Diversity Icebreaker

Diversity Icebreaker is a concept that consists of a questionnaire to map cognitive style and communication style preferences combined with a seminar that builds on social constructionism on language categories. The cognitive style categories are named Red, Blue and Green in order to give participants in the seminar possibilities to define the characteristics of these preferences due to different questions put forward.

History of Red, Blue and Green

Diversity Icebreaker (DI) builds on a model of categorising persons in three different preferences for communication and interaction. The concept of these three categories was first developed by Bjørn Z. Ekelund (1997) primarily for market communication and effective communication strategies in consultation for changed consumer behaviour. The three core types are labelled by assumingly neutral colours – Red, Blue and Green. The Red role preference is characterized by a relational focus, personal involvement and a social perspective; the Blue role is identified by a focus on structure and task, with a logical perspective; while the Green role is recognized by a focus on change, vision and ideas. The categories emerge from focus groups in 1995 where customers were asked to come up with all sorts of ideas for how one could communicate in order to change another person’s behaviour. Then they were asked to organize these ideas. Across different focus groups, the main structure was these three categories. This is what Serge Moscovici refers to as “common sense”-categories as opposed to scientifically develop categories.^[1]

In 1998 the first questionnaire identifying individual propensity to either role was made. It has been revised a few times, and today the questionnaire has 42 statements that are scored in an ipsative form.

The concept consists of a combination of the use of Diversity Icebreaker questionnaire, as well as a seminar where participants create the meaning of the categories themselves. Throughout the classical seminar the participants experience the effect of labeling, “othering” and it’s effect on in-group vs out-group. A humoristic climate stimulates reflection on the social construction of the categories and it’s effect. The seminar is described in the Ekelund & Langvik (2008) introductory book, but the presentation of the paper “Diversity Icebreaker – Developing Shared Understanding of Cooperation” at the SEE Regional Conference of Psychology ^[2] in Sofia in 2009 (B.Z. Ekelund, L. Davcheva & T.V. Iversen) brings in more clearly perspectives from drama, shifting of scientific paradigm and deconstruction of authority in the classical seminar.

Since 2005 the concept has been presented at different international scientific conferences like Academy of Management (AoM) in 2008 and 2011 ^[3] , Academy of International Business (AIB) in 2008 ^[4] , Society for Intercultural Education, Training And Research (SIETAR) in 2006 and 2011 ^[5] , and Society of Industrial- and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in 2009 ^[6]

The nature of this process leads to a need of a validation process towards established concepts like MBTI, Big Five personality traits, Margerison & McCann's TMP etc, as well as other 3-categorical constructs like M. J. Kirton’s Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) (1976) and the Strength Deployment Inventory of Elias Porter.

In 2008 Ekelund and Langvik published and edited a book where different researchers contribute. Ekelund, B.Z. & Langvik, E.: Diversity Icebreaker. How to manage diversity processes. Oslo, Human Factors Publishing, 2008,^[7] In this book validation studies are presented in relation to MBTI, Big 5, Emotional Intelligence and Cultural Values.

Scientific documentation

Qualitative evaluation of the instrument have been done based upon interviews of experienced internal and external users (Ekelund, Langvik and Nordgård, 2008). Quantitative validation studies have been presented by Rothausen & Ekelund (2008), Langvik (2008) and Ekelund & Langvik (2008). Data gathered until 2005 combined with 97 new samples in the period of February 2006 - september 2011 constitute a data collection from about 150 samples and 8850 respondents. It allows for interpersonal and cross-national comparisons and group analysis. Subsamples have been presented for participants in project management courses (N=1010), engineering students in Norway (N=1310) and business students in Italy (N=1177). Women score lower on Blue and higher on Red, and vica versa. No significant differences have been reported across age.

Reliability

The internal consistency measured by Cronbach's alpha based upon 473 respondents is between 0.75 and 0.82. The DI questionnaire is ipsative, but with possibilities of spreading 6 points (not less or more) on 3 statements. Trials in Norway indicate that a more traditional Likert scale without ipsative restrictions leads to same or higher Cronbach’s alpha.

Although the Red, Blue and Green dimensions are not personality traits per se one should expect the scores on the dimensions to be at least moderately stable. To investigate this assumption, the test-retest reliability on the three dimensions has been assessed. Test-retest reliability has been effectuated with N=56, candidates from 5 different institutions. The institutions were in entrepreneurial stage with lots of learning and change. Time lap of 3–4 months between the scorings. The test–retest reliability coefficient for the dimensions were as follows: Blue: 0.70 Red: 0.57 Green: 0.81

These test-retest reliabilities are in line with what is expected, and are considered as moderate to high coefficients. The results are based on a limited sample, and need to be followed up by a larger study in the future.

Validation of the Blue, Red and Green Dimensions in Relation to different Psychological Concepts

So far, the Red, Blue and Green dimensions have been systematically validated against for instance Personality traits, Emotional intelligence, Cultural values, Interpersonal Problems (IIP) and Team processes. Some of the results have been presented in the first book (Ekelund & Langvik, 2008). Research is ongoing in relation to concepts like FIRO-B, trust building, learning styles, cognitive styles, creativity etc.

Another stream of research is more directly linked to the seminar experiences and the effect in organizations, both in relation to language development, perception and change of behaviour. In 2011 a project was initiated in the Middle East to evaluate the seminar effect on trust and openness for communication in areas of cultural conflict and war–related context. The use of the concept to collectively reflect on symbolic power and post-colonial perspectives is also issues pursued by different researchers.

Diversity Icebreaker is presented in and referred to in different books, linking it explicit to for instance Mentoring (Poulsen, K. “Mentor+Guiden”, KMP+Forlag, 2008 ^[8] and to International Management (Lane, H, Maznevski, M.L., DiStefano, J. & Dietz, J.: International management behaviour: leading with a global mindset. Chichester: J. Wiley and Sons, 2009) ^[9]

References

1. ^ Moscovici, S. (1984): The phenomenon of social representations. In Farr, R.M. & Moscovici, S. (Eds.) Social representations (pp. 3-69) Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press / Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
2. ^ http://rcp2009.wordpress.com/
3. ^ www.aomonline.org
4. ^ www.aib.msu.edu
5. ^ www.sietareu.org
6. ^ www.siop.org
7. ^ ISBN 978-82-997813-2-9
8. ^ ISBN 978-87-992334-0-3
9. ^ ISBN 978-0-470-71412-6

External links

• SIETAR Europa - Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research
• Academy of International Business (AIB)
• Academy of Management (AoM)
• Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP)