 ADAPTION INNOVATION THEORY Date published 1 October 2016 Master Sergeant Stallingsworth is the designated team leader for a task force charged to improve the workflow process in his flight. He has multiple people on his team, but they can't seem to agree on the problem, much less a solution. Every time he calls a meeting, the majority of the time is spent arguing about what direction to take. It seems as if the team has split into two factions based on what they think should happen. One faction wants to take a conservative approach to fix the problem. The other wants to do something trailblazing. This difference in approaches has caused the team to lose sight of what they were formed to do. What should Master Sergeant Stallingsworth do in order to get his team back on track towards fixing the problem? Meet today's problems with today's strength. Don't start tackling tomorrow's problems until tomorrow. Max Lucado Note, this document contains curriculum-sensitive information and may not be used for public dissemination. Inside this chapter, ADAPTION INNOVATION THEORY EXAMINED AI BASIC PRINCIPLES Perceptions Cognitive Style Tendencies AI THEORY CONSIDERATIONS Cognitive Gaps Coping Behavior Bridging Impact of ADAPTION INNOVATION THEORY Subordinate Senior NCO Mission Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to Terminal Cognitive Objective Comprehend ADAPTION INNOVATION THEORY concepts and or their impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness Terminal Cognitive Samples of Behavior 1. Identify ADAPTION INNOVATION THEORY concepts and or their impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness 2. Illustrate ADAPTION INNOVATION THEORY concepts and or their impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness 3. Predict the impact of ADAPTION INNOVATION THEORY concepts on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness Effective Objective Value, Adoption, Innovation Theory, and its positive impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness. Effective Samples of Behavior 1. Enthusiastically dedicate yourself to read and listen to all material about Adoption, Innovation, Theory, and its impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness. 2. Voluntarily complete all coursework related to Adoption, Innovation, Theory, and its impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness. 3. Openly accept Adoption, Innovation, Theory, and its positive impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness. 4. Willingly develop a preference for Adoption, Innovation, Theory, and its positive impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness. 5. Strive toward a commitment to apply Adoption, Innovation, Theory, because of its positive impact on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness. Think back to a situation where you were tasked to solve a problem or make a decision. Maybe you led the effort or were part of a group that worked the issue. Did everybody agree all the time? Did anyone make suggestions that seemed odd to others? Were there any differences of opinion in ways to address the issues at hand? Did you or anyone else try to mediate the differences? Did you finish the task effectively and on time? As a senior NCO, you've probably led teams that had to make decisions or will lead problem solving teams in the very near future. Your success depends on your effectiveness in managing your team members while staying focused on the goal. One way you can enhance your effectiveness as a senior NCO and help ensure your mission is effective when solving problems or making decisions as a team is to understand the Adoption Innovation AI Theory. This chapter begins with an examination of the AI theory. Here you'll break down the theory in order to gain an understanding of its key concepts such as its basic principles and the two styles at the heart of the theory. Then you'll move on to the next section where you'll explore more complex material about the theory, such as the importance of cognitive gaps and why you'd need to use a bridger when attempting to solve problems. Finally, this chapter ends by covering the impact of AI theory on subordinate, senior NCO, and mission effectiveness. While there are many aspects of AI theory you'll need to understand, let's get the ball rolling by first examining its basic principles. Mission Innovation theory examined. As a member of the American profession of arms and senior enlisted leader in your organization, you might encounter situations where you'll have to manage large, diverse teams. As a result, the individual characteristics of your people, especially how they think and problem solve, can create unique, sometimes stressful interactions within your teams. The approach you use to handle these interactions can have an impact on your team's success. AI theory can help hone your ability to handle the differences in how your people think, problem solve, and make decisions. This could mean acting as a facilitator to help them see each other's perspective or changing your approach so you can see their point of view. Either way, using what you learn about AI theory can help you become more prepared to lead and guide your people and, ultimately, increase your mission's effectiveness. In this section, you'll examine the AI theory by breaking it down into three parts. First, you'll look at the theory's basic principles. Afterwards, you'll cover terms and perceptions involving adaption and innovation. Finally, you'll explore the tendencies of those that are more adaptive and more innovative so you can see how their thinking, problem-solving styles vary. AI theory can be a bit complicated to understand if you don't start at the beginning. Let's do that by first focusing on the theory's basic principles. Key Terms The adaption innovation theory, developed by Dr. Michael J. Curtin, is founded on the assumption that all people solve problems and are creative. His theory suggests that problem-solving and creativity are both outcomes of the same brain function. Think of creativity as a component of problem-solving. Since thinking involves problem-solving, which includes creativity, everyone has the ability to solve problems creatively, just not in the same way. Creativity, as it relates to AI theory, involves problem-solving, decision-making, and ideas for change. When accomplishing these actions, everyone creates ideas, solutions. Therefore, everyone is creative. Cognitive level, or level, is a measure of your cognitive capacity. Or, put another way, it's a measurement, high, low, of how much knowledge you have about a particular topic. This level of knowledge could be attained in many different ways. Education, training, experience gained in positions you've held, NCOIC, supervisor, etc., or just plain natural talent. The key thing to remember about cognitive level is that it's about how much you know. Cognitive style preference, or style, refers to your preferred manner of solving problems, making decisions, and bringing about change. It represents the approach you use to think, the way you perceive and process information. The key thing to remember about cognitive style is that it's about the way you think, the manner in which you exercise creativity. An adaptive style represents a method preference of problem solving that's more structured and methodical. Creativity is exercised inside the box. Someone that prefers this style usually comes up with ideas by modifying the current organizational paradigm to make improvements to existing systems. An innovative style represents a method and or preference of problem solving that's less concerned with structure and details. Creativity is exercised outside the box. Someone that prefers this style usually breaks or goes against the current organizational paradigm when coming up with ideas. Problem A is the actual problem that a team has come together to solve. Problem B encompasses issues other than the actual problem itself that arise as a result of human interactions and diversity. These issues or team problems can include team dynamics, interpersonal relationships, communication, et cetera. Structure, enabling or limiting. It's 0730 hours and Master Sergeant Curtin is late for work. He has a meeting at 0800 hours and he's stressed because he might miss it. He leaves his house, gets in his car and hits the highway. The speed limit is 70 miles per hour but since he's late, he pushes it to 90 miles per hour. All of a sudden, a police car pulls in behind him and the lights turn on. As Master Sergeant Curtin pulls over, he thinks to himself, I'm definitely going to miss that meeting now. Has this ever happened to you? Even though you know the purpose of speed limits, you could probably think of a dozen reasons why you would exceed them. For drivers, speed limits create a sort of