The thinking style of the managers of multiple projects: implications for problem solving when managing change

~

International Journal of Project Management Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 281-287, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0263-7863/96 $15.00 + 0.00

Pergamon

S0263-7863(96)00012-9

The thinking style of the managers of multiple projects: implications for problem solving when managing change Arthur D Tuilett JFR International, Gogmore Lane, Chertsey, Surrey, KT]6 9JW, UK

The purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) To draw attention to an important aspect of cognition-thinking style. Theory predicts, and research has clearly shown, that thinking style influences the way in which individuals prefer to use their intelligence, ability, knowledge and skills when making decisions and solving problems. (b) To discuss the results obtained from testing the hypothesis that managers of multiple projects are likely to have a more innovative thinking style than managers in general. The hypothesis is supported and the paper discusses the influence of thinking style on several key aspects of the management of multiple projects. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA Keywords: multiple projects, change, project management, problem solving, thinking style

The effective implementation of projects depends upon the interaction of many different factors. The characteristics of the project manager are clearly important and Turner ~ has proposed six traits for effective project managers: problem solving ability and results orientation, energy and initiative, self-assured leadership, broad perspective, communicating and negotiating abilities. Of course, knowledge and learned skills also make important contributions. Problem solving activities pervade project management and, in a similar vein to many authors, Turner has stated that: The achievement of the project's purpose is a problem, as is the completion of each stage of the life cycle . . . . Furthermore, the control process is also one of problem solving, planning recovery to overcome variances from plan. Without a problem solving ability the project manager would be lost. (ibid., p. 428).

Thinking style One of the purposes of this paper is to draw attention to another important factor which impacts upon problem solving in the field of project management: cognitive or thinking style. Thinking style is a component of cognition which influences the way in which a person acquires, organises and uses information. In other words, thinking style describes the preferred way in which individuals make decisions and solve problems when they are given a free

hand to do so. Theory predicts that thinking style is not related to ability or intelligence but influences the way in which individuals prefer to use or apply their abilities and competencies. A considerable amount of research has clearly supported this prediction 1-5. Thinking style, thinking ability, knowledge, experience and learned skills all make important contributions to the manner and effectiveness with which project managers guide their projects. Of particular interest to project management is the theory of adaptive-innovative (A-I) thinking style which was developed by Kirton 6 after observing the characteristic way in which individuals and teams made (or avoided) decisions, solved (or ignored) problems and implemented (or failed to implement) change. He proposed that the thinking style of each person can be located on a bi-polar, linear scale with those located close to one pole being described as high (or habitual) adaptors and those located close to the other pole being described as high (or habitual) innovators. The main differences in their characteristics are summarised in Table 1. When solving problems the main influence of thinking style is on the type of solutions a person is likely to offer. This has been confirmed by many published studies. For example Schroder 7 posed the same problem to groups of managers which were matched as nearly as possible for performance, ability and experience but some groups comprised medium-high adaptors and the other comprised high-medium innovators. The groups offered very different solutions. Typically the adaptor groups responded: 'improve 281

The thinking style of managers of multiple projects: A D Tullett Table 1 Characteristics of high adaptors and high innovators High adaptors

High i n n o v a t o r s

Are more concerned with improving the efficiency of the current system

Are more concerned with generating possibilities for a future system Are seen as undisciplined, thinking tangentially, approaching tasks from unusual angles Resolve problems by redefining them, question basic assumptions and frequently offer novel solutions which are not immediately acceptable to most people Produce many ideas including those seen initially as irrelevant, unsound and risky Prefer less structured and often changing working environments; easily bored with routine Often challenge rules, are catalysts to settled groups and so can be perceived as disruptive and abrasive

Are characterised by precision, reliability, conformity, methodicalness, prudence Seek solutions to problems in tried and understood ways which are acceptable to most people

Produce a few relevant, safe ideas for immediate implementation Prefer stable, structured and predictable working environments Rarely challenge rules, maintain group stability and cohesion

