Comparison of KAI and ISP Instruments for Determining Style of Creativity of IS Professionals

Transcription

1 Comparison of KAI and ISP Instruments for Determining Style of Creativity of IS Professionals Lexis F. Higgins and J. Daniel Couger Center for Research on Creativity and Innovation University of Colorado, Colorado Springs AbStllWt l%e literature on assessing and encouraging creativity in IS organizations has grown substantially in the last few years. However, large empirical analyses of behavioral creativity data are still quite limited. lhis study applied the two major scales used for measuring the cognitive styks associated with creatiw behavior in social science, Kirton s KM and Miller s ISP. Data is assessed from a sampk of IS professionals who completed both of these self-report pencil and paper survey instruments. Data analysis reveals that while there are some signt&-snt di@rences detected between IS professionals and other business professionals, the jgtdings are consistent with the underlying theory of both scales and previous studies in the field. 1: Introduction As the body of literature on creativity continues to grow in the IS field, empirical applications of scales used in the broader context of creativity research are being made in IS. The ISP - Innovation Styles Profile [l] and the RAI- &ton Adaption/Innovation Inventory [2] are two major methods for assessing an individual s approach to the process of creating new products or services. Couger, Miller, and Higgins [3] have applied the ISP in IS while Foxall [4] has applied the KAI in computer related areas. A comparison between the two scales using the same subjects is presented in this study in order to understand how the same IS personnel perform comparatively across both scales. The study was designed with the objective of ascertaining which of the two scales might be more valuable for application in the IS field. 2: Background on the Innovation Styles Profile (ISP) The ISP instrument was developed by William Miller. It was stimulated by examining data from three sources: the Values and Lifestyles (VALS) program at SRI International [S], the creative styles work of Michael Kirton [2] at Hertford University in England; and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) self-assessment test PI. The VALS program identified and documented distinct groups of adults who had different values and lifestyles. Two sets of VALS types, very different in many ways, had similar scores on the MBTI dimensions that most closely correlated with Kirton s two creativity styles [7]. When a second dimension was considered, resulting in four possible styles, each VALS segment had a clearly unique profile. Therefore, the conceptual relationship between the ISP model and the MBTI is: * The ISP s Facts-Insight (F-I) dimension corresponds to the MBTI Sensing-Intuition (S-N) dimension. * The ISP s Decision-Perceiving (D-P) dimension corresponds to the MBTI Judging-Perceiving (S- P) dimension. * The ISP s Modifying-Exploring (Mf-Er) styles corresponds to the MBTI s SJ-NP (Sensing- Judging/Intuitive-Perceiving) combination. * The ISP s Visioning-Experimenting (Vs-Em) styles correspond to the MBTI s NJ-SP (Intuitive- Judging/Sensing-Perceiving) combination. The four cognitive styles distinguished in the ISP are as follows: 1. Modifvinn Style: Using facts and finding ways to take new actions that build and improve on what already exists. Persons using this style are more comfortable working with facts and making decisions. They seek solutions by applying methods that have worked in the past. They seek to maximize available resources and be responsive to immediate needs. 2. EXD~OAIW Stvle: Using insights and finding ways to perceive new connections and metaphors that yield /95$ IEEE 566

2 even newer insights. Persons using this style tend to question assumptions and gather a large amount of information in the expectation that it will help them approach the problem from new angles. 3. Exuerimentinn Stvle: Using facts and tinding ways to perceive new variables and elements to combine and test. Persons using this style seek solutions by applying preestablished procemes and experimental trial and error. They seek methods/approaches to take risk in stages, focussing on good research design. 4. Visio& Stvle: Using insights and finding ways to take new actions to reach an ideal. Persons using this style trust their instincts and intuition. They tend to be more interested in long term direction and goals even though the path of attainment is unclear. The ISP was designed in 1987 and was validated during the period of August, 1988, through March, Multidimensional scaling was the principal technique used in the validation studies. MDS takes as input either (a) the similarity measures that correlation coefficients provide or (b) the Euclidean distances that are often used in cluster analysis. Then it assumes only monotonic relationships and arrives at a simple dimensional model [8]. 2.1: Background on the Kirton Adaption/Innovation Inventory (KAI) Kit-ton [2] proposed the RAI based partially on the work of the well known management writer, Peter Drucker. Drucker has said that often managers who survive and prosper in the business environment tend to have the ability to do (a task) better than the courage to do (a task) differently. (quoted from [2] p. 622). Kirton used this distinction (doing things better versus doing things differently) to conceptualize the KAI. Thus the KAI scale attempts to identify two basics types of individuals: those who naturally tend to innovate in a creative problem-solving context and those who tend to adapt in a creative problem-solving situation. Kirton has published numerous papers that present the background of the scale s development and subsequent findings across large groups [2,9]. There have been numerous papers published in the literature of creativity, psychology, and business that have explored results of the scale s application. While the ISP has four different dimensions on which subjects score, the RAl has an overall summary score that has been factor analyzed by several researchers. These factor analyses have usually resulted in the identification of three factors that underlie the adaptor dimension: Originality, Efficiency, and Rule/Group Conforming. Sufficiency of Originality (SO) is the inclination of adaptors to present a few implementable solutions to a problem while innovators propose many, possibly impracticable solutions. [lo, p.%7]. The second underlying dimension of the adaptor end of the KAI scale is Efficiency, the so-called E scale. Research has shown that adaptors prefer to proceed linearly in problem solving toward a well-known and identified goal whereas Innovators disdain too much attention to details in creative problem-solving activity. Finally, the third dimension is known as the R scale and is formally termed the Rulegovernance scale. This scale essentially predicts that innovators are more comfortable thinking in unconventional terms and often ignore the existing rules, whereas adaptors are quite sensitive to social norms (whether in a general manner or in an organizational context) and prefer to follow the more socially acceptable route to finding solutions to problems. Thesethree factors are theoretically measmes of cognitive style (that is, the approach a person takes to being creative as opposed to the creative ability a person has.) Although bipolar scales, all three of the underlying scales, the SO, the E, and the R, are theoretically expected to be positively correlated with the magnitude of the overall KAI!scQre. 2.2: Comparing the ISP and KAI The ISP has two dimensions that according to theory would be expected to be positively correlated with the adaptor style and thus negatively correlated with RAI measures: the modifying style and the experimenting style (that is, a high KAI score indicates the innovator style, a low RAI indicates the adaptor style). Roth of these ISP styles are similar to the adaptor style because a person exhibiting each of these styles is more comfortable with working from the existing solution (that is doing the present task better rather than differently.) The other two ISP styles would be expected to be positively correlated with the overall RAI score because individuals with the Visioning and Exploring styles are likely to disdain the present solution to a problem in favor of new, 567

3 Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences albeit sometimes impractical solutions. Hence, Visioners and Explorers can be seen to favor a different solution rather than a variation on the theme of the present solution (that is, a better solution ). In sum, because all three underlying dimensions of the adaptor style - SO, E, and R - are positively related to innovativeness in the RAl scale, we would expect these three factors to be positively correlated with the visioning and exploring styles of the ISP and negatively correlated with the modifying and experimenting ISP cognitive styles. Research by I&ton and other researchers has indicated that while the theoretical range of the KAl is from 32 to 160, the expected range of scores on the ICAl in applied research is usually distributed from 46 to 145 [2]. The mean of the overall KAI score across subjects has usually been around the theoretical mean of 95 with scores in some cases varying only by about +/- SO [lo]. Rirton s research also indicates that women tend to score lower on the KAI than men and scores on the KAI are normally negatively correlated with the age of the adult respondent PI. 3: Method and Expected Research Findings Both the KAI and the ISP are self-report survey instruments consisting of a series of statements. Research using the KA.I has been reported using 32, 20, and 13 item scales [ 10,111. The original ISP scale was comprised of 52 items and was subsequently reduced to 25 questions in the process of validating the ISP scale [ 11. A group of IS professionals completed both the ISP andtheraiscales(n = 116). Becausehigherscoreson the dimensions (SO, E, R) reflect a higher KAI score, we expected that the ISP dimensions, modifying and experimenting, would be negatively correlated to all three subdimensions SO, E, and R as well as the overall KAI score. We also expected tbat the overall KAI score would be positively correlated to the two ISP dimensions of Visioning and Exploring because these two dimensions relate to doing things differently rather than better. 3.1: Results and Discussion Table 1 contains the correlation matrix for the KAI and ISP measures. All correlations in Table 1 are significant (probability less than or equal to.ol). The direction of association is as the theory underlying the RAI and ISP scales would predict. The overall KAI dimension (innovator style) is negatively correlated with the modifying and experimenting ISP styles and positively associated with the exploring and visioning styles of the ISP scale. That is, those who scored high on the RAI (innovator dimension) also scored high on the ISP visioning and exploring dimensions indicating that these IS personnel are more comfortable doing something differently than simply doing it better. Table 1 - Correlation Matrix between ISP and KAI dimensions* Mod Vis Expl Expr orig Eff Rule Mod Vis Expl *all correlations significant at equal to or less than.ol (2 tailed test) 568

4 Table 2 includes the overall KAI mean realized in this study and the means from several studies performed by Foxall and others [2, lo]. As Table 2 indicates the mean in the study reported here ( x = 103.5) is significantly different from two of the previously reported Foxall study means on managers in the U.K. (probability less than or equal to.ol, n=156) and in Australia (probability less than or equal to.os, n= 143) but does not differ from the means reported for U.S. managers (n=131) or a much smaller sample of senior managers in the U.K.(n=34). So in general IS personnel performed similarly on the KAI to personnel working in other functions. Table 2 Means of KAI dimensions from different studies Dimension Mean Mean Mean) Mean4 Means orig Eff Rule Couger and Higgins, 1995 (n= 116) Foxall and Hackett, 1992, Australia (n= 143) 3 Foxall and Hackett, 1992, U.S. (n= 131) 4 Foxall and Hackett, 1992, U.K. (n= 156) 5 Foxall and Hackett, 1992, U.K. managers (n=34) Another important issue related to the KAI scale is how the KAI dimensions intercorrelated (that is, the intercorrelation of the SO, E, and R subscales). Tables 3 and 4 contain these intercorrelations for the composite sample of countries reported by Foxall and Hackett [lo] to the intercorrelations among these factors gathered from IS personnel in the present study, respectively. Table 3 - In&correlations of KAI dimensions Foxall and Hackett Study II efficiency rule conformity originality efficiency.42*.58** * significant at less than or equal to.ol **significant at less than or equal to.ool.41* Table 4 - In&correlations of KAI dimerrsions Gouger and Higgins Study* * all are significant at less than or equal to.ol As Table 3 indicates all intercorrelations were significant in the Foxall and Hackett study (n = 4%). Table 4 shows that the same held true for the present study; all intercorrelations between the KAI sub-factors were significant (probability equal to or less than.ol). These intercorrelations in Tables 3 and 4 support Kirton s claim of the homogeneity of the KAI measure. Foxall and Hackett reached the same conclusion in their study reported in Table 3. Note that the same observation can be made for the ISP dimension intercorrelations as reported in Table 5 in which all intercorrelations are significant at equal to or less than the.ol probability level. Table 5 - Intercorrelations of ISP Diiensions Vis I Expl I Expr II Table 6 reports the means on the ISP dimensions. The order and magnitude of these scores for IS personnel compare consistently to the ISP dimension means for IS personnel reported by Miller, Couger, and Higgins [3] as Table 6 indicates. Table 6 -Means and Standard Deviations of ISP Dimensions in the present study and as reported by Miller, Gouger, and Higgins (1!W3)2. ISP dimension Mean Mod 19.2 Vis 20.5 Expr 21.5 Expl 22.8 Std. Dev. Mesn

5 4: Summary and Future Research The reads reported in this study when compared to the other studies cited by Foxall and others supports the usefulness of both the KAl and the ISP for assessing the creativity styles of IS personnel. The KAI yields information about a person s inclination to either adapt (that is, do something better ) or innovate (that is, do something differently ). The insight gained by administering the ISP scale to IS personnel is also valuable because each individual not only learns about his/her personal approach to creative problem-solving but also comes to appreciate (and in some cases, encourage) the creative problemsolving approach of his or her fellow workers. This insight can improve personal productivity and enjoyment on the job as well as provide the IS organivltion with improved teamwork and increased creative output. While the theory and predictions of the author of each scale were supported in this study, more research is needed to compare the underlying factor structure of the two scales. Also, more data from IS professionals will help compare how individuals and groups are distributed along the various dimensions of the two scales. Ultimately, both scales could be helpful in assigning IS personnel to work teams or groups. Both scales can be valuable as team training aids by helping team members understand each other s approach to creative problemsolving more quickly and completely thus enhancing creativity and encouraging fast-cycle solutions. ReE- PI Miller, W.C. (1986) Validation of the innovation styles profile. CA: Global Creativity Corp. PI Kirton, M. (1976), Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure, Journal of Annlied Psvcholonv, Vol. 61, No. 5, pp [31 Miller, W.C., J.D. Gouger, and L.F. Higgins (1993), Comparing IS. Innovation Styles Profile to Other Occupations, Pmceedinns of the 26th Hawaii hitemational Conference OQ Svstem Sciences. 141 Foxall, G.R., and P.M.W. Hackett (1992), Cognitive Style and Extent of Computer Use in Organizations: Relevance of Sufficiency of Originality, Efficiency, and Rule-Conformity. Percentual and Motor Skills, 74, Mitchell, A. (1986). Nine American lifestyles. Chicago: SRI. b51 Myers, P.B., and K.D. Myers. (1962). Guide to development and use of the Myers/Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto Consulting, Psychologist Press, IUC. 171 Came, G.C., and Kirton, M.J. (1982). Style of creativity: test score correlation between Kirton adaptor-innovator inventory and Myers-Briggs type indicator. Psychological Reports, 50, PI Norusis, M.J. (1988) SPSS-X advanced statistics guide Chicago: SPSS, Inc. PI Kirton, M. (1987), KAI Manual, Hatfield, Herts: Occupational Researc h Centre. IlO1 Foxall, G.R., and P.M.W. Hackett (1992), The Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, V. 13, No. 9, pp. % Ull Taylor, W.G.K. (1989), The Kirton Adaption- Innovation Inventory: a re-examination of factor structure. Journal of Orpanixational Behavior, 10,