structure for driving. They are the rules that every driver must abide by. When followed, they help ensure the safety of all drivers. However, when you're running late, adhering to the speed limit can cause additional stress, slow you down and result in a missed meeting, as with Master Sergeant Curtin. Speed limits help keep everyone safe, enabling, but can slow you down, especially if you're running late, limiting. How can structure be both limiting and enabling at the same time? Dr. Curtin refers to this as the paradox of structure. The same rules and or structure that enable us can also limit us. Let's think about the paradox in the context of the Air Force. As an airman, your dress and appearance is regulated by AFI 36-2903. This structure, what you can and can't wear or do, is enabling because it ensures every airman's appearance falls within certain standards, regardless of rank, location, AFSC, or individual preference. So walking around with your ABU top unbuttoned is a violation at your base and everywhere else in the Air Force. These standards and or structure enable our force to present a professional image to the community. However, the same standards and or structure can also be seen as limiting. AFI 36-2903 doesn't afford much flexibility in what you can wear to work. It promotes uniformity in the Air Force. But what if you place a great deal of value on your individuality? For example, if you like wearing colorful socks to express your personality, the AFI will limit that expression. If you want to have a tattoo on the back of your hand to honor a loved one, the AFI will limit that also. The same dress and appearance structure that enables all airmen to present a professional image also limits your expression of individuality, the paradox of structure. When attempting to make decisions, solve problems, or be a catalyst for change, creativity, everyone has to consider structure, rules, paradigms, culture, et cetera. Some individuals are going to prefer to exercise creativity using structure. For these people, structure is enabling. It provides guidelines or boundaries in which to be creative. On the other hand, some individuals are going to prefer to exercise creativity with less structure. This group views it as limiting or restrictive, a roadblock that interferes with their creativity. Before you think of structure as good or bad, consider this. Structure is a necessity. Rules exist everywhere, nature, science, society, and in the military. There will always be some sort of structure to consider when problem solving and making decisions. However, too much structure can result in a rigid environment that makes problem solving inefficient and restrictive. Too little structure can result in unclear expectations and inconsistent rules. Problem solving in an environment with too little structure could limit your ability to think, as if floating in space with no gravity, there's nothing to keep your thinking process grounded and realistic. How you view the paradox of structure enabling or limiting forms the foundation of your cognitive style. Adaption prefers more structure, to innovation prefers less structure. You'll learn more about cognitive style a little later in this section. Level versus style. AI theory sharply distinguishes between level and style of problem solving and is only concerned with the style an individual uses. Let's take a look at an example. Tech Sergeant Keele and Master Sergeant Green's unit is experiencing a high number of PT failures. The commander has stated their unit has the highest number of failures on the base and finds this totally unacceptable. They've been tasked to develop a solution to solve the problem, lower the number of failures. Tech Sergeant Keele is very knowledgeable about fitness. He's a personal trainer in his off-duty time and is working on a civilian physical training certification. Master Sergeant Green, a seasoned senior NCO in the unit doesn't have the same knowledge and experience that Tech Sergeant Keele does in the area of fitness. However, he's familiar with the unit's program and the fitness AFI. Even though this is a high visibility issue for their commander, they're both excited for the chance to help fix the problem. In this example, Tech Sergeant Keele is more knowledgeable about the subject of fitness than Master Sergeant Green. Due to his personal training experience and the education he's receiving while pursuing his certification, you could say his cognitive level is high. Master Sergeant Green, on the other hand, doesn't know what Tech Sergeant Keele knows about fitness and although he has some knowledge gained from the fitness AFI and his experience with the unit's program, his cognitive level is lower than Tech Sergeant Keele's. This example leads to the first principle you should understand about AI theory. No one person knows everything about everything. Therefore, everyone has cognitive limitations. These limitations could be due to a lack of education in the subject at hand or experience. Maybe you haven't been a superintendent or a flight chief yet, so your cognitive level wouldn't be as high as someone who has. When attempting to solve problems, how much you know cognitive level can be important, especially when solving job-related problems. However, AI theory helps focus on the way individuals solve problems. They're cognitive style. AI theory addresses two distinct styles of problem solving, adaptive and innovative. Remember those who prefer an adaptive style rely on structure and rules. They may follow a logical orderly process, trying to improve or modify the current paradigm to create a solution. Those who prefer an innovative style don't need the same type of structure. When faced with a problem to solve, they may decide that it would be easier to break the current rules and or paradigm to create a solution. Let's go back to the scenario with Tech Sergeant Keele and Master Sergeant Green. Master Sergeant Green wants to look at the current unit fitness program, analyze the PT test scores of unit members over the last year, and interview some airmen that have passed and some that have failed the test in order to figure out what part of the program isn't working. Once they have that information, they can use it to create a solution by making adjustments to the current program to reduce the number of failures. Tech Sergeant Keele thinks it would be easier to start from scratch. The current program isn't working. Otherwise, the unit wouldn't have so many failures. He thinks there's no point in trying to salvage it. In his certification class, he learned exercises that don't cause as much strain on the body like the normal running, push-up sit-up routine the current program requires. He wants to create a program built around these new exercises. He believes his program will revitalize the airmen and motivate them to want to participate. As you've probably guessed, Master Sergeant Green took an adaptive approach to solving the problem, and Tech Sergeant Keele took an innovative approach. However, did you notice they both were creative in the way they decided to solve the problem? Master Sergeant Green wanted to analyze the data and try to create a solution that fixes the current program. Tech Sergeant Keele wanted to create a brand new program that breaks up the monotonous routine of running, push-ups, and sit-ups. This leads to the second principle you should understand about AI theory. Two, we're all intelligent and creative at different levels and with different styles. A, everyone possesses knowledge just at different levels. Even though Tech Sergeant Keele's cognitive level is higher than Master Sergeant Green's, Green still possesses knowledge or can develop it in order to help solve the fitness problem. B, everyone is creative, just in different ways. Master Sergeant Green used an adaptive style to create a solution to the fitness problem, while Tech Sergeant Keele used an innovative style. Just like the scenario with Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele, not everyone you work with will solve problems the same way you do. Some of them might prefer more in-depth information about the issue before focusing on solutions. You may not need that same amount of detail. Some of the people you work with might not prefer to be limited by the current state of things when problem solving. You may be like that too, but you may dislike it a bit more than they do. In other words, everyone isn't going to prefer to solve problems the same way you do. In AI theory, these style differences are represented along a normally distributed continuum or bell curve that ranges from strongly adaptive to strongly innovative. Problem A and Problem B. Senior NCOs interact with people to solve a myriad of problems. AI theory references two different kinds of