Diversity Icebreaker / Trialogue in USA.

In February 2017, I spent two weeks in Florida and Texas running 7 different workshops based upon the Diversity Icebreaker (branded as “Trialogue” in US/UK) concept. In this blog, I will share some reflections gained from the planning and executing of these workshops.

The political situation in the US has changed within the last two years. Presenting a concept like the Diversity Icebreaker, where decent communication across diversities is a central value, made my sensitivity as a facilitator even more important. I was curious and partly afraid of entering the US at this point in time with my personal values, attitudes and prejudices.

I have always been interested in creativity. One notion that fuels my Green thought processes is that “creativity is just the application of an existing model in new contexts.” In my own developmental work, I have applied this concept by importing and exporting models across different traditions and professional paradigms. However, would a Norwegian concept like Diversity Icebreaker / Trialogue find its applicability in US today?

When I was there in May a year ago, I heard a comment given by a Democrat voter at a dinner I attended: “I don´t want to talk with Republicans. In fact, I do not know if I know a true Republican. Well, I don´t want to know them either (laughter)”.

One of my clients working in the political system here in Norway once said: “The test of our democracy lie in the respect and care we show in practice towards people in minority positions. We must find solutions that make it viable and attractive for them to be a part of our society. It is also important for those of us who are in more powerful positions to learn from others that have not been that lucky.” This is a non-conflict oriented attitude. It implies that you need to talk with others and practice the motto of the Diversity Icebreaker/Trialogue: “Make people reflect, ask, listen and talk.”

One of the fathers of psychotherapy, Sigmund Freud, called psychoanalysis a “talking cure”. When neurotic clients talked about repressed ideas with the analyst, the problem disappeared. In the US today, the election campaign and Trump’s behaviour has legitimized an increased openness of negative attitudes towards others.  Ideas of political correctness formed by liberals might have represented dominant cultural norms but this seems to have de-stabilized now.  My Green mind dreamed about the possibility for the Diversity Icebreaker/Trialogue becoming a “talking cure,” not for repressed individual attitudes, but for the shift of collective communication norms back to openness, curiosity, trust, respect and learning across diversities in background.

With this in mind, what did I learn? First, I found that people in the US today experience uncertainty about the norms for political communication. Consequently, in their personal interaction their questions were often along the lines of “Do you and I still think the same way?” People hesitated to talk with each other.

On the question whether we could export our “talking cure” as a creative gift to the US society – the answers were many. Here are some comments and reflections:

“It is definitely needed!”

“We have to work in a different way in our diversity training. “

“The playfulness and humor is something we do not practice in diversity training here. It is serious business.”

“Maybe the concept can bring trust and hope?”

“This should be an element of CEU (Continued Education Unit – a mandatory system for updating professionals.)”

My reflection: It might be that this tool can help participants in diversity initiatives in US reflect upon their practice in a different way. Out of this collective reflection, a new pedagogical way of running the Diversity Icebreaker / Trialogue seminars might emerge.

Next trip to US: Half day workshop 28th of March 2017 with Diversity Icebreaker / Trialogue in Forum for Workplace Inclusion in Minneapolis. Title: «A Process for Creating Shared Language for Inclusive Leadership.” New learning opportunities for myself and others to “reflect, ask, listen and talk”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do our colour preferences change as we age? Guest post by Piotr Pluta

About the author: Piotr Pluta, MSc in organizational psychology, is the managing director responsible for the consultative services in Human Factors AS, company behind the Diversity Icebreaker.

This question comes up a lot in the Diversity Icebreaker workshop, because of participants’ natural curiosity: ‘Was I always Blue?’, ‘Did my colour change because of my work?’, ‘Will my Green preference fade away, will I become more Blue and Red?’ etc., they may be asking themselves.

Facilitators and consultants are also quite curious, but they phrase this question slightly differently: ‘Do you have any research on whether the preferences change as we age?’

As this topic seems to be quite interesting I decided to share our best understanding of this matter in this blog.


To really test whether the preferences change as we age, we’d need to have what one calls ‘longitudinal studies’ of Red, Blue and Green, i.e. following and testing the same group of individuals with long enough time intervals in between, at different ages. There’s not too many psychological models of individual differences, which has been investigated that way. The majority of studies of this kind are related to personality traits (see Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer 2006 for review). Indeed some changes seem to be taking place when we age, for example:

people increase in social dominance (a facet of extraversion), conscientiousness, and emotional stability, especially in young adulthood ([from]age 20 to 40). In contrast, people increase on measures of social vitality (a 2nd facet of extraversion) and openness in adolescence but then decrease in both of these domains in old age (…). Of the 6 trait categories, 4 demonstrated significant change in middle and old age.

                                                                                   (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer 2006)

On average, however, none of these changes seems to be very dramatic in nature, i.e. it is unlikely that someone who scores one standard deviation above the population’s mean on Openness to experience at the age of 16 would score one standard deviation under on that same trait when he or she reaches 80.

Back to the Diversity Icebreaker: since we know from our own studies that there are consistent correlations between DI’s three categories and different personality traits (Ekelund & Langvik, 2008), we could attempt to form predictions as to the possible age-related changes in preferences for Red, Blue and Green. Extrapolating from the abovementioned changes observed in personality traits, we could hypothesise that:

  • a) between ages 20 to 40, people increase on their preference for Blue (as we know that Conscientiousness increases and that there’s a positive correlation between Conscientiousness and Blue),
  • b) they may also increase on Red (longitudinal personality studies reveal an increase on Social dominance, which is a facet of Extraversion, which is correlated with Red),
  • and c) preference for Green decreases in older age (people seem to decrease on Openness to experience, which correlates with Green), and so forth…

However, Red, Blue and Green correlate with the personality traits to various degrees and although some correlations are quite high and consistent (observed in different cultures, e.g.), the DI preferences are not equivalent with personality traits. They’re not exactly the same. For example, in one study, the correlation between Extraversion and Red was .31, between Openness to experience and Green .55, and between Conscientiousness and Blue it was .31 (all significant at p<.001 level; see Pluta, Ekelund & Ekelund 2013, pp. 49-52). These correlations would have to be on the magnitude close to 1 for one to assert that, e.g. Red is the same as Extraversion.

