Leadership of Decision-Making & Problem Solving. Level II-15 Session 2

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Leadership of Decision-Making & Problem Solving. Level II-15 Session 2"

Emily Stokes
5 years ago
Views:

1 Leadership of Decision-Making & Problem Solving Level II-15 Session 2

2 Accelerating Change 2

3 Further Explore The thinking behind your thinking Your natural preferences and How these impact your approach to decision making, problem solving, change and Impact team formation and collaboration 3

4 A Look at Creativity ways-to-know-youre-creative/#4af66c6c

5 Agenda 1. Explore our preferences and approaches for making decisions and solving problems -- along a continuum with two extremes, and everywhere in between: More Adaptive More Innovative 2. Introduce KAI Instrument 3. Discuss: Why KAI matters Tie-in with Decision-Mojo Clear applications to work groups and team development Take-aways for your Action Learning Team and yourself 5

6 How do we Make Decisions Problem A & Problem B There are always two problems when making a decision or solving a problem: Problem A the issue or challenge itself Problem B the effective collaboration of team members trying to solve the Problem A Where does diversity help? Where does it hinder? How do you manage a diverse group? 6

7 Cognitive Style Everyone has a preferred cognitive style Cognitive style is innate; you are born with it and it does not change. Preference for dealing with your environment, and how you generate ideas, manage information, and work with others to reach decisions/solutions 7

8 Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Two Approaches or Styles: of creativity, problem solving, & decision making: Within a paradigm or structure Adaptive Outside a paradigm or structure Innovative 8

9 What s a Paradigm? An intellectual / cognitive structure or set of beliefs: Theory, Policy, Roles, Practice, Standards, Frame (of reference) That defines the domain of thinking that is commonly / consensually agreed to within that structure. Includes: What data are properly included/excluded What problems are to be tackled The way problems are perceived The kinds of solutions sought, and how they are sought Standards / proofs / legitimacy that define success of results 9

10 Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) More Adaptive If it ain t broke, don t fix it! Solve problems within existing structures Seek solutions in tried and true ways May modify the structure as an outcome or end result More Innovative How do we know it ain t broke? Solve problems outside of existing structures Seek solutions in new and different ways Change the structure as part of the process 10

11 Adaptor Preferences Innovate within rules Use standard approaches Prefer improving things - concerned to make existing things better Act in a cohesive way and sensitive to people and groups Prefer structured situations Target ideas Detail-oriented Consistent Prudent risk taking (if at all) Systematic implementation Produce ideas based on, but stretching, existing agreed definitions of the problem 11

12 Innovator Preferences Ideas are less closely related to the group s prevailing paradigms Break rules, challenges assumptions (& groups), and reframe Idealistic More concerned with doing things differently than well Prefer unstructured situations Less constrained by past Risk taking Permeable search boundaries May present many less formulated possibilities but are more likely to reconstruct the problem Can be undisciplined, and not follow through on projects systematically 12

13 Understanding Level A measure of capacity Can be measured low to high Examples: Intelligence (Cognitive) Education Experience (related to your career, or to the specific problem) Functional/Specialist Competence Paradigm-width 13

14 The Role of Level High Level More Adaptive Paradigm Width More Innovative Low Level 14

15 KAI Distribution More Adaptive More Innovative Mean 15

16 Sampling of KAI Scores Branch Bank Managers, Civil Servants, Manufacturing Managers, Plant Managers, Machine Superintendents, Production Managers, Accounts Supervisors, Maintenance Engineers, Programmers, Cost Accountants Nurses 92 General population 95 Managers generally 96 Teachers 97 R & D professionals 101 Finance 105 Marketing 106 Planning 110 Design Managers 111 Planning Design Managers R&D Managers (Special Project Teams)

17 Your Score Ask yourself: Does this score make sense? Why or why not? How do my behaviors and preferences at work (and at home) reflect my KAI score? Are there ways in which they differ? 17

18 How Others See You High I s see high A s as: 18

19 How Others See You High A s see high I s as: 19

20 Your Strengths & Challenges Consider your KAI score and your job responsibilities. What are your most significant strengths & challenges? What do you need to do more of and less of?