problems, Problem A and Problem B. Remember, Problem A is the problem the group must solve and Problem B, team problem, represents all the problems that occur as a result of the interaction and differences among the team members. Let's go back to the Master Sergeant Green, Tech Sergeant Keele scenario. Tech Sergeant Keele and Master Sergeant Green's unit is experiencing a high number of PT failures. The commander has stated their unit has the highest number of failures on the base and finds this totally unacceptable. They've been tasked to develop a solution to solve the problem. This is Problem A, figuring out a way to lower the number of PT failures in their unit. Let's say that Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele decide to brainstorm individually at first. Then they'll meet to discuss the issue and agree upon a solution to present to the commander. When Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele finally get together, Tech Sergeant Keele makes it clear that he doesn't want to keep any parts of the old program and is very adamant about his position. He's working to become a certified trainer so he knows what's going to work and what's not. Even though Master Sergeant Green recognizes Tech Sergeant Keele's experience with fitness, he believes they don't need to start from scratch, especially since that might not be a good use of their time. He reiterates that the commander wants a solution right away. Since Master Sergeant Green outranks Tech Sergeant Keele, Green believes the final decision should be his anyway. Of course, Tech Sergeant Keele isn't happy with that and proceeds to let Master Sergeant Green know. The interaction between Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele is an example of a Problem B. In this case, they're experiencing communication issues, teamwork problems, and are generally not working well together. If Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele don't address their Problem Bs, what do you think would happen to Problem A? At this point, they're wasting valuable time. If they continue experiencing Problem Bs, they'll never get around to solving Problem A, the reason they're together in the first place. If you were Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele's supervisor, why should you be concerned with both Problem A and Problem B? Well, earlier you read that Master Sergeant Green prefers an adaptive style when solving problems. We can still use parts of the old program and Tech Sergeant Keele prefers an innovative style. We need to start over. Their Problem Bs could be a result of this difference in styles. If you don't intervene and help them address the Problem Bs, Problem A might not get the attention it needs. This brings you to the third principle. Three, we must be able to manage the diversity that stems from our people's AI range differences. As a senior NCO and team leader, it's your responsibility to help your team deal with and overcome Problem Bs so they can focus on Problem A. Teams typically solve problems better than individuals and therefore are seen as superior in handling complex problems. They're successful only if they can solve the problem for which they were created. If they can stay focused on Problem A and not get bogged down with Problem Bs. Can senior NCOs manage teams better using the concepts of AI theory? The short answer is yes, if you understand and apply the theory's basic principles. You may have to lead teams in solving difficult problems that are complex and hard to define. Your leadership skillset should include the ability to blend your people's individual talents in different combinations in order to reach viable solutions to these problems. AI theory helps you understand the varying styles your people bring to the table that can enhance their problem solving capability but also highlights potential team problems, Problem Bs that could distract them from accomplishing their goal. One, when problem solving were limited by the way we're built and or cognitively hardwired. Two, we're all intelligent and creative at different levels and with different styles. Three, we must be able to manage the diversity that stems from our people's AI range differences. AI theory's basic principles provide a solid foundation to help familiarize you with the theory itself. However, you should understand perceptions about the styles that could help you utilize it more effectively. It is important to note that the terms adapters and innovators are used only to distinguish between two differing cognitive styles when in actuality, cognitive styles refer to being more adaptive or more innovative in the context of a situation. Fridl and Rudd, perceptions. According to Dr. Curtin, your position on the AI continuum remains stable over time. So it's easy to get the impression that a person is either adaptive or innovative. This precept is true. However, it's often situationally dependent based on perception. Therefore, it's more accurate to say that someone is more adaptive or more innovative. Here's why. How you're perceived as more adaptive or more innovative can change depending on whom, individuals and or groups you're interacting with and where they fall on the continuum in relation to you. Your KAI score is a stable measure but also a relative measure. To help you understand this better, let's look at a few examples. Example one. Hypothetically, let's say you, Y, are in the mildly adaptive area of the continuum and the people, P, you work with are very close to your position on the continuum. These people perceive you and you perceive them as being very similar. E.g., all of you take a very similar approach to problem solving. You may also notice that it's easy to communicate with the members in this group. Example two. Although your position Y on the continuum hasn't changed from example one, the people you interact with, P, fall between the moderately and strongly innovative areas of the continuum. You may notice some challenges in communicating, getting your thoughts across to this group. For instance, you may want to communicate a lot of details and structure but because others in the group are more innovative, they may not want or need the details and structure. Example three. Once again, your position Y hasn't changed. However, this time, the people you must interact with, P, fall below you in the strongly adaptive area of the continuum. This means they'll more than likely perceive you as risky and abrasive just as you perceive the people in example two. Again, you may also notice some challenges in communicating, getting your thoughts across to this group. For instance, you may want to communicate few details and structure but because others in the group are more adaptive than you, they may need the details and structure to solve the problem. What are the takeaways or value of these examples? Well, one, you should have an idea as to where you fall on the continuum. That way, you'll have an anchor point when trying to understand any potential gaps between you and others as well as any potential issues these gaps may cause. Two, it's important that you understand how others perceive you and why they perceive you that way. Remember, it's relative to where you and others fall on the continuum. For instance, in the example above, you fell into the mildly adaptive area but your people fell into the strongly adaptive area. Therefore, they may perceive you as more innovative than they are, it's relative. Three, although large gaps between styles means greater chances of conflict, that is to say problem B, it also offers greater potential and or ability to solve problems, problem A, because of cognitive diversity. Regardless of where you and your people fall on the continuum, you can all be equally creative. Remember principle number two. This also means that you can all be equally good or equally bad at handling change. How would you know the difference between those that are more adaptive and those that are more innovative? In the next section, you'll cover a few of their tendencies to give you a better picture of how different they are. Cognitive style tendencies. More adaptive style. Seek to do things better. According to Dr. Catherine Jablokow, adaptive problem solvers prefer to approach problems methodically and seek solutions to problems in tried and true ways because of their preference for working with more structure. More adaptive individuals can be described as precise, reliable, efficient, disciplined, detail oriented, creative refiners, good at improving existing systems, inflexible and intolerant of ambiguity as seen by innovators. Those that are more adaptive tend to rely on rules and structure. They actually thrive in the order that rules and or structure create. They prefer to solve problems by working inside the box or current