Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Adaptors-And-Innovations--Styles-Of-Cre 👈

1. BOOK REVIEWS zyxwvutsrqp
book concern the various cognitive aspects of
the interaction between humans and complex
computer-based systems.The comprehensive
treatment of these issues illustrates both the
importance and diversity of the expanding
multi-disciplinary areas of cognitive engi-
neering pioneered by Professor Rasmussen.
The organization of the book is in four
main parts and comprises twenty chapters,
contributed by Rasmussen’s international
colleagues from academia and industry. Ne-
ville Moray provides an illuminating pro-
logue, and Bill Rouse offers an epilogue, both
in praise of Rasmussen’s critical contribution
to the area. Finally, Rasmussen modestly
asks the question ‘Cognitive engineering, a
new profession?’,and gives us his thoughts on
likely future trends in cognitive engineering.
The first of the four main sections of the
book deals with ‘Skills, Rules and Knowl-
edge”, and consists of five chapters by
Sanderson and Harwood, Reason, Wirstad,
Bainbridge and Pederson. Of course, these
contributions relate to Rasmussen’s concept
of SRK (Skills-Rules-Knowledge)based be-
haviour. Of great interest to those concerned
with models of human cognitive and
performance characteristics, is the chapter by
James Reason entitled “Framework models
of human performance and error zyxwvu
:a consumer
guide”. Within this chapter, Reason bravely
attempts to cont.rastseveral global models of
human performance, including Rasmussen’s
contributions to the debate.
Section 2 ofzyxwvuts
Tasks, Errors and Mental
Models, focusses upon ‘Complexity and cog-
nitive tasks’. There are six chapters in this
section, all of which provide valuable insight
into the topic of complexity in human-system
interaction, contributed by Leplat, Brehmer,
Woods, Sheridan, Wahlstorm, and Pejtersen.
Thomas Sheridan’s contribution in this
section of the book is particularly thought-
provoking. He deals with the difficultissue of
human and computer roles in supervisory
control (the allocation of function problem).
This chapter includes discussion of ‘degrees
of computer aiding’, and ends with such
questions as ‘Howtrustworthy have the man-
machine behavioural products of our deliber-
ations become?’.
‘Errorsand Faults’ are the themes for the
third section of the book which offers
contributions from Green, Swain and Wes-
181
ton, Taylor, Carnino and colleagues, and
Johannsen. As one would expect, most of this
section deals with human responsibility ana-
lysis (HRA) probabilistic risk assessment
(PRA) and related techniques.
Of course, this section of the book does not
fail to remind us of such disasters as those
that occurred at Three Mile Island, Flixbor-
ough, Seveso, Bhophal and Chernobyl.
The final part of the book covers theoreti-
cal and methodological issues, and includes
‘Mental models and model mentality’ (Hol-
langel), ‘System concepts and the design of
man-machine interfaces for supervisor con-
trol’ (Lind), ‘Modelling humans and mach-
ines’ (Manacini), ‘Verbal reports : a problem
in research design’ (Praetorius and Duncan).
Goodestein et al. have done well to put
together such a comprehensive and well-
organized text; there are no significant gaps
apparent within the book. Also, the blend of
the contributions will appeal to many
readers, as the contributors come from those
with varied backgrounds (i.e. industrial engi-
neers, cognitive psychologists, mathemati-
cians) and from those working within many
applied fields (ranging from nuclear power
plants and the process industries, to library
retrieval systems).
Despite the brevity of some contributions,
Tasks, Errors and Mental Models is an
excellentand enjoyablebook for anyone with
an interest in cognitive engineering and the
current issues that dominate the field.
GRAHAM JOHNSON
Adaptors and Innovations: styles zy
of creativity
and problem solving, Kirton, M. J. (ed).
London: Routledge 1989. Hardback zy
f35.00.
