSight should be a useful tool for the team.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks results of FourSight reflect his understanding about himself.
This fits his traits as an engineer.

Appendix 129
MFS-23 – female; scores: 38, 37, 33, 43. H-Clarifier, H-Ideator, L-Develper, H-Implementer.
‧ I think the results of FourSight reflect myself. It really comes down to whether I am
interested or not. If I am interested in something, I will just come up with a plan and do it. If I
am not interested, I would let whoever is responsible taking care of it. If it is my
responsibility, then I will still do it.
‧ When making plans, I have the ability to make the plans far in advance.
‧ H-Implementer: I feel satisfying when I am coming up with ideas. Ideation is a visual process
for me. I can often envision my plan when I describe it to others. I have very low tolerance
for the development stage. I consider it wasteful if we spend resources on something that
shouldn’t be done. I can come across as a strong opinionated person, especially when I am
responsible for the project. I don’t waste time, and I don’t like compromises. This is actually
one of my weaknesses – sometimes other people have trouble working with me because of
this.
‧ L-Developer: I don’t focus too much on development stage. After the ideation, I usually go
straight to implementation. I have pretty good connection with other coworkers, and I know
people’s strengths. During implementation I would first find the key man.
about herself, but the result may come out differently depending on whether or not she is
Appendix 130
interested in a project. She enjoys to implement.
MFS-24 – male; scores: 34, 40, 39, 38. H-Ideator, H-developer, H-Implementer.
‧ I think that my FourSight Profile matches my understanding of myself. I emphasize on what
matters the most and come up with a solution. In the implementation stage, I often break the
work into steps, and follow them accordingly.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks that his FourSight measurement makes sense to him.
MFS-25 – female; scores: 35, 26, 31, 30. H-Clarifier, L-Ideator.
‧ I don’t put too much time on coming up with new ideas, I find existing ideas.
‧ In the clarification stage, I ask why and what is the expectation. I ask the team the same
questions. In the ideation stage, I will first find out if there’s a readily available solution. Due
to the often time-limited nature of my work, I seldom develop my own ideas.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks that her FourSight measurement makes sense to her. She
thinks that her work environment caused her to not focus on generating new ideas and
instead make use of existing methods.
MFS-26 – male; scores: 36, 38, 37, 42. L-Clarifier, H-Implementer.
‧ The FourSight profile makes sense to me. I am an Implementer. I think of different ways to
Appendix 131
solve the problem. Most of time, I think of a solution within a week. I like using tools like the
computer to help me solve the problem. I re-do things when I went the wrong direction. This
happens.
‧ Conclusion and implication: The subject thinks that the FourSight measurement reflects his
cognitive style. Someone like him who’s a H-Implementer with L-Clarifier FourSight Profile
goes right ahead without having a clear direction, and when things didn’t turn out the way it
should, he just re-do it. This indicates that even with different FourSight Profies, anyone can
solve problems with different strategies.
MFS-27 – male; scores: 42, 17, 29, 32. H-Clarifier, L-Ideator.
‧ This is me. Is there a problem? My ideas come from analyzing things. My professor told me
that many things are false, and you have to carefully analyze things to find the truth. I don’t
think of more ideas, but use this method to generate my ideas.
‧ Conclusion and implication: The subject thinks his FourSight measurement makes sense to
him. He was adamant that this reflects him perfectly. He even sounded a bit annoyed, so the
interview was stopped short. He explained briefly why he is a L-Ideator. He was chosen
because he was the recipient of the Gold Medal for a chemical engineering patent award. His
L-Ideator style indirectly showed that FourSight measures one’s cognitive style, not level or
Appendix 132
ability.
MFS-28 – male; scores: 31, 26, 36, 28. L-Ideator, H-Developer, L-Implementer.
‧ It seems that I am a good fit in my current job! When there is a problem, I collect information,
assess all of them, and think of other ways to solve it. When developing a program/proposal,
I plan for it and consider all the options. As a result, I think of many programs.
‧ Conclusion: According to the interviewer’s assessment, the result of the FourSight
measurement makes sense to the subject. He is a careful thinker, and thrives for perfection,
both characteristics of a H-Developer.
MFS-29 – male, scores: 39, 34, 38, 37. Integrator.
‧ I don’t have a particular preference. In the clarification stage, I ask for the background of the
situation, followed by a thorough assessment. I will simplify things and find the key things to
focus on.
‧ In the ideation stage, I clarify and assess the level of difficulty and resources at hand. (This
doesn’t seem to go with the mental activity associated with ideation,)
‧ I think about who is best to work on the problem in the development stage. Can I do it myself?
What’s the timeline? Is it possible to meet the deadline? What resources are there? Who has
the resources? I list all the possibilities, consider all of them, and then narrow down to the
most important ones.

Appendix 133
‧ In the implementation stage, I focus on time management. I prioritize the list I have, and
tackle them one by one.
‧ Conclusion: The subject thinks that the Integrator FourSight profile makes sense.
MFS-30 – male, scores: 38, 41, 37, 32. H-Clarifier, H-Ideator, L-Implementer.
‧ The subject thinks that his FourSight Profile reflects his understanding of himself. He said,
“I’m full of ideas!”
‧ In the clarification stage, I will think what the underlying problem is. What’s the cause?
When I run in to problems in the ideation stage, I keep on thinking about the “what and how.”
What concerns should I have in the development stage? What resources do I possess? What’s
the first step? I go ahead without thinking all through. In the implementation stage, I often
will first assess the external/environment factors before doing it. It makes sense that I’m a
L-Implementer, because most situations the assessment results are a “no-go,” so I didn’t
pursue them.
‧ I raise different points of view in different stages of team work.
Conclusion: The subject thinks that his FourSight measurement makes sense to him. It describes
his Ideator characteristics well, in terms of able to generate many ideas when working alone or in
teams.
Vita 134
Vita
Yu-Mei Lien Ding is an innovation coach and the founder of La Tron Innovation Coaching
Studio in Taiwan. Before working as an innovation coach, she had been a creativity facilitator for
7 years, and Director of Creative Mind Applied Research Division for 5 years at Creativity Lab,
Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), the premier applied R&D and technical
institution in Taiwan. Yu-Mei had also been a senior scientist and the leader of Polymer
Characterization Department and Executive Coordinator of Total Quality Committee for more
than 10 years at Union Chemical Laboratories, ITRI, before she joined the founding team for
establishing the Creativity Lab, ITRI in 2003.
Yu-Mei obtained Bachelor degree (1975) and Master of Science degree (1977) on
Agricultural Chemistry from National Taiwan University. She always had passion for helping
people to be happy and comfortable with one’s own creativity. Therefore, she started learning on
creative thinking and innovation management since 1994, and has provided creative thinking
workshop for local companies in Taiwan since 1998.
In order to expand her horizons on the field of creativity and innovation, she obtained the
graduate certificate in Creativity and Change Leadership at International Center for Studies in
Creativity (ICSC) of Buffalo State College (BSC) and join the ICSC’s Master program in
Creative Studies on 2005 and completed the most of the courses on 2006. She re-started the
Master Program in Creative Studies on 2012 and completed the master thesis on 2013.
Yu-Mei has authored a book titled “The 6+1 Creative Approaches” in Chinese to
disseminate her knowledge on the creativity and innovation. She now devotes her time to assist
Taiwan companies and next generation of Taiwanese to create prospective future with their
creativity and team innovation.

Foursight Thinking Profile (See Appendix A)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foursight Thinking Profile (See Appendix A)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E.H.

Butler Library at Buffalo State College

Exploring Cross Culture Validity of FourSight with

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/creativetheses

Yu-Mei Lien Ding

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

State University of New York

Exploring the Cross Culture Validity of FourSight with Taiwanese Population

Yu-Mei Lien Ding

Exploring the Cross Culture Validity of FourSight

Yu-Mei Lien Ding

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D., Thesis Adviser

Ruey-Yun Horng , Ph.D., Thesis Co-adviser

Kevin Railey, Ph.D.

Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D.

Ruey-Yun Horng , Ph.D

List of Tables and Figures .……………………………………………………...................... xi

Chapter One: Statement of Problem …………………………………………………………. 1

Diversity, Cognitive Style and Team Innovation …………………………………………… 1

The challenge of measuring Cognitive Style in Taiwan’s Business ………….…………… 4

Purpose of This Study and Research Questions ……….……..…….…….…………………. 5

Statement of Significance ……………………..…………………………………………… . 6

Chapter Two: Literature Review ………….…………………………………………………... 8

Cognitive Style ……………………………………………………………………………… 8

Definition of Cognitive Style …………………………………………………………….. 8

Characteristics of Cognitive Style ……………………………………………………….. 9

Theories of Cognitive Styles and Their Relationship to Creativity and Problem

Kirton Adaption-Innovation …………………………………………………………… 15

Adaption-Innovation Theory ………………………………………………………… 15

Characteristics of Adaptors and Innovators ……………………………………….. 17

Kirton Adapation-Innovation Inventory ……………………………………………… 18

KAI’s Subscales ………………………………………………………………………... 19

Theory and FourSight Preferences ………………………………………………….. 30

FourSight Instrument …………………………………………………………………. 35

Chapter Three: Chapter Three: Methods and Procedures ……………………………………. 51

The Sample Population .....………………………………………………………………… 51

The sample for Construct Validation of FourSight Chinese Version …..……………… 51

A Description of FourSight Chinese version ……………………………………………… 53

Chapter Four: Presentation and Analysis of Data ………………………………………........ 57

Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………………………………… 57

Reliability by Internal Consistency .………………………………………………………. 59

Construct Validation ………………………………………………………………………. 59

Item correlation matrix …………………………………………………………………. 60

Factor Extraction ……………………………………………………………………….. 60

Factor Solutions ………………………………………………………………………… 64

FourSight Model Fit with selected ITRI Samples ………………………………………… 68

FourSight Profile among Taiwanese Population ………………………………………….. 71

Chapter Five: Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications …………………………… 80

Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………… 100

A: FourSight Version 6.1 …………………………………...…………………………….100

B: FourSight Chinese version 1.2 …………………………………………………………. 101

C: FourSight back-translated version …………………………………………………….. 102

D: Research Description and Consent ……………………………………………………. 103

E: Inter-items correlation matrix of FourSight Chinese version 1.2 …………………….. 104

F: FourSight Model Fit Interview Qualitative Results ………………………..…............ 118

Vita ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 134

cross-cultural validation of FourSight construct. Sincere thanks go to Professor Puccio in helping

development of the FourSight Chinese version.

their way to assist in the successful recruitment of 224 research participants.

assistance in reviewing and editing the thesis.

colleagues at Creativity Lab. They gave me first-hand experiences on the importance of

diversified cognitive styles on innovation team collaboration, as well as its managerial