paradigm. The more adaptive try to make things better, which could include ideas that improve or build upon the paradigm as opposed to breaking or discarding it. More adaptive team members can be valuable if your problem solution involves making improvements to existing systems or processes. Additionally, as a result of their efficient nature, they can help you and the team in areas such as resource allocation, timelines, et cetera. More innovative style, seek to do things differently. Jablokow states, innovative problem solvers are liable to think tangently and question a problem's definition and core assumptions because of their preference for working with less structure. More innovative individuals can be described as unconventional, mold breakers, spontaneous, accepting of transformational change, pioneering creators, good at changing existing systems, risky and abrasive as seen by adapters. Those that are more innovative tend to break away from the current structure in order to solve problems. Therefore, working within the paradigm can be seen as restrictive or even as part of the problem itself. They tend to challenge basic assumptions in order to root out the problem and aren't afraid to take risks. More innovative team members can be valuable if your problem solution requires outside the box thinking or a new way of doing things. Additionally, since they're likely to question the status quo, they can help shine a light on procedures that are in place just because it's always been that way. Bottom line, in this chapter, it's not vital to figure out exactly where you or your people fall on the AI continuum. As a matter of fact, without taking an actual assessment, your identification would just be a very broad guess. It is vital for you to understand that people solve problems in different ways. Some prefer more adaptive tendencies. Some prefer more innovative tendencies. Neither style is inherently good or bad, an asset or a liability. In order to lead and manage a successful team in solving problem A, you're going to need the diversity that adapters and innovators bring to the table. In this section, you examined the AI theory in order to gain foundational knowledge about it. You covered key terms such as cognitive level, a measurement of how much knowledge you have about a topic and cognitive style, your preferred method of thinking. You learned the difference between level and style is important since AI theory is only concerned with an individual's style. After that, you covered three basic principles of the theory, including the understanding that we're all intelligent and creative just at different levels and in different ways. Then you discovered that while your position on the AI continuum is rather stable, how you're perceived, adaptive versus innovative is relative depending on the people you're interacting with. You were presented a few examples to highlight the impact of this perception. Finally, you were introduced to a few cognitive style tendencies of those that are more adaptive and those that are more innovative. Remember, the bottom line is we all solve problems in different ways. This diversity and thinking can help your team be more successful in solving your problem A's. One of the responsibilities of leading a successful team includes addressing the differences in how they think and or problem solve. Doing so can help you reduce the problem B's that could slow your team down and keep them focused on problem solving. However, just because they're focused doesn't mean they'll find a successful solution. In order to cross the finish line, you'll need to use your more adaptive and more innovative team members effectively. Let's take a look at how you can do that in the next section, AI Theory Considerations. There are only two ways to establish competitive advantage. Do things better than others or do them differently. Carl Albrecht. AI Theory Considerations. You've been tasked to solve a problem and have assembled a dream team that your competent can solve it quickly. However, all they seem to do is argue and you can't understand why. Getting a diverse group of people, even if they are a dream team, to focus on a problem and solve it effectively doesn't just magically happen. This can be due to the one thing that makes the team great in the first place, the diversity of each individual member. As a senior NCO, you're charged with leading effective teams. In order to do so, you should capitalize on what each member brings to the table while helping them see and value each other's contributions to the collective effort. AI Theory can help you in this endeavor if you understand how to manage certain differences. In this section, you're going to cover three important considerations when using AI Theory. First, you'll learn about two types of cognitive gaps, task and social interaction. Then you'll take a look at how individuals deal with these gaps using coping behavior. Finally, you'll cover how team leaders can help deal with the gaps by bridging. So what could possibly derail your dream team and cause conflict? The problem may be contributed to differences in cognitive styles, otherwise known as cognitive gaps. Cognitive gaps. Explore. Cognitive gaps are differences in cognitive style preferences. They can exist between two people, two groups of people, or between a person and the requirements for a particular task, R. Kurt Barnhart. Types of gaps. There are two types of gaps you should be familiar with. Task gaps and social interaction gaps. Task gaps represent the distance between an individual's preferred style and the behavior actually needed for the task, or problem A. Social interaction gaps represent the distance between the preferred styles of, two people, a person and a group, two groups. This type of gap can be responsible for the problem Bs your team experiences. Let's take a look at an example. Remember the earlier scenario involving Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele? Just in case you don't, here it is. Tech Sergeant Keele and Master Sergeant Green's unit is experiencing a high number of PT failures. The commander has stated their unit has the highest number of failures on the base and finds this totally unacceptable. They've been tasked to develop a solution to solve the problem, lower the number of failures. Tech Sergeant Keele's very knowledgeable about fitness. He's a personal trainer in his off-duty time and is working on a civilian physical training certification. Master Sergeant Green, a seasoned senior NCO in the unit, doesn't have the same knowledge and experience that Tech Sergeant Keele does in the area of fitness. However, he's familiar with the unit's program and the fitness AFI. As the scenario developed, you learned that Master Sergeant Green was more adaptive and Tech Sergeant Keele was more innovative. Now let's add a different twist to the scenario. The commander doesn't want to abandon the current program. He just wants it adjusted in ways that will result in increased PT scores. Therefore, both Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele will have to work within the structure of the current program in order to develop solutions. The continuum provides an example of the cognitive gaps based on the scenario. One, because the commander just wants to fix the program, the solution will have to fit within the current structure. It must be an adaptive one. Two, since Master Sergeant Green prefers a more adaptive style, the cognitive gap between him and problem A is small. The behavior needed to complete the task is close to his style tendencies. Three, since Tech Sergeant Keele prefers a more innovative style, the cognitive gap between him and problem A is significant. The behavior needed to complete the task isn't even close to the tendencies he prefers. Four, because Master Sergeant Green is more adaptive and Tech Sergeant Keele is more innovative, the cognitive gap between them as team members is large. Therefore, they prefer to solve problems in different ways, which could cause problem Bs. Earlier in the chapter, you read they were experiencing communication issues, teamwork problems, and weren't generally getting along. Why are cognitive gaps and their sizes an important consideration? The size of the gap can have an impact on conflict, problem B, and problem solving, problem A. Potential for conflict. Have you ever been part of a team that couldn't get the job done effectively because the team members just didn't get along? Maybe there were some individuals on the team that couldn't communicate well, or maybe the team spent so much time arguing about the task that it never received the attention it needed. Earlier, you read that social interaction gaps refer to the distance between the preferred styles of people. The larger the gap is, the greater