NG AIK KWANG

DAPHNE RODRIGUES

A Big-Five Personality Profile

of the Adaptor and Innovator

ABSTRACT This study explored the relationship between two creative styles
(adaptor and innovator) and the Big Five personality traits
(extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and openness to experience). 164 teachers from 3 secondary
and 2 primary schools in Singapore completed a self-report
questionnaire, which consisted of the Kirton Adaption-
Innovation Inventory and the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. It
was found that adaptors were significantly more conscientious
than innovators, while innovators were significantly more ex-
traverted and open to experience than adaptors. No significant
differences were found between adaptors and innovators in
neuroticism and agreeableness. The study also revealed a
meaningful pattern of relationships between the Big Five
personality traits and the three facet scales of the KAI.
Specifically, Sufficiency of Originality was negatively correlated
with Openness to Experience and Extraversion; Rule Gover-
nance was positively correlated with conscientiousness but
negatively correlated with openness to experience; Efficiency
was positively correlated with conscientiousness. The overall
findings supported the fundamental contention that different
creative styles were due to different combinations of personal-
ity traits, with adaptors being more conscientious, while
innovators being more extraverted and open to experience.
These personality-based differences in creative styles between
adaptors and innovators had resulted in much social conflict
between them. One way of resolving it is to make known the
nature and value of different creative styles to these two differ-
ent types of creators.

254 Volume 36 Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2002

 Journal of Creative Behavior

INTRODUCTION In creativity research, a distinction is usually made between

creative level and style (Isaksen and Dorval, 1993). Creative
level is a quantitative construct: it looks at how creative A is,
compared to B. In contrast, creative style is a qualitative con-
struct: it looks at the different ways in which A and B express
their creativity. Kirton (1976) postulated an adaption-innova-
tion continuum, in which individuals who are located on one
end of this continuum are adaptive, while those who are lo-
cated on the other end are innovative. According to Kirton,
adaptors and innovators are equally creative (i.e., he does not
make a distinction in their creative level). However, they differ
in the way they express their creativity.
Adaptors tend to “do things better”, while innovators tend
to “do things differently”. More specifically, adaptors prefer to
create change by incremental improvement of the existing
paradigm or system. They solve problems in a disciplined,
methodical, and predictable manner. Instead of coming up with
many new and probably unworkable ideas, they prefer to work
on one or two practical ideas at a time. They also maintain
cohesion in their workgroup by following the accepted ways of
doing things. According to Kirton (1994), the adaptor is like
the bureaucrat described by organizational scholars such as
Weber and Merton.
In contrast, innovators prefer to create change by an over-
haul of the existing paradigm or system. Unlike adaptors, they
have a penchant for wild innovation, and often come up with
many new and impractical ideas at a time, known colloquially
as “thinking out of the box”. However, they are not cut out for
the grinding administrative work which adaptors excel in. Nei-
ther do they enjoy working in a group setting. Instead, they
prefer to strike out on their own. In Kirton’s opinion, the inno-
vator is like the creative loner who compulsively toys with ideas
in her solitude, as described by Rogers (1961).
The Kirton Adaption-Innovation inventory (KAI) is used to
gauge whether the person’s creative style is towards the adap-
tive or innovative end. Factor analyses of the KAI reveal that it
consists of three facets corresponding to three factor traits:
Sufficiency of Originality (SO), Rule Governance (R), and Effi-
ciency (Bagozzi and Foxall, 1995). SO indicates a preference
for producing a few implementable solutions to problems; R
refers to the social tendency to maintain workgroup cohesion
by doing things in accepted ways; while E involves a bureau-
cratic concern for being exact, systematic and disciplined.
Adaptors tend to produce fewer implementable solutions to

