Knowing yourself as a change agent: A validated test based...

All rights reserved by the authors.

1

Knowingyourselfasachangeagent:Avalidatedtestbasedonacolorfultheoryofchange

LéondeCaluwé,HansVermaak

Publishedin:D.W.Jamieson,R.C.Barnett&A.F.Buono(Eds.),Consultationfororganizationalchangerevisited

(ResearchinManagementConsultingVol.23),pp.185-210.Charlotte,NC:InformationAgePublishing.

Inthelasttwodecadestherehasbeenariseinpublicationsthatadvocateamulti-paradigmaticviewoforganizationalchange(e.g.,Beer&Nohria,2000;Buono&Kerber,2005;VandeVen&Poole,1995).Thistrendtowardspluralismisgoodnewsgiventhediversityoforganizationalissuesthatcannotbedealtwitheffectivelywithauniformapproach.Changeagentsneedtobeawarenotonlyofthisrangeofapproaches,butalsooftheirownpreferences,capabilities,credibility,andlimitationsintermsofthisarrayofpossibilities.Thisimpliesaneedforreflectivepractice(e.g.,Schön,1987).Inthischapterwediscussaninstrumentthatcanaidsuchreflection:astyletestforchangeagentsthatcreatesofprofileoftheirsympathiesandantipathiesforcontrastingchangeapproaches.Wehavebasedthistestonameta-modelofchangewestarteddevelopingalmost20yearsago–thecolormodel.Thetesthasbeenfreelyavailableforthelast15yearsandhasbeenusedbymorethan100,000people.Duringthistime,wehavecontinuedrefiningthetesttoincreaseitsvalidity. Inthischapter,wedescribethisprocessandsharetheresultsofthelatestversionofthetestutilizedbyapopulationofroughly3,500people.Lastly,wediscusshowthetestcanbemosteffectivelyused,andhowtheresultscanbeinterpreted.

THECOLORMODEL

Thecolormodeldistinguishesbetweenfivefundamentallydifferentwaysof

thinkingaboutchange,witheachcolorrepresentingaparadigmofdifferentbeliefsandvaluesaboutchange.Eachoftheseparadigmsislabeledwithacolor,intendedasakindof“shorthand”withoutmuchsymbolicconnotation,andeachrepresentsdifferenttraditionsorschoolsofthoughtinourfield.Thecolorshavetheirowncharacteristicsintermsoftypeofinterventions,diagnosticmodels,roles,andoutcomes.Togethertheycompriseameta-theoryofchangethathasseveralapplications,oneofwhichwefocusonhere–toreflectonone’sownpreferencesandpossibilitiesasachangeagent.Acomprehensivedescriptionofthecolormodel(DeCaluwé&Vermaak,2004)anditsdevelopmentandmanifestations(DeCaluwé&Vermaak,2015)areavailableelsewhere.Table13-1summarizesthetheory’scorecomponents,underlyingassumptions,andkeytraitsofeachofthefivecolors.

All rights reserved by the authors.

2

Table13-1TheFiveChangeColorsatGlance

Blue-printthinkingisbasedontherationaldesignandimplementationofchange.Scientificmanagementisaclassicexample.Empiricalinvestigationoftenisthebasisfordefiningsolutionsorgoals.Plannedchangeisresponsiblefordeliveringpredefinedoutcomes:projectmanagementisoneitsstrongesttools.Keyactorsarethosemanagersinchargeofthechange,expertswhodefineit,andprojectmanagerswhocontrolitsorderlyrealization.Inmanyways,thisisstillthedominantparadigminourfield.

Yellow-printthinkingisbasedonsociopoliticalconceptsaboutorganizations,inwhichinterests,conflicts,andpowerplayimportantroles.Thistypeofthinkingassumesthatpeoplechangetheirstandpointsonlyiftheirowninterestsaretakenintoaccount,oriftheycanbecompelledtoacceptcertainideas.Thefavoredmethodsforachievingchangewiththistypeofthinkinginvolvescombiningideasorpointsofview,andformingcoalitionsorpowerblocks.Changeisseenasanegotiationexerciseaimedatfeasiblesolutions.