That means that there are other variables, beyond personality traits, that can influence one’s preferences for Red, Blue or Green. From our studies we know that models of cognitive styles and values also correlate significantly with Red, Blue and Green, and these variables may change differently than personality traits or don’t change at all as we age… and, so far there’s a research gap in psychological studies to determine that.

To sum up: Red, Blue and Green may change to some extent as we age, because they’re correlated with personality traits and these do change. However, it is unlikely that these changes will be very dramatic. So, we need to take the hypotheses a)-c) above cautiously.


Although we don’t have longitudinal studies, we have some studies comparing different age groups (cohorts) on Red, Blue and Green:


What we can observe in the diagram above, is that groups with 49+ years old above score higher on Blue; at the same time, these same groups score lower on Green. This may seem to somewhat provide support for the hypotheses a) and c), but in reality, we’re dealing with different groups of individuals here, so by no means these differences constitute evidence for any of the hypotheses. Red seems to be going down from the youngest to the oldest groups, only ever so slightly.

So, this study doesn’t tell us much about whether there are some tendencies to change one’s preferences as one gets older. An equally valid explanation would be that when a person was born – any given era, with its social, economic and political context – influenced development of certain preferences. Was the world more Blue in the 50’s? Has it become bit more Red in the more recent decades? Of course, we cannot infer about that from this study either.

Note also that the differences between these age groups are minimal – the biggest gap between the age groups is of approx. 2 points (for Blue and Red, between the <29 years old and >60 years old), which is less than 1/3 of a standard deviation.

I sometimes share that explanation with some of the more curious participants, when they ask whether their scores can and will change. Some also experience that they “had become Bluer after working couple of years in a particular organization” or “after starting to study engineering”; others say that ‘no, they’ve chosen this or that line of specialization because they’re Blue and always has been!’


Another consideration came from a DI train-the-trainer workshop participant, Joe Kearns (member of SIETAR Europe’s board). He wrote to me in an e-mail: “Another factor that could possibly change or influence results of older and younger participants is that as you get older you probably do know yourself better, have more experience to know how you behave, and you have less need to say what you think people want you to say! Particularly in a work environment younger people, in my experience are more open to, and have a greater need to, adapt to fit the cultural environment. As we get older we are more confident of our own views and are more likely to express them honestly.”

Although we don’t have any research that could shed more lights on these hypotheses, I think Joe’s rational is likely correct. At least in principle, we may answer self-scoring personality tests differently when we’re older because we (hopefully) have gained insight and perhaps – as Joe indicates – possibly feel less of a pressure for social desirability.


Final, technical note:

We conducted a number of test-retest studies on a smaller (than the longitudinal studies) time scale. Participants filled out the questionnaire twice, with different time intervals – e.g. 2 weeks in one group and 9-12 months in another. In either of the groups, the correlations between the first and second test result were quite high: around .80 (see Pluta, Ekelund & Ekelund 2013, p. 26). This means that, at least within this short time span, one’s scores change insignificantly.


To conclude, please note that this blog post was only about whether the preferences change as we age. Not about whether we can develop our preferences – or rather – competencies and skills related to either of the colours. You may want to glance at the Diversity Icebreaker Personal Workbook to get some ideas about that topic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Diversity Icebreaker / Trialogue reinforcing values based management

During the last few years, we have tried to grasp the elements of the Diversity Icebreaker / Trialogue workshops that promote good values within organisations. We stress the idea that Blue goals (such as economy, production targets, etc.) are not the only relevant targets for organisations and businesses. The work environment is also a site for identity development, personal growth, inclusion in something larger than one self, etc.; all of which are values more aligned with Red and Green. We also stress that these components can also be combined with economic targets. Indeed, if businesses are to succeed in a complex and ever changing world, then they must combine all of the elements that make up Red, Blue and Green. The idea of the Triple Bottom Line is an illustration of this broadening of targets in businesses.

In the last stage of the Diversity Icebreaker/Trialogue workshops, where participants collectively reflect on the question of learning, we often see values being formulated through group dialogue. Our question for future research is: Is it possible to use this process to identify and form values that can be integrated into values based management? And if so, what kind of values do we talk about? In our search for both explicit and implicit values within this concept, we have come to some preliminary conclusions about what these values can be:

Acknowledgement. Being respected as a person who has the rights to voice opinions, to be seen as valuable member of a group and encompass qualities important for the greater good. This is what happens when participants see the value in others following the part of the workshop where each colour describes the positive qualities of the other groups.

Positivity and trust. The positivity in the seminar is experienced first in the joy of being with others that are similar – then later being with others who are different but with recognition of the functional and simultaneously beautiful interplay that comes from seeing the need of each other. In the Diversity Icebreaker workshop, the positivity contributes also to reinforcing the experience of being and learning together through interactions where identity of self and others are respected and utilised. This shared learning creates a common wish and norm for future interactions to build upon. Trust is created through a belief that “I will be treated well” when I expose my unique qualities. In the workshop, we encourage individuals and groups to say more than they normally would regarding positive self-image and negative stereotypes of others. We also promote a funny and entertaining way of conveying this information that helps to put people at ease. This heightened openness concerning stereotypes induces vulnerability to criticism from a classical normative position. The “police corpse” for political correct wording stress the importance of choosing words that does not have negative connotations about others. When participants see that this can be said without repercussions and when they see that the other groups express things in the same manner, then participants can reconcile the natural process of biased attributions with themselves and others, allowing for a more open discussion regarding those very biases.

Reflection. The traditional one-hour standard workshop ends with a reflection on “What have we learned from this whole exercise?” This shared reflection where participants voice their journey through the learning process, brings to the table the collective wisdom of people with different backgrounds and again highlights the Red, Blue and Green colours. Thus, this component of the workshop models both elements needed for democracy and innovation while also confirming the value of acknowledging diversity.

Accountability concerning power of language. The exercises serve to help individuals see that the way we use language, and consequently how we see others and ourselves, has serious implications for communicating and working together in a dignified way. The workshop shows how we can create a very functional language of positivity, inclusion and productivity. It illustrates the potential for change if we take responsibility for the way we see communicate and behave.

Multiple views and complementarity. The shared reflection is the collective cognitive closure where the diversity of values and talents come together in a shared dance and demonstrate learning through polarities or conflicting views. This stage raises the issue of “When we have different values and wishes, how do we solve such situations in a way where everyone contributes? How do we move on in a way that shows respect of each other´s value and values?”

