An Examination of Cognitive Problem-Solving Styles of FDACS Legacy Leadership. Program Participants. Savannah L. Woodall. University of Florida

Transcription

1 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 1 An Examination of Cognitive Problem-Solving Styles of FDACS Legacy Leadership Program Participants Savannah L. Woodall University of Florida Department of Agricultural Education and Communication Savannah Woodall, Undergraduate Student Dr. Ricky Telg, AEC Honors Coordinator Dr. Hannah Carter, Supervisor Valerie McKee, Advisor

2 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 2 Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify the cognitive, problem-solving styles of participants in a leadership program designed for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). By examining the scores of FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants determined from the Kirton s Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Inventory, this study describes the possible relationships between cognitive style and participants professional characteristics. The professional characteristics analyzed in this study include FDACS organizational function, division titles, and occupational position titles. The results indicate that there are a larger number of adaptive and bridging thinking styles among this select group of leaders. The findings of this study have potential to enlighten areas of FDACS efficiency and provide further insight to the creative, problem-solving patterns of select leaders within FDACS.

3 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 3 Introduction The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is a governmental organization that promotes and supports Florida agriculture (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services [FDACS], 2012). As Florida s lead agency in food safety, the 4,277 FDACS employees strive to ensure a safe and robust food supply while conserving the state s natural resources (J. Hicks, personal communication, October 27, 2017). The organization is led by the Commissioner of Agriculture and then separated into 18 divisions and offices, including administration, agricultural environmental services, agricultural law enforcement, agricultural water policy, animal industry, aquaculture, cabinet affairs, communications, consumer services, energy, Florida Forest Service, food safety, food nutrition and wellness, fruit and vegetables, general counsel, inspector general, licensing, marketing and development, and plant industry (FDACS, 2012). Each division is responsible for its own separate tasks, but all work together to support and promote Florida Agriculture, protect the environment, safeguard consumers, and ensure the safety and wholeness of food (FDACS, 2012, About). History and Structure of FDACS In 1868, the Office of Commissioner of Immigration position was formally created establishing FDACS as a governmental entity under the Florida Constitution. (FDACS, 2012). Over the years, the name has evolved to reflect the department's responsibilities. The constitution was amended in 1871 renaming the organization to the Commissioner of Lands and Immigration. The Constitution was again revised in 1885 renaming the Commissioner of Lands and Immigration as the Commissioner of Agriculture. In 1969, the Florida Legislature reorganized the department and established the Division of Consumer Services and the Division of Forestry. The name today was officially adopted during the same year: Florida Department of Agriculture

4 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 4 and Consumer Services. The Commissioner of Agriculture serves as one of three Cabinet positions in the state for Florida. The three members of the Cabinet are also elected by the people and serve as a collective decision-and rule making body for the entire state (MyFlorida, 2003). FDACS Organizational Chart FDACS is led by one primary leader, the commissioner of agriculture, and one secondary leader, the assistant commissioner of agriculture (J. Hicks, personal communication, September 29, 2017). Below these positions are the deputy commissioner and deputy chief of staff. The commissioner is assisted by the assistant commissioner of agriculture, deputy