Red-printthinkingfocusesnotonpowerorrationality,butonmotivation.Akeyassumptionisthatstimulatingpeopleintherightwaycaninducebehavioralchange.Ititsmostbasicform,thiscorrespondstoabarteringsystem:theorganizationprovidesresourcesandhandsoutrewardsinexchangeforpersonneltakingonresponsibilitiesandtryingtheirbest.ItisattheheartofmanyHRsystems.Othermotivationalapproachesinclude:investinginpeople’sdevelopment,recognizingachievement,strengtheningcollegialtiesandteamspirit,andenticingpeoplewithavisionofthefuture.Atitscorethistypeofchangeisaboutthequalityofattentionthatispaidtopeople.

Green-printthinkinghasitsrootsinactionlearningandorganizationaldevelopment:changingandlearningaredeemedinextricablylinked.Changeagentsfocushereonhelpingothersdiscoverthelimitsoftheircompetencesandtolearnmoreeffectivewaysofacting.Theprocessischaracterizedbysettinguplearningsituations,preferablyingroupsastheseallowpeopletogiveandreceivefeedbackaswellastoexperimenttogether.Whenever

All rights reserved by the authors.

3

possible,learningisco-createdwithparticipantswhostrengthentheirlearningabilitiesintheprocess,andfacilitatorshelpthoseinvolvedtobecomefacilitatorsintheirownright.

White-printthinkingcanbeunderstoodasareactiontothe“plannedview”ofchangeheldbythefourothercolors,albeittodifferentdegrees.Akeyideainwhite-printthinkingisthateverythingischangingautonomously.Thechangeagent’sinterventionsthusonlycatalyzeschange,givingthatwhichisabouttohappenanextrapush.Sensemakingplaysanimportantparttodiscernandshowundercurrents.White-printthinkerstrytounderstandwhereopportunitieslie,supportthosewhograspthemandhelpremovingobstaclesintheirpath.

Thecolormodelcanbethoughtofasalensthroughwhichtolookatone’s

background,competencies,portfolioofassignments,imageandcredibility,networks,andsoon.Weliketopointoutthatthecolorsrefertobeliefsystemsanddeeplyheldassumptionsaboutthenatureofchange,whichimpliesthattheymaynotalwaysbeconsciouslychosentofittheissueathand.Ourbeliefsystemscancauseustobeattachedtocertainpreferences,whichshowupnotonlyintermsofwhatwethink,say,anddo,butalsoarepartofhowweperceiveourselves.Ourstyleofworking,thevaluesweespouse,andthetraditionsinwhichwetakepartcanbecomepartofour(professional)identity(see,forexample,Buono,DeCaluwé,&Stoppelenburg,2013).Theymaycauseustohavestrongantipathiesor“allergies”toothercolorsonthespectrum.Wehaveoftennoticedthatpeoplearenotfullyawareoftheirpreferencesandthiscanhaveanegativeimpactintermsofnotknowingone’slimits,notrespectingotherpointsofview,ornotexploringdifferentstrategieswhenneedbe.Insuchcases,feedbackfromotherscanbeofhelp,likeamirror.Themoresuchfeedbackisgatheredfromdifferentsources,themorereliablesuchamirrorwillbe.Wedevelopedatesttoassistinsuchself-reflection–aquestionnairetomeasurepreferencesaboutchange.Basedontheanswerstothequestionnaire,peoplecanidentifytheirowndominantbeliefs.

THEBASICCONSTRUCTIONOFTHETEST

Wedecidedearlyontoconstructatestbasedonforcedchoice,asitseemedtoofferagoodcompromisebetweeneaseofuseandreliabilityofmeasurement.Attheoutset,wetriedthreedifferenttypesoftests.ThefirstonewasaLikertfive-pointscale(Test1inTable13-2)withsixtyitems(agree/neutral/disagree).Wequicklymovedtoanipsative-styletestwiththirtyitems(Tests2–4inTable13-2),basedonasimpleforcedchoicebetweentwoalternatives(A/B).Thetestthatwehaveusedpredominantlysince2000isatestwithtentotwelveitems(Tests5–18inTable13-2)basedonamoresubtleforcedchoiceinwhichparticipantshavetodistributepointsbetweenfivealternatives:a“testofpoints”(“puntentest”inDutch).Thecombinationofreducingthenumberofitemsandincreasingthesubtletyofforcedchoiceallowedustogetresultsthatwerestillreliablebutofferedmoreeaseofuse.Thetestnowallowsrespondentsto(1)filloutthequestionnaireinashortamountoftime(10–15minutes),(2)createtheirownprofilewithoutexternalhelp,and(3)gettheirresultsimmediatelyeitherbyaddingtheirownscoresonpaperorhavingthemcalculatedonline.Italsoallowssubstantialdatatobegatheredwithease,facilitatingitsuseinresearch,teaching,andothergroupsettings.