Integration in the smaller and larger groups. The small groups of mono-coloured participants instantly develop an in-group cohesion fuelled by shared perspectives and ideas. When the results are shared, all participants seem to understand that they need each other to be able to ensure high-quality problem solving capacity. The concept diversifies at an individual level at the same time as it unifies at the group level.

Egalitarianism. In the workshop, we stress these ideas in a setting where none of the colours dominate or are viewed as more important than the others. This unique context, compared to most real life situations where power and expertise are unevenly distributed, can be utilised as a mirror for more open reflection towards real-life challenges.


Case illustration: One of our clients created numerous ideas of Red, Blue and Green values, which we summarised in the illustration below. The different workgroups then picked the values from this overview that were most relevant for their own group. The shared model was the one that united the whole organisation.



If you wish to further explore how to efficiently develop values in a systematic manner that promotes a broader values-based management that will improve your work environment, please contact us: bze@human-factors.no or + 47 908 75 547.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Update: On-going research and development activities

The activities and projects below are either recently finished or on-going and this post is meant to orient you.

New book!

We have recently published our second book about the Diversity Icebreaker. It is a collection of different research papers, conference presentations and academic articles. The book would not be possible without the exceptional willingness to explore, evaluate and document the effects of the Diversity Icebreaker workshops that the participating researches have demonstrated, most often in cooperation with Piotr Pluta or myself, at Human Factors in Oslo. We appreciate their efforts!

Conference presentations

This year we will / have presented DI at four different conferences this year:

  • At the EAWOP (European Association of Work and Organizational) conference in Oslo, 20th-23rd The presentation will focus on Red, Blue and Green as language categories, forming perception and perspectives relevant for change, learning and positive identity development.
  • Similar focus will be also presented at the FUGIC (Flying University of Global Integral Competence) Forum 2015, 17th-20th September, in Munich.
  • At the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management in Vancouver, 7th-11th August, the DI workshop will be held to kick off a discussion about the process of “othering” – a process of labelling others in a devaluating way. The DI workshop will be used as an example of positive labelling, in contrast to what the processes of labelling usually entail. The labelling taking place in the DI workshops most often has a positive effect resulting from the fact that the process is balanced: no one is better than the other is (the labels are equal), no one is excluded and when the individual differences are utilized, the focus is on the positives.
  • An article systematically analysing and attempting to understand the mechanisms and effects related to humour present in the Diversity Icebreaker workshop, will be presented by Piotr Pluta at the 23rd Nordic Academy of Management Conference at the Copenhagen Business School, 12th-14th

On-going research

There’s a number of on-going research initiatives related to DI:

  • Humour: Piotr Pluta is investigating the mechanisms and effects related to humor, which seems to be omnipresent and crucial for the Diversity Icebreaker workshops. This first academic contribution will review the available body of research and theories that could be applied to systematically study humor in the Diversity Icebreaker and draws future avenues for research and its potential, practical implications.
  • Management teams: Roar Skare has teamed up with us to gather DI data on management teams. We aim to see if there are typical patterns in leadership teams in regard to the distribution of the DI colours in different business sectors. Will we see more Red in management sales teams, Green in research and development and Blue in engineering? We hope more consultants will send us their results from such teams. So far, we have mapped 20 management teams and we need many more to complete the research.
  • Data from African countries: We have gathered feedback from 12 consultants that have executed 35 Diversity Icebreaker seminars in 12 different countries south of Sahara. With this effort, we seek to understand the potential pitfalls in globalization of our concept. The aim is to present the results at a management conference in Nairobi in Kenya together with Sue Canney Davison, 5th-10th January 2016.
  • Effect studies: The effects of the Diversity Icebreaker workshop continue to be investigated at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel. 200 students every semester participate in the DI workshops and the variables of interest are creativity, relational identity and willingness to speak up and suggest improvements (voicing).
  • Team innovation: At the University of Haifa, Israel, connections between Red, Blue and Green as team in relation to team innovation are being investigated. Recent published research on similar concepts suggests that Green is important for creativity, Blue for performance and Red for cohesion and trust. However, we would now like to document this using more recent data, bigger samples, using the latest versions of the Diversity Icebreaker and in connection with team qualities.
  • Cognitive closure: At the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, a research has started that studies the relationship between the DI dimensions and concept of the “cognitive closure”. We are excited to see the first results of this explorative research.

Finally, I would just like to remind and stress that we give away free DI material for research purposes. Therefore, should you have any ideas for research involving the Diversity Icebreaker, please contact us and we will share what might be relevant for you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Diversity Icebreaker CSR project in the Middle East

Since 2011, Bjørn Z. Ekelund (Human Factors AS, Norway) and Lilach Sagiv (Hebrew University, Israel) have studied application of the Diversity Icebreaker at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It is a part of a larger project aimed at documenting that the DI workshops has similar effects in the communities in the Middle East, as they have in Norway and other regions. Furthermore, plans have been made for training consultants and facilitators in three conflict resolution milieus in Israel and one in Palestine. One of the objectives of this action would be to evaluate the potential, added value of the Diversity Icebreaker in supporting conflict resolution processes. The project is also related to the International Organizations Network (ION: http://www.ion-network.net/home).

Human Factors AS has defined its contribution in the project as a CSR activity for the years 2011 – 2012 with a budged of approximately NOK 400 thousand, of which 20% is financed externally via the SkatteFUNN scheme by the Research Council of Norway.

As a part of this project 26 DI seminars have been conducted at the Hebrew University for a total of approx. 650 participants, in the years 2011-12. The participants were students at the University, whereof about 10% were of Arabic background, 20% were immigrant Jews, and 70% were Jews born and raised in Israel. Simultaneously, a systematic validation and evaluation of the DI in relation to other psychological concepts, was conducted.

The research continues into 2013 – so far two-thirds of the collected material has been analysed and some significant results has been observed pointing to that a DI seminar:

  • builds trust;
  • creates positive affect and reduces negative emotions;
  • enhances creativity;
  • enhances awareness of oneself in connection with others;
  • and gives equally good results regardless of whether the consultant is a first-time user, conducting the seminar in Hebrew or an experienced, international user using English.

