# Diversity Icebreaker

Diversity Icebreaker is a questionnaire used in seminars where the aim is to improve communication and interaction in the group or between different departments or subsidiaries in a more prominent company or organization. Based on the results from the questionnaire, the participants are divided into three categories (red, blue and green). Each color represents a particular set of preferences. The facilitator is suggested to follow a specific seminar structure to help the participants develop a shared understanding of effective ways to communicate and work with people with different preferences.

## Workshop

The Diversity Icebreaker is a process tool often used within the classic seminar structure explained by Ekelund and Langvik in their book “Diversity Icebreaker. How to manage diversity processes”. The seminar is usually run for groups from 9 to 150 persons and lasts between one and two hours. The participants are divided into groups – red, blue or green – based on the questionnaire. Red preference is characterized by a strong focus on relations, personal involvement and a social perspective. Blue preference is recognized by focus on structure and task, and through a logic perspective. Green perspective is seen in focus on change, vision and ideas. The meaning of the three categories is established during the seminar. It originates from the questionnaire's items (questions) as well as from participant's personal experiences and the local culture, thus making the categories of red, blue and green flexible and applicable in many contexts.
Through the seminar process the sense of the categories is worked out by the participants themselves. They discover the effect of putting labels on each other, as well as the effect of “us” versus “the others” way of thinking. A systematic use of humor is central in the process and stimulates the participants to a safe and open reflection about differences.

## Users of the concept

Diversity Icebreaker is used to work on a wide range of subjects from focus on communication and interaction in general to more specific topics like team development, intercultural relations, learning styles and conflict resolution. Users vary from multinationals to smaller companies independently of sector of activity, schools and universities, non-profit organizations,
Romani describes how she uses the concept when teaching in multicultural classes of business students in Singapore, making the students aware of how the self-other categories have effects on the group dynamics. Similar application of the concept in Bangladesh is reported by Orgeret. The Diversity Icebreaker is also named in a book by Maureen B. Rabotin among other tools relevant for improving cooperation across cultures.
Application of the Diversity Icebreaker was also named in the area of mentoring

## Development

Diversity Icebreaker was developed by Bjørn Z. Ekelund. The work started following a project in 1995 where focus groups were asked to give ideas on how to communicate to obtain changes in behavior of other people. When the participants sorted the ideas, three main categories occurred. These categories were used for the first time in 1995 in marketing campaigns and training of consultants, where the aim was to reduce energy consumption among power supplier's customers. The development of the categories and evaluation of the first campaign were presented in Bjørn Z. Ekelund's MBA thesis.
The first edition of the questionnaire, which identified an individual's preference towards one of the roles blue, red, or green was made in 1998 and published in a book about team development written by Dansk Psykologisk Forlag in Denmark. Since then, the questionnaire has been reedited in 2003 and 2005. Since 2012, the concept is branded in the UK and in the USA under the name Trialogue.
Ekelund was awarded the prize "Consultant of the Year 2008" for the development of the Diversity Icebreaker. The Research Council of Norway supported development of the tool in the years 2011-2012

## Norms

Norm data collected up to September 2011 gives results from all together about 240 samples with a total of 8859 respondents. This gives the opportunity to compare norm groups related to profession and nationality. The results show that women score lower on blue and higher on red than men, and vice versa. Only small differences were detected what concerns age – where persons above 60 years score higher on blue
The internal consistency measured by Cronbach's alpha based upon 473 respondents is reported to be between 0.75 and 0.82.$^{:26–27}$
The dimensions red, blue, and green have been systematically validated against personality traits, emotional intelligence, cultural values, Interpersonal Problems (IIP), flow and team processes.$^{:45–51}$
The Red, Blue and Green categories have also been used in marketing through research about Brand Personality.

## Literature

* 1 2 3 Ekelund, B. Z., & Langvik, E., Eds. (2008). Diversity Icebreaker. How to Manage Diversity Processes. Oslo: Human Factors AS, 19-28.
* ↑ Ekelund, B. Z., & Pluta, P. (2012, October 8–10). Diversity Icebreaker as a flexible tool for diversity management. Sukces w zarządzaniu kadrami: Elastyczność w zarządzaniu kapitałem ludzkim (accepted for the conference). Wrocław, Poland.
* ↑ ""Experiencing Diversity" and break the Ice!". Henkel. Henkel AG & Co. KGaA. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
* ↑ Magni, M.; Bagnato, G.; Gehrke, B. "Seminar on Collaborative Competences" (PDF). Università Bocconi. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
* ↑ "Diversity Icebreaker Workshop | KUSIF Koç University Social Impact Forum". Archived from the original on 2013-12-13. Retrieved 2013-12-11.
* ↑ Ekelund, B.Z. (11 December 2008). "Leken samarbeidstrening - Mangfoldsportalen". Archived from the original on 2013-12-14.
* ↑ Romani, L (2013). "Diversity Icebreaker for Cross-Cultural Management Teaching: Much More Than Breaking the Ice!". Academy of Management Learning & Education. 12 (3): 534–536. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0156.
* ↑ Orgeret, K. S. (2012). "Intercultural educational practices: opening paths for dialogue. New Media, Mediated Communication and Globalization". Intercultural Communication Studies. 21 (1): 189–204.
* ↑ Rabotin, M. B. (2011). Culture Savvy. Working and Collaborating Across the Globe. The American Society for Training & Development. x
* ↑ David, Clutterbuck; M, Poulsen, Kirsten; Frances, Kochan (1 July 2012). Developing Successful Diversity Mentoring Programmes: An International Casebook: An international casebook. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). p. 25. ISBN 978-0-335-24388-4. Retrieved 26 October 2023.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ↑ Ekelund, B. Z.; Pluta, P. (2015). "Diversity Icebreaker II - Further Perspectives". diversityicebreaker.com. Human Factors Publishing. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
* ↑ Ekelund, B. Z. (1997). The application of a model which integrates market segmentation and psychological theories to change energy consumption in households. MBA Thesis, Henley Management College/Brunel University, London.
* ↑ Ekelund, B. Z., & Jørstad, K. (2002). Team Climate Inventory intervention manual (Danish). Copenhagen: Danish Psychological Publisher.
* ↑ "SkatteFUNN Prosjekteksempler 2012". Forskningsråd. Norges forskningsråd. Archived from the original on 14 December 2013. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
* ↑ Ekelund, B.; Pluta, P.; Ekelund, H. K. "Documentation for description and evaluation of the Diversity Icebreaker" (PDF). Diversity Icebreaker. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
* ↑ Mæhle, N.; Shneor, R. (2010). "On congruence between brand and human personalities". Journal of Product & Brand Management. 19 (1): 44–53. doi:10.1108/10610421011018383. hdl:11250/135984. S2CID 53593685.