5 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 5 commissioner, and deputy chief of staff. These four leadership roles are responsible for overseeing the remaining 16 divisions that make up FDACS. The organization is separated by its impacts upon society. More specifically, the organizational chart is separated into four groups based on organizational function: Consumer, Industry, Staff, and Resources. The function label of Consumer includes the following divisions: Office of Environmental Law Enforcement, Division of Licensing, Division of Consumer Services, Division of Marketing and Development, Division of Food, Nutrition, and Wellness, and the Division of Fruit and Vegetables. The function label of Industry includes the following divisions: Food Safety, Animal Sciences, Agricultural Environmental Services, Aquaculture and Plant industry. The function label of Staff includes the following divisions: Legislative Affairs, Federal Affairs, External Affairs and Communications. Finally, the function label of Resources includes the following divisions: Division of Administration, Florida Forest Service, Office of Agricultural Technology Services, Office of Water Policy, and the Office of Energy. FDACS Legacy Leadership Program In an effort to provide professional development for leaders within the organization, Commissioner Adam Putnam formulated the Legacy Leadership Program. Adam Putnam writes, Legacy Leadership is a program for educating and developing high-level leaders in Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Putnam, 2013). Established in 2014 specifically for FDACS, the purpose of the program is to develop core skills to help existing leaders create lasting impacts in departments (UF Center for Leadership, 2015). The Legacy Leadership Program is not intended to inspire or teach someone how to become a better leader; it is designed for employees who are recognized amongst their peers as leaders, whose motivation and skill are creating upward movements within the department (Putnam, 2013).

6 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 6 Participants in the program are selected through a supervision nomination and committee selection process (Putnam, 2013). Nominations are intended to be given those who have significant impacts on the department. There is no limit to the number of employees that one can nominate; however, the selection committee will narrow the nominations down to those who demonstrate true legacy leadership qualifications. Each year nominations are conducted in December, and nominees are selected for participation in the program each January (Putnam, 2013). Three cohorts of participants have graduated from the program, who combined together total to be 54 graduates of the FDACS Legacy Leadership Program (H. Carter, personal communication, October 27, 2017). Operated in partnership with the University of Florida Institute of Agriculture and Food Sciences Center for Leadership, participants attend two, fourday sessions over the course of one year. The sessions are divided into three segments interpersonal development, employee development, and organizational development (H. Carter, personal communication, October 27, 2017). In this program, participants learn the basics of leadership, including crucial problem solving, communication and networking skills. Reliant upon active participation and team-building exercises, the program also utilizes reading assignments and online assessments to engage participants (UF/IFAS Center for Leadership, 2015). According to the Center for Leadership (2015), highlights of the program include: Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership Leadership Fundamentals Leading Effective Meetings Ethics Training Leading Across Generations Motivating Employees Conflict Management Strategic Planning Fostering Innovation Developing and Leading Effective Teams Social and Business Etiquette

7 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 7 Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the cognitive, problem-solving styles of participants in a leadership program designed for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. By examining the scores of FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants determined from the Kirton s Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Inventory, this project describes the possible relationships between cognitive style and participants professional information. Ultimately, if there is a relationship between participants cognitive style and position in FDACS, the research may enlighten areas of FDACS efficiency and provide further insight to the creative, problem-solving patterns of select leaders in within FDACS. The following research objectives guided this study: Identify the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Legacy Leadership program participant's KAI scores and styles. Identify the professional positions of FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants. Determine if there is a relationship between the KAI Inventory styles and the professional characteristics of FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants. Review of Literature KAI: Theory The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) was developed by Michael Kirton in 1976 to assess cognitive patterns and problem-solving styles among people (Keller & Holland, 1978). The KAI theory is founded on the underlying assumption that all people solve problems and are creative (Kirton, 2011). However, the difference in scores lies in how each person solves problems. Kirton suggested that understanding the cognitive styles of adaptor and Innovators would improve organizational cultures (Stum, 2009). The KAI dichotomy scale ranges from