The results also indicate that:

  • The DI categories of Red, Blue and Green yielded a similar relation pattern to the personality traits (NEO-PI-R) in Israel, as they had had in Norway.
    • There seems to be a relation between the DI categories and personal values (Schwartz).

This allows assuming that both values and personality influence a person’s preferences for Red, Blue or Green significantly

Additionally, Bjørn Z. Ekelund conducted a DI seminar for approx. 100 Palestinian participants in Ramallah, West Bank in 2012; and has experienced similar results (insight and humour we are familiar with in Norway). However, no written account of that seminar has been procured.

THEORY and MODEL development

As aforementioned, the project’s objective was to document whether the Diversity Icebreaker would have similar effects in the Middle East as it was observed in the other parts of the world. In the learning processes with the Hebrew University, it emerged a shared understanding that DI in this context could be best described as trust-building intervention – and thereby using this (quickly established) trust in order to enter into good dialogs about conflict-filled issues. A model illustrating how the trust is developed in the DI-seminar was created based on the first evaluations of the results. The model was tested out in a written evaluation conducted within a conflict resolution process in Norway. The model has also been presented later in academic contexts (e.g. on the ION conference in Heilbronn, 2012). Furthermore, the model will be used as a starting point for the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the abovementioned conflict resolution processes.


The project continues also this year, both in terms of research and practical application:  In august 2013 Bjørn Z. Ekelund applied the Diversity Icebreaker in a group of 60 teachers from Israel, Palestine and Jordan – teachers that in the next two years shall facilitate a non-violent conflict resolution in nine different schools and their local communities using tools like DI. The project was organised by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), together with local conflict resolution partners from each of the countries. Another trip to the Hebrew University is planned for the November 2013.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Red, Blue and Green in change management – dialogue with Yngvar Sjoner (Key Learning)

“Red, Blue and Green in change management – dialogue with Yngvar Sjoner (Key Learning)

We have a tradition in Human Factors AS to arrange open breakfast meetings, where we invite the participants to share their experiences in using the Diversity Icebreaker.

During one of these meetings Yngvar Sjoner (from Key Learning), a psychologist and consultant experienced in organizational development and strategic HR management, mentioned that he had successfully applied the Diversity Icebreaker in change management. The reason the Red, Blue and Green model was successful, according to him, was because it was “much easier to involve people with this model, than with the Kotter’s 8 steps model [often used in these settings]”. In addition, when describing his use of the Diversity Icebreaker in change management, Yngvar referred to “Blue as being about Predictability, Red about Control and Green about Meaning”.

I did not agree with this at once: in my opinion it was primarily the Blue category that was related to Control. However, Yngvar Sjoner was clear about that “this was the way he had used this for many years”. I decided to talk more with him about this later. I wanted to explore the feeling of surprise I felt when an experienced consultant like Yngvar described this application of DI in change management; it was something I did not know – something I would like to know more about!

I have arranged a meeting with Yngvar two weeks after the breakfast meeting and asked him to tell me his story about managing the change and describe his way of using the Red, Blue and Green categories as a language tool facilitating change.

He replied to my question first by sharing his early experiences entering the professional life, when he as a student took interest in the area of stress.

In his first engagement as psychologist he worked with psychological health at workplace – an area where coping with change and stressful situations became an essential part. Recently he has worked with global, private business and has managed change in many ways: by leading it, taking part in the planning processes, as well as being a member of the change-steering committees.

From these experiences, Yngvar said, he could draw one key observation: that the certain perspective of change could be applied across contexts, because the change always referred to some generic qualities. In his love for simplicity, he said that a three-element model is enough to describe this overarching perspective on HOW to cope with change and stress:

Meaning: People need to understand the purpose, the overall picture, the WHY and find their role in it.

Predictability: If people know WHAT it is they are facing, they will cope with the challenges brought about by the change in a better way. Since change always brings some kind of uncertainty, clearly defining and informing about the change processes is one way of giving the employees the kind of predictability they need.

Control: This is the subjective control experienced by the individuals, the WHO. As a leader, the only way for you to know if your employees have the necessary sense of control, is to have a face to face contact with them and let them talk. When people have a possibility to voice their ideas, raise questions and concerns, be listened to and be treated with respect, they will be prepared much better to cope with change.

Below is a graphic illustration of the model Yngvar uses:

Yngvar Sjoner modellen_JGPWe also shared the associations we had to other literature that also employed a similar typology of three: Rikard Larsson’s research on mergers, work by Ghoshal & Bartlett, Antanovsky, Lazarus, and others.

Then I asked Yngvar to share what he thinks about the qualities and content of the Red, Blue and Green categories that is relevant for change viewed through the perspective of Meaning, Predictability and Control. Yngvar said that either of these areas of focus can be looked upon as either Blue (Predictability), Red (Control) or Green (Meaning).

He also gave examples of words relevant for change management and related to either of the DI colours: Blue (Facts, Focus, Logic, Structure, Plan); Red (Empathy, Care, Harmony, Inclusion, People); Green (Opportunity, Idea, Courage, Independence, Purpose).

I mentioned to him that the area of practice that was closest to this model, and which I had had experienced with, was an exercise we used to develop a complementary understanding of how to communicate change in organizations.

In this exercise, we have the participants working in the three colour groups and ask each of them: “how would you (as Red, Blue or Green) approach the communication challenge of communicating a radical change to the employees? The three types of groups always come up with highly differentiated results; at the same time they realise how these ideas about communication are complementary to each other, and not opposing each other.

Furthermore, I found it interesting how Yngvar Sjoner contrasted the perspective of Meaning, Predictability and Control (reflected in Red, Blue and Green) with Kotter’s 8 steps. He stated that Kotter’s model was to complex and that the people were not able to memorize it and use it in everyday practice. People remembered Red, Blue and Green easily and leading the change with this perspective also gave a possibility to share with all employees a model that could create a common language. From my point of view this is about leading change by offering a language for planning, role-taking and which emphasizes complementarity.

To summarize, Yngvar shared one of his favourite metaphors with me: Think of your car. What do you appreciate the most? The engine that gives you traction and makes you move forward (Blue)? Or the steering wheel that makes you able to steer in the right direction (Green)? Or maybe the breaks, that makes you able to stop when needed (Red)? I certainly like to have all three when travelling (or taking the journey of change – where cooperation between Red, Blue and Green is essential)!

