Question & Answer: Problems with Creativity – Level and Style 1.How are creativity, problem…..

1. How are creativity, problem solving, and decision making linked?

Creativity is the ability to develop unique alternatives to problem solving. It is the process of having original ideas that have value.

Problem: A problem can exist whenever there is a difference between what is actually happening and what the individual or a group of individuals want to be happening. Simply put, a problem exists whenever objectives are not being met.

Problem Solving is the process of taking corrective action in order to meet certain objectives.

1. It requires creative thinking in a process where alternatives are evaluated after thorough research on the problem is conducted.
2. It is usually executed by a group of people.
3. It encourages creative thinking to find innovative solutions to problems.
4. It consists of 8 steps: Identify a problem, define a problem, identify alternative solutions, and evaluate the alternatives to arrive at a best solution, develop a strategic action plan, implement the strategy, monitor the strategy and evaluate the process.

Decision Making is the process of selecting an alternative course of action that will solve a problem.

1. Often done by one person from the top management.
2. A practice where a number of alternatives are considered and a choice is made towards a best solution.
3. Decision making is part of problem solving, because in each step of the process of problem solving cycle, decision must be taking.
4. The process includes the following 3 steps: Identify the problem, consider possible solutions, and take a decision.

1. “Creativity” and “innovation” are often used synonymously by researchers in the fields of creativity and business (and in the popular press as well). According to A-I theory, these terms are distinct and should be clearly separated. Explain why.

Creativity is typically used to refer to the act of producing new ideas, approaches or actions.

Creativity is also defined as a phenomenon whereby a person creates something new (a product, a solution, a work of art etc.) that has some kind of value. Here money is spent to generate ideas.

Innovation is the process of both generating and applying such creative ideas in a specific context.

Innovation is the process of acting upon, or putting to use, a new concept or combination of concepts that creates new value and/or captures value in new ways. Here ideas are spent to generate money.

Kirton’s Adaptive-Innovative Theory (KAI) (1976) is a theory that attempts to explain the differences in creativity and, in this understanding, create more cohesion and collaboration among team members. KAI theory is founded on the idea that each person is creative and solves problems (Kirton, 2003). KAI is chiefly concerned with cognitive style and determining how people solve problems. Kirton (1976) described adaptors as individuals who prefer to “do things better” and innovators as people who prefer to “do things differently.”

Adaptors are problem solvers who attempt to do things better.

Innovators are also problem solvers who desire to do things differently.

Kirton’s desire was to promote that each person is creative within his or her cognitive style. One style is not better than the other and both are needed in organizations.

Reference: Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 2 Iss. 1, 2009, pp. 66-78 ISSN 1930-806X

1. Why is it important to make a clear distinction between level and style?

When level is the focus or concern, it is assumed that we are dealing with a concept linked with ability, capacity, potential, or competence. Creative level refers to how well one uses their creative capacity or how much of these abilities individuals possess. When dealing with style as the main issue, the emphasis is on modality, preference, propensity, manner or form. Creative style refers to how people prefer to use their creativity.

There is an increasing amount of literature which examines relationships between various measures of creative ability and cognitive style. Bloomberg (1967) examined creativity’s relationship to field independence-dependence. Del Gaudio (1976) investigated creativity’s relationship to psychological differentiation and mobility. All this research appears to be developing an improved level of clarity regarding the level-style distinction.

This increased clarity provides an opportunity for creativity scholars to productively use the level-style distinction as a means for improving our understanding of creativity within people. As a result, it may be helpful to examine the implications of the creative level-style distinction through the four broad areas of person, process, product and press.

1. What does it mean to say that these two variables are independent – in a theoretical sense and in practice?

Questions still remain regarding the complete nature of the level-style relationship.

On a conceptual/theoretical level, it appears reasonable to make a distinction between creativity level and creativity style. Whether or not these two concepts can be fully operationalized in measurement or application as entirely orthogonal, somewhat related, or very highly correlated becomes a necessary and important line of investigation in improving the understanding of creativity within people. The level-style distinction appears to hold great potential for moving in that direction.

Reference: Toward an improved understanding of Creativity within People: The Level-Style Distinction, Scott G. Isaksen and K. Brian Dorval

5.      Numerous studies have been performed to determine whether there is a correlation between A-I cognitive style (as measured through the KAI inventory) and various forms of level (both manifest and potential).

Does the scientific evidence presented support or refute the assumption that cognitive style and cognitive level are independent? Explain your answer.