8 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 8 adaption, an ability to do things better, to innovation, an ability to do things differently. This scale has relevance to invoking organizational change. By evaluating the differences between Adaptors and Innovators, leaders can better influence and manage teams of people diverse in cognitive style (Stum, 2009). Adaptors prefer structure in problem solving and often seek to improve organizations within existing parameters (Kirton, 2011). Kirton originally defined Adaptors with the following descriptors: (a) concerned with solving problems rather than finding them, (b) seeking solutions to problems in tried and understood ways, (c) maintaining high accuracy in long spells of detailed work, (d) rarely challenging rules, (e) sensitive to maintaining group cohesion, and (e) providing a safe base for the innovator s riskier operations (Stum, 2009). On the opposite end of spectrum are those whom Kirton refers to as Innovators (Kirton, 2011). Research suggests that Innovators have less concern for existing systems (Stum, 2009). Kirton described Innovators as (a) seemingly undisciplined, approaching tasks from unsuspected angles, (b) treating accepted means with little regard in pursuit of goals, (c) capable of detailed tasks only in short bursts, (d) providing the dynamics to bring about periodic revolutionary change, and (e) having low selfdoubt when generating ideas. Kirton also noted the importance of Bridgers. Those who exhibit both adaptive and innovative qualities and help facilitate communication and teamwork between high Adaptors and high Innovators are classified as Bridgers. These leaders typically score in the center of the KAI spectrum. KAI: Instrument To test his KAI theory, Kirton established the KAI inventory. Consisting of 32 questions/statements, the assessment aims to assess the style or manner in which problemsolving is undertaken (Kirton, 2011, Pg. 72). The scores range from 32 to 160; those with scores

9 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 9 between tend to have more adaptive cognitive styles, and those with an innovative cognitive style will land between 110 and 140 (Stum, 2009). The assessment is separated into subscale factors: efficiency, rule/group conformity, and originality (Babic, Davis, & Cunningham, 1999). Efficiency (E) exemplifies precision, reliability, and efficiency. Rule/group conformity (R) is the degree in which one works within the accepted structures or rejects critical elements of such structures. Innovators may overlook outside pressure while Adaptors are more likely to abide by existing system rules. Originality estimates the number and scope of innovative ideas the subject generates. The style subscores match to problem-solving methods, social structures, and idea generation respectively. The instrument has been tested in several languages and cultures and based on multiple data sets, research finds the KAI to be a valid measure of the adaptive-innovativeness of managerial style decision (Babic et al., 1999). Since Kirton s theory proves to be a valid measure, KAI is an important tool used by human resource managers to compose their work force. The target minimum coefficient for reliability of the KAI instrument was.7 (Kirton, 2017). However, because the factor traits could be used in interpretation with instrument respondents, even as they cannot be independent of each other, these factors would also each need to attain a reliability coefficient of.7. Thus, an even higher minimum coefficient was needed for the total KAI. The KAI inventory s internal reliability coefficient was.88 using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (Kuder & Richardson, 1937) on the main, general sample (N=532), accounting for 78 percent of the internal variance (Kirton, 2017). With the replication sample (N=276) collected one year later and that was heterogeneous with respect to age, sex, occupational status,

10 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 10 and education level, the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was again.88. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was also calculated for the general population sample (N=562). As many as 31 studies have contributed to the internal reliability of the KAI inventory using Cronbach Alpha coefficient, each involving a minimum of N=75 and with N=7215 from 12 different countries to yield a range from.79 to.91, with 21 of these studies showing ranges from.86 to.89 and a mode of.87 (Kirton, 2017). Validity of the KAI inventory has been confirmed in many ways, including for face validity, content validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Kirton, 2017). Government agencies and personalities By evaluating the differences between Adaptors and Innovators, leaders can better influence and manage teams of people diverse in cognitive style (Stum, 2009, p.66). Research has led to a discovery in the correlation between military leaders and cognitive styles of problem solving and creativity. A study done by the University of Oklahoma suggests there is a connection between one s cognitive style and personality (Johnson, 2003). The data showed a pattern between the KAI score for innovation and the Myers-Briggs personality preference for extraversion. Military leaders also proved to think more adaptively in terms of creativity. As a result of this study, one could argue that styles of creativity... [are] relevant...when examining leadership (Johnson, 2003, p.8). KAI was also used to determine the correlation between cognitive styles and teaching style preferences of future instructors for the Air Force (Harris & Kraska, 2007). During a course offered at the Academic Instructor School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, 65 potential educators were given both the KAI assessment and an additional assessment to