All rights reserved by the authors.

4

Anotheradvantageofforcedchoiceisthatitnudgespeopletoshowtheir“truecolors”andmakesithardertogive“middleoftheroad”answers.Itforcesrespondentstodiscernthevaluesandbeliefstheyholdmostdear.Theuseofclosedquestionsallowsthemtodosobasedontheir“gutfeeling,”andwithoutpriorknowledgeofthemodelbehindthetest.Onedisadvantageofthismethodisthatrespondentscannotgivenuancedortailoredanswers;becauseofthis,relevantdatamaygetlostandrespondentsmaygetfrustratedbecausetheyareunabletochoosetheanswerthatismosttrueforthem(VanderVelde,etal.,2008).ExampleofaTestItem

Inordertoprovideasenseofthetest,thefollowingisanexampleofoneofthetwelvequestionsthatispartofthefinal“testofpoints”(seethelinksattheendofthechapter).

Inmyopinionchangecanonlybesuccessfulif:a. Itissupportedbythemostimportantmanagers.b. Theemployeessupportthechange.c. Clearobjectiveshavebeensetbeforehand.d. Employeesgainnewinsights.e. Thestrengthsandenergyofthoseinvolvedareactivated.

Therespondentsareaskedtodistributeeightpointsoverthesefivealternatives,

whichmakesithardtodistributethepointsevenly.Theyareinstructedtodistributethepointsbasedonhowwellthestatementsmatchtheirconvictions.Theycan,forinstance,giveeightpointstoonechoice,fourpointseachtotwochoices,orgiveone,three,andfourpointstothreechoices.Afterhavingdistributedallofthepoints,therespondent’sscorecanbeinterpreted.Intheaboveexample,letter“a”referstoyellow,“b”tored,“c”toblue,“d”togreen,and“e”towhite.Thepointsforeachquestionareaddedupbycolorandprovideanoverallprofileofone’spreferences(highscores)andantipathies(lowscores).TheContentoftheTest:TheItems

Thequestionsdelveintomanyaspectsofchangeinordertocreateacolorprofile.Somerelatetounderlyingassumptionsdirectly,othersindirectly.Thediversityofquestionsmakesthetestmorereliable.Thedivisionoftheitemsisasfollows:

• Oneitemrelatesprimarilytohowpeoplechange(item11).• Oneitemrelatesprimarilytohoworganizationschange(item5).• Fouritemsrelateprimarilytocharacteristicsofchangeprocesses,such

askeyactivitiesorinteractions(items2,4,9,10).• Threeitemsrelateprimarilytothecontextofachangeprocess,such

asconditions,measureofsuccess,orvalues(items1,7,8).• Twoitemsrelateprimarilytocharacteristicsofchangeagents,suchas

theirroleorcompetences(items3and6).• Oneitemrelatestoaresonancewithproverbsthatcapturethebelief

systemsofacolor(item12).

All rights reserved by the authors.

5

Thestatementswithineachitemarederiveddirectlyfromthecolortheoryitself.

Partoftheprocessofrefiningthetestwastocreatestatementsthatwereformulatedinawaythatdidnotpaintonecolorinamorepositivelightthanothers,whichmeantweneededtocorrectourownbiasesindescribingthecolormodel.Welearnedfirst-handoftheproblemofincommensurabilityofmeta-models–thereisnoobjectivewaytotalkaboutbeliefsystems(e.g.,Scherer&Dowling,1995).Ittookusadecadetominimizesuchbiases.

THEINCREMENTALDEVELOPMENTOFTHETEST

Table13-2givesanoverviewofthedifferenttestsandsamplesusedtorefinethequestionnaireanditsinterpretation.Thefirstcolumnshowsthat18sampleswereusedbetween2000and2013.ThesecondcolumnintheTableshowsthetypeandversionofeachtest:thereisoneversionofthefirsttypeoftest(Test1),threeversionsofthesecondtype(Tests2–4),andfiveversionsofthethirdtype(Tests5–18).Thisthirdtypeoftestisthe“testofpoints”thatwehaveusedandresearchedthemost.

Thetestofpointswasrefinedfourtimesbasedonastatisticalanalysisofthe

numberanddistributionofitemsandarewordingofthestatementswithintheitems.Theseimprovementswereresearchedanddocumentedincollaborationwithmaster’sdegreestudents.Thefirstimprovementstoversions2and3werebasedonOort(2006)whoanalyzedalmost2,700questionnaires(Test6inTable13-2).Thenextimprovementtoversion4wasbasedonLankreijer’s(2007)analysisof280questionnaires(Test7inTable13-2).Tummers(2009)validatedthisversionofthetestwithover1,700respondents,andfoundclearcorrelationsbetweenthestatementsandthecolorstheyaresupposedtorepresent(Test9inTable13-2).ThelastimprovementstothetestweremadeonthebasisofTummers’swork.Pietersen(2013)usedthefourthandthefifth(final)versionsofthetestforhisanalysiswithatotalofalmost3,500respondents(Tests14–16inTable13-2).

Becauseoftheipsativecharacterofthedata,afactoranalysiswasregardedas

unsuitable(seeBlinkhorn,Johnson,&Wood,1988).Ipsativedatatypicallyproducebipolarfactors,causedbytheforcedchoiceformat,wherechoosingoneoptioninevitablymeansnotchoosingtheother.However,inreallife,ifyouhavetochoosebetweenfishandmeat,andyouchoosemeat,itdoesnotmeanthatyoudonotlikefish.Ingeneralthecorrelationsofipsativedataarenegativeandlowerthanthecorrelationsofnormativeresults(see,forexample,Loo,1999).Forthisreason,Tummers(2009)conductedamultidimensionalscalinganalysis(MDS),whichvisualizesthedistancebetweenvariables.Itemsthatareperceivedtobesimilarwillfallclosetogetheronaperceptualmap,anditemsthatareperceivedtobedissimilarwillbefurtherapart(e.g.,Cooper&Schindler,2008).Tummers’sMDSanalysisshowedthatthedistancebetweenthetestanswerscorrespondingtoonecolortendedtobeshorterthanthedistancebetweenthetestanswerscorrespondingtodifferentcolors.Thisanalysisprovesthatacommonfactor(acolor)underliesthetestanswers.

All rights reserved by the authors.

6

Test

Type

and

version

Typeoftest Authors/year

Lang

uage

Pape

ror

electron

ic Typeofsample

Num

bero

frespon

dents

(N) Mainresearchfinding

1. 0.1 Scaletest(agree/neutral/dis-agree)(30items)

MartinsDias(2000)

NL P Changeagents/students

50 Average

Yellow2.90

Blue1.66

Red3.30

Green3.88

White4.36

Proportionalaverage*)

Yellow17

Blue10

Red20

Green23

White26

2. 1.1 ForcedchoicebetweenAandB:(30itemsonhowpeoplethinkand30itemsonhowpeopleact)

DeCaluwé&Vermaak(1999)

NL P Readers - Datalost

3. 1.2 ForcedchoicebetweenAandB;(30itemsonhowpeoplethinkand30itemsonhowpeopleact)

DeCaluwé&Vermaak(2003)

E P Readers - Datalost

4 1.3 ForcedchoicebetweenAandB;(30itemsonhowpeoplethinkand30itemsonhowpeopleact)

WebsiteTwynstraGudde(2005)

NL E Visitors - Datalost

5. 2.1 Testofpoints(10items)

MartinsDias(2000)

NL P Changeagents/students

50 Average

Yellow13

Blue11

Red14

Green18

White24

Proportionalaverage*

Yellow16

Blue13

Red17

Green22

White29

6. 2.2 Testofpoints(10items)

Oort(2006) NL p Changeagents/managers/supportstaff

2.688 Average

Yellow12

Blue13

Red18

Green17

White20

ProportionalAverage*

Yellow14

Blue16

Red22

Green20

White24

Indicationstoimprovesomeitems

7. 2.3 Testofpoints(12items)

