Business Forum:
Understanding Work Styles

Yin Xu and Brad M. Tuttle

“. . . differences in work style can lead to conflict between subordinates and supervisors.”

Dr. Yin Xu is an Assistant Professor of Accounting at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Dr. Brad M. Tuttle is a Professor in the School of Accounting at the Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina.
 

Often, interpersonal factors are more important to one’s success in the workplace than is technical competence. One interpersonal factor that is likely to vary between subordinates and supervisors is work style. For instance, when faced with a problem, some people like to adapt solutions in a careful, methodical manner whereas others prefer innovative solutions. While some situations may call more for innovation and others for more adaptive solutions, in general, one approach is not better than the other. However, such differences in work style can lead to conflict between subordinates and supervisors.

Recently, the Moore School of Business completed a study aimed at validating a new measure of work style using innovator-adaptor theory, a theory that describes how individuals problem-solve based on their cognitive style. This measure could be used by employers to prevent conflicts resulting from differences in how they and their employees solve problems.

The most widely used measure of innovator-adaptor problem solving style is the Kirton Adaptor-Innovator (KAI) inventory consisting of 32 questions. The KAI measure has been used extensively in academics and in consulting; however, it is proprietary and its use is restricted. The underlying theoretical factors as proposed by M.J. Kirton in 1976 were adapted by S.L. Summers, J.T. Sweeney, and C.M. Wolk in 2000 to reflect work style rather than general problem solving style. We condensed the adapted factors into a new measure of innovator-adaptor (IA) work style consisting of only seven questions. Hence, the new measure, while retaining its validity and reliability, takes much less time to administer.

The objective of this study is to make this new measure available to the academic and business communities, thereby facilitating future research in this area. An academic version of the study was presented at the Performance Management Association Conference in July 2004 in Edinburgh, Scotland. The new measure is shown below.

Reliability refers to the ability to obtain the same score over repeated administrations of the scale. Reliability was tested on sophomore business students and senior accounting students. Measures, such as Cronbach’s alpha, indicate that reliability for this is high.

Validity refers to the degree that the new scale actually measures what it purports to measure. One way to test validity is to see if the scale is useful in predicting behavior. Therefore, we tested the validity of the new innovator-adaptor work style scale in a performance evaluation setting using similarity-attraction theory put forth by D. Byrne in 1961 as the theoretical basis. This theory states that, other things being equal, the behavior of another individual is positively reinforcing to the extent that it is similar to one’s own. Various studies have shown that similarities in demographic, biographic, and attitudinal characteristics lead a supervisor to like their subordinates and thus give them higher performance evaluations. We extended these findings to see if similarities in IA work style also lead to liking and higher performance evaluations as suggested by similarity-attraction theory.

Accounting students and professional MBA students were asked to assume the role of a supervisor who needed to evaluate a hypothetical subordinate’s performance. In this case, the subordinate’s work style was depicted as being either adaptive or innovative. The student’s own work style was measured by the new seven-item IA work style measure. Consistent with similarity theory, the students tended to like subordinates who had a similar work style to themselves, thus validating the IA scale in a theoretical application. The results show that the more similar the IA work style was between the supervisor and subordinate, the more the supervisor liked the subordinate. The more the supervisor liked the subordinate, the higher were the subordinate’s evaluations. The ability of the scale to reliably predict outcomes is evidence of construct validity.

Responses on the seven items are added up to arrive at an IA total score. The mean IA score averaged across all 314 participants in our study is 35.8. Scores lower than 35.8 represent a tendency towards adaptive problem solving whereas higher scores represent a more innovative style

Most work environments require a diversity of work styles to be successful. Therefore, organizations often strive to foster these differences. However, differences in work styles can lead to conflict. For this reason, many employers use various psychological measures to help their managers and employees understand themselves and those with whom they work. For instance, it is common to measure whether individual management styles are type A or type B. These kinds of exercises create self-awareness and facilitate interpersonal understanding. The new innovator-adaptor work style measure is one such exercise. It can provide a basis for understanding why differences occur and why conflicts sometimes happen.

Anecdotal experience has shown that innovators and adaptors can form rather intensive feelings of hostility towards those with the opposite work style. They also can form a rather strong preference for working with those having a similar style. In reality, innovation and adaptation are simply two valid approaches to solving a problem. Hopefully, by showing people who must work together and who must evaluate each other how both adaptive and innovative work styles can add value to the organization, this increased understanding will lead to fewer conflicts and more balanced performance evaluations. o

D. Byrne, “Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude Similarity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62, 1961, pp. 713-715.

M.J. Kirton, “Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology 61, 1976, pp. 622-629.

S.L. Summers, J. T. Sweeney, and C.M.Wolk, “Problem-solving Style and Fit in Consulting and Auditing,” Journal of Information Systems 14, 2000, pp. 1-15.