With increased demand for evaluation specialists, there is a growing number of evaluation consulting firms in the United States and abroad. The term “evalpreneurs” have been given to the leaders or founders of these firms, who often bring together interdisciplinary teams to measure project outcomes and give evidence-based recommendations. This case study examined how cognitive diversity of a team explained preferred behaviors of working with each other while completing evaluation programs.

Cognitive diversity was measured using the KAI (Kirton’s Adaption-innovation Inventory), a psychometric indicating one’s preferred problem-solving style. KAI results indicate a numbered position (between 32 and 160) on a continuum, anchored by being more adaptive (closer to 32) and being more innovative (closer to 160). The general population mean is 95 (SD = 18), and evidence indicates that one’s problem-solving style is unrelated to intelligence, motivation, learned skills, race, culture, and situation. In short description, more adaptive individuals prefer more structure, are more methodical with detail to make the current system better, and prefer change in a more incremental approach. In contrast, more innovative individuals prefer less structure, think more broadly with ranging views to alter the current system differently, and prefer change in a more radical approach. According to Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory, stress may occur when there is a cognitive gap of style between an individual and the problem to solve, or a cognitive gap (20 points or more) between two individuals’ problem-solving styles. Also, according to A-I theory, one may identify a consensus group in a team, which includes team members who are within 10 points of each side of the team’s average KAI score. The consensus group tends to hold the most power in the team, because they have similar problem-solving styles and typically have strength in numbers. According to A-I theory conflict can be predicted between individuals in the consensus group and those outside the consensus group. The aim of A-I theory is to reduce conflict and improve collaboration through the resolution of cognitive gaps.

The evaluation team (N = 6) chosen for this case study characterized themselves on their website as an interdisciplinary team of consultants with expertise in applied research, evaluation and strategy to support social enterprises, foundations, donor collaboratives, and impact investors. Interestingly, this team was mildly adaptive (M = 89.33, SD = 21.14), with two individuals in the consensus group, two individuals more adaptive than the consensus group, and two individuals more innovative than the consensus group. Also, interestingly, the CEO (chief executive officer) was the most innovative individual (positioned at 125), and the COO (chief operating officer) was among the more adaptive (positioned at 78). The team reported getting along very well with each other, having mutual respect of each other’s strengths. There also seemed to be a balance of power in shared decision making, with the CEO and COO at each side of the consensus group. Finally, using journal entries, each team member shared which tasks they preferred to do, which aligned with A-I theory.