the potential for conflict. Let's revisit Master Sergeant Green and Tech Sergeant Keele again. You already know that Master Sergeant Green is more adaptive and Tech Sergeant Keele is more innovative. However, to highlight the social interaction gap, let's say that Tech Sergeant Carver and Master Sergeant Stone joined their team. Here's where they fall on the AI continuum. Tech Sergeant Carver is strongly adaptive and Master Sergeant Green is moderately adaptive. While Master Sergeant Stone is mildly innovative and Tech Sergeant Keele is strongly innovative. Based on the continuum, there's a small gap between Tech Sergeant Carver and Master Sergeant Green. More than likely, they'll work well together, but don't forget about perceptions. Technical Sergeant Carver may perceive Master Sergeant Green as more innovative than he is. Even though they both fall on the adaptive side of the continuum, Master Sergeant Green is a bit closer to the innovative side and might display a few tendencies from that style. This could cause minor issues, but due to their small gap, they should be able to problem solve with very little conflict. If it does flare up, they shouldn't have a problem dealing with it in order to refocus on problem A. The gap between Tech Sergeant Carver and Tech Sergeant Keele is the most significant. Tech Sergeant Carver is strongly adaptive and Tech Sergeant Keele is almost the exact opposite. As you can probably guess, Tech Sergeant Carver is going to prefer to work within the paradigm and Tech Sergeant Keele is going to want to disregard it completely. Tech Sergeant Keele might see Tech Sergeant Carver as too rigid and Tech Sergeant Carver might see Tech Sergeant Keele as too abrasive. Perceptions that could lead to harsh disagreements and even communication breakdowns. Left unmanaged, their team may never get around to problem A because of the time and energy spent on problem B. This could result in mission failure. However, there's one more person on the team that could be a helper of sorts, Master Sergeant Stone. Master Sergeant Stone is close to the center of the continuum. More than likely, he prefers adaptive and innovative tendencies. So he's probably comfortable working with those that prefer both cognitive styles. In terms of conflict, Master Sergeant Stone can be useful because he might be able to see both sides and help the more adaptive communicate better with the more innovative. With Master Sergeant Stone's assistance, conflict caused by the significant gap between Tech Sergeant Carver and Tech Sergeant Keele can be addressed sooner so the group can refocus on problem A. Without someone like Master Sergeant Stone, the group can get stuck dealing with problem Bs and never get to the actual problem that brought them together in the first place. You'll learn more about the helpfulness of people like Master Sergeant Stone later on in this chapter. Potential for problem solving. Even though cognitive gaps can cause the team to experience problem Bs, they can also impact problem A. However, this can potentially be harmful or helpful. Let's take a look at the continuum again. Remember, Tech Sergeant Carver is strongly adaptive and Master Sergeant Green is moderately adaptive. While Master Sergeant Stone is mildly innovative and Tech Sergeant Keele is strongly innovative. Since both Tech Sergeant Carver and Master Sergeant Green are more adaptive, they'll use a more adaptive approach to solving the problem. Although this may seem like an ideal situation, less conflict, right? In terms of problem A, you might end up with the same perspective and or the same type of solutions. This would also be true if they were more innovative. In terms of problem solving, a team with like-minded individuals might not be the best for your organization and mission. Consider these examples. Imagine an organization comprised of only those with more adaptive tendencies. You'd have a group of people who are extremely good at solving problems and making decisions by staying within the organization's paradigm, working within the existing structure, rules and policies, and by ensuring they had group consensus on decisions before implementing any change. This organization might experience a high level of efficiency and operate like a well-oiled machine at first. However, nothing in the Air Force is static for long. Missions change and when they do, the organization must be able to change and adapt as well. This organization could handle small, incremental changes just fine, but major changes would have the potential to create havoc and chaos. Now imagine an organization comprised of only those with more innovative tendencies. In this case, you'd have a group of people who are extremely good at solving problems by breaking the rules, working outside the existing structure, rules and policies with little or no concern for having group consensus before implementing change. Although this organization might experience major success when new or when dealing with transformational change, it wouldn't be very efficient in the long run because structure wouldn't have a chance to form. As a result, the organization would be caught in a cycle of instability and constant flux. Those that are more adaptive and more innovative are equally good at solving problems. However, optimal problem solving occurs when they come together to work on the problem. This collaboration brings all sides, perspectives of a problem to light. Therefore, the larger the cognitive gap is between team members, the likelihood that the different perspectives can lead to better solutions to problem A increases. Hopefully, you can see that cognitive gaps can be positive in some ways, different perspectives and negative in others. The larger the gap, the harder it becomes for individuals to work together and or solve problem A. In the Air Force, you can't walk away from a problem simply because others in your group don't solve problems the same way you do or because the problem requires a different style of problem solving than you prefer. So what normally happens in these cases? You begin to cope. Coping behavior. Explore. Coping behavior involves behaving, problem solving, outside one's preferred style by the minimum amount for the least time. Dr. Curtin. You've just been assigned the additional duty of primary unit safety representative. You replaced the previous representative because he didn't manage the program effectively and the unit failed a no-notice safety inspection. Your first tasking is to create a brand new program that will prevent future failures. Since you don't have a template or successful program to use as a guide, you're going to have to start from scratch. If you're more adaptive, how would you feel at this point? Would you go and tell your supervisor and or commander that you don't want the additional duty because it requires you to be more innovative? Probably not, since that's not the expected behavior of senior NCOs in the Air Force. More than likely, you'll do whatever you need to do in order to get the job done. Well, the do whatever you need to do involves coping behavior, the cost of coping behavior. As a member of the profession of arms, you don't have the luxury of always deciding what teams you want to be on, selecting your task assignments or choosing the problems you will or won't address. Therefore, if you're more adaptive, you've probably had to use more innovative tendencies and vice versa in order to accomplish the mission or take care of your people. When you can't behave in a way that's consistent or close to your preferred cognitive style, you engage in coping behavior, whether you realize it or not. It's important to understand that everyone copes at some point, but there are a few elements that can make doing so costly, the distance from your preferred style, effort expended, and time. The larger the cognitive gap is between your preferred style and the required behavior, the more effort you have to expend in order to close the gap. This makes it harder for you to cope. The longer you have to cope, the more stress you may experience, the cost of coping. This is illustrated in figure one. For example, you're more adaptive and the team solution to problem A requires the current rules to be bent just a little. Since the gap, distance from your preferred style is small, it shouldn't take much effort for you to adjust, making it relatively easy for you to cope. You could probably cope in this situation for extended periods of time with minimal stress. Stress can manifest itself in some of the following ways, headaches, anxiety, irritability, fatigue, procrastination, job dissatisfaction, change in eating habits, lack of focus, American Psychological Association. However, if you're more adaptive and the team solution to problem A requires the current rules to be completely broken and thrown away, the gap is quite large. Therefore, it's going to require more effort for you to adjust, making it extremely hard for you to cope. If you stay in a situation for an extended period of time, you may experience high levels of stress impacting your mental and physical health. Eventually, the effort you expend could become so costly that regardless of the consequences, you may refuse to continue to cope. When individuals switch off their coping, they sometimes make life-changing choices in order to leave the situation. That way, they can return to a state where they can use their preferred style. These choices might include requesting a change in career fields, no notice retirements, separation from the service without benefits, divorces, et cetera. Coping for an extended period of time isn't an ideal situation, but as previously stated, sometimes it's required. As the team leader, try to only ask for minimum coping behavior most of the time and maximum coping behavior in times of crisis. When you do require maximum coping behavior, you should take into consideration how long your people have to cope in these situations. Additionally, you should observe your people and address any stress-related signs and or symptoms you notice or are made aware of. Why do people cope? Explore. Motive is an emotion, desire, physiological need or similar impulse that causes one to take action. Opportunity is an appropriate time, occasion or situation favorable for attainment of a goal. If operating so far outside our preferred style is stressful, why do we do it? Sometimes we continue to cope because motive, something greater, drives us too. Motive can help generate the additional energy we need to keep us going and also offset the discomfort or stress we may feel until the task is complete or it becomes possible to solve the problem using tendencies closer to your preferred style. For example, imagine you're in a situation where there's a large cognitive gap. As a result, it's extremely hard for you to cope. You may consider quitting because of the cost, but you don't because you have a strong emotional attachment to your team and you don't want to let them down. This emotion is the motive that gives you the boost you need in order to keep coping. However, if you didn't have an emotional attachment to them, no motive, your coping behavior would most likely stop. Additionally, opportunity can be a factor in why people cope. When assessing a situation, you may weigh the advantage gained against how much it's going to cost you. For example, let's say you have a goal of getting promoted to senior master sergeant. Your unit chief asks you to take the lead on a base level project that will require you to operate outside of your preferred style for a long period of time. But he tells you that a project of this size will certainly look good for someone trying to get promoted. Before you see this as an opportunity, you'll have to decide if enduring the stress of coping for an extended period of time is worth the chance to achieve your goal. If you believe it will help increase your chances of getting promoted, your goal, you'll see this as an opportunity and cope. If you don't think that project is worth all the stress, maybe you'll just study harder to reach your goal, you won't see it as an opportunity and will decide not to cope. Coping behavior is a way for individuals to deal with cognitive gaps. Therefore, as a senior enlisted leader, you should recognize that actual behavior is usually a blend of one's preferred style and coping behavior, since you rarely get to operate entirely within your preferred style. Effective leaders create environments where they only ask for minimum coping behavior most of the time and only have to ask for maximum coping behavior in times of crisis. However, as a team leader, there's another tool you can use to bridge these gaps. Bridging, explore. Bridging is reaching out to people in the team and helping them be part of it so that they may contribute even if their contribution is outside mainstream. Dr. Curtin. According to Curtin, additions 2003, 2011, there are many ways to assist in closing or avoiding cognitive gaps. Some of these ways include changing jobs or aspects of the job, delegating or reassigning team roles or reassigning certain members of the team. Although these methods may work occasionally, as members of the profession of arms, we seldom have the luxury of changing jobs or reassigning people, at least not at our level. Thus, we must find another way to manage the cognitive gap. This is where bridging comes in. Bridging is a social role that requires human relations skills, interpersonal, listening, et cetera. Acceptance by those with the cognitive gaps perceived as neutral. A willingness to fulfill the role wants to bridge. Bridgers are important in maintaining group cohesion and can significantly reduce problem B by redirecting group energy to solving problem A. The bridger fills the roles of counselor, mediator and negotiator. However, bridging is a learned skill, one that senior NCOs should practice in order to be effective. Although being in the area between those to be bridged is ideal, as is the case with Master Sergeant Stone in the example, bridging is possible for people whose style is outside the styles of the people who are interacting. For example, a strong innovator could bridge between a strong adapter and a mild innovator. Successful bridgers help those being bridged to understand each other's approach. They help both parties understand why and how the other party approaches problem solving and help both parties understand each other's strengths and weaknesses. By uncovering and working out the differences, bridgers can help both parties and or the team focus more effort on problem A. In this section, you learned a few elements you need to take into consideration concerning AI theory. You learned about two types of cognitive gaps, social interaction and task related. Both types of gaps have the potential to either cause conflict or impact your team's ability to problem solve. You also learned that the larger the gap is, the more active you should be as a team leader to keep the team focused on problem A. Then you learned about coping behavior. Rarely do you get to operate in environments where you'll get to use your preferred style all the time. As a result, you use coping behavior to help close the gap. However, when dealing with your people, you want to make sure that if the gap is large, you keep an eye out for signs of stress, especially if they must operate in that condition for an extended period of time. You covered that even when we're asked to cope, two things can impact whether or not we choose to and for how long, motive and opportunity. Without one, an individual might decide not to cope and make a drastic decision like changing jobs or even leaving the Air Force. Finally, you learned about the social role of bridging. While coping behavior is something that individuals engage in to close the gap, a bridger is a role someone volunteers to fill in order to get both sides to address their differences and refocus on problem A. Even if you assembled a dream team to address a problem, they still might experience issues as a result of the diversity that makes them a good team in the first place. It's your responsibility as a senior NCO and team leader to help them work through their differences, problem Bs, in order to refocus on problem A. Otherwise, your dream team could turn into a nightmare. Impact of AI theory. You should now have a better understanding of AI theory. So what's most likely to happen if you apply these concepts? Why should you use them? As you read the following material, you should ponder how you can enhance your success by employing the ideas in this chapter. You'll start by looking at the impact of AI theory on subordinate effectiveness, then move on to senior NCO effectiveness and mission effectiveness. Let's start by taking a look at how AI theory can impact your subordinates effectiveness. Subordinate effectiveness. As an enlisted leader, you should always think about what your subordinates need in order to be successful. Understanding AI theory presents an opportunity for you to develop your subordinates into better followers, leaders, and supervisors. This is especially true for leaders who understand cognitive gaps. According to AFI 36-2618, the Enlisted Force Structure, paragraph 5.1.6, states you should deliberately develop junior enlisted airmen, NCOs, and fellow senior NCOs into better followers, leaders, and supervisors. One way you can do this is by making them aware of cognitive gaps. Leaders who leverage their understanding of cognitive gaps can build effective teams of more adaptive and more innovative individuals when