The Kirton Adaption–Innovation theory (KAI) was first formulated in the late 1970s as a means of analysing the range of creative problem-solving and decision-making that could exist in the workplace. Individuals are placed on a continuum between two extremes – adaptors, who seek solutions within familiar parameters, and innovators, who challenge the familiar, redefine the problematic and construct new paradigms.
Drawn in part from trait theory, KAI states that each individual can be allotted a position along the continuum between pure adaptors and pure innovators. By definition, therefore, most people will lie somewhere in between the two extremes. An individual’s score is unlikely to vary significantly over time.
The main characteristics for each extreme are as follows.
Adaptors
For Adaptors the focus is on doing existing things better. Adaptors are generally creative to the extent that they produce an adequate number of ideas and solutions but these are constricting within existing and predictable boundaries. They are detail-conscious, and do not tend to vary from existing practice, policy or theory. Bureaucratic behaviour is also an example of adaptive behaviour.
Innovators
Innovators focus on doing things differently rather than better. They produce large numbers of ideas, and in seeking a solution are likely to, in the words of Kirton himself, ‘reconstruct the problem, separating it from its enveloping accepted thought, paradigms and customary viewpoints, and emerge with much less expected, and probably less acceptable solutions’.
The stereotype of the ‘creative loner’ is an example of a Kirton Innovator.
Resistance to ideas
By the late 1980s, a large number of studies had been done which confirmed the usefulness of the KAI theory to organisations. The theory itself though developed out of a need to explain the results of a 1961 study into management resistance to new ideas. Three patterns of behaviour became evident from the study. These can now be explained in the light of studies into the difficulties in interaction between adaptors and innovators.
1. Time-Lag – there was often a period of between two and three years between an idea first being proposed and final acceptance.
2. Objections to new ideas – these were commonplace, with managers commonly blocking the idea with carefully justified and ostensibly reasonable objections. Often though it was the arrival of some ‘precipitating event’ which led to an almost immediate acceptance of the original idea. Any previous objections were then collectively ‘forgotten’.
3. Rejection of individuals – most of the ideas which had been originally blocked were initially proposed by individuals who had been regarded in a negative light by the management group before the proposal, and continued to be after it. This was the case even with those ideas which were an unqualified success when finally adopted. In contrast, those initially proposing more acceptable ideas tended to be acceptable to the management group from the start, and remained so even after the failure of their idea.
Kirton demonstrates that the above behaviour patterns can be explained by KAI. In the above examples, the ideas and solutions which were easily acceptable tended to be adaptive ones, i.e. those dependent upon widely held paradigms. Adaptive solutions are no threat to the status quo and thus tend to encounter little resistance. Because they are based on widely understood concepts, these ideas are easily accepted. When the ideas fail, their authors are still seen in a positive light as their ideas are seen to have been formulated according to logical and sensible criteria.
Adaptive ideas often fail because they are based on flawed assumptions, yet this is often not apparent to the adaptors who accept them. The reasons for the failure of an idea is then often put down to ‘bad luck’ or ‘unforeseeable events’ and the cycle perpetuates itself. Another reason why failed ideas affect the adaptor far less than the innovator is that those who propose adaptive solutions tend to fit in with the adaptive majority. Their popularity therefore isolates them from reproach.
Kirton suggests the following personality differences between adaptors and innovators.
Adaptors | Innovators |
See innovators as abrasive and insensitive. | Attack adaptors’ basic assumptions and threaten the way they see the world. This occurs both explicitly, out of frustration and a need to convince, and implicitly in a disrespect for established norms and behaviour. |
Frustrated by apparent obliviousness to innovators’ insensitivity. | Innovators tend to be unaware of how they are perceived by adaptors. Also fail to understand that the smooth-running of their environment is largely due to efficient adaptive behaviour while remaining. |
Content with ‘one or two good ideas’ and cannot understand why innovators always need several. | See adaptors’ ideas as insufficient, dull and unoriginal. |
When problem-solving, focus on ‘doing things better’. | When problem-solving, focus on ‘doing things differently’. |
Tend to stick to convention. | Tend to ignore convention and thus become isolated. |
Collaborate easily with others to establish common ground. Finds their suggestions are well received. | Find it hard to collaborate with others. Struggle to get heard. |
Fit easily within the organisation but cannot deal effectively with change. | Essential in times of change or crisis but can’t always follow the rules adequately. |
Seen by innovators as: ‘sound, safe, conforming, predictable, relevant, inflexible, wedded to the system, intolerant of ambiguity’. | Seen by adaptors as: ‘unsound, impractical, risky, abrasive; often shocking their opposites and creating dissonance’. |
Furthermore, collaboration between the two extremes is difficult. Where collaboration is necessary, the presence of middle KAI scorers will often help to ‘bridge’ the gap between the groups.
KAI in practice
The research underlying KAI theory, which we have just profiled, is valuable in itself. For those wishing to perform KAI assessment in their organisation, and thereby to determine the adaptor/innovator scores for individuals forming a particular group, visit the official website: //www.kaicentre.com/. The test takes about ten minutes to complete, but is only available through certified practitioners.
Reference:
Michael J Kirton, ‘Adaptors and Innovators: Problem Solvers in Organizations’ in: Kjell Grønhaug & Geir Kaufmann (eds), Innovation: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, Adaptors and Innovators (International Thomson Business Press.
C R Rogers, ‘Towards a theory of Creativity’ in: H H Anderson (ed), Creativity and its cultivation.
Comments