Valuing cognitive diversity and ADHD in the workplace

by Tracy Reader, Strategic Communications Professional, Copywriter and Social Media Specialist

It is easy to recognise cultural diversity in the workplace, but much harder to see cognitive diversity. Cultural diversity often refers to the backgrounds and experiences to which individuals signify as part of their identity. Cognitive diversity refers to how individuals prefer to think and solve problems. Unfortunately, the two types of diversity are often conflated in the workplace. Just because two people have similar backgrounds and experiences, doesn’t mean they think the same or prefer to solve problems the same way.

Only when team members come to blows do we realise that colleagues are sometimes poles apart in the way they think and behave. It can be useful to identify the problem-solving preferences of team members to realize the cognitive diversity of the team. Doing so may lead to increased understanding of each other (thus alleviating office arguments) and to ensure a good spread across the spectrum, which is needed for the team to be effective over time.

Everyone has a preferred way of thinking and doing things – from how we like to solve problems to how we like to organise our space. Dr Michael Kirton, created the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) to measure one’s problem-solving style.

Once an individual completes the KAI, results are collated, and the individual receives a score indicating their preference to solving problems, either being more adaptive or more innovative. People who score more adaptive prefer tweaking existing systems and processes to solve problems, whereas people who score more innovative often prefer to challenge existing systems with ranging views to solve the problem differently.

• More adaptive individuals prefer solving problems by use of rules and routines, often providing stability and continuity to the group. Ideas produced by the more adaptive tend to focus on efficiency with attention to detail and relevant to an already established structure.
• More innovative individuals prefer to solve problems by often altering rules, serving as a catalyst to settled groups. Ideas produced by the more innovative tend to have less detail and be more wide-ranging; both inside and outside an already established structure.

The KAI continuum of scores ranges between 32 and 160, with a mean of 95, and standard deviation of 18. Individuals who score between 95 and 32 have a more adaptive preference, and individuals scoring between 96 and 160 have a more innovative preference. While the KAI measures how one identifies as a creative individual, either more adaptive or more innovative, there is also a relativity aspect. For example, one may identify as more innovatively creative individual with a score of 120, and next to a friend who is a 135, the individual is more adaptive. Similarly, one may identify as a more adaptively creative individual with a score of 80, and next to a friend who is a 65, the individual is more adaptive.

The key to KAI is that there is no better problem-solving style, and thus no better KAI score. We each solve problems and we each are creative in our own way. Each person bringing cognitive diversity to the team.

Initial research indicates that there could be a relationship between KAI scores and the autistic spectrum – in particular, the autistic spectrum condition ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). One interesting study resulting from Jean-Pierre Issa’s thesis research at the International Center for Studies in Creativity at Buffalo State College indicates a relationship between ADHD and ‘creative’ personalities. In his thesis, Issa sampled 49 North American adults with an ADHD diagnosis using various personality scales, including KAI.

One of the hypotheses proposed was that an ADHD diagnosis would positively correlate with a more innovative problem-solving style. The results were fascinating. The group of ADHD diagnosed adults scored 79 (more adaptive) to 149 (more innovative) with a mean just over 115 on the KAI continuum; one standard deviation from the general population mean (t(609) = 7.77, p > .001, d = .63). These findings indicate a relationship with those diagnosed with ADHD and a more innovative problem-solving style. In the workplace these individuals would be more likely to display, as defined in the study:

• Originality
• Non-conformity
• Paradigm-breaking
• Low efficiency

Issa’s research at Buffalo State College study suggests that like other ‘innovators’, adults diagnosed with ADHD are more likely to come up with novel, unconventional approaches to solve problems instead of moderately adapting the existing systems and processes to find a solution. This can be beneficial when faced with problems which have existed for a while, where the existing parameters within the organisation have failed to solve the problem.

Of course, these initial findings provide opportunity for more questions and considerations of other factors such as age, effect of medication, sampling size, and how ADHD may be expressed by both adaptive and innovative individuals. Also, Issa was keen to advise in his thesis, results should not be interpreted for medical or creative advice, rather the intent is to not downplay the effects of ADHD on one’s career and personal life. The cognitive diversity one brings to the team always has advantages and disadvantages.

Both adaptive and innovative individuals are valuable in the workplace, as different thinking styles are required for different problems. Implementing KAI can help team members to recognise their strengths, see when their ideas might be valuable and feel more confident about suggesting solutions when problems arise.

KAI can also help recruiters and managers to see when more adaptive or more innovative employees could be beneficial. Teams sometimes become too adaptive or too innovative through selection bias. We can favour hiring people who think like us, because we prefer our way of thinking and may find a conscious or unconscious partiality with the new individual. Unfortunately, this can lead to a team being too adaptive or too innovative; thus, little cognitive diversity.

A team being too ‘adaptive’ can lead to problems, if existing systems and processes can no longer be tweaked to better solve the problem. Perhaps an employee with ADHD would add value to the team in this case. Conversely teams can become too ‘innovative’ and keep changing things for the sake of change, rather than solving sensible problems at hand. In this case the team may need more individuals who desire more structure and conformity.

Because more individuals with an ADHD diagnosis are now entering the workplace, this condition should not be seen as a disability but a valuable thinking style when tackling problems that have existed for a while. Similarly, employers need to create an atmosphere where people with ADHD feel supported and help colleagues to understand how their unique skills and problem-solving abilities can be put to good use.

References:
Issa, J-P, J., (2015). Distinguishing Originality from Creativity in ADHD: An Assessment of Creative Personality, Self-Perception, and Cognitive Style among Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Adults. [Master’s Thesis, Buffalo State College]. Digital Commons at Buffalo State. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1026&context=creativetheses