255
A Big-Five Personality Profile of the Adaptor and Innovator

problems, to comply with the workgroup, as well as to be me-

thodical and bureaucratic. In contrast, innovators tend to be
brimming with ideas, to flout workplace rules, as well as to
display little concern with bureaucratic details.
Due to their contrasting style of solving problems, adaptors
and innovators have a biased view of one another. Adaptors
tend to be seen by innovators as stuffy and unenterprising,
wedded to systems, rules, and norms of behaviour which (in
the opinion of innovators) are restrictive and ineffectual. In
contrast, innovators tend to be seen by adaptors as abrasive,
insensitive and disruptive, unaware of the havoc they are caus-
ing. Or put in another way, innovators would pejoratively claim
that their adaptive counterparts originate with a finger on the
stop button; retorting back, adaptors would pejoratively claim
that their innovative counterparts cannot find such a button
(Kirton, 1987).
Empirical research has substantiated this portrayal of the
adaptor and innovator. For example, McHale and Flegg (1986)
found that teams composed primarily of adaptors or innova-
tors were very different in their style of working when presented
with a problem on a team-building seminar. One team which
included three highly innovative people found it extremely dif-
ficult to work together, with one innovative participant having
to retire periodically from the group in order to cool down. This
team produced a highly imaginative proposal as a solution to
the problem, but grossly overspent their budget. As expected,
the team which was primarily composed of adaptors produced
a solution to the problem which conformed to the guidelines
and was submitted on time. The content, however, was unex-
citing and had not made full use of all the available resources.
Goldsmith (1994) argues that Kirton’s adaption-innovation
theory describes a cognitive style or preference for certain
patterns of behaviour which are “trait-like” in nature. They are
“trait-like” because there is a certain consistency in the
behaviour of adaptors (they tend to do things better) and inno-
vators (they tend to do things differently). However, they are
different from personality traits per se because they are more
specific in the behaviourial domain to which they refer (i.e.,
solving problems in an organisational setting). In fact, they are
“traceable to broader traits and result from the combination or
confluence of more than one underlying trait, representing
thereby unique combinations of traits whose interactions pro-
duce particular styles of behaviour in particular situations”
(p.38).

256
 Journal of Creative Behavior

Since the adaptive and innovative styles of creative prob-

lem-solving are the result of multiple personality traits, we might
expect to find significant correlations between scores on the
KAI and various personality instruments, as underlying and
distal personality traits lead to the characteristic preferences
for the two creative problem-solving styles. A growing body of
research on the KAI, which is summarised in Goldsmith (1994,
p. 43), confirms many of these nomological relationships. For
example, compared with adaptors, innovators are more extra-
verted and likely to identify themselves as sensation or change
seekers and risk-takers. Innovators are also less dogmatic and
more flexible, have more tolerance for ambiguity, and have
less need for structure. However, A-I is unrelated to neuroti-
cism or to social desirability. In contrast to innovators, adap-
tors possess lower self-esteem; they are also more conservative
and likely to control their impulses. In addition, they are less
ready to change than innovators.
One major purpose of this study is to contribute to the grow-
ing literature in this area by looking at the relationship between
the KAI and the Big Five model of the human personality. This
model of personality has become an increasingly influential
framework for organizing and understanding the universe of
personality traits, as it has demonstrated considerable
generalizability and applicability across various self and peer
report measures of personality traits (McCrae and John, 1992).
The Big Five personality traits include Extraversion, Agreeable-
ness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to
Experience.
Extraversion refers to individual differences in assertiveness
and dominance in a social setting. Agreeableness refers to in-
dividual differences in warmth and nurturance in interpersonal
relationships. Conscientiousness refers to individual differences
in diligence, reliability, and dependability in performing an
assigned task. Neuroticism refers to individual differences in
the tendency to experience distress and anxiety. Finally, Open-
ness to Experience refers to individual differences in the ten-
dency to pursue novel experiences in life. In unison, they cover
a vast conceptual space that encompasses the central human
concerns of power (Extraversion), love (Agreeableness), work
(Conscientiousness), affect (Neuroticism), and intellect (Open-
ness to Experience) (Peabody and Goldberg, 1989).
By investigating the association between the KAI and the
Big Five, we can derive a better understanding of the unique
combination of personality traits which underlie the adaptive

257
A Big-Five Personality Profile of the Adaptor and Innovator

and innovative styles of creative problem-solving. However,

before we proceed to develop our hypotheses concerning the
KAI and the Big Five, an issue needs to be addressed. This
issue concerns the unidimensionality of the KAI inventory. In
Kirton’s original adaption-innovation theory, a major premise
is that individuals can be placed on a unidimensional con-
tinuum, ranging from an adaptive to an innovative creative
problem-solving style. Indeed, he developed the KAI inventory
to locate individuals on such a unidimensional continuum
(Kirton, 1976). Taking the cue, many researchers have treated
the KAI as a unidimensional measure and examined psycho-
logical differences between adaptors and innovators.
However, the unidimensionality of the KAI has been chal-
lenged by Bagozzi and Foxall (1995). These two researchers
used confirmatory factor analysis to show that the KAI con-
sisted of three distinct yet positively-associated facets corre-
sponding to SO, R, and E. This challenged the oft-assumed
unidimensional conceptualization of adaption and innovation.
Based on their findings, Bagozzi and Foxall argued that the
KAI should not be treated as a unidimensional measure, via
summing up the facet scores into a single score. This is be-
cause it could “obscure the distinctiveness of factor traits and
capitalize in a misleading way on shared variance across fac-
tor traits.” (p.202).
Although we feel that Bagozzi and Foxall’s argument has a
lot of merit in it, yet our earlier review of the empirical literature
indicates that treating the KAI as a unidimensional measure
has its merits as well, for example, in delineating the psycho-
logical differences between the typical adaptor and innovator.
As such, in this study, we decided to examine the association
between the KAI and the Big Five in two ways. First, we will
treat the KAI as a unidimensional measure and examine its
association with the five personality traits. Second, we will
examine the associations between these five personality traits
and the three facet scales of the KAI inventory, namely SO,
R, and E.
In accordance with this strategy, we will formulate two sets
of hypotheses in this paper. The first set of hypotheses deal
with the personality traits of adaptors and innovators. From a
review of the empirical literature, we have seen that adaptors
are characterized by their methodological approach towards
problem-solving within an existing paradigm. A person who
behaves in this systematic and disciplined manner is highly
conscientious: such a conscientious personality has the

258
 Journal of Creative Behavior

psychological resources for the grinding administrative work

which the adaptor excels in. Hence it is predicted that adap-
tors are more conscientious than innovators (H1A).
In place of the disciplined habits of the adaptor is the pen-
chant of the innovator to “think out of the box” (i.e., to come
up with many radical ideas which may not be implementable
in the first place). The innovator proliferates ideas because she
is highly open to experience. Such an open disposition enables
her to engage in these feats of the imagination. Hence it is
predicted that innovators are more open to experience than
adaptors (H1B).
The open innovator with her radical and impractical ideas is
likely to upset the conservative tempo of her workgroup. In
turn, they will apply pressure on her to conform or toe the line.
To save her radical ideas from oblivion, she will need to assert
herself against her conservative workgroup, much like the dog-
matic creator described by Ng (2001), who refuses to bulge
from her iconoclastic stance, despite much pressure to do so
by the rest of her community who adhere to the status quo.
Hence it is predicted that innovators are more extraverted than
adaptors (H1C).
No association is predicted between adaption-innovation and
neuroticism. The reasoning is as follows: neuroticism is a value-
laden construct, in the sense that to be high in neuroticism is
bad and vice versa. However, a close scrutiny of Kirton’s theory
indicates that creative styles should not be viewed in this man-
ner. Instead, they should be viewed as psychological coping
mechanisms in an organizational setting: adaptors tend to cope
by “doing things better”, while innovators tend to cope by
“doing things differently” (Kirton, 1994). Each preferred style
of coping is neither better nor worse for the person, in relation
to its impact on her psychological health. Hence it is predicted
that adaptors and innovators do not differ in neuroticism (H1D).
Similarly, no association is predicted between adaption-
innovation and agreeableness. Intuitively, this does not sound
right, for the empirical literature has shown that adaptors are
co-operative team-mates, while innovators are not. However,
it is noted that agreeableness is a basic dimension of the
human personality which involves the warmth-coldness aspect
of the person. Psychological characteristics such as altruism,
nurturance, caring, and emotional support characterize one
end of this dimension, while hostility, indifference to others,
self-centeredness, spitefulness, and jealousy characterize
the other end (Digman, 1990). A person with an agreeable

259
A Big-Five Personality Profile of the Adaptor and Innovator

personality has a benign view of human nature (i.e., people

are basically reliable and trustworthy). In contrast, a person
with a disagreeable personality has a jaundiced view of
human nature (i.e., people are basically unreliable and untrust-
worthy). Nothing in the empirical literature suggests that inno-
vators have a jaundiced view of human nature, compared to
adaptors. It is true that the extreme innovator has a pejorative
view of the adaptor, but then again, the extreme adaptor
returns the compliment, so to speak. Hence it is predicted that
adaptors and innovators do not differ in agreeableness (H1E).
The second set of hypotheses deal with the relationships
between the Big Five and the three facet scales of the KAI,
namely, Sufficiency of Originality (SO), Rule Governance (R),
and Efficiency (E). With regards to sufficiency of originality,
adaptors are high in SO, whereas innovators are low in SO. In
everyday parlance, this means that the adaptor develops a
small number of practical solutions to a problem, while the
innovator offers many ideas which may not be implementable.
We have deduced earlier that this innovative penchant to “think
out of the box” is due to the open personality of the innovator.
In accordance with this inference, it is predicted that there is a
negative correlation between SO and openness to experience
(H2A). We have also seen that in order to save her radical ideas
from oblivion, the open innovator will need to assert herself
against her conservative workgroup. That is, a person who
proliferates ideas must be psychologically prepared to defend
them, much like the dogmatic creator described by Ng (2001).
Hence, it is predicted that there is a negative correlation be-
tween SO and extraversion (H2B).
Moving on to Rule Governance, adaptors are high in R
whereas innovators are low in R. In everyday parlance, this
means that the adaptor will maintain workgroup cohesion by
doing things in accepted ways, in contrast to her more innova-
tive counterpart. Such an adaptor is likely to be highly consci-
entious in following accepted workplace procedures; her
conformance to the workgroup would lead her to be less open
to experience. Hence it is predicted that there is a positive
correlation between R and conscientiousness (H2C), but a
negative correlation between R and openness to experience
(H2D).
With regards to Efficiency, adaptors are high in E whereas
innovators are low in E. In everyday parlance, this means that
the adaptor possess a bureaucratic concern for being exact,
systematic and disciplined, in contrast to her more innovative

260
 Journal of Creative Behavior

counterpart. To be exact, systematic and disciplined is to be

conscientious. Hence, it is predicted that there is a positive cor-
relation between E and conscientiousness (H2E).

METHOD 164 teachers from 2 primary and 3 secondary schools in

Singapore were recruited to take part in this study. They vol-
untarily responded to a survey containing two psychological
scales. The first scale is the Kirton Adaption-Innovation
Inventory (KAI). This is a 32-item inventory which is used to
measure the creative style of the respondent on the adaption-
innovation continuum. Respondents are required to indicate
how well each item describes her, along a 5-point scale which
ranges from “1 — item does not describe me well” to “5 — item
describes me well”. Examples of adaptive items are “conforms”
and “enjoys detailed work”. Examples of innovative items are
“will sooner create than improve” and “comes up with plenty
of ideas”. A higher overall score indicates a more innovative
orientation, whereas a lower overall score indicates a more
adaptive orientation.The reliability and validity of the KAI has
been established in many studies in different countries (see
Kirton, 1994).
The second scale is the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-
FFI). This is a 60-item inventory which is used to measure the
Big Five personality traits of the respondent. Each personality
trait is represented by 12 items, which may be positively- or
negatively-worded. Respondents are required to indicate how
strongly they agree or disagree with each item, along a 5-point
scale which ranges from “1 — strongly disagree” to “5 —
strongly agree”. The relevant items from a certain subscale
are reverse-scored and added together; this summative score
is a measure of the respondent’s score on that particular Big
Five personality trait. The reliability and validity of the NEO-
FFI has been established by various researchers (e.g., McCrae
and Costa, 1987).

RESULTS Table 1 below shows the means, standard deviations, and in-
ternal reliabilities of the KAI (including the three facet scales)
as well as the NEO-FFI. A close scrutiny of this table reveals
that the subscale measuring agreeableness stands out from
the rest of the sub-scales of the Big Five personality traits with
its low internal reliability (0.57) and small standard deviation
(4.51). To test the first set of hypotheses, we initially identified
the adaptors and innovators in our sample of teachers. Adher-
ing to Kirton’s practice, they are defined as those respondents

261
A Big-Five Personality Profile of the Adaptor and Innovator

who scored more than one standard deviation below the mean
(for adaptors) and above the mean (for innovators). From Table
1, it can be seen that adaptors are respondents who have scores
of 75 and below, while innovators are respondents who have
scores of 102 and above. The sample yielded 24 adaptors and
24 innovators exactly, with the rest being undifferentiated in
their creative problem-solving styles.

TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Reliabilities of the

Various Scales.

Scale Standard Internal

Mean
(no. of items) Deviation Reliability
KAI (32) 88.58 13.45 0.87
Sufficiency of
37.57 6.23 0.78
Originality (13)
Rule Governance (12) 40.53 6.63 0.82
Efficiency (7) 25.21 5.00 0.87
Extraversion (12) 39.44 6.20 0.78
Agreeableness (12) 44.12 4.51 0.57
Conscientiousness (12) 45.64 6.32 0.83
Neuroticism (12) 32.23 7.15 0.80
Openness to
38.56 5.32 0.66
Experience (12)

Having identified the adaptors and innovators in this study,

a number of independent-samples t-tests were performed on
the two groups of adaptors and innovators, with the Big Five
personality traits as the dependent variables. A p-value of 0.01
and below is considered as statistically significant in this study.
The results are shown in Table 2 below. Hypothesis 1A is
supported: adaptors (47.63) are significantly more conscien-
tious than innovators (40.00), with t (46) = 3.88, p < 0.0001.
Hypothesis 1B is supported: innovators (43.17) are significantly
more open to experience than adaptors (36.29), with
t (46) = –4.54, p < 0.0001. Hypothesis 1C is supported: inno-
vators (40.21) are significantly more extraverted than adap-
tors (34.50), with t (46) = –3.18, p < 0.005. Hypothesis 1D is
supported: adaptors (37.21) and innovators (33.08) do not

262
 Journal of Creative Behavior

differ in neuroticism, with t (46) = 1.77, n.s. Hypothesis 1E is

supported: adaptors (44.83) and innovators (42.75) do not
differ in agreeableness, with t (46) = 1.44, n.s.
TABLE 2. Results of independent-samples t-test for adaptors and
innovators.
Mean Mean Results of independent-
score of score of samples t-test
adaptors innovators
Extraversion 34.50 40.21 t (46) = — 3.18, p < 0.005
Agreeableness 44.83 42.75 t (46) = 1.44, n.s.
Conscientiousness 47.63 40.00 t (46) = 3.88, p < 0.0001
Neuroticism 37.21 33.08 t (46) = 1.77, n.s.
Openness to
Experience 36.29 43.17 t (46) = — 4.54, p < 0.0001

Table 3 below presents the correlational matrix for the KAI

facet scales and the NEO-FFI. From the table, it can be seen
that Hypothesis 2A is supported: SO is negatively correlated
with Openness to Experience (r = –0.40, p < 0.01). Hypothesis
2B is supported: SO is negatively correlated with Extraversion
(r = –0.43, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 2C is supported: R is posi-
tively correlated with conscientiousness (r = 0.41, p < 0.01).
Hypothesis 2D is supported: R is negatively correlated with
openness to experience (r = –0.38, p < 0.01). Finally, Hypoth-
esis 2E is supported: E is positively correlated with conscien-
tiousness (r = 0.73, p < 0.01).

TABLE 3. Correlational matrix for the KAI facet scales and the NEO-FFI

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(1) Sufficiency of O. 1.00
(2) Rule Governance 0.36** 1.00
(3) Efficiency 0.00 0.63** 1.00
(4) Extraversion –0.43** –0.14 0.13 1.00
(5) Agreeableness 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.21** 1.00
(6) Conscientiousness –0.08 0.41** 0.73** 0.28** 0.31** 1.00
(7) Neuroticism 0.19 0.08 –0.15 –0.51** –0.40** –0.42** 1.00
(8) Openness to Experience –0.40** –0.38** –0.05 0.11 –0.02 0.04 –0.15 1.00
** p < 0.01

263
A Big-Five Personality Profile of the Adaptor and Innovator

DISCUSSION Our basic aim in this study is to develop a better understand-

ing of the unique combination of personality traits which un-
derlie the two contrasting styles of creative problem-solving.
We developed two sets of hypotheses to shed light on this
matter. The first set of hypotheses involved treating the KAI as
a unidimensional measure, and examined its association with
the Big Five personality traits. We found that in comparison
with innovators, adaptors tended to be more conscientious.
On the other hand, in comparison with adaptors, innovators
tended to be more extraverted and open to experience. As
predicted, no significant differences were found between
these two groups of creators in relation to their neuroticism
and agreeableness.
The second set of hypotheses examined the associations
between the Big Five personality traits and the three facet scales
of the KAI inventory, namely SO, R, and E. We found that firstly,
Sufficiency of Originality was negatively correlated with Open-
ness to Experience and Extraversion. Secondly, Rule Gover-
nance was positively correlated with Conscientiousness and
negatively correlated with Openness to Experience. Finally,
Efficiency was found to be positively correlated with Consci-
entiousness.
The empirical verification of these two sets of hypotheses
support our basic contention that adaptors and innovators are
characterized by distinct sets of personality traits. In particu-
lar, the conscientious nature of the adaptor enables her to be a
diligent co-worker who contributes to workplace harmony by
performing her tasks in accepted ways. In contrast, the open
and extraverted nature of the innovator enables her to achieve
two simultaneous feats in the workplace, namely to “think out
of the box”, as well as to champion her radical ideas in the face
of workgroup opposition.
Two other findings in our study are worth highlighting. The
first finding concerns the lack of association between neuroti-
cism and KAI. We interpret this finding as supporting our ar-
gument that both adaptation and innovation are psychological
coping mechanisms in an organizational setting. As such, each
creative style should not be seen as being better or worse off
than its counterpart, especially in relation to its impact on the
psychological health of the creator.
The second finding concerns the lack of association between
agreeableness and KAI. We interpret this finding as support-
ing our argument that it would be wrong to think of the innova-
tor as being a less agreeable person in comparison with the

264
 Journal of Creative Behavior

adaptor. As we have noted earlier, this inference is not intu-

itively obvious: after all, both theoretical formulation and em-
pirical research indicate that the innovator has a harder time
in getting along with her co-workers, in comparison with her
more adaptive counterparts. How can we align our contradic-
tory findings with the received wisdom? We argue that there is
no contradiction involved. Instead, the “bad press” of the inno-
vator stems from her problem-solving style in a work setting.
In this arena, she behaves like the dogmatic creator as de-
scribed by Ng (2001), who refuses to bulge from an iconoclas-
tic stance. For this temerity in pushing her radical ideas in the
workplace, she gets labeled as a “trouble-maker”. But in set-
tings which are not work-related, she may well turn out to be a
nice and agreeable person.
However, there are at least two other possible explanations
for this empirical finding. First, the lack of association between
agreeableness and KAI may be due to the low reliability of the
scale measuring agreeableness. Replication studies need to
be conducted before any firm conclusion can be drawn. Sec-
ond, the lack of association between agreeableness and KAI
may be due to the restricted range in the agreeableness mea-
sure (Tilley, 1994). This restriction in range is revealed in the
low standard deviation of the agreeableness measure, in com-
parison with the other Big Five measures. In turn, this restric-
tion in range may be due to the voluntary nature of this
research. That is, because the study is not compulsory, only
co-operative teachers might have completed the survey. To deal
with this situation, future studies can frame the research from
the participant’s perspective (e.g., completing the survey will
enable one to gain a deeper insight into oneself). In this way,
more teachers will be encouraged to take part in the study.
Several implications stem from this study. First, our find-
ings indicate that there is merit in using the KAI in two ways.
One way is to treat the KAI as a unidimensional measure which
locates individuals along an adaption-innovation continuum.
This approach provides a broader analysis of the phenomenon.
Another way is to treat the KAI as a conglomeration of differ-
ent facets, namely SO, R, and E. This approach provides a
more refined analysis of the phenomenon. Our study indicates
that at both the broader level of analysis (adaption-innovation),
as well as the more refined level of analysis (SO, R, and E), a
meaningful picture emerges of the psychological characteris-
tics of the adaptor and innovator.
Another implication deals with the current trend in many

265
A Big-Five Personality Profile of the Adaptor and Innovator

Asian societies to nurture creativity in the classroom. For ex-

ample, the Ministry of Education in Singapore (1998) has iden-
tified creativity as one of the desired outcomes of education in
its students. “Creativity” is conceived as a quantitative con-
struct in this context (i.e., Student A has more or less creativ-
ity in comparison with Student B). However, this study has
shown that it is equally valid to conceive of creativity as a quali-
tative construct (i.e., both Student A and Student B are equally
creative, although they express it in different ways). The teacher
who attempts to inculcate creativity in her students should bear
in mind this conceptual distinction in the nature of creativity.
A third implication deals with the hostility and even ostra-
cism which certain creators meet in an organizational setting.
Of particular concern is the opposition which the innovator
faces from her more adaptive counterparts in the workplace.
The innovator is often seen by these adaptors as a dogmatic
creator who upsets the accepted way of doing things. This can
only worsen the working relationship between them, even
though our study does not support the intuitive notion that the
innovator is a disagreeable person in general (although she
may be extremely uncooperative in the workplace).
One way out of this impasse is to enlighten the innovator
and her more adaptive counterparts on the nature of creative
styles. This enlightenment consists of two central ideas. First,
different creators express their creativity differently. Second,
different creative styles make unique contributions to the or-
ganization. By understanding these two central ideas concern-
ing the nature of creative styles, the innovator can learn to
appreciate the unique strengths of her more adaptive counter-
parts and vice versa. A study by Schroder (1994) shows the
benefits of highlighting the nature of creative styles to differ-
ent creative types.
We would even go further in asserting that to be a creative
problem-solver, the adaptor needs to be more innovative in the
way she solves a problem, while the innovator needs to be more
adaptive. By this assertion, we mean that the adaptor needs to
develop those skills/traits which her more innovative counter-
part is abundantly endowed with (e.g., divergent thinking, prob-
lem-finding, tolerance of ambiguity, calculated risk-taking). In
a similar vein, the innovator needs to develop those skills/traits
which her more adaptive counterpart is abundantly endowed
with (e.g., a pain-staking attention to details, a willingness to
listen to the opinions of others, an ability to implement a solu-
tion and evaluate its effectiveness).

266
 Journal of Creative Behavior

The first set of skills/traits is more commonly associated

with the notion of creativity in the public’s eye, since it is more
innovative than the second set of skills/traits. However, Brophy
(1998) has noted that a complete creative problem-solving
process requires periods of divergent ideation alternating with
convergent evaluation, as well as the ability to judge when each
is appropriate. In a similar vein, Runco (1994) noted that the
entire creative problem-solving process involves an interactive
and recursive pattern of divergent and convergent thought pro-
cesses. In other words, the adaptor and innovator must not
only learn how they differ in terms of creative style; in addition,
they must learn the creative style of their counterpart. By learn-
ing from each other, they will become creative problem-solv-
ers who can deal with challenges in the real world effectively.

REFERENCES BAGOZZI, R. P. & FOXALL, G. R. (1995). Construct validity and

generalisability of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. European
Journal of Personality, 9, 185-206.
BROPHY, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual
creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2),
123-150.
DIGMAN, J M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor
model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
GOLDSMITH, R. E. (1994). Creative style and personality theory. In M. J.
Kirton (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and
problem-solving (pp.34-50). London: Routledge
ISAKSEN, S. G. & DORVAL, K. B. (1993). Toward an improved understanding
of creativity within people: The level-style distinction. In S. G. Isaksen,
M. C. Murdock, R.L. Firesties & D.J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding
and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp.299-
330). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
KIRTON, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.
KIRTON, M. J. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive style and
personality. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research:
Beyond the basics (pp. 282-304). Buffalo: Bearly Limited.
KIRTON, M. J. (1994). A Theory of Cognitive Style. In M. J. Kirton (Ed.),
Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-solving
(pp.1-33). London: Routledge
McCRAE, R. R., & COSTA, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McCRAE, R. R., & JOHN, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor
Model and its Applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
McHALE, J. & FLEGG, D. (1986). Innovators rule OK – or do they? Training
and Development Journal, Oct. 10-13.

267
 A Big-Five Personality Profile of the Adaptor and Innovator

NG, A. K. (2001). Why creators are dogmatic people, “nice” people are not
creative and creative people are not “nice”. International Journal of
Group Tensions, 30(4), 293-324.
PEABODY, D. & GOLDBERG, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor
structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.
ROGERS, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
RUNCO, M. A. (1994). Conclusions concerning problem-finding, problem-
solving and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem-finding, problem-
solving, and creativity (pp.271-290). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
SCHRODER, H. M. (1994). Managerial competence and style. In M. J. Kirton
(Ed.), Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-
solving (pp.91-113). London: Routledge
THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (1998). The desired outcomes of
education in Singapore. http://www1.moe.edu.sg/desired.htm
TILLEY, A. (1994). An introduction to psychological research and
statistics. Australia: Pineapple Press.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ng Aik

Kwang, Psychological Studies, National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616 (Email:
akng@nie.edu.sg)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We would like to thank the Editor as well as two anonymous reviewers for
their constructive comments on this paper.

268