(Adapted from Reference 3 with permission M J Kirton)

on present ideas, let's avoid impact on others, we need more precise details and let's proceed more cautiously' whereas the innovator groups did not stay within the instructions and proposed many more blue-sky, aggressive and risky solutions. This has important implications for the management of projects as illustrated by the following situation which arose during a discussion with a business team with which the author was working: The company manufactures electrical components and has clients throughout Europe. The number of complaints about late deliveries into France is beginning to increase. A meeting has been called to agree the action(s) to be taken. Barbara proposes that she assigns a couple of her people to check every step from receipt of order to signature of the delivery note by the client in order to identify the sources of delays and eliminate them. Everyone, including David, accepts this as the current way forward but just as the meeting is about to break up David says: "So the problem is that we are experiencing problems satisfying our French clients. I would like to suggest we consider setting up a manufacturing and distribution centre in France." The differences between David and Barbara in preferred approach to solving this problem need not be attributed to their intelligence, competence or ability but are more likely to arise from the difference in their thinking styles. (This example is referred to again later.) There is a long tradition of research into thinking style and its influence on information processing strategy and readable and informative overviews have recently been published 2,3. It is important to emphasise that people are not simply categorised as either adaptors or innovators. Each person's thinking style is located on a continuous scale between high (or habitual) adaptors and high (or habitual) innovators. The actual balance of the characteristics in Table 1 dictates where a person's thinking style is located on the adaptorinnovator scale. The characteristics described in Table 1 can be summarised in the words of GoldsmithS: " A consistent picture emerges of the (high) innovator who pays little attention to 282

routine details, welcomes the new and different and generates many novel ideas contrasted with the (high) adaptor who watches the details, works routinely and steadily, preferring standard solutions to problems" (ibid., p. 103). A considerable amount of research 9 has shown that when adaptors are confronted with a problem they are likely to turn to conventional and established procedures as well as consensually agreed practices in order to find solutions. Conversely, innovators faced with the same problem would tend to approach it from a new or unusual starting point. In the example of the discussion of problems of late deliveries David is displaying some of the characteristics of a medium-to-high innovator and Barbara is displaying some of the characteristics of a medium-to-high adaptor. David and Barbara genuinely believe that they have proposed effective approaches to eliminating the same problem. Barbara's adaptive approach addresses the present problem within its current context. She has suggested a standard approach which her experience has shown is likely to work. David's innovative suggestion has taken a wider, more radical perspective and is certainly not one that could be accepted without much further discussion. Both approaches are likely to be effective in solving the problem--but in very different ways! The Kirton adaption-innovation

inventory (KAI)

Kirton has developed a psychometric instrument for measuring A - I thinking style: the Kirton adaption-innovation inventory (KAI) 3'6. The KAI gives scores in the range 32-160 with a theoretical mean score and mid point of scale of 96. In practice, scores for general population samples fall in the range 45-145 with an approximately normal distribution about a mean of 95. Adaptive and innovative cognitive styles are indicated by scores below and above 95, respectively. Figure 1 shows the approximately normal distribution of scores obtained for a UK general population sample of 1420 people calculated from several studies. The mean score is 95.3 (S.D. = 16.2) 3'6. Similar data have been obtained for psychometrically valid translations of the KAI into Dutch j° (mean = 95.6, S.D. = 17.3), French ~° (mean = 9 4 . 2 , S.D. = 19.3), Italian 11'~2 (mean = 9 4 . 1 , S.D. = 17.7) and S l o v a k j3'14 (mean = 95.1, S.D. = 15.6). The reliability and validity of the KAI are well established and details can be found in a recent overview by several authors 9. 300 ~' !I : ..: :,:.~ .:.:.~,:..~ :::::: :::~ :::,:::::5 i:i:i:i:i:i . . .:i:!:?i:i: .

200 ! h

i:!:;i:i

:?;:~iil

N

ooi

oJ 32

48

56 64 72 INCREASING ADAPTION

80

88

96

104 112 120 128 136 144 160 INCREASING INNOVATION

HA/SCORE

Figure 1 Distribution of KAI scores for a UK general population sample (N = 1420) (from data originally published by Kirton 3'6, reproduced with permission Open University, UK)

The thinking style of managers of multiple projects: A D TuHett The data from many empirical studies have clearly confirmed that the KAI is a measure of thinking style and not thinking ability. Kirton 3 has summarised the results of six separate studies in which 17 correlations were made between thinking style and thinking ability. All are insignificant. The observations of Schroder 7 of middle and upper level managers from a variety of different organisations has shown that there is no correlation between thinking style and management competence. Of 11 high performance managerial competencies there is only one (concept formation) which correlates with KAI scores--and this at the low level of 0.22. Similarly insignificant correlations have been reported between thinking style and educational achievement 3'H'~2'~s and creative capacity 16J7. Hence, knowledge of a person's intelligence or ability tells us nothing about his/her thinking style, nor vice versa. In other words, two project managers having similar levels of ability and competence could wish to use their capacities in different ways when attempting to solve the same problem thereby proposing quite different solutions.

The thinking style of the managers of multiple projects The theory of A - I thinking style predicts that groups which either function across boundaries within an organisation or have an orientation outside the organisation would have higher mean scores than those groups with a much more inward focus of operation. For example, Kirton ts has shown that in a pharmaceutical organisation internally oriented departments such as administration, production and maintenance had a mean score of 91.63 (S.D. = 14.5) which was significantly more adaptive than that of externally oriented departments such as planning, personnel and sales which was 105.8 (S.D. = 14.4). Similarly a comparison of the KAI scores with self-reported career histories of British, Australian and American mid-career managers clearly demonstrated the predicted relationship between task orientation, direction of focus and A - I thinking style rag. Because the managers of multiple projects usually work across functional boundaries, the hypothesis has been tested that this group of managers will have a more innovative thinking style than that of managers in general. The nature of the projects managed by the managers in the study is well described by the term 'multiprojects' recently discussed by Payne 2° which refers to situations where projects are of short duration and individuals are often working on more than one project at the same time. These managers were not responsible for major construction or engineering type projects. Of course all project work (and most management activity for that matter) involves change at some level or another but the managers in this study were primarily responsible for projects such as: R&D, development and implementation of new products and services, software development, new communication systems, IT hardware upgrades, implementation of new production systems, optimisation of logistics, implementation of quality systems, strategic planning, transfer of business locations and others of a similar nature. Table 2 compares the mean KAI score for 203 managers of multiple projects with that calculated from several different studies for managers in general and represents an extension of a previous study zt. Data were collected over a 30-month period from participants attending in-house training workshops on the management of multiple change projects. Participants were employed by a number of

Table 2 Comparisonof KAI scores Theoretical* Multiple project managers Managers in generalt Line managers :~

M e a n KAI score

N

96.0 108.2 97.9 range 80-90

203 559 -

*Reference 3; 1"reference 40, calculated from several studies; :~ reference 40; for all studies S.D.s in range 13-19.

different organisations and were responsible for managing projects which involve the implementation of change initiatives in their organisations. Most were not engaged in the more traditional project areas such as construction and engineering. Nearly all possessed a university degree or equivalent professional qualification. The age range was 2 4 - 4 7 years with a mean of 33.4 years and a variety of functions were represented among the participants. The mean KAI score of 108.2 (S.D. = 13.7) indicates that the average manager of multiple projects is inclined to an innovative thinking style. The internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for the whole sample was 0.84. The mean score is significantly more innovative than the mean score for managers in general of 97.9 (n = 559) 40 (t = 8.6, P < 0.0001, calculated using an estimated S.D. = 17.0 for managers in general) and hence supports the hypothesis that this group of managers has a thinking style more innovative than that of managers in general. Clearly, A - I thinking style has a significant impact upon the approach which a project manager would prefer to adopt when dealing with the many problems encountered during the life of a project. The inclination towards an innovative thinking style has significant implications for the managers of multiple projects in a number of key areas. These are discussed in turn. Note, throughout this discussion personality and behaviour differences will frequently be discussed in terms of the differences between adaptors and innovators. This is done for the sake of brevity. However, the KAI scale is not dichotomous but continuous, reflecting the trait theory of A - I thinking style on which it is based. Differences in thinking style are just as important and pertinent between two adaptors, two innovators as well as between an adaptor and an innovator. It is the difference between scores which is important not whether the two scores are located on either side of the mean of 96. A person with a KAI score of 120 will appear to have an adaptive approach to problem solving to a person with a score of 135 but will also appear to have a decidedly innovative approach to a person with a score of 100.

Implications of thinking style for managers of multiple projects Discussion of proposals with (potential) project sponsors Of course all proposals are judged on their relevance, viability, cost-benefit analysis, time scale, risk control, etc. However, in addition to these factors, the characteristics described in Table 1 indicate that, even for the same proposal, innovators and adaptors are likely to bias their interest and attention towards different aspects of a proposal. Even when sponsors support a proposal at the rational, analytical level it will also need to fit comfortably with their thinking style in order to be accepted. Treffinger22 has studied communication patterns between innovators and adaptors. 283

The thinking style of managers of multiple projects: A D Tullett W h e n discussing with a d a p t o r s : 1) Emphasise the details 2) Show how the proposal relates to existing way of doing things 3) Provide a clear plan for implementation complete with monitoring and control procedures 4) Show how risks will be contained 5) Provide informati,~n in advance, do not introduce anything unexpected 6) Ensure that the prol:osals have been well thought through 7) Be on time and stay within time !! When discussin2 with i n n o v a t o r s :

a Show where the proposal fits into the 'big picture' I~ Show new directions and procedures Identify opportunities for novelty which are at the loading edge of the lield Identify future trends and directions and show how the proposal sets the pace Highlight 'breakthrough' aspects of the proposal as well as opportunity for novelty in the future t Relate the proposal to emerging issues and po~sil'ilities which are unique and exciting t Use visual aids that stimulate imagery and imagination

Figure 2 Suggestions for discussing proposals and ideas with adaptors and innovators (developed from an original idea by Treffinger22) The list of suggestions developed in Figure 2 for increasing the effectiveness of communication between such individuals is based on his observations and ideas. Support for these suggestions also comes from work undertaken regarding the different ways in which innovators and adaptors prefer to seek out and analyse data. Palmer 23 has shown that innovator scientists: •.. sought information more widely, more enthusiastically and from more diverse sources than other groups . . . . Adaptors ... were more controlled, methodical and systematic in their information search behaviour. (ibid., p. 254). The suggestions in Figure 2 can help the project manager to work with the thinking preference of the (potential) sponsor. They do not at all imply being dishonest, unethical or introducing issues which are not true. Instead, project managers should ensure that they highlight those aspects of a proposal which interest project sponsors in order to ensure that they judge the proposal effectively.

Working relationship with the project sponsor Table 2 shows that the difference in mean scores between a typical project manager and a typical manager in general is close to 10 points (108.2-97.9). The scores of line managers (including production, plant maintenance and accounts managers) fall within the range 80-90. Thus, there is a difference in KAI score between a typical multiple project manager and a typical line manager of 19-29 points. Because, the majority of clients or sponsors of projects are either managers in general or line managers, then this means that typical project managers are likely to have a thinking style which is more innovative than their project sponsors. This is important because A - I theory predicts that individuals with different thinking styles will want to make decisions and solve problems in different 284

ways. In other words, two equally capable individuals could produce very different solutions to the same problem and each one would be quite convinced that his/her solution is the right one. In practice it has been observed that even with a difference of approximately 10 points people perceive that they want to solve problems and make decisions differently 24. A difference of 30 points or more in thinking styles is definitely felt and sometimes leads to fundamental disagreements and conflict. Because thinking style is not flexible, these conflicts cannot be resolved by the individuals changing their thinking style. This has been confirmed in practice by various studies of conflict in working relationships 25-28. Returning to our meeting discussing the problem of late deliveries. Debriefing with the team afterwards, the reactions of the members to David's suggestion were similar to those reported in other studies. Barbara, the highest adapter (KAI score 70) and another member who was a medium adapter (82) stated with some feeling that they were frustrated by David's very different proposal and Barbara was particularly annoyed that he had waited until the end of the meeting to mention it. David (136) protested that he had mentioned it as soon as he had thought of it and that it was a better long-term solution than that agreed by the team. Two others who have medium-high innovative styles (118 and 125) felt that David's proposal was very interesting and it was well worth taking the extra time to discuss it--even though in the short term the agreed solution would be implemented. A sixth colleague (94) stated that: (a) she could see both points of view; (b) she thought David's idea had merit but could not understand why he had not left it until the next meeting; and (c) was not quite sure why Barbara was so upset. Such are the reactions, emotions and different perspectives that can arise between team members with different thinking styles. The difference in thinking styles of typical multiple project managers and project sponsors is large enough to anticipate that this will sometimes give rise to differences of opinion as to how a project is managed and the way in which decisions are taken and problems solved. In situations where a mutually acceptable compromise cannot be established it is more likely to be the project manager--in the role of supplier--who will have to manage the project in line with the preferences of the sponsor. In the typical case of the more innovative project manager this will mean managing the project in a more systematic and structured manner than s/he would choose to do. In practice this means that the project manager will have to pay more attention to detail, de-risking decisions, increase the frequency of reporting progress and following more closely agreed rules and procedures than s/he would prefer.

Assembling and leading project teams It is not common practice for psychological factors to be taken into account when appointing project managers and project team members. This issue has been commented upon by a number of authors 29-33. In practice the choice is often dictated by such factors as 'technical' skills, experience, availability and acceptability to the project sponsor. However, if this continues to be so, and if psychological factors are not taken into account then the management of projects will continue to remain sub-optimum. In a similar vein, Sommerville and Langford 34 stated in a discussion of conflict in project teams:

The thinking style of managers of multiple projects: A D Tullett The ability to 'type' individuals and 'predict' interaction may be seen to be of substantial worth at the formative stages of project-team creation. (ibid., p. 237). This author would go even further by replacing ' m a y ' with 'will definitely'. Several studies have clearly shown that when individual's thinking styles are significantly different from the mean of the group with which they work then they are more likely to leave their jobs rather than tolerate the pressures to conform to the style of the group 35-37. Hammerschmidt 38 has shown that thinking style impacts upon success rates in problem-solving team exercises. The success rates of teams divided into subgroups which had to co-operate in order to solve a complex task were significantly increased by matching team member's roles with their thinking styles and significantly reduced by deliberately placing team members in roles significantly different from their preferred styles. He also observed that even when team members were in roles significantly different from their preferred styles, increased success rates were found when the mean KAI scores of the cooperating subgroups were similar (16 KAI points or less). Here, Hammerschmidt is clearly underlining the influence of A - I thinking style on team compatibility and individual and team performance. In this context, Tampoe and McDonough 39 have raised the important issue of matching the preferences of the project team to the nature of the project being undertaken. By way of example they discussed three different product development strategies that organisations could adopt: • 'breakthrough or first to market' which refers to the introduction of a novel product; • 'me-better' which is a strategy in which the goal is to improve on a competitor's product in some important way(s); • 'me-too' where there is no attempt to differentiate on product performance and specification. The theory of A - I thinking style provides a framework for predicting the characteristics of individuals who would prefer to work in teams engaged in these three different strategies. It is clear that in the early phases of the breakthrough strategy there will be a need for novel ideas outside those currently available (or even acceptable) within the organisation or even the industry sector. It is in such situations that medium and high innovators feel most comfortable because they will be working in a context which is less structured and where their preference to propose and stimulate novel ideas will be most welcomed. This has been confirmed by a number of reported studies 7'8'38. The 'me-too' and 'me-better' strategies are more likely to succeed by paying close attention to current best practices and rapidly adopting them into the organisation's current procedures. This is the context in which medium and high adaptors feel most comfortable. If the organisation has adopted a strategy of 'me-too' product but 'breakthrough' manufacturing process then in this latter aspect of the project there is a role for high innovators in the project team. Given the wide range of problems encountered throughout the life of a project it is advantageous to have a balance of thinking styles in the project team. However, managing such a team presents a challenge to the project manager because, as already discussed, disputes and disagreements are likely to arise between team members who have

appreciably different thinking styles. (Remember Barbara and David!) This management challenge is often met by a development programme which raises the level of awareness within the team of the important contribution of psychological factors to team and individual effectiveness. For thinking style this would include: • why people prefer to solve problems in their own characteristic way; • the situations in which a particular thinking style is likely to be more effective over a long period of time; • how to use the different thinking styles within a team to maximise performance and minimise conflict; • the interaction between problem-solving ability, problemsolving techniques, thinking style and project structure.

Planning and controlling projects The detail in which a project is planned and subsequently monitored and controlled through its various phases is a factor which is critical to its success. Effective planning and controlling requires the project manager to undertake activities which are adaptive in nature in that they rely heavily on systematic attention to detail over extended periods of time. High and medium innovator managers are likely to become bored over time with such routine and attention to detail. They do not find this the most agreeable or satisfying aspect of project management. This is not the same as saying that innovators do not have the ability to work in this way. But because it is not their preferred way of working, then to do so at a high level of professionalism over a long period of time will contribute considerably to the stress load experienced by the innovator project manager. In order to reduce their stress load they are likely to fall back on ways of working which suit them better. However, these may not be the most effective procedures for planning and controlling projects. As discussed above, this again clearly points to the need to have a project team which includes some individuals with an adaptive thinking style to whom detailed activities such as planning, monitoring and controlling can be assigned.

Solving problems during different phases of projects The final area in which there are important implications from this work concerns the different nature of the problems encountered during the various phases of a project. This is equally true for the phases of such diverse projects as new product development (i.e. research, development, pilot trials, implementation and routine production) and restructuring organisations (i.e. diagnosis, organising, implementing and routine operation). Typically, some of the problems arising in the early phases could lie outside those usually encountered within the organisation and are likely to require a more innovative approach to finding their solution. Hence, those with a bias towards innovative thinking style are likely to be more comfortable working in the early phases of a project. By contrast, as a project passes through its later phases and into routine production or operation then the type of problems encountered are likely to fall more frequently within the experience of those implementing the project and the organisation's current, operational experience. In other words the problems become more adaptive in nature and would suit better the preference of those with a bias towards adaption. When there is a good preference fit then a person is more 285

The thinking style of managers o f multiple projects: A D Tullett

likely, over a long period of time, to make his/her most positive contribution in terms of the type of ideas and suggestions offered for solving problems and making decisions. Once again this means that in order to maintain high effectiveness during all the phases of a project the manager has to be supported by a team which is balanced in terms of its range of thinking styles.

Conclusions The five aspects of project management discussed here have important implications for the managers of multiple projects. It has been shown that a typical manager of multiple projects has an innovative thinking style. This means that s/he is likely to be less concerned with the attention to detail and the structured, systematic approach required to plan and manage such projects successfully. This is likely to be a contributing factor not only to budget overruns and the late delivery of projects but also to conflict with typically more adaptive project sponsors. Hence, it has been argued that consideration should be given to personal characteristics as well as skill and experience when appointing project managers. A similar argument has been developed regarding the need to assemble project teams with a balance of thinking styles. Such an approach would undoubtedly have positive implications not only for the effectiveness with which projects are managed but also for improved relationships between the project managers and their sponsoring client managers. The focus of this paper has been on the thinking style of the managers of multiple projects. There has been no discussion here of the thinking style of those engaged in the management of long-duration, major engineering/construction type projects*. It remains speculative whether the thinking style of such managers is similar to that of managers in general or the managers of multiple projects. Nevertheless, the general issues discussed here are still very pertinent to the effectiveness with which this group manage their projects. Finally, it must be re-emphasised that for the sake of brevity in this paper, thinking style differences have frequently been discussed in terms of the differences between adaptors and innovators. However, it is the difference between the thinking styles of individuals which is important and not whether their KAI scores fall either side of the mean of 96. The same is equally true for the difference between the thinking styles of groups and teams.

Acknowledgements The constructive comments of Michael Kirton (Occupational Research Centre, Berkhamsted, UK), Pat Atkins (Open University, Brussels) and two reviewers in the writing of this paper are gratefully acknowledged. Kind permission to use Table 1 and Figure 1 was given by Michael Kirton and the Open University, UK, respectively.

References 1 Turner, J R The Handbook of Project-Based Management McGrawHill, London (1993) *In order to further our understandingin this important area the author would be pleased to hear from those who can help obtain data for managers of long-duration,engineeringand constructiontype projects as well as managers of multiple projects in different countries. 286

2 Hayes, J and Allinson, CW 'Cognitive style and its relevance for managementpractice' British Journal of Management 5 (1994) 53-71 3 Kirton,M J 'A Theory of cognitivestyle' in Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Problem Solving (2nd edn) (Edited by Kirton, M J) Routledge, London (1994) 4 McKenna, F P 'Measures of field dependence: cognitive styles or cognitive ability?' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 (1984) 593-603 5 Messick, S 'The nature of cognitivestyles: problems and promise in educational practice' Educational Psychologist 19 (1984) 59-74 6 Kirton, M J 'Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure' Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (1976) 622-629 7 Schroder, H M 'Managerial competence and style' in Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Problem Solving (2nd edn) (Edited by Kirton, M J) Routledge, London (1994) 8 Goldsmith, R E 'Personality and Adaptive-Innovative problem solving' Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 1 (1985) 95-106 9 Kirton,M J (Ed.) Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Problem Solving (2nd edn) Routledge, London (1994) 10 Tullett, A D and Kirton, M J 'Further evidencefor the independence of Adaptive-Innovative(A-I) cognitivestyle from culture' Personality and Individual Differences 19 (1995) 393-396 11 Preto Previde, G 'Adattori ed innovatori: i risultati della standardizzizione italiana del KAI (Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory)' Ricerche di Psichologia 4 (1984) 81-134 12 Preto Previde, G 'Italian adaptors and innovators: is cognitive style underlyingculture?' Personality and Individual Differences 12 (1991) 1-10 13 Kirton, M J and Kubes, M KA1 Manual--Slovak Language Supplement Maxman, Bratislava (1992) 14 Kubes, M "The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory in Czechoslovakia' Proceedings of International Conference, Psychology of Creative Scientific Work Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava (1989) 151-167 15 Ettlie, J E and O'Keefe, R D 'Innovative attitudes, values and intentionsin organizations'Journal of Management Studies 19 (1982) 163-182 16 Tefft, M 'Creativity through the lensesof the TTCT, MBTI and KAI: the level style issue examined once again' Teorie Vedy (Theory of Science) 1 (1990) 39-46 17 Goldsmith, R E 'Creative level and creative style' British Journal of Social Psychology 26 (1987) 317-323 18 Kirton, M J 'Adaptors and innovators in organisations' Human Relations 30 (1980) 213-224 19 Foxall, G R and Hackett, P M W 'Styles of managerial creativity: a comparison of Adaption-lnnovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States' British Journal of Management 5 (1994) 85-100 20 Payne, J H 'Managementof multiplesimultaneousprojects: a state of the art review' International Journal of Project Management 13 (1995) 163-168 21 Tullett, A D 'The Adaptive-Innovative(A-I) cognitivestylesof male and female project managers: some implicationsfor the management of change' Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 68 (1995) 359-365 22 Treffinger,D 'Adaptorsand innovators:differentpaths to persuasion?' KAI International 2 (1993). OccupationalResearchCentre, Berkhamsted UK 23 Palmer, J 'Scientists and information: II. Personal factors in informationbehaviour' Journal of Documentation 47 (1991) 254-275 24 McCarthy, R 'The relationship between work pressure, cognitive style, sex role attitudes and coping behaviour in women managers and secretaries' Ph.D. Thesis University of Hertfordshire, UK (1993) 25 Lindsay, P 'Counselling to resolve a clash of cognitive styles' Technovation 3 (1985) 57-67 26 McHale, J and Flegg, D 'How CalamityJane was put in her place' Transition (1985) 14-16 27 McHale, J and Flegg, D 'Innovators rule OK--or do they?' Training and Development Journal (1986) 10-13 28 Rickards,T and Moger, S T 'Felix and Oscar revisited:an exploration of the dynamics of a real-life odd couple working relationship' Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 30 (1994) 108-131 29 Fabi, B and Petterson, N 'Human resource managementpractices in project management'International Journal of Project Management 10 (1992) 81-88 30 Petterson, N 'What do we know about the effectiveproject manager?' International Journal of Project Management 9 (1991) 99-104 31 Strohmeier, S 'Developmentof interpersonalskills for senior project managers' International Journal of Project Management 10 (1992) 45-48

