Summary
- Learn about different thinking styles and what they mean for change.
- Learn best-practice facilitation techniques that lead to engaging and effective meetings.
- Learn how to run a meeting that drives innovation collaboratively.
We intuitively know that people solve problems differently to effectuate change. Dr. Michael J. Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Theory deepens our understanding of this truth by providing a framework that describes the different approaches. “Adaption” is an approach that accepts the existing construct or way of doing things and uses it to develop a solution. “Innovation” describes an approach that may seek to alter the construct or way of doing things to develop a solution. Problem-solving styles span a roughly 120-point scale of more adaptive to more innovative, with most people in the middle. The key is that differences in approach (referred to as problem-solving, creativity or cognitive style) are both expected and helpful: they allow teams and organizations to solve a broader range of problems––what Kirton refers to as “Problem A.”
Differences can also cause friction––what Kirton refers to as “Problem B.” Problem B manifests as the frustration that can arise because of differences in opinion with respect to approach, priorities, necessary conditions, assumptions, timeline, steps and acceptable risk. This is because by definition “innovation” involves change to the underpinnings of the current structure, resulting in extensive alteration of current processes and procedures. Quite simply, the more that is subject to change, the more there is to disagree about. For the more adaptive, there can be so much up in the air that they feel unnerved by the lack of rules and known processes––like the Wild West. For the more innovative, the Wild West sounds like a blast.
A particularly salient point of contention amongst those with differing cognitive styles, is the degree to which one ought to plan for details and contingencies. Thus, implicit in innovative change is the need to distinguish between that which can be planned versus that which is best handled in the moment. The latter requires emergent planning––a very likely component of complex innovative change. Thus, when it comes to innovation, expect problems, which the team will solve when they arise.
Furthermore, a common mistake is expecting all problems to be solved with the same level of detail in the initial planning stages. Such thinking can trigger what we refer to as Fear of Failure Shadow, which if left unchecked can stall innovative change. The Fear of Failure Shadow is the catastrophizing of the smallest mistake. Subsumed by this fear, a person endlessly focuses on the steps necessary to avoid every imaginable disaster, which is both impossible and unproductive. Notwithstanding, innovators who ignore more adaptive colleagues and concerns do so at their peril. The perspectives of those with differing styles is essential to maximizing success and minimizing disorder.
Firms for which conflict avoidance is a cultural norm will struggle to effectuate innovative change. People shy away from addressing the real problem or ask the edgy, discomforting question for fear of alienating a friend and colleague. They are reluctant to appear pushy. When conflict avoidance pervades a firm’s culture, the result is indecision, frustration with ineffective meetings and struggles to move forward with change. Colleagues dread meetings as an ineffective waste of time.
If conflict avoidance sounds familiar, challenge yourself to consider that conflict isn’t bad or to be avoided. Rather, conflict is a tool for surfacing differing perspectives––adaptive, innovative ,and those in-between––on the road to achieving the best result. Better yet, transform your thinking from the word “conflict” to the phrase “differing perspective,” instituting a gratitude practice when it comes to colleagues who perceive aspects of the problem and potential solutions differently than you.
To drive innovative change while mitigating the effects of both Fear of Failure and conflict avoidance, utilize the following meeting process, which elicits input while driving decision and action, minimizing the feelings of conflict, and making the differences work for you not against you.
Collaboration doesn’t mean avoiding conflict; it means engaging with differences productively. By following this process, using facilitation techniques and maintaining curiosity, you can transform what seems like an insurmountable challenge into an opportunity for innovative change and personal growth. You will not only solve problems but strengthen your working relationships.