21 Sub-scores Sufficiency of Originality (SO) Your preferred style of generating creative ideas and solutions Idea generation - number of novel ideas / within or outside the structure People with close SO scores feel they communicate well with each other. Efficiency (E) Your preferred style of efficiency Methods of problem solving attention to detail and handling data Working within the system (system to work for you) versus outside of system People with close E scores feel they work well together Rule/Group Conformity (R) Your preferred style for operating within rules/policies/existing structure, and concern for consensus Relationship to rules Degree of preference to stay with formal vs informal structures Degree of striving for consensus vs. challenging consensus People with close R scores feel they can trust each other well 21

22 Sub-scores SO Originality (Idea Generation) E Efficiency (Methodology) Expected scores R Rule/Group Conformity (Manage Structure) KAI Score = 98 Expected Score Actual Score 7-pt spread on any Sub-Score is Interpretable 22

23 Originality Sub-score (SO) More Adaptive will: generate a smaller number of relevant, immediately useful, safe ideas consistent with the existing paradigm that lead to improvements to current practice and are readily accepted by most others More Innovative will: generate a larger number of ideas (many novel) that often break with the existing paradigm and may be a risk or challenging to implement (some, in fact, will not work) and are less readily accepted by many others 23

24 Efficiency Sub-score (E) More Adaptive will: carefully or narrowly define the problem to be solved or the decision to be made look for ways to improve or refine the current practice pay more attention to detail and thoroughness maintain as much stability as possible when implementing change prefer slower speed and lower risk More Innovative will: take a wider view of the problem to be solved or decision to be made look for ways to change the current practice or system pay less attention to detail and thoroughness sacrifice stability as an efficient way to change (versus merely improve) prefer faster speed and accept greater risk 24

25 Rule/Group Conformity Sub-score (R) More Adaptive will: prefer to solve problems in accordance with rules, policies, structure, and tradition and in ways that ensure group cohesion and collaboration with a higher degree of conformity More Innovative will: be willing to bend/break or challenge rules, policies, structure, and tradition and at the expense of group cohesion and collaboration with a lower degree of conformity 25

26 Cognitive Gaps >10 points gap: Detect a diversity in style >20 points gap: Notice problems and/or stress in communication and collaboration Individual Between individual s preferred style and the task Interpersonal/Teams Between two people with differing styles Between a person and his/her group or team Organizational Between two groups, departments, etc. 26

27 Coping People crossing style boundaries have to use coping behaviors: Psychologically expensive Stress can result Coping is a problem-solving behavior Outside of someone's preferred style People tend to cope for as short a period as possible Attempt to remove or deal with the stress Coping is necessary (as individuals, in teams): Not all problems are solvable in one s preferred style Nature of the problem and desired solution 27

28 Coping Relationship of Stress to Degree and Duration of Coping Stress: Harder Medium Easier KAI Point Difference: How might Innovators cope with Adaptors and Adaptors cope with Innovators? 28

29 Coping Coping for High A s Be open to new ways of doing things Give ideas a fair chance to mature Try to recognize the contribution of apparently ridiculous ideas Coping for High I s Seek clarification of important requirements Do not look for novelty for its own sake Be aware that the best solution may lie within existing paradigm Become more tolerant of structure, as a means of achieving tasks Become more respectful of consensus Understand that others are not wrong about everything all of the time! 29

30 Bridgers Bridgers typically have scores between other scores in the group (but not necessarily) Social role of intermediaries: Translate behavioral norms Willing to undertake the role Skilled in facilitation is helpful Middle scorers (around the mean) are not necessarily bridgers. Who are bridgers in your workgroups, your branches or Association? 30

31 Next Steps Action Learning Team 1. Share your KAI score with your team 2. Discuss (10 min): As a result of your KAI diversity: What are your strengths/opportunities (where will you succeed)? What are your challenges (cognitive gaps)? Are there any Bridger opportunities? How might you address these? 3. Group Report-Out 31

32 Next Steps What are 2-3 takeaways for you personally? 32

33 Final Thoughts It s not if you are creative and productive, but how you are creative and productive. Dr. M.J. Kirton How can we minimize Problem B? Adaptors & Innovators Context, People, & Desired Outcomes Matter Don t forget the role of level 33

34 Contact us Chris Keller SVP, Talent & Leadership Development 7951 East Maplewood Avenue, Suite 225 Greenwood Village, Colorado

Problem Solving Approach of Technology Students

Problem Solving Approach of Technology Students Sophia Scott, Ph.D. sscott@semo.edu Industrial & Engineering Technology Dept. Southeast Missouri State University Doug Koch, Ph.D. dskoch@semo.edu Industrial