given a broad reaching problem. When this happens, subordinates can see the benefit of what others bring to the table, even when it's not the way they would solve the problem. On the other hand, if subordinates don't see their leaders building teams with more adaptive and more innovative team members, they might not be able to solve a large range of problems. Remember, if we create teams with only more adaptive or innovative individuals, you may have an organization full of people who are extremely good at solving problems using one style. The problem with that is many of the problems you face in the Air Force require those with more adaptive and more innovative tendencies in order to solve them. Institutional competency, fostering collaborative relationships, build teams and coalitions, builds effective teams for goal and mission accomplishment, improves team performance, and develops direction, roles, and responsibilities. Junior enlisted leaders can also benefit from seeing bridgers being used on the team. If you don't use bridgers, you could cause your people to feel as if they aren't an important part of the team or cause your people to feel as if their inputs don't matter. If this happens, your subordinates may start focusing on the differences they have, problem B, rather than the problem at hand, problem A. Bridgers can help everyone feel they are an important part of the process and help them value others' inputs as well. Utilizing AI theory to help your subordinates become more effective is a responsibility that's associated with your role as a senior NCO. However, AI theory can also help you become more effective as a senior enlisted leader. Senior NCO effectiveness. From your study of this chapter, you should understand the difference between the more adaptive or more innovative tendencies of others. This understanding can help you put the right people on teams based on the problem if you have the opportunity to. For example, if the problem only requires an improvement to an existing process, you might want to have your more adaptive airman work it. If the problem requires a new approach that's not attached to the existing structure, you might want to have your more innovative airman tackle it. Doing so would require the minimum amount of coping behavior from your people due to a smaller cognitive gap. If you have a diverse range of problems you must solve for your organization, having a mix of these tendencies would be the most effective, even though you may have to manage more problem Bs as a result of larger cognitive gaps. According to AFI 36-2618, the enlisted force structure paragraph 5.2.1 states that master sergeants are leaders of operational competence, skilled at merging subordinates talents, skills and resources with other teams functions to most effectively accomplish the mission. Bridging cognitive gaps can help you merge their talents more effectively. As a team leader, maintaining group cohesion can significantly reduce problem Bs by redirecting group energy to solving problem A. Sometimes conflict can arise as a result of a difference in perspectives or cognitive styles. As you learned, our bridger can close the gap between those with differing preferred styles, getting group cohesion back on track. For example, you see two parties disagreeing on their approach to problem solving. As a bridger, you can help both parties understand why and how the other party approaches problem solving and help both parties understand each other's strengths and weakness, which helps both parties expend more effort on problem A. Increasing your subordinates' effectiveness and your effectiveness can have a huge impact on how effective your mission is. Mission effectiveness. Effective leaders can have a positive impact on the mission if they understand that different approaches to solving problems are valuable and that you need both the more adaptive and the more innovative on your team to solve a wide range of problems. An example might be when you're faced with a myriad of downsizing problems. Using AI theory, you'd accomplish the mission more effectively by understanding that optimal problem solving results from both adaptive and innovative people working on the problem together, bringing all sides, perspectives, of a problem to light. Also, the use of bridging can be helpful in executing your mission. Bridgers can redirect group energy from the problem B interactions to problem A, for example, the mission. An example might be when you're given a major project to accomplish with several team members. When they come together with different tendencies, problem B start happening. You would use a bridger to help close the cognitive gap and focus everyone on the task at hand, the mission. Using AI theory can also enhance accomplishment of the mission if you understand the more adaptive and more innovative tendencies of yourself and others. Often this can lead to conversations that frequently uncover new approaches and solutions to move the mission forward. This section started by looking at the impact of AI theory on subordinate effectiveness. Your subordinates could be more effective if you tried to create environments where you only ask for minimum coping behavior most of the time and only have to ask for maximum coping behavior in times of crisis. Next, you looked at senior NCO effectiveness where you saw that your effectiveness may be enhanced if you follow AI theory concepts. You can figure out the more adaptive or more innovative tendencies of others and be able to lead more effectively based on the problem you must solve. Furthermore, using AI theory can enhance accomplishment of the mission if you understand the more adaptive and more innovative tendencies of yourself and others. Now that you've covered the impact of AI theory on subordinate, senior NCO and mission effectiveness, it's easy to see just how important the theory is for today's leaders. With this in mind, let's take a look at what you've learned in this chapter. Summary. This chapter began by examining key concepts of AI theory. In order to gain appropriate knowledge about AI theory, you began by looking at the AI basic principles concerning the differences in level and style, the style differences, which lie on a normally distributed continuum from strongly adaptive on one end to strongly innovative on the other end and problem A versus problem B. Then, you covered the terms and perceptions using AI theory, which explained the importance of using the terms more adaptive and more innovative and also explained the importance of, it's all relative where you and others fall on the AI spectrum. Finally, you learned about the tendencies of the more adaptive and more innovative individuals, which, among others, look at the need for structure or the need for less structure. Both approaches are valuable. You also covered a few elements you should consider when using AI theory. Cognitive gaps, the difference between your preferred style and the style of others or the style required for a task can cause issues that need to be addressed. Individually, you might attempt to address the gaps by using coping behaviors. However, as a team leader, you should only ask for maximum coping behavior during times of crisis. Additionally, you should observe your people for signs of stress. If you're managing a large team, you would want to consider using bridgers or be a bridger yourself to close large gaps. Bridgers can help both sides come together using human relations skills like mediation or counseling in order to address any differences and refocus attention back to problem A. Finally, you wrapped up this chapter by learning about the impact on effectiveness. You started by looking at the impact of AI theory on subordinate effectiveness. You should try to create an environment where you only ask for minimum coping behaviors most of the time. Then, you covered the impact AI theory has on senior NCO effectiveness. Here, you learned that if you follow AI concepts, you can capitalize on the more adaptive or more innovative tendencies of others and be able to lead more effectively. Furthermore, using AI theory can enhance accomplishment of the mission because you can better understand the more adaptive and more innovative tendencies of yourself and others leading to conversations that frequently uncover new approaches and solutions to move the mission forward. More than likely, you've been tasked to lead a team to solve a problem. The styles your people used to engage in problem solving may be different. They're all creative, just in their own way. However, the bigger the difference, the more involved you'll have to be to manage it. How well you do so can impact your team's solution or even the mission itself. Jack Welch, retired chairman and CEO of General Electric once said, the idea