Kirton developed the KAI theory in 1976. He developed it in order to help organizations understand problem-solving and cognitive style. Adaptors are problem solvers who attempt to do things better; innovators are also problem solvers who desire to things differently. The leadership pendulum has shifted from valuing the adaptor over the innovator in the 1970s and 1980s to preferring the innovative leader in the 1990s and 2000s. Kirton’s desire was to promote that each person is creative within his or her cognitive style. One style is not better than the other and both are needed in organizations.

KAI is a theory that can assist managers in dealing with cognitive gaps within the organization. Managing wide arrays of cognitive styles is becoming a necessity for leaders

Within rapidly changing and diversifying organizational climate.

KAI can assist the managers by valuing workers on both sides of the cognitive gap, from all backgrounds, and who carry different ideas on the process of change. Understanding adaptors, innovators, and facilitators/bridgers can help leaders navigate both diverse teams and organizations facing the need for change.

The Level-Style Issue

The level-style issue holds a great deal of promise for creativity research (Isaksen & Dorval, 1993). Kirton (1976; 1987; 1989) has asserted the need to separate the variables of level or capacity from style or mode, just as we would the ‘power of the engine’ from the ‘manner in which it is drawn.’ It is reasonable that preferred cognitive style and potential cognitive level can both be measured by the KAI and measures of IQ respectively. Kirton has demonstrated that these two variables are clearly unrelated (Kirton, 1994).    Although there is tremendous potential for clarifying creativity research and practice by separating level and style, most of the inquiry and support for this distinction resides within the general area of person, with little work done in the areas of product, process, and situation (Isaksen, 1995).

Having made the distinction between preferred style and potential level clear, there would be a variety of additional key constructs that would help us predict and understand creative behavior. For example, the process, procedures, or tools (know-how) the individual is using may contribute to the actual creative behavior of the individual. The degree to which the individual is motivated and whether or not the motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic may also have an effect. The expertise and knowledge the individual has regarding the task at hand will also provide some impact on determining creative behavior. In short, all these variables will be important in an interactionist or ecological approach to creativity research and practice.

Although there is clear support for distinguishing KAI from IQ, we have found clear relationships between the KAI and preferences for learning, and levels of applying, specific kinds of creative problem-solving tools (Hurley, 1993; Schoonover, 1996; Wheeler, 1995). We have also found this relationship with how individuals graphically describe their natural creative process (Pershyn, 1992). Certain of these preferences may provide for greater degrees of success or level of productivity depending on their fit to the task at hand or other situational factors.

In other words, some of the key variables outlined may very well be conceptually and empirically distinct. Others may necessarily be inter-related, especially when considering the actual behavior of the individual. This was the major challenge facing the aptitude-treatment line of research that attempted to understand the relationships between individual difference variables and student performance (Snow, 1992). Measures of psychological or organizational climate may not necessarily represent their domain “…from the viewpoint of either level (what or how well it is done) or style (how things are done).” (Clapp & Kirton, 1994 p. 130) The degree to which the level-style argument applies to crossing over from among the four main areas of people, processes, products and situations remains to be settled through future inquiry.

As it relates to the Isaksen and Kaufmann study, the results support a general and clear distinction between the two concepts of preferred cognitive style and psychological climate. The low number of correlations and the small degree of variance accounted for by those that are significant supports the empirical and conceptual distinction.

Since no correlation accounts for as much as 3% overlap, any relationship between preferred cognitive style and psychological climate may be viewed as trivial. This finding provides preliminary evidence which rejects our initial (and exploratory) hypothesis that these two measures would correlate due to their combined predictive power on creative behavior.

Reference: Scott G. Isaksen and Kenneth J. Lauer, Creativity Research Unit, Creative Problem Solving Group, Buffalo

1. If a supervisor asks two teams of employees to generate ideas for a project, how would you expect the idea generation (in terms of both content and process) of a team of more innovative people to differ from that of a team composed of more adaptive individuals? Explain your reasoning.

6a.What impact will level have on the results in each case?

6b.How does the fact that style is a continuum (not a dichotomy) impact our expectations for the idea generation of different individuals/teams?

*Due to lack of time, I am unable to share the answers for Questions 6 and 7.

7.      The creativity literature places a great deal of emphasis on the view that a greater breadth of vision equates to a greater level of creativity. Can high-capacity adaptors hold greater breadth of vision than innovators? Explain your reasoning.

*Due to lack of time, I am unable to share the answers for Questions 6 and 7.