The thinking style of managers of multiple projects: A D Tullett 32 Culp, G L and Smith, R A Managing People (Including YourselJ)for Project Success Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1992) 33 Johns, T G 'Managing the behavior of people working in teams' International Journal of Project Management 13 (1995) 33-38 34 Sommerville, J and Langford, V 'Multivariate influences on the people side of projects: stress and conflict' International Journal of Project Management 12 (1994) 234-243 35 Hayward, G and Everett, C 'Adaptors and innovators: data from the Kirton Adaptor-Innovator Inventory in a local authority setting' Journal of Occupational Psychology 56 (1983) 339-342 36 Holland, P A 'Adaptors and innovators: application of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory to bank employees' Psychological Reports 60 (1987) 263-270 37 Holland, P A, Bowskill, I and Bailey, A 'Adaptors and innovators: selection versus induction' Psychological Reports 68 (1991) 1283-1290 38 HammerschmidL P K 'The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory and group problem solving success rates and process in "Hollow square: a communication experiment" ' Presented BPS Occupational Psychology Conference Warwick, UK (January 1995) 39 Tampoe, M and McDonough, E F 'Managing the innovation process: matching project management style to project objectives' International Journal of Project Management 10 (1992) 70-74 40 Kirton, M J "Adaptors and innovators at work' in Kirton, M J (ed) Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Problem Solving (2nd edn) Routledge, London (1994)

Arthur Tullett is a project management consultant whose particular specialism is managing the people side of change programmes. His expertise was developed through 16 years of managerial experience leading many significant business and technical projects throughout Europe. His broad management background includes 3 years board level experience of a rapidly changing European-wide business. Arthur has extensive experience of teaching change management with the Business School of the Open University, tutoring students throughout Europe. His particular interest is in bringing together his wide knowledge of management practices and psychology theory to enhance management proficiency in the areas of change management and teamwork in multi-cultural organisations. He has a BSc and PhD in chemistry from Nottingham University, UK and a BA in psychology from the Open University, UK.

PM 1 4 / ~ B

287