This book brings together work done by
Michael Kirton and a range of international
contributors in extending and applying his
Adaption-Innovation Theory, first proposed
in 1976after 1961 studies into the ways new
ideas are developed and implemented in
organizations. The theory states that an
individual’s preferred cognitive style, as
reflected in his or her approach to creativity,
problem solving and decision making, is
unrelated to his or her cognitive level as
measured for instance by IQ or creativity
R&D Management zyxwvutsrq
20, 2, 1990

2. 182
tests. Cognitive style is measured by KAI
(Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory), a
32 item self report instrument which asks
respondents to indicate on a five point scale
how easy or hard it is for them to present
themselves consistently in ways described by
the items. High scorers are termed ‘innova-
tors’; they prefer ‘doing things differently’,
restructuring problems and frameworks, and
breaking boundaries, in contrast to low
scoring ‘adaptors’ who prefer ‘doing things
better’ within existing frameworks and boun-
daries. Crucially,Kirton argues that adaptors
and innovators, who may have mutually
hostile perceptions of each other and find it
hard to work together, can both be equally
creative, but in different ways. In increas-
ingly turbulent and uncertain environments,
organizational effectivenesswill require both
styles.
Though the book contains chapters which
range from quite abstract sociobiological
speculation by van der Molen to detailed
empirical studiesof consumer innovativeness
by Foxall, for this reviewer the most interest-
ing chapters are by Kirton and de Ciantis on
cognitive climates, Goldsmith on the rela-
tionships between KAI scores and personal-
ity variables, Schroder on the relationships
between managerial competencies and cogni-
tive style,and Kirton himself on the theory of
cognitive style and on the behaviour of
adaptors and innovators at work.
Kirton reviews the evidence for the reli-
ability and validity of the KAI and its
independence from measures of intelligence
and level of creativity. This establishes the
KAI asmeasuring zyxwvuts
style, not level or capacity.
Within the ‘creativity’literature however the
distinction between style and level has not
always been maintained, and creativity tests
often do not correlate very well with each
other. One of the other contributors, Gold-
smith, has shown elsewhere (Goldsmith and
Matherly, 1987) that KAI scores correlate
positively with two tests purporting to mea-
sure cognitive level. Perhaps the KAI is
related to measures of level of creativity, or
perhaps many ‘creativity’ tests may in fact
measure style rather than level. Another
problem occurs over the validity and factor
structure of the scale, with doubts having
been expressed over its supposed undimen-
sional nature by Payne and others (Payne,
1987).
Book Reviews
With regard to personality, Kirton and
Goldsmith review evidence showing that
adaptors tend to be more left brain domina-
ted, more dogmatic, more intolerant of
ambiguity, more introverted, more conscien-
tious, more anxious, more emotionally sub-
dued and more risk aversive than innovators.
Kirton sees these cognitive styles as stable
and hard to change by training. They are
assumed to be the product of broader, more
general personality traits. However, individ-
uals can operate against their preference
through using various coping strategies. This
if required to be maintained however, is
likely to lead to stress, absenteeism and
quitting.
These distinctions between innovators and
adaptors seem to resemble other distinctions
currently fashionable in the management
literature, such as those between entrepren-
eurial/intrapreneurial managers and bureau-
cratic managers or between leaders and
managers (e.g. Zaleznik).
It would be interesting to see more data on
the links with personality characteristics as
measured by the currently fashionable
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the
occupational personality questionnaire
(OPQ). It seems as if research scientists are
skewed towards the ‘innovative’ pole, as
compared to managers. Lynda Gratton
(Gratton, 1987) has argued that the charac-
teristics which make for a high performing
research scientist (e.g. introversion, intuition,
thinking, perceiving) may well be the oppo-
site of a high performing R&D manager who
needs coaching, motivating, delegating and
teambuilding skills (e.g. extraversion, sens-
ing, thinking, judging). Promoting an effec-
tive scientist to a managerial position may
thus be an ineffective strategy, causing the
organization to gain a poor manager and lose
a good scientist. She argues for other ways of
assessing managerial potential, for example
though assessment centres, and the use of
dual career ladders to attract and retain good
scientists.
Little evidence is presented in the book of
the predictive validity of the KAI in terms of
effective work performance. A suggestive
chapter by Schroder does however explore
the links between cognitive style and mana-
gerial competencies,those characteristics that
are related to effective or superior perform-
ance. The identification and development of
R&D Management zyx
20,zy
2, 1990

3. BOOK REVIEWS zyxwvutsrqp
managerial competencies is a currently fash-
ionable area, given the interest of CMED and
the Management Charter Initiative. Follow-
ing Boyatzis’s pioneering work, Schroder
presents a set of competencies necessary for
effective performance and describes how
assessment centres were used to measure
these. Correlations between KAI scores and
assessorratings of competencies were all very
low and non significant (except for the
competence ‘concept formation’) supporting
the view that KAI style is independent of
competency. Managers with different styles
seem to possess the same competencies and
similar levels of competence, but express the
competencies in different ways.
This raises an interesting OD, HRM and
team-building challenge, if organizations are
to successfully integrate equally competent
but stylisticallydiverse adaptors and innova-
tors. Schroder also describes an experiment
which shows that teams equal in status,
experience and competence but differing
greatly on cognitive style tended to approach
similar problems in very different ways.
Managers may need to receive training in
the appreciation of differences in working
styles and the management of conflict,
though some conflict is likely to aid innova-
tion. KAI may help in matching people to
jobs more effectively; Kirton for example
argues that people who do not ‘fit’ the
cognitive climate found in the organization
are more likely to report stress and to quit,
though some may act as potent agents for
change. He also argues that an initial pure
‘research’ orientation in R&D may require
individuals high on ‘innovation’, but as a
project moves towards design and production
more adaptive personnel may be needed.
Innovativeness in R&D is reported as related
to project quality but not to successin budget
or scheduling terms. Management may need
to plan proactively for shifts in personnel to
occur as a reward for success,sothat these are
not seen as punishments for not being
adaptive enough.
This demonstrates the potential scope and
range of what appears at first sight to be a
rather narrow and limited instrument and
theory. Adaption-Innovation seems to have
promise in helping us to better understand
stress and organizational and occupational
cultures as well as in aiding managers in
selection, team-building and the manage- zyxwv
RdiD Management 20, 2, zyxwvuts
1990
183
ment of change and conflict. For this reason
the book makes interesting reading, despite
the rather casual proof-reading and occa-
sional absence of references and the lack of
evidence on how effectivelythe KAI predicts
actual job performance. For example, there
seems to be no evidence of how KAI scores
might relate to team roles, as identified for
example by Belbin, or even more crucially to
team performance, beyond Schroder’s rather
anecdotal discussion. Since much innovation
occurs in teams, this relative absence of
discussion of the value of the KAI for
predicting team or workgroup innovation is
notable, especially in the light of the recent
work done by Sheffield researchers on deve-
loping a measure of work-role innovation
(West, 1987) and on the analysis of factors
facilitating innovation at both the individual
and group levels (e.g. West and Farr, 1989,
Anderson, 1989).
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, N. (1989) ‘Work group innovation: current research
concernsand future directions’.Paper presented at 4th West
European Congress on the Psychologyof work and organisa-
tion, Cambridge, UK, April. zyxw
GOLDSMITH,
R. E. zyxwv
& MAMHRLY,T. A. (1987) ‘Adaption-
Innovation and Creativity: a replication and extension’.
British Journal zyxwv
of Social Psychology, 26, 79-82.
GRATTON,
L. (1987)‘Howcan we predict managerialpotential in
research scientists? Research zyxw
and Dewlopment Management,
17, 2, April.
PAYNE,
R.(1987) ‘Individual differences and performance of
R&D personnel:some implicationsfor managementdevelop
ment’. R&D Managemenr, 17, 153-161.
WEST,M. (1987) ‘A measureof role innovation at work’. British
WEST,M. & FARR,
J. (1989)‘Innovationat Work: Psychological
PAUL ILES
JOUWWIO
f Social PSyCholOgy, 26, 83-83.
Perspectives’.Social Behauiour, 4, 15-30,
Creativity at Work. Tudor Rickards. Gower,
1988. Hardback €22.50.
‘This book is aimed at a wide audience,
consultants, researchers, trainers, students
and professionals with responsibilities for
assisting and directing change’. Even aca-
demics might be contained within these
categories, but even if they are not they, like
the others, would gain something from
Rickards’refreshing approach. He avoids the
controversies on the nature of creativity or
intellect or process or indeed anything else