Lankreijer(2007) NL P Changeagents/managers

280 Indicationstoimproveitems

8. 2.4 Testofpoints(12items)

WebsiteTwynstraGudde(2007)

NL E Visitors 36.664

Average

Yellow15

Blue20

Red20

Green19

White22

9. 2.4 Testofpoints(12items)

Tummers(2009) NL P Changeagents/managers/supportstaff

1.737 Average

Yellow13

Blue18

Red18

Green20

White25

10. 2.4 Testofpoints(12items)

Knoopetal.(2009)

NL E RepresentativesampleoftheDutchpopulation

4.086 DominantcolorsareequallydistributedamongtheDutchpopulation

All rights reserved by the authors.

7

*Proportionalaverageistheadjustmentoftestresultsofvariousteststoatotalscoreof96asisthecaseinthe12itemstestofpoints

Table13-2DifferentTestsandSamplesStudiedItistemptingtodiscussthedatacollectedthroughonlineversionsofthetest,

giventheirlargesamplesofmorethan80,000respondents(Tests8and12inTable13-2).However,wechoosenottofortworeasons.Thefirstisthattheonlinetestisgoodforteaching,butthesoftwareisnotgearedforresearch–thedatasetiscondensedtosimplemanagementinformationthatallowsforlittlestatisticalanalysis.Thesecondreasonisthatweregardtheonlinetestaslessreliablethanpapertestsbecausewehavenoinformationaboutthewaythequestionsareanswered(suchasthetimeorcarespentonit).Weobserve,forinstance,thatmorethan10%ofonlinetestsarefilledoutincompletely(thesearenotincludedinthedatapresentedhere).OurdiscussioninsteadfocusesontheresearchdonebyPietersen(2013),asheusedthefinalversion(s)ofthetest,hadalargesampleofrespondents,collectedthedataundercontrolledconditions,anddidthemostrobuststatisticalanalysis.

11. 2.4 Testofpoints(12items)

WebsiteTwynstraGudde(2009)

E E Visitors 18 Average

Yellow14

Blue20

Red20

Green23

White20

12. 2.5 Testofpoints(12items)

WebsiteTwynstraGudde(2010)

NL E Visitors 47.237 Average

Yellow13

Blue20

Red20

Green20

White23

13. 2.5 Testofpoints(12items)

WebsiteTwynstraGudde(2010)

E E Visitors 883 Average

Yellow15

Blue20

Red21

Green21

White20

14. 2.42.52.5

TestofpointsTestofpointsTestofpoints

Pietersen(2013)Pietersen(2013)Pietersen(2013)

NL P

Managers/changeagents/supportstaff

2.702 Average

Yellow13

Blue19

Red18

Green20

White26

15. NL P

Managers/changeagents/supportstaff

665 Average

Yellow13

Blue19

Red18

Green20

White26

16. E P Managers/changeagents/supportstaff

91 Average Yellow

15Blue17

Red20

Green20

White24

17. 2.5 Testofpoints AbbasZaidi(2013)

Rus-sian

P ManagersandworkersinRussia

243 Average

Yellow22

Blue20

Red20

Green19

White15

18. 2.5 Testofpoints Xu(2011) E P ChinesepeopleworkinginNL

50 Average

Yellow21

Blue21

Red20

Green16

White19

All rights reserved by the authors.

8

MAINRESEARCHOUTCOMES

Pietersen(2013)analyzedasampleof3,995questionnaires,collectedbetween2008and2012atmorethan150seminarsorganizedforpeopleinleadershippositions.Allresponseswererecordedinsitu:noneofthedatawassubmittedlaterorcollectedonline.Thetotalsampleusedhere(afterdeletionofincompletesets)is3,687(Tests14–16inTable13-2).Itrepresentsacross-sectionofpeopleindifferentleadershippositionsinorganizations.Morethan90%oftherespondentshavecompletedhighervocationaleducation,andmorethan80%fallsintheagecategory35–44orhigher.Reliability

Tomeasureinternalconsistency,aCronbachalphaanalysiswasperformed.Thisindicateshowwelltheitemsinonesetarepositivelycorrelatedtooneanotherforeachfactor(inourcase,foreachcolor):

Yellow:alpha=.58(Test14)and.58(Test15)Blue:alpha=.76(Test14)and.75(Test15)Red:alpha=.52(Test14)and.48(Test15)Green:alpha=.62(Test14)and.67(Test15)White:alpha=.62(Test14)and.58(Test15).

Adesirableminimumis.60(Sekeran&Bougie,2009),butipsativedatatendtoshowlowerCronbach’salphasthannormativedata(Saville&Wilson,1991).Inanycase,thereliabilitycannotbeincreasedbydeletinganswersfromanyofthe12items.DescriptiveStatistics

ThedescriptivestatisticsareshowninTable13-3forthreesamplesofthelatesttwoversionsofthetest.TheaveragescoresinbothofPietersen’s(2013)samplesareidenticalanddifferlittlefromthoseofTummers’ssample(2009).Thestandarddeviationofthethreesamplesisalsosimilar.ThestandarddeviationofBlueisthehighestinbothversionsoftest;thoseofRedandYellowarethelowestinbothversionsofthetest.Thismeansthatrespondents’preferencesforYellowandReddifferlessfromoneanotherthanthoseGreen,WhiteandespeciallyBlue. Testofpoints,version5

(Test15intable2)(Pietersen,2013)

(N=665)

Testofpoints,version4(Test14intable2)(Pietersen,2013)

(N=2702)

Testofpoints,version4(Test9intable2)(Tummers,2009)

(N=1737) Average

scoreSD Average

scoreSD Average

ScoreSD

Yellow 13 6.56 13 6.55 13 6.6Blue 19 9.35 19 9.44 18 9.2Red 18 6.69 18 6.60 19 6.3Green 20 8.21 20 7.69 20 7.4White 26 8.50 26 8.69 25 8.2Table13-3AverageScoresinThreeSampleswiththeLatestVersionsoftheTest

All rights reserved by the authors.

9

MultidimensionalScaling(MDS)ThenumberofdimensionsisidentifiedbyanalysisofS-stressvalue.Forthefourth

versionofthetest(Test14inTable13-2),thevalueisbetween“good”and“excellent.”Forthefifthversionofthetest(Test15inTable13-2),thevalueisbetween“fair”and“good.”Bothversionsappeartobebasedontwodimensions.Figure13-1showsalltheitemsandrelatedscoresintheMDSanalysiswhentheyareaggregatedbycolorandplotted.Asimilarpatternemergesforbothtests.KruskalandWish(1978)statethateachfactorshouldbeclearlyseparatedfromotherswhentheyareplotted.Thisisdefinitelythecasehere–thecolorsoccupypositionsthatarealmostatoptimaldistancefromoneanother,especiallyinthelatesttestwhereRedmovesalittleupwardstoamiddlepositioninfigure13-1.Thesepositionshadimprovedcomparedtoearlierresults,suchasfoundbyOort(2006).Thecolors–andtheirrespectiveapproachestochange–arenowclearlydifferentiatedfromoneanotherinthetest.

Figure13-1Resultsofthemultidimensionalscalinganalysis(MDS)showingclearseparationofcolorpreferencesinthetestresults.

All rights reserved by the authors.

10

TheDimensionsWecandistinguishtwodimensionsintheMDSplot.Thehorizontaldimension

clearlyseparatesBlueandYellowfromWhiteandGreen.TheverticaldimensionseparatesYellowandGreenfromBlueandWhite.Inbothdimensions,Redtakesupamiddleposition.ThecontrastsonthehorizontaldimensionareinlinewithpreviousresearchwherewefoundagapbetweenYellowandBlueononeside,Redinthemiddle,andGreenandWhiteontheotherside(VanNistelrooijetal,2007;Knoop,etal,2009).Wehavenotdonepreviousresearchonthecontrastswithintheverticaldimension.TheMDSanalysisraisesaquestionabouthowtoconceptualizethedimensions.Whatwouldexplainsuchaspacingofthecolors?Weofferthefollowingexplanationasabasisforfurtherdiscussion.

Wesuggestthatthehorizontaldimension(1)referstoapreferenceforatypeof

changeleadership.Negativescorescorrespondwithatop-downapproachtochange(BlueandYellow),whereagencyiscentralized.Blue-printchangeisgenerallydesignedandexecutedbypeoplewhoaretrustedandmandatedonthebasisoftheirexpertise.Yellow-printchangeisgenerallyinitiatedandcontrolledbypeopleonboardsorinmanagementwhowieldpowerthroughhierarchy.Bothcolorsuseatop-downapproachbasedonunderlyingbeliefsthatchangehappensbecauseofrationalanalysis,planning,andimplementation(Blue),orbecauseofapowercoalition(Yellow).

Incontrast,apositivescorecorrespondswithapreferenceforabottom-upapproachtochange(GreenandWhite)or,tobemoreprecise,anapproachinwhichagencyisdispersed.Green-printchangeisdrivenbypeople’seagernessandabilitytolearn.Suchachangemaybenefitfromfacilitation,butthisisnotmeanttolessentheparticipants’activestance.White-printchangeisofteninitiatedandshapedby“temperedradicals”(Meyerson,2003)–peoplewhocareenoughaboutanissuetotakeitupvoluntarily.Bothcolorsdemonstrateanunderlyingbeliefthatlocalownershipdrivesincrementalchange.

Wesuggestthattheverticaldimension(2)referstoapreferenceforatypeof

changerelationship.Apositivescorecorrespondswithsubject-objectrelations,whereafewpeopleareactive,knowledgeable,andinfluential,andothersfollow(e.g.,Hosking,2006).Insuchaviewofchangetherecanbenoleaderswithoutfollowersandviceversa.InBlue-printchange,theexpertsandprojectmanagersdotheanalysis,planning,anddirectingofthechange.Othersfollowtheirleadbecausetheyareputincharge,formally,forgoodreason,astheyare“intheknow.”InWhite-printchange,the“temperedradicals”makesenseofunderlyingdynamics,seenewopportunities,andenrollotherstotakepartininnovation.Heretoo,thereareafewpeopleintheleadbecausetheyareonestepaheadofothers,thoughnotinahierarchicalsense.Leadershipinbothcasesisnotsharedordistributed.

Theoppositeseemstrueforanegativescoreonthisverticaldimension.Thiscorrespondswithsubject-subjectrelations,wherechangeisacollectiveendeavor(e.g.,Kessener&Termeer,2006).ThisorientationismostpronouncedinGreen-printchange,wherelearningisdeemedsomethingthathappensthroughinteractionwithothers.Regardlessofwhetherlearninghappensbywayofinquiry,experimentation,exercises,orteaching,meaningiscreatedthroughconversations.InYellow-printchange,negotiations

All rights reserved by the authors.

11

arethekeytoformingpowercoalitionsandthesetooarecreatedininteraction.Bothapproachessharetheunderlyingnotionthatchangeisco-createdwiththoseinvolvedandthatmanycomplementarycontributionsdeepentheimpact.Leadershipissharedandpeoplemakesenseofchangetogether(e.g.,Wierdsma,2007).

Red-printchangescoresinthemiddleonbothdimensions,whichindicatesan

efforttosomehowcombineopposites.Inthehorizontaldimension,thisreferstoanattempttoreconcilecentralizedleadershipwithallowingthepeopleinvolvedsomeinfluence.Itisanapproachinwhichthedirectionofthechangeanditsplanningarestilltop-down,butimplementedwiththoseinvolved.Thusthetop-downapproachistemperedtoallowforparticipation,whiletryingtostillmaintaincoherenceanddirection.Intheverticaldimension,Red-print’sin-betweenscoreindicatesanefforttoreconcileleadershipbyafewwiththesenseofcommunityamongthemany.Itisanapproachwithacleardivisionofrolesandresponsibilitiesthatstilltriestogetasmanypeopleonboardaspossible.

Thein-betweenpositionofRed-printchangemaybeperceivedasanambivalentreactiontocontrastingworlds.ItislesscontrolledthanBlue,lesscoercivethanYellow,lessinquisitivethanGreen,andlessentrepreneurialthanWhite.Itrunstheriskofbeingalittlebitofeverythingandnotexcellinginanything.Lewis(2000,p.763)describessuchambivalenceas“thecompromiseofconflictingemotionswithinlukewarmreactionsthatlosethevitalityofextremes.”However,aRed-printapproachcanalsotrytoreconcileoppositesandexploretransformativewaystodealwiththeparadoxicaltensionsbetweenthecolors.Ifitsucceeds,itmaybeexperiencedasaprocessthatsomehowintegratescontrastingvalues.Weobservethatsuchintegrationis,asyet,notallthatcommonintermsofbothambitionandrealization.

Inarecentstudy,SmithandLewis(2011)highlightorganizationaltensions,suchas

betweenlearning(Green)andperforming(Yellow),anddescribehowouractionscaneasilycreateself-fulfillingprophecies.Thepreferenceforanambivalentsolutioncouldbeonlyaconcealingtactic,onethattemporarilyreducesdiscomfortyeteventuallyintensifiestensionsandhampersperformance.Incontrast,acontinuedinquiryintodivergentvaluesandwaystointerrelatethemcanproducerecurringmomentsoftranscendenceandpeakperformance.

DifferentiationsBetweenPopulations

Aretherecorrelationsintermsofdemographics?WhenwetakethelargestsamplestudiedbyPietersen(2013)witharecenttestofpoints(Test14inTable13-2),weobserveanumberofpatterns.Pietersenanalyzedasampleofroughly2,700peopleintermsofgender,age,employmentsector,educationallevel,andleadershipposition.Wesharesomeresultsheretounderscorethatsuchcorrelationsareoftensignificant.

Intermsofgender,malerespondentsscoresignificantlyhigheronBlueandYellow

thanfemalerespondents(p≤01).Inturn,femalerespondentsscorehigheronGreenandWhitethanmalerespondents(p<.01).ThereisnosignificantdifferencewhenitcomestoRed.Thissuggeststhatmenprefertopdownapproachesmorethanwomen,whilewomenpreferbottomupapproachesmorethanmen.

All rights reserved by the authors.

12

Intermsofage,BluescoresdecreasewithageandWhitescoresincreasewithage.WhileYellowscoresarelowatyoungerandolderages,theypeakamongthoseinearlycareerstages(aged25–34).Redstaysreasonablyconstantovertime.Forthesefourcolors,theagecorrelationsaresignificant(p≤01).Greenscoresarenotsignificantlycorrelatedtoage.OnepossibleexplanationofthecontrastsbetweenBlueenWhitescoresisthatBluechangeismoreobjectiveandWhitechangemoresubjective.MakingsenseofWhitechangephenomenarequirescomplexpatternrecognitionthatbenefitsfromyearsofexperience.Bluechangeismoreinstrumentalizedwhichmakesiteasierforlessexperiencedchangeagentstocontribute.

Therearecorrelationsbetweencolorpreferenceandthetypeofsectorinwhich

peoplework.Pietersen(2013)comparedandcontrastedthescoresfor13differentsectors.Forinstance,YellowandBluearemostrepresentedinaccounting,auditing,andprofessionalservices,butleastineducationandconsulting/interimmanagement.RedismostrepresentedinIT/ICTfields,andleastinconsulting/interimmanagement.Greenismostrepresentedineducation,andWhiteismostrepresentedinconsulting/interimmanagement.Incontrast,GreenandWhiteareleastrepresentedinthefieldsofaccountingandauditing.Allthesecontrastsaresignificant(p<.01).Itsuggeststhatthebeliefsystemsbehindprofessionsinfluencechangepreferences:forinstance,accountants’andauditors’tendencytotakeonexpertrolestomeasureandsteerprocessesrelatestoaBlue-printviewoftheworldinserviceofYellowarenas.ItmakesthemusethosetwocolorsmoreattheexpenseoftheGreenandWhitecolorsattheothersideofthespectrum.

Respondents’preferencesalsocorrelatetoeducationlevels,distinguishedas(a)

secondaryschool,(b)vocationaleducation,(c)highervocationaleducation,and(d)universityeducation.Yellowappearsmostrepresentedamonguniversitygraduatesandleastamonggraduatesofsecondaryschool.Blueismostrepresentedamonggraduatesofvocationalschoolandleastbythoseofsecondaryschool.SecondaryschoolgraduatesscorehigheronGreenandWhitethanothers,whileGreenistheleastrepresentedamonguniversity-levelrespondentsandWhiteistheleastrepresentedamongvocational-schoolrespondents.SuchcontrastsaresignificantforallcolorsotherthanRed(p<.01).Thissuggeststhatthedidacticenvironment,thenumberofyearsofeducationandthejobstheypreparepeopleforhaveanