The Impact of Cognitive Style Gaps when Leading Change

by Paul Erricker

Everyone has a preferred way of going about doing things – from how we like to organise our space, through to how we solve complex problems. Some people prefer more rules and routines to follow, while others prefer to be more free-spirited, vary routines and don’t like too many constraints. The most accurate term to describe this aspect of our personality is “preferred cognitive style”. Here I will show how our preferred cognitive style is linked to leading change.

Change occurs in all industries across the world – including the Civil Service, which is a sector I have worked with regularly through my collaboration with Cranfield University. Sometimes, the change is enacted by a leader, but it is the team members who are then responsible to carry it out. In other more preferable situations, everyone is ‘all in it together’.

But what happens if certain team members object to the change that is being suggested by their leaders? Or if there is organisational change resistance, even when the team is on-board with the agreed change?

And what happens if team members disagree about whether change is even needed at all?

A certain amount of change is essential for an organisation to grow and improve – but getting everyone on-board with the idea can be much more challenging.

Common Objections to Change

When a leader (or anyone else) first suggests implementing a change, there are several different arguments that are commonly used to prevent this from happening. For example:

We don’t need the change
There’s no problem
We don’t have the resources to support the change
It’s too difficult
We’ve got other priorities
We’ve tried that in the past, and it’s failed
It’s being done now already
It’s not suitable here – that’s ‘not the way we do things’
We’re doing really well, so why risk anything?

Sometimes, these objections may seem fair, and you can begin a dialogue with your stakeholder(s) about how to move forwards. But in other instances, the resistance may feel unending, and you can’t find a way to persuade your team members that change is necessary.

In this situation, perhaps there is something else occurring, besides the ‘rational’ reasons of objecting to change.

Maybe, for example, the reasons for change aren’t communicated in a way that gets people on-side, without feeling threatened or unsettled. Indeed, resistance to change maybe be closely linked to stakeholder cognitive style. We are all accepting of change, but the nature of the change, and how it is communicated, is critical to buy-in and how people react.

What are Adaptors and Innovators?

KAI (Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory) measures cognitive style. It functions on a scale from ‘most Adaptive’ (wanting lots of structure, rules and detail) through to ‘most Innovative’ (wanting little structure, few constraints and prefer to take a big-picture view). The majority of us are found in the middle of this continuum and prefer a moderate amount of structure and information – but how much defines your individual, cognitive style of thinking.

What is KAI and why is it important?

As outlined above, KAI theory looks carefully at the idea of cognitive style – and, specifically, ‘cognitive gaps’. Different people are spread along the cognitive style continuum – and according to the theory, individuals solving problems together may become stressed when there is a 20-point difference between their cognitive styles. Anything greater than a 20-point gap is classified as ‘very different’ in how change is perceived, how risk is managed, how regularly ideas are generated, and the person’s need for certainty.

As part of my work within a Public Sector organisation, I administered the KAI with over 1,000 participants on a leadership programme. The graph next to this text demonstrates where these individuals fit along the continuum.

As you can see, the change leaders were statistically skewed towards ‘innovation’, while in this particular organization, it is the more adaptive individuals who are required to actually bring about the change. This means that stakeholders may not understand why change is necessary, or could feel demotivated to carry it out, because they don’t see the ‘vision’.

How can KAI help with communication between these two groups?

As part of his academic work on cognitive style, Dr Michael Kirton (founder of the KAI) looked at cognitive gaps between teams, and how these can be overcome. Part of the solution, he posited, was how people communicated: for example, using ‘non-pejorative’ language, rather than terms that appeared derogatory.

For example, if someone who prefers process and order (known as a more ‘adaptive’ individual), is trying to speak to an individual that prefers breaking boundaries and blue-sky thinking (known as a more ‘innovative’ person), you should try to:

Show where the change initiative fits into the big picture
Show new directions and procedures
Identify opportunities for novelty which are at the leading edge of the field
Identify future trends and directions and show how the change initiative sets the pace
Highlight ‘breakthrough’ aspects of the change initiative as well as opportunity for novelty in the future
Relate the proposal to emerging issues and possibilities which are unique and exciting
Use visual aids that stimulate imagination

Remember that adaptors tend to be more attracted to things that are well-planned, consistent, and involve staying within the boundaries that already exist. So an adaptor highlighting the more innovative aspects of their proposed change will be better accepted by an innovator, even though this won’t necessarily be the main advantage from the proposing adaptor’s point of view.

Meanwhile, for an innovator who is trying to propose change to an adaptor, a different approach is required. You might instead need to:

Emphasise the details
Show how the proposed change relates to existing ways of doing things
Provide a clear plan for implementation complete with monitoring and control procedures
Show how risks will be contained
Provide information in advance, do not introduce anything unexpected
Ensure that the proposed changes have been well thought through
Be on time and stay within time

Remember that innovators tend to be more attracted to things that are novel, radical and involve a ‘breakthrough’. Here the adaptor will welcome the reassurance of the more adaptive elements of the innovator’s proposed change.

These are hints and tips that several of my clients have now been adopting, to ensure that their communications provide interest to both adaptors and innovators that they’re trying to bring along on the journey.

About Paul Erricker:

Paul Erricker is a KAI Practitioner and professional coach and consultant. He serves leaders who are serious about performance improvement for themselves, their teams and their organisation.

For more information about KAI and achieving successful change campaigns in organisations, email me on paul@project-academy.co.uk