It was a great pleasure and interesting to share different ideas about change management and Red, Blue and Green with Yngvar. You should try yourself (Yngvar is a member of the Diversity Icebreaker LinkedIn group)!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Diversity Icebreaker and management teams


In our recent market research 95% of our customer’s indicate that they use the Diversity Icebreaker (DI) in team development. Historically DI categories and interaction between people with different colour preferences pull ideas from team role concepts like the Belbin and Margerison & McCann (TMP) models. For this reason it is no wonder that this has become the most prevalent user area for DI.

In this synopsis I will present some of the concept’s application forms, used by the consultants to improve teamwork.

Practical applications

Often, management teams consist of no more than 4-6 persons. Thus, the standard format of the DI workshop (where you divide the participants in small groups and ask them to create descriptions of Red, Blue and Green categories on flipcharts) can be difficult and not so relevant. In such situations, I often ask the participants to write their scores on a flip chart, let them read what is written about Red, Blue and Green in the Personal Workbook – and then I let each of them comment on “how do these descriptions fit you – and how do they not fit you”; and I ask them to give examples of situations or examples of their behaviour that do and do not fit the descriptions from the Workbook.

I highlight then the issues of highest and lowest scores in the team, and ask to share the positive and negative experiences on being / having such high scores; both from an individual as well as team perspective.

In the workshop, this has the effect of making people voice more their own perspectives on their own results. Then I let other comment on their presentation and they learn more about others and how others see their own potential contribution to the team.

Two important processes in team development are feedback and reflection. We observe that team members find it easier to give each other feedback in the seminars, using the terminology of Red, Blue and Green. The qualities of acknowledgment, the complementary and egalitarian character of the model, combined with the positive emotions linked to Red, Blue and Green –altogether reduce the risk that the people will start defending themselves. Reflecting upon processes seems much easier as well, when the team start saying for example “We need more Blue structure here – so why don’t we agree upon an agenda?”, to begin a discuss of whether their current modus operandi is well aligned with the requirements of the situation.

DI provides a team role model that is easy to understand. Some are more concerned about emotions and people, some about tasks and outcomes, and others about new ideas and change. People intuitively understand that if someone is working with tasks that are more aligned with his or her personal preferences; his or her motivation will probably be higher and more sustainable.

The Diversity Icebreaker does not map competences but preferences for how people treat information and solve problems when they work together. For this reason, it is quite natural to look upon Red, Blue and Green in relation to different stages of creative problem solving, with people with Green preferences more prone to divergent thinking; and people with Blue preference inclined more to converging processes. The Red preference is important for integration of the people in the team, which in turn is crucial for making real changes – not only coming up with creative ideas. 

If you have enough people, playing with diverging and converging processes in mono-coloured and multi-coloured groups, enhances creativity at group level to a higher degree, than what you can achieve individually. Even an entirely Blue group can be very creative if allowed to play by its own rules. It creates also a process where everyone can have important roles, as well as train on roles that are not in line with their main preferences. The integrative process invites people to take on dialogue qualities (DI is often used together with the Mapping, Bridging, Integrating model – MBI) as well as to execute analytical decision making skills.

If there are team leaders that have one strong preference, it might be relevant for others in the team to contribute either by assuming leader’s role in specific tasks or areas; or constitute a sounding board with a supervising function. The team assessment tool TPI and TeamReflector invites to this type of discussion with a more thorough mapping of team members’ perceptions of the team and the leader’s behaviour in relation to Red, Blue and Green.

“Team Flower” is a simple exercise that is used to highlight individual competencies/ Imageperspectives/ values of individuals constituting a team, as well as making a collective map of the team’s total resources. It functions often as a collective symbol for the whole team.


The DI seminars seem to have quite unique effects on work climate in teams: they introduce trust and openness. Such climate promotes dialogue, learning, reflection and innovation. The components that we think promote this climate are:

  1. The egalitarian balance between Red, Blue and Green: No category is more important than the other.
  2. Red, Blue and Green diversify, but at the same time in unify at a collective level: We all need each other
  3. People feel acknowledged as individuals and at the same time integrated in a group. Both these processes represent basic human needs that are satisfied in the process.
  4. The simplicity of the model gives everybody sense of mastery in approaching others that are different.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Diversity Icebreaker and ‘Trialoguing’ – why this word?

NB: the Diversity Icebreaker® will be introduced in the UK and USA markets under a different brand name – Trialogue®. There are many reasons for that.  However, what is pertinent to this blog is that we want to strengthen the focus within our tool on developing communicative processes employing an interaction between three parts. It opens additional possibilities for training, learning and change.


From Dialogue to Trialogue

Dialogue – focuses on an open, respectful and integrative communication – but is taking place between two parties.

Trialogue – builds on the same communicative practice but with three entities involved.

Introducing trialoguing as a communication practice gives an increased potential for more systemic change and learning. One of the traditions we would like to integrate is systemic change models and the practice of reflecting teams, a process of change designed in North Norway by Tom Andersen and his colleagues around family therapeutic training groups during the mid-80’s (Andersen, 1987).

Introduction of an observer to the process of development of a relationship

The tree entities in communication practice give opportunities for another object of observation, moving away from describing the persons –to describing changes in the relationships between persons. With three parties it is possible for a person to observe from an outside perspective the communicative interaction between the two persons/groups. This outsider perspective on the relationship seems to give opportunities for adding perspectives to the communicative processes, a perspective that can when phrased in a helpful and non-threatening way function as the difference that makes a difference.

As actors themselves, the two involved parties in the communication cannot take such a perspective. Such comments, or sharing of observations from an outside perspective, seems to lead to a radical, and partly unpredictable, change in the communication between the two parts involved. In systemic therapy we often see that such introduced change is sustainable and it is impossible to continue process in the ‘old way’ afterwards. Such an observer position, and we know this from the attribution theory, has a perspective significantly different than one shared by the actors. The idea here is that the observer position can be applied creatively in order to destabilize a stuck situation in order to enhance change.

This perspective implies that we do not assume that there exists one and only one precise and objective description of human beings and the social interaction, but rather many stories to tell and perspectives to share. This is in line with the post-colonial perspectives and constructivistic perspectives on social systems.