flow from the human spirit is absolutely unlimited. All you have to do is tap into that well. An understanding of AI can help you appreciate the idea flow regardless of how you see it and where it comes from. Key terms. Adaption innovation theory, page three. Adaptive style, page three. Bridging, page 17. Cognitive gaps, page 12. Coping behavior, page 15. Innovative style, page four. Level, page three. Motive, page 16. Opportunity, page 16. Problem A, page four. Problem B, page four. Style, page three. Appendix A, strongly adaptive. There are six cognitive preferences from strongly, moderately and mildly adaptive to strongly, moderately and mildly innovative. As we move from left to right along the spectrum, the preference for structure decreases. Therefore, a person whose cognitive preference is mildly innovative prefers more structure than a person whose cognitive preference is moderately innovative. That same person prefers less structure than someone whose cognitive preference is moderately adaptive, and so on. In other words, it is relative. To learn more, you can read Dr. Curtin's book, Adaption Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, London, Routledge, 2011. To gain an appreciation for how your creative style affects your life in different ways and contexts, look over the descriptions in table one and judge for yourself how each description and or behavior applies to you. You may find it helpful to draw a line through any descriptions that do not sound like you at all and then underline, circle, or highlight those that do. If your preference is mildly adaptive or mildly innovative, you may be comfortable with descriptions and or behaviors in both columns. If you are moderately adaptive or moderately innovative, you are probably comfortable with many of the descriptions and or behaviors in one column, but may also be comfortable with a few of the descriptions and or behaviors in the other column. If you are strongly adaptive or strongly innovative, then you are probably comfortable with most or all of the descriptions and or behaviors in one column and may not be comfortable with any descriptions from the other column. Introduction and Background. What is cognitive preference? Cognitive preference is a stable preference that reflects the characteristic manner in which you solve problems, make decisions, and seek to bring about change. In other words, it reflects the way in which you are creative. Among general populations and across continents and cultures, cognitive style preference spans a wide bipolar spectrum in a normal distribution, ranging from those with a strong preference for structure to those with a weak preference for structure. MJ Curtin, one of the leading scholars in this field uses the terms highly adaptive and highly innovative to describe these two poles respectively with most people falling somewhere in between. C note. For accuracy, we use the terms more adaptive and more innovative to describe our style preferences relative to others. Note, it is important to note that innovation in the popular sense, for example, the realization of ideas is different from Curtin's definition of the term. From the cognitive style perspective, both more adaptive and more innovative people regularly realize novel ideas, for example, innovate, but they do so in different ways. And their ideas are novel in different ways as well. Value of different cognitive style preferences. No position along the cognitive preference spectrum is ideal in general, as complex problem solving and creative endeavors require a diversity of cognitive style preference for success overall. Cognitive style preference is independent of creative level. For example, intelligence, knowledge, skills, expertise, which means that people of all levels can be found at all places along the style spectrum and vice versa. Your cognitive style preference does not change during your lifetime, although you can and will behave in ways that do not align with your style when you have sufficient motive to do so called coping behavior. It comes at an extra personal cost. Estimating your cognitive style preference. Remember that no one can exist with no structure or within a completely rigid system. The real world lies between the two. Table one, factors, concern for paradigm or structure. Adaptive, prefer to operate within boundaries, system, policy, regulations, structure, standards, customs, organizational norms, et cetera, believes their way, current paradigm works well, thus it is the best way, i.e. no reason to change, may challenge or adjust rules if problem cannot be solved within current rule set. Innovative, broader ranging views, thus can operate in or outside boundaries, paradigm, system, policy, regulations, structure, standards, customs, organizational norms, et cetera. Feels current way, paradigm is ineffective, thus it must be changed, will challenge and bend or break rules to solve problems. Factor, importance to organization. Adaptive, helps maintain continuity. Knows and honors history or heritage reminds others of why things are done the way they are, i.e. adherence to rules, uses structure or rules to keep projects and programs on track to accomplish the mission. Innovative, helps shake things up, key to success during crisis and significant change initiatives. Not concerned with continuity or why things are done the way they are, may affect mission because of their struggle with staying focused or dedicated to routines, projects or programs, often placed in organizations to blow it up. Factor, continuous improvement and problem solving. Adaptive, prefers a well-defined, disciplined and detail-oriented approach, relies on established proven methods, offers fewer solutions, although those offered are unique and creative and focus on improving existing programs, often placed in organizations to get it focused on mission processes. Ideas are applicable to problem, economical and can be implemented immediately with high success rates. Innovative, offers many solutions aimed at changing existing programs, policies and processes, et cetera. Though unique and creative, most are impractical and result in high failure rates, rejects perception of problem so redefines it, finds pleasure in new ideas and concepts, often provides little follow through. Change management, adaptive, prefers or accepts change that improves existing programs, policies and processes, et cetera. Innovative, prefers change that changes or replaces existing programs. Communication, adaptive, prefers to know or clarify rules of engagement, hold quiet, orderly, give and take discussion, avoid or minimize interrupting others, seek agreement or clarification of points discussed, sometimes misinterpreted as being meek, innovative. Not overly concerned with rules of engagement, okay with noisy, chaotic discussion, guilty or tolerant of interruptions, not concerned with or seek agreement, provides own interpretation or clarification of points discussed, may come across as harsh or rude, abrupt or disruptive, teams or team building. Adaptive, seeks agreement or harmony, builds and values pulling together, tries to embrace or engage all members once consensus may appear more team oriented, innovative. Not overly concerned with agreement or harmony, independent, rogue, often perceived as a loose cannon. View of self, adaptive, able to identify advantages of being more adaptive but tends to not recognize shortcomings, becomes concerned when adaptive preference is pointed out. Innovative, able to identify advantages and disadvantages of being more innovative but tend not to care about their shortcomings and are not concerned when these are pointed out. As viewed by others, adaptive, as seen by innovators, compliant by the book, follows the regulations, conventional, stubborn, dedicated to current in place system, maintains status quo, uncomfortable with uncertainty, guarded, cautious, risk averse, boring, stoic. Innovative, as seen by adapters, easily bored, lack of attention to detail, non-compliant, throws out the book, treats regulations as guidelines, unconventional, not concerned about the status quo, comfortable with uncertainty, reckless, takes unwarranted risks, applicability of the adaption innovation theory, team building and rebuilding, conflict management between individuals within groups and between groups, selecting people for tasks, additional duties, special assignments, special duties, solving specific types of problems, e.g. adaptive, innovative, combination, reducing stress, e.g. understanding and reducing coping, conflict, managing cognitive diversity and cognitive gap, i.e. adapters versus innovators, manage problem B while creating a felt need and developing, implementing and monitoring change initiatives, help with resilience by giving insight to potential stressors.