11 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 11 determine teaching style. While there was no statistical significance between the two, KAI results reflected the air force respondents to be more innovative in the substyles of efficiency and rule/group conformity. While future Air Force educators appeared to be more innovative on the KAI spectrum, Local Government Officers means scores are in general lower (more adaptive) than the general population mean (Everett & Hayward, 1983). This research study surveyed 67 professionals within various departments of local authority. Respondents were grouped based on length of service, level of seniority, and age. The lowest and most adaptive scores were found among the group who spent the most years within the local government sector of work. The most innovator group of respondents were those in junior and intermediate level positions. The practicality of this study is that the high-level leman in one sector or work leads to more adaptive organizations becoming more adaptive and vice-versa. KAI and Specific Occupations/ Job Sectors Statistical significance was found in a study comparing several occupations and cognitive thinking style (Sayeed, 2014). The research study aimed to assess the cognitive and management styles of entrepreneurs, lawyers, psychologists, professors, teachers, pilots, computer professionals, managers, doctors, nurses, and cabin crews. The 11 careers were grouped into three type of positions based leaders: [e]ntrepreneurs (who own the organization and run it as its top manager), knowledge workers (who perform their jobs with specialized knowledge and influence a niche of functions in the organization), and managers (who handle people, tasks, technology and various other processes in a defined way at a given level of the hierarchy while holding a unique position) (Sayeed, 2014, p.332).

12 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 12 A sample of 417 respondents from three types of position-based leaders: entrepreneurs, knowledge workers, and managers were given the KAI assessment and the cognitive style subscores were evaluated (Sayeed, 2014). The groups of entrepreneurs, lawyers, and psychologists classified above the average mean making these professionals identify as more innovative. Another sample test revealed that managers (mean=89.85), doctors (mean = 88.38), nurses (mean = 91.98), and cabin crews (mean =88.31) scored below the average mean, shifting these occupations to the other side of the spectrum as Adaptors. The differences in the cognitive styles of the three groups entrepreneurs, knowledge workers, and managers, point out that these differences may emerge as a result of their personal leadership role in their specific field. Cognitive climate also influences the creative thinking styles of organizations (Murli, n.d.). Cognitive climate determined by multiplying the number of people with power by the cognitive thinking style of those people. Over time, this climate become dominant among members of an organization. In larger organizations, like FDACS, usually 40% of employees have thinking styles similar to the organizational environment. Methodology This study aims to identify the cognitive, problem-solving styles of participants in a leadership program designed for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Thus, the purpose of this study was to use the Kirton s Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) to describe the cognitive problem-solving styles of FDACS Legacy Leadership participants. The following research objectives guided this study: Identify the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Legacy Leadership program participant's KAI scores and styles.

13 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 13 Identify the professional positions of FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants. Determine if there is a relationship between the KAI Inventory styles and the professional characteristics of FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants. Data Collection All three cohorts of the FDACS Legacy Leadership program received facilitation of the KAI instrument. The online inventory and debriefing of the KAI were delivered to participants at the first session of the program. Participants KAI scores, division within FDACS, position titles, and cohort were shared for the purpose of this study. The cohorts in total included 64 participants; however, information was only recorded for 63 participants. Therefore, this study only reflects the information for 63 FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants. Data Analysis The KAI scores were given a label according to which cognitive problem-solving style the score fell under. KAI scores within the range of 32 to 90 were labeled adaptive. KAI scores within the range of 91 to 109 were labeled bridging. Lastly, KAI scores within the range of 110 to 160 were labeled innovative. The professional characteristics of the participants were also organized and listed for the purposes of analysis, including FDACS organizational function, division titles, and occupational position titles. The organizational function labels were created by the researcher as labels for the divisions that work together according to the organizational chart. The function label of Consumer included the following divisions: Office of Environmental Law Enforcement, Division of Licensing, Division of Consumer Services, Division of Marketing and Development, Division of Food, Nutrition, and Wellness, and the Division of Fruit and Vegetables. The function label of Industry included the following divisions: Food Safety, Animal Sciences, Agricultural Environmental Services,