In practice: communication training in seminars

In seminars it leads to a situation where you can utilize the observer position both as a tool for giving feedback, as well as to make a change; for example, in a stage training with a Red person dialoguing with a Green person and having the Blue as an observer. The Blue person can give valuable comments on the development of change in the communicative relationship by observing “what did A do /say that made the communicative relationship open up/close down, created energy or demotivation, reduced or increased defensive behavior, etc.”

In practice: for unlocking relationships between groups

The term “reflective team” was coined in 1984 to describe a group of persons that:

a)      after having observed an interaction between two other groups/parts,

b)      expresses different individual ideas upon the interaction – in a non-systematic, non-planned way – but simply by sharing of diversified perspectives. (The idea of “multiple voices” is seen as relevant for post-colonial perspective.)

c)       and where the two other groups/parts listen to the abovementioned expression of ideas –and where each of the person in the interaction choose ideas they themselves find relevant for unstucking their situation, and use this to move on.

This process is a systematic form of trialoguing, where the observer position is utilized for a creative purpose, and with a perspective on improving relationships, both in communication and actions.

How can this be played out in training? How can we work on this structure in order to build awareness and competence to see and manage larger systems?

In practice:  DI seminars.

In the instructions for group work (the third stage of the classic DI seminar):

  1. What are the great words that can be used to describe you?
  2. In what way will the other colors create a challenge/problem for you?

When presenting between the groups, one might start with each of the groups presenting their own self-image in the standard way, and then focus on the relationship between two other groups. For example:

1)      Red presents for Blue what is they experience as challenging in them

2)      Blue presents for Red what is they experience as challenging in them

3)      Then the groups engage in a dialogue in between themselves and anyone in the Red and Blue groups, with ideas about what could be the better ways of cooperating can take the floor

4)      Green observes both presentations and the dialogue between the groups, but after 10 – 15 min of dialoguing between Red and Blue, the Green group asks for time to perform the role of a “Reflecting Team with Multiple Voices”. They exchange views in between themselves; while the Red and Blue listen and scan for ideas that might throw light on the relationship development and which might change the systemic interaction. The questions that the Green can have in mind while observing might be in line with these examples:

“How did they approach each other in a way that increased openness and engagement? Are there alternative ways to be suggested for how they could behave or interact? (reinforcing and suggestion of alternative behavior);

“What questions or topics seemed to positively engage both groups? (appreciative inquiry-inspired);

“Which acts seemed to increase energy and openness in the interaction?” (appreciative inquiry-inspired);

“If the communication got stuck, what has been done/could have been done to open it again?” (problem-solving from observer perspectives, breaking vicious circles)

“What would be a Green idea for how they themselves could involve Red and Blue in a positive systemic perspective?” (including all three parties as actors).

5)      Then the Red and Blue starts dialoguing again – and the Green keep on observing.

6)      Colour groups are then separated to formulate learning points.

7)      Learning points shared in between groups – can be done in plenary or in small, three-person groups of Red, Blue and Green if one wants to focus more on personal involvement.

This structure can then be repeated twice, set up so that the Blue observe the Red-Green interaction and the Red observe the Green-Blue interaction. Such process is relatively time consuming – but it has qualities of training that are essential: observing, dialoguing with the other and focus on the relationship development, as well as on the ideas and behaviours that might facilitate more interactive processes. It also combines the possibility of self-awareness and self-understanding in relation to the two other colours – underlining the ideas of relational self. It also creates a transparent learning process that can inspire and build confidence across colours.

The time spent can also be reduced by reducing number of repetitions, taking out stages 6 and 7. In order to see the effect or comments from the observer, the stage 5 could also be skipped.

Closing comments

We have illustrated a trialoguing process where the observation position, relationships and multiple voices are all central. The process above will often lead to new perspectives and understanding of oneself and of the others. The change focus is on actors engaged in a relationship. We often observe that this perceptual reorganization taking place between the actors leads to a behavioural change.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Diversity Icebreaker and two thinking styles

In the fall of 2011 we conducted a study investigating relation between Red, Blue and Green with two cognitive dimensions described by Jabri: the connective and sequential thinking styles (Jabri, 1991). The study was conducted in cooperation with Corrine Post from Lehigh University, who investigated the extent to which either of the styles predicts innovation on the team level (Post, 2011).

This study was conducted as part of the efforts to investigate the Diversity Icebreaker as a cognitive diversity model, following previous suggestions from researchers and practitioners (Ekelund, Rossi, & van Egmond, 2010; Matoba, 2011). A broader scope of these efforts is presented in my Dr.Philos. dissertation submitted to the Norwegian University of Science and Technology earlier this year.


The connective thinking style is a preference for considering many factors at once and linking previously unconnected ideas, whereas the sequential thinking style is a preference for following an existing set of logical, sequential routines to resolve a problem (Jabri, 1991). Drawing on the theory and previous research regarding Red, Blue and Green, we had expected positive correlations between Green and the connective, and Blue with the sequential thinking style; and – vice versa – a negative relation between Green and the sequential, and between Blue and the connective thinking style. We had not made any assumptions regarding the relation of Red with either of the styles due to lack of data and plausible theoretical formulations.


We tested our assumptions by administering the Diversity Icebreaker questionnaire together with the measure constructed by Post (2011), to a Norwegian-based sample of N=106. The hypotheses were confirmed, as illustrated in Table 1 below:


There was a significantpositive correlation between the Blue scale and the sequential thinking scale, r=.439; and between the Green scale and the connective thinking scale, r=.563. Furthermore, the Blue scale was significantly and negatively correlated with the connective thinking scale, r=-.458. Similar result was observed in case of the Green and sequential thinking scales, r=-.348.

The direction of the correlation between Green and the Sequential thinking style was negative, as expected, but we can assume that its magnitude could have been different if not the necessity to remove one of the items pertaining to the Sequential thinking scale as a result of Exploratory Factor Analysis.


The present study confirmed that the concepts of Blue and Green preferences for communication and interaction are closely related to the sequential and connective thinking styles, thus supporting the view of the Diversity Icebreaker as a cognitive diversity model.

