How do Kolbe A and StrengthsFinder compare in optimizing an EOS Accountability Chart for innovation and new idea generation?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Kolbe A and StrengthsFinder offer complementary, yet distinct, insights for boosting innovation within an EOS Accountability Chart. Kolbe A measures conative functioning, or how individuals naturally take action when striving. For innovation, identifying team members high in Fact Finder (seeking information), Follow-Through (structuring ideas), Quick Start (instigating change), or Implementor (building concepts) helps form balanced innovation teams. A leader-to-leader use guide might suggest placing high Quick Starts in roles responsible for ideation and experimentation, supported by high Fact Finders for research, and high Follow-Throughs for bringing structure to novel concepts. This ensures that ideas are not just generated, but also properly researched and developed into actionable plans.

StrengthsFinder, conversely, identifies what people do best. Strengths like 'Ideation,' 'Strategic,' 'Futuristic,' or 'Maximizer' are directly linked to generating and refining new ideas. When designing an Accountability Chart for innovation, a leader would look to assign responsibility for brainstorming, prototyping, or market analysis to individuals whose top strengths align with these tasks. For example, a leader with 'Strategic' and 'Ideation' strengths might be ideal for envisioning new product lines, while someone with 'Analytical' and 'Restorative' might be better suited to refining existing processes. ACDC's integration of both assessments provides a comprehensive view: Kolbe A shows how someone will approach the innovative task (e.g., rapid prototyping vs. detailed planning), while StrengthsFinder shows what they are naturally best equipped to do within that process. Combining these insights allows for the precise placement of talent, fostering a more dynamic and effective innovation engine within your EOS Accountability Chart.