14 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 14 Aquaculture and Plant industry. The function label of Staff included the following divisions: Legislative Affairs, Federal Affairs, External Affairs and Communications. Finally, the function label of Resources included the following divisions: Division of Administration, Florida Forest Service, Office of Agricultural Technology Services, Office of Water Policy, and the Office of Energy. Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) was used to organize the data for each participant, including the participant s division, position, cohort, score, and style. Averages and frequencies were used to describe participants according to their KAI scores and styles. Cross tabulations were created to examine frequencies of KAI style versus organizational function, division, and occupational position. Results Table 1 provides an overview of the sample of participants in the legacy leadership program. The 63 individuals in the programs represent several divisions within FDACS. Divisions represented in this study include Agricultural Water Policy, Energy, Food Safety, Agricultural Environmental Services, Florida Forest Service, Administration, Plant Industry, Food, Nutrition, and Wellness, Animal Industry, Licensing, Aquaculture, Marketing and Development, Agricultural Law Enforcement, Policy and Budget, Agriculture Technology

15 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 15 Services, Consumer Services, General Counsel, Fruits and Vegetables. Table 1-Demographics of FDACS Participants Division Table 2 shows the frequency of FDACS legacy leadership program participants sorted by position. Participant positions included Assistant Director, Chief, Manager, Senior Attorney, Director, Senior management Analyst, Deputy, Administrator, Coordinator, Research Associate, Specialist, Law Enforcement Major, Assistant and Consultant.

16 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 16 Table 2-Demographics of FDACS Participants Position (n=64) Participants were also grouped into categories based on their organizational function. FDACS organizes the flow of their organization and divisions based on their impacts upon Florida agriculture and natural resources. The organizational sectors are those who have consumer impacts, industry impacts, staff impacts and and impacts to resources. Table 3 shows the frequency of participants in each organizational function group. The study included 19 participants from the consumer group, 22 from industry, 4 from office staff, and 19 from resources.

17 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 17 Table 3-Demographics of FDACS Participants Organizational Function (n=64) Table 4 displays the frequency of the KAI styles among the FDACS Legacy Leadership Program participants. Of the 64 respondents, 22 classified as Adaptors, 29 as Bridgers, 12 as Innovators, and one score was missing. The largest group was the Bridger category which made up nearly half of the participants. The term Bridger refers to those who exhibit both adaptive and innovative qualities and help facilitate communication and teamwork between high Adaptors and high Innovators. This is followed by 34.9% of survey respondents who approach problem-solving more adaptively. The smallest group in this leadership pool were those labeled Innovators. Table 4-Frequency of FDACS Participants KAI Score Table 5 provides a detailed look at the ranges and means of the KAI scores. Of the Adaptors groups, the scores ranged from 64 to 89, with a mean of 80. Bridgers scored between 91 and 108

18 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 18 with an average KAI score of 98, and Innovators scored between 110 and 139 with a mean of 117. Table 5- KAI Score Descriptives Cross tabulations were calculated to compare the participants KAI thinking styles with their division, position, and organizational function within FDACS. Table 6 shows the correlation between KAI style and occupational division. The largest group of Adaptors was four, who came from the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services and the Florida Forest Service. In contrast, there were eight divisions who reported no Adaptive thinking styles in their particular divisions. The Division of Licensing participants all achieved KAI scores in the Bridger category. The office of Policy and Budget held the lowest number of Bridger scores, with zero participants identifying them as Bridgers. Finally, the study, as a whole, reflects a low number of Innovators within the Legacy Leadership Program. However, the divisions with the largest numbers of Innovators include: Division of Administration, Division of Food, Nutrition and Wellness, Division of Animal Science.

19 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 19 Table 6- Cross Tabulations of Division and KAI Type Cross tabulations were also conducted to assess the relationship between FDACS position and KAI type. Table 7 represents those findings. Of the 22 Adaptors in the study, seven hold the position of Chief within FDACS. This occupational group had the highest number of Adaptors, followed by Managers who contributed to five of the Adaptor scores. More than half

20 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 20 of the Adaptor scores came from Chief and Manager positions. There were no Adaptors in the positions of Senior Management Analyst, Research Associate, Specialist, Law Enforcement Major, Assistant and Consultant. Seven people with the position of Assistant Director landed in the center of the KAI continuum, classifying them as Bridgers. No Bridgers represented Coordinator, Research Associate, or Consultant positions. The largest number of Innovators hold the title of Director within FDACS. This position accounted for 25% of all Innovators in the study. Table 7- Cross Tabulations of Positions and KAI Type Table 8 is representative of the findings in the cross tabulation between KAI type and organizational sector. FDACS is divided into four organizational categories based on functions and impacts for Florida s agriculture and natural resources: Consumer, Industry, Staff, and

21 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 21 Resources. There were 18 scores reported from the consumer impacts sector. Four of the scores were Adaptors, 10 Bridgers, and four Innovators. The Industry sector scores leaned more towards Adaptor and Bridger thinking styles, creating a larger gap between the number of Innovators and the number of Bridgers and Adaptors. Nine of the participants in the Industry sector identified as Adaptors, 10 as Bridgers, and three as Innovators. Similar to the consumer category, Staff scores were close across the board with one participant as an Adaptor, two as Bridgers, and one as an Innovator. The scores for the Resources sector also reflects lower KAI scores. Eight participants in this sector are Adaptors, seven Bridgers and four Innovators. Table 8- Cross Tabulations of Division and KAI Type

22 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 22 Discussion The FDACS Legacy Leadership Program develops core skills to help leaders create lasting impacts within the organization. The findings of this study suggest there is a correlation between creative thinking styles and the division, positions, and organizational function of FDACS Legacy Leadership program participants. Majority of participants in this study had a creative thinking style that was more adaptive and bridging. There are several different possibilities of why this could be. One possible reason why creative thinking styles and divisions correspond is the because regardless of division, all of participants in this study work in agricultural and natural resource government, and approximately 35% achieved KAI scores between 64 and 89. In a similar study, Local Government Officers, mean KAI scores were also lower (more adaptive) than the general population mean (Everett & Hayward, 1983). While they may have different job descriptions, the participants in this study were representative of FDACS. One reason for commonalities between thinking style and position is the idea of cognitive climate. Cognitive climate determined by multiplying the number of people with power by the cognitive thinking style of those people. (Murli, n.d.). Over time, this climate becomes dominant among members of an organization. In larger organizations, like FDACS, usually 40% of employees have thinking styles similar to the organizational environment. FDACS is led by one primary leader, the Commissioner of Agriculture, and one secondary leader, the Assistant Commissioner of agriculture (J. Hicks, personal communication, October 27, 2017). Adaptors and Bridgers make up 80% of the KAI profiles in this group. Prior to the start of this program, Commissioner Putnam self-identified as an Innovator, and the Assistant Commissioner identified himself as an Adaptor (H. Carter, Personal Communication, October 26, 2017). Since the primary and secondary leaders KAI scores reflect a combination of both

23 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 23 adaptive and innovative scores, then that may be a reason to believe that the thinking styles of other FDACS employees are similar. Across the three KAI types, more than half of the Adaptor and Bridger scores came from positions labeled Chief (12), Assistant Director (9), and Manager (9). These three occupational groups are likely in charge of managing multiple projects and people during the everyday functions. These three occupational groups align closely with the KAI scores of managerial position-based leaders in the United States. Sample KAI tests reveal that managers (mean=89.85) recorded scores in the upper end of the Adaptor label and lower end of the Bridger range (Sayeed, 2014). Similarities between the average manager score and the managerial positions used in this study may emerge as a result of their personal leadership role in their specific field. KAI theory has been widely applied in organizational settings, and problem-solving style has been found to be correlated with occupational choice in the general population. Ten of the 18 scores from the consumer impacts organizational sector landed in the KAI range of Bridgers. This number is congruent with the American population of respondents who score within the Bridger range (Everett & Hayward, 1983). Considering that individuals are nominated for this program based on being viewed as leaders by their peers, this could suggest that the traits associated with bridging the cognitive style gap within an organization are more common among the FDACS Legacy Leadership Program nominees. Recommendations Overall, it is recommended for research to continue describing the demographics of Legacy Leadership Program participants to improve future programming. To further understand the intrapersonal characteristics of the participants, a comparison of the KAI findings from this study should be made with other governmental organizations who have conducted the KAI

24 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 24 instrument with their participants. Also, the opportunity exists to repeat this study again with a focused effort on the KAI scores of high level leaders within FDACS, like the commissioner and assistant commissioner. With a greater population to study, there could be statistically significant similarities between the highest-level leader styles and the rest of the organization. In the future, research should also investigate the inner workings of the KAI assessment in relation to the score of FDACS Legacy Leadership Program participants. Doing so will provide further explanation for the results of the study. Aside from the KAI instrument, future research should compare other leadership assessment data collected by the FDACS Legacy Leadership program from its participants, including, but not limited to, critical thinking scores and conflict management styles. These findings can be compared and looked at from the lens of the KAI results to determine possible patterns in the leadership development of participants. As far as programming is concerned, it is recommended that the Legacy Leadership program director keep in mind the creative thinking and problem solving styles of KAI when developing curriculum for the program. Doing so will help individuals in the program learn better problem-solving skills and how to engage with others who think differently than them. The implications of this research study will help the incoming commissioner understand the thinking styles and operational systems of current employees. Other agricultural and natural resource program directors should also consider what KAI types are most commonly identified as the top leaders within the agricultural industry and pursue understanding why that might be.

25 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 25 References Babic, M., Davis, E., & Cunningham, R. (1999). The Kirton innovation-adaption theory: Validity issues, practical questions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(2), Center for Leadership. (2015). Legacy program. Retrieved September 20, 2017, from Everett C. & Hayward, G. (1983). Adaptors and Innovators: Data from the kirton adaptorinnovator inventory in a local authority setting. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56(4) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. About. (2012). Retrieved September 20, 2017, from Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Divisions and offices. (2012). Retrieved September 20, 2017, from Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Our history. (2012). Retrieved September 20, 2017, from Harris, S. & Kraska, M. (2007). Cognitive and teaching style preferences of officers attending the air force reserve officer training instructor course. Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(1), Johnson, C. (2003). Study of the relationship between cognitive styles of creativity and personality types of military leaders. University of Oklahoma. Retrieved September 20, 2017 from

26 COGNITIVE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 26 Kirton, M. J. (2011). Adaption-innovation: In the context of diversity and change. New York, NY: Routledge. Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), Retrieved September 20, 2017 from Kirton, M. (Eds.). (2017). Kirton adaption-innovation inventory manual. Suffolk, U.K.: Occupational Research Center, Newmarket. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), MyFlorida. (2003). Structure of the florida district. Retrieved October 26,2017 from Murli. (n.d.). Kirton adaption innovation inventory- creative style. Retrieved October 22, 2017 from Putnam, A. (2013, December 9). Legacy leadership participant nomination [Memorandum]. Retrieved September 10, Sayeed, O. (2014). Cognitive Styles of entrepreneurs, knowledge workers, and managers: Adaptive or innovative?. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(2), Stum, J. (2009). Kirton s adaption-innovation theory: Managing cognitive styles in times of diversity and change. Regent University. Retrieved September 20, 2017 from