Interesting to note, the sum of absolute values of the correlations between Blue and the two thinking styles (.892) and the sum of the correlation between Green and the two thinking styles (.803) were both higher than the sum of correlation values between Red and the two thinking styles (.377). It means that the combination of these two colours explains best the structure represented by the connective and sequential thinking styles. However, correlation between Red and the sequential thinking scale was significant and moderate on its own (-.316).

Unpublished results from our study of 21 teams measured with Team Performance Inventory and the Diversity Icebreaker indicate that Green can enhance, while Blue can impede Innovation. In the same analysis Red seemed to have an even stronger positive impact on Innovation than Green. It would be very interesting to pursue this notion, and see if Red – a largely social dimension not included in the study by Post  (2011) – would have a greater impact on innovation than strictly cognitive dimensions.

An on-going research project, using a more advanced measure of cognitive styles – the Thinking Styles Inventory (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006), is aimed to shed more light on this and other questions in effort to look at the Diversity Icebreaker as a cognitive diversity model.

NOTE: contact me should you like to have access to the entire report from this study.


Ekelund, B. Z., Rossi, A., & van Egmond, M. C. (2010). Use of Diversity Icebreaker and learning styles in multicultural teaching settings (workshop). The European Conference on Educational Research. University of Helsinki, Finland.

Jabri, M. M. (1991). The Development of Conceptually Independent Subscales in the Measurement of Modes of Problem Solving. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(4), 975-983.

Matoba, K. (2011). Transformative Dialogue for Third Culture Building. Integrated Constructionist Approach for Managing Diversity. Opladen: Budrich UniPress.

Post, C. (2011). Relating Cognitive Style Composition, Mobility and Faultlines to Team Innovation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting (submission accepted), (pp. 1-37).

Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Intellectual Styles. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publ.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Diversity Icebreaker humor project – guest post by Piotr Pluta

We have long since recognized the important role humour plays in the Diversity Icebreaker seminars. However, it is the first time that we took on a systematic and serious scientific approach to investigate how humour contributes to making people reflect, ask, listen and talk during our seminars.

This note gives an overview of our efforts so far in regard to the Diversity Icebreaker humour project and is intended to raise your curiosity as well as encourage you to participate in the project.

When I was introduced to the Diversity Icebreaker I was surprised and taken by how much humour was always there during the seminars. Having spent the last two years of my degree in psychology almost exclusively occupied with investigating humour, while working on my master thesis about its influence on persuasion – I was naturally very keen to investigate it.

So, when I joined Human Factors I brought in some systematic knowledge humour and we grounded our efforts in the field of humour psychology – a multi-paradigmatic branch of psychology, which very existence can be somewhat of a surprise. (Nonetheless, there is an International Society for Humor Studies that’s been publishing a referee based journal Humor since 1989, one or two complete academic textbooks, and some quite prominent figures in psychology who had dedicated much of their work to humour, e.g. Sigmund Freud, Arthur Koestler and Michael J. Apter; there’s also Norway’s very own Sven Svebak, who has been appointed with the humorprofessoren title!)

Why investigate humour in the Diversity Icebreaker?

The considerable amount of humour in the DI should be reason enough to believe that it plays an important, if not crucial, role in the seminars. In other words, since participants engage in laughter so often and so eagerly, it must be to a purpose and it must have some serious social functions. (However simpleminded this assumption might sound, a similar was one of the reasons why psychologists even took interest in humour in the first place!)

Second of all, it’s repeatable. No, not repetitive, although we sometimes do tell the same old jokes during our seminars… By ‘repeatable’ I mean that DI provides a consultant-proof scenario to follow, which always seems to create laughter independently of particular group’s characteristics and/or those of the consultant. When I first saw Bjørn running a session I thought that it was just him being such a funny guy. However, later I saw other consultants creating similar effects and I soon followed, conducting DI for the first time and creating just as much humour. (It doesn’t mean I don’t think Bjørn’s funny anymore.) Thanks to that, we can repeatedly observe the same patterns of humour and describe their effects and underlying mechanisms.

Third, and last but not least, a consultant may initiate and participate in the shared humour experience during the seminar, but it is the participants who generate most of humour and laughter. Therefore we can take a look at humour-in-makingin real social interactions – a setting most appropriate to study humour but rarely approachable.

Humour in the Diversity Icebreaker

What is humour?

Before I share what we assume about humour in the Diversity Icebreaker, let me briefly describe what we (psychologists) assume about humour.

It turns out that we assume quite a lot indeed, and the amount of results and theories building up is becoming even hard to navigate through. To begin with, the psychology of humour has produced a number of humour definitions. Below is one looking at it as a process:

Humour [is a] process [that] can be divided into four essential components: (1) a social context, (2) a cognitive-perceptual process, (3) an emotional response, and (4) the vocal-behavioural expression of laughter.[i]

Some of these elements correspond directly to particular branches of psychology (e.g. the social psychology is interested in how humour proceeds and what functions it has in social interactions and group processes; the cognitive psychology deals with how the mental processes like perception, thinking and memory are involved in humour; and the evolutionary psychologists research the markers of humour and laughter in primates to trace its historical development). However, the division itself is rather an arbitrary one and was drawn primarily to facilitate systematic studies of the phenomenon. It would be hard, and eventually impractical, to separate the cognitive mechanisms involved in humour processes from its content, which in turn is almost exclusively social in its nature.

The ubiquitous incongruity

The presently most dominant group of psychological theories related to humour, and especially to the mental processes behind it, is one encompassing the incongruity theories[ii]. According to these theories, all instances of humour involve some sort of incongruity, i.e. something somebody said or did, or an event that is in some sense odd, unexpected and out of ordinary.

To the right you see an example of an incongruity: who would expect such a big dog in such a humble disposition?

However, incongruity alone is not enough to elicit humour and laughter. Different researchers and theorists proposed a number of criteria in attempt to, on one hand, precisely discriminate between the incongruities that may lead to humour and those that don’t; and on the other to be universal enough to account for all types of humour.

Below is a summary of 3 points that reflect the main ideas regarding conditions for incongruity to be funny first introduced by Apter ii and later extended and adapted to the theory of cognitive schemata by Wyer & Collins[iii]:

1) Incongruity has to induce a re-interpretation of the situation as a less significant and more trivial;

2) This new interpretation cannot entirely replace the original one – both have to be processed simultaneously for a certain amount time;

3) A person has to be in a light mood, with positive emotions and no serious information-processing objectives regarding the message; usually, the person is in a playful frame of mind and already expecting humour.

Humour structure in the Diversity Icebreaker

In the Diversity Icebreaker, the incongruity is often first introduced by the consultant after he or she had given the participants instructions on how to fill out the questionnaire – thus inducing a script for a testing situation, which tends to be perceived as a serious activity. One of the moments when the unexpected occurs is when the consultant starts walking around and commenting on the results in a playful way, or by asking the participants who marked zero on ‘I liked maths better than languages at school’ to ask neighbours for help in calculating the total score (or doing any other thing that is out of ordinary and seemingly diminish importance of the situation, see picture to the left). It then leads to a re-interpretation of a testing situation to a less serious one than it had been perceived previously (1).

However, the reinterpretation of the seminar situation is only partial and temporary, the consultant and group can nevertheless easily shift back to the serious perspective, e.g. when discussing the learning points from the seminar (2).

The introduction of humour and positive emotions by the facilitator serves as an invitation for the participants to engage in it as well. The ‘fixed jokes’ make people laugh and make them expect to laugh more (3), openly permitting for humour in the seminar; hence making it easier also for the participants to induce it, e.g. during the group presentations.

Social functions of humour in DI

The previous caption focused primarily on the role of incongruity underlying all humour – also in one present in the Diversity Icebreaker seminars. In this section however, I go back to the first reason and question that made us and many other scientists investigate humour: Since there is so much of humour, what are its functions?

The literature on humour names a number of social and psychological functions humour probably serves. Below is a small set that we have initially identified in the Diversity Icebreaker seminar (note that this classification is, again, only arbitral and meant to help in systematic research; in reality, most of functions exist simultaneously or overlap):

  • Tension relief. Humour helps to release tensions during the Diversity Icebreaker seminars on many occasions: beginning with filling out the questionnaire phase, when it reduces the fear usually related with a testing situation; during the group presentations, when people submit/receive critique and are being evaluated. Humour can also steer attention away from the uneasiness the participants feel if they had not known each other before, by providing a cognitive distraction and replacing the negative emotions with positive.
  • Liking. Humour increases the feeling of liking and attraction between the participants. First of all, it is because we tend to like people that we perceive as similar to ourselves and being able to laugh together is one of the indicators of similarity. Second of all, we tend to like those who induce positive emotions in us, e.g. those who make us laugh.
  • Cohesion and identity building. The feeling of similarity is also important to bringing people together in a group. Furthermore, people often use humour to define the reality (sharing subjects to laugh at) and differentiate themselves from the others (e.g., inside jokes).
  • Trust. Humour is deemed as one of the constituent components in the trust model for the Diversity Icebreaker seminars created by Bjørn.
  • Breaking norms. Humour helps to break social norms and boundaries in an acceptable way, hence facilitating more-than-usual open communication, e.g. discussing stereotypes, essential for the seminars.

How does Red, Blue, and Green fit an elephant to a refrigerator? – DI and types of humour

A number of humour types or styles classifications have been made. One of the two most known is the 3WD (Witz-dimensionen) humour appreciation questionnaire measuring preferences for three types: incongruity-resolution humour (e.g. jokes where incongruity introduced by punch line can be resolved by referring to another part of the story), nonsense humour (incongruity is can’t be fully resolved, e.g. Monty Pythons, on a very bad day), and sexual humour (instances of humour containing an obvious sexual content).

Another one is Humour Styles Questionnaire, by Rod A. Martin and it seems to be more interesting from the Diversity Icebreaker project perspective, because it focuses not so much on different types of humorous content (or stimuli) but on the functions humour serves individuals during social interactions.

It distinguishes in four humour styles: affiliative (nonthreatening use of humour to enhance one’s relationships with others), self-enhancing (nonthreatening use of humour to enhance oneself), self-diminishing (use of humour to enhance relations with others at expense of oneself), and aggressive (use of humour at expense of others to enhance oneself).

We can look at the different styles of humour and the Diversity Icebreaker concept from two points of view.

First is to try to relate the three DI dimensions of Red, Blue and Green to either of the Humor Styles Questionnaire factors. An appropriate quantitative questionnaire study has not been conducted yet, but the results of the studies relating either the DI dimensions[iv] or the four humour styles[v] to the Big-5 personality traits, allow expecting that: Red will be positively correlated with the affiliative and self-enhancing, and negatively with the aggressive humour style; Blue negatively with the affiliative and self-enhancing, slightly positively with self-defeating; and that Green will positively related to the affiliative, self-enhancing and aggressive humour styles.

The second direction is to observe which of the styles are primarily present and/or induced in the seminar itself. Again, no systematic observation has been made, but one is led to believe that the affiliative and self-enhancing humour is predominant when the participants work in one-colour groups, and the in-group feelings are strong; as well as during the open discussion phase, when learning points are being shared and all participants are reunited again. On the other hand, a bland of the aggressive, self-enhancing and self-defeating humour seems to prevail during the group presentations stage.

Further work and an invitation to participate

Below are the specific next steps we want to take in the nearest future:

1) Write an article about the role of humour in HR trainings, with DI as an example and platform. Since this first article is intended to be based on qualitative data, it requires your help: we are in the process of putting together questions for a semi-structured interview directed to all the experienced (or semi-experienced) consultants using our concept, who want to help. Contact us to share your observations!

2) Include the results of this project in the DI train-the-trainer activities (Master Class in advanced use of the Diversity Icebreaker and half-day seminars).

3) Invite consultants and facilitators, as well as participants, to share funny stories and anecdotes related to the seminars in order let other use them as the safe and secure humour starters in the seminars.

4) Begin to gather data for a quantitative research relating Red, Blue, and Green with the different humour styles. This is intended as an online questionnaire study, with the results analysed using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis technique to test whether the data fit our predictions based on the previous studies.

Read more about Piotr in his profile on Human Factors AS website.

[i] Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: an integrative approach. Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.

[ii] Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation. London: Academic Press.

[iii] Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A Theory of Humor Elicitation. Psychological Review, 99(4), 663-688.

[iv] Ekelund, B. Z., & Langvik, E. (2008). Diversity Icebreaker: How to Manage Diversity Processes. Oslo: Human Factors Publishing.

[v] Martin, A. R., et al. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality(37), 48-75.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment