Kirton's A–I theory: Evidence bearing on the style/level and factor composition issues

Abstract

ATwo central issues concerning M. J. Kirton's adaption-innovation (A-I) theory, the style vs. level issue and the issue of factor number, are reviewed in terms of existing empirical research. Direct tests of those two issues as they apply to A-I theory indicate that Kirton's position holds. Although the directly applicable evidence is not extensive, that which is available supports Kirton's distinction between style and level of creativity and a simple three-factor structure underlying the hypothesized A1 continuum. These two findings support the conceptualization of creativity as a non-homogeneous, differentiated set of psychological processes.Since its publication in 1976 (Kirton, 1976), M. J. Kirton's measure of cognitive style, the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), has gained considerable international acceptance as a training and consultancy tool. Its applications, by users certified in courses offered by Kirton himself, extend over many areas including employee selection, staff development and team building. The notion that cognitive style differences impact organizational processes is readily demonstrated in training situations oriented around group problem solving, decision making and creativity exercises. Generally, what Kirton refers to as 'A-I theory' has to do with such organizational behaviour (Mudd, 1994).At the same time, relatively little theoretical attention has been directed towards the nature of the psychological processes constituting the A1 continuum assumed to underlie observed differences among individual scores on the KAI measure.' The following review of empirical work relates specifically to the nature of A1 and its constituent psychological processes, as opposed to the organizational implications of A-I theory. It is suggested here that Kirton's work constitutes two important steps towards the differentiation of creativity in terms of style vs. level in the first instance and in the second, the factor-analytic work, the identification of subprocesses underlying the creative style dimension. Basic nature of the A1 continuumThe central construct of the Kirton theory is that of a cognitive style continuum, the adaption-innovation continuum (AI) (Kirton, 1976, p. 622), all levels of which * Requests for reprints.A1 refers to the underlying psychological dimension, the adaption-innovation continuum.The hyphenated form A-I is used in this text to designate Kirton's so-called A-I theory. The unhyphenated form

Entrepreneurs, Effectual Logic, and Over–Trust

“…High conformity to rules will likely produce adaptive or incremental innovations and solutions. Low conformity to rules, on the contrary, enhances originality, resulting in original innovations (Mudd, 1996;Rosenfeld, Winger-Bearskin, Marcic, & Braun, 1993). Entrepreneurs display a high degree of nonconformity as compared to nonentrepreneurs.…”

Model konstruksi kognitif metaphora kewirausahaan: pendekatan konseptual

“…Sehingga peluang dianggap sebagai cara untuk menjawab ketidak sempurnaan pasar, teori ini menggangap bahwa setiap orang dapat mengambil peluang. Pendapat ini dikritik oleh beberapa peneliti, karena tidak semua orang mampu mengakses informasi dalam kondisi asymmetric information,dan terjadi information gap, sehingga hanya sebahagian orang yang mampu mengidentifikasikan peluang dan sebagian menemukan kegagalan (Neergaard, Helle and Ulhøi, 2007). Hal ini sejalan dengan (Barney, Jay, B, et all,2011) dengan pendekatan Resurces Based Viewmasalah dalam OR adalah adalah kewaspadaan entrepreneurial bagaimana membawa dari philosofi ide-ide ke bisnis riil, yang mengalami perubahan.…”

“…KAI adalah teori yang membantu untuk menjelaskan adanya perbedaan kreativitas diantara anggota tim dan menyatukannya melalui kolaborasi untuk menciptakan inovasi (Stum,K., 2009). Kirton-adaption-innovation theory, pada awalnya teori yang dikembangkan untuk menentukan gaya kognitif dan selanjutnya digunakan dalam berbagai penelitian empirik yang menjelaskan hubungan cognitive style dengan kreativitas dan inovasi serta kolaborasi jejaring terhadap kecenderungan pemecahan masalah (Pettigrew, 1988;Odenwald, 2010;Mudd, 1996).Sebagaimana juga dinyatakan oleh Jablokow and Booth mendefinisikan kesenjangan kognitif (a) perbedaan antara kesulitan terhadap pemecahaan masalah yang spesifik dan kemampuan kognitif pemecahan masalah untuk mencari solusi. (b) perbedaan antara gaya kognitif terhadap pemecah masalah masing-masing (Jablokow dan Booth, 2006).…”

World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

“…He treats these two dimensions orthogonally and a significant body of research, conducted both by Kirton and other researchers (e.g., Torrance, 1982;Torrance & Horng, 1980), generally confirms this ascertainment. Exhaustive discussion in research with respect to the level-style problem can be found both in the works of Kirton himself (2003) and his acolytes (Isaksen & Dorval, 1993, Mudd, 1996. Mudd (1996) in his study of relationships between creativity level and style, relies on the research based on factor analyses which ordinarily indicate level (e.g., results in such creativity tests as TTCT) and style (KAI, or the MBTI creativity index) typically load on different factors.…”

“…Exhaustive discussion in research with respect to the level-style problem can be found both in the works of Kirton himself (2003) and his acolytes (Isaksen & Dorval, 1993, Mudd, 1996. Mudd (1996) in his study of relationships between creativity level and style, relies on the research based on factor analyses which ordinarily indicate level (e.g., results in such creativity tests as TTCT) and style (KAI, or the MBTI creativity index) typically load on different factors. Results like this are provided by Kirton's (1987) re-analysis of data provided by Torrance and Horng (1980), where independence of level and style was confirmed -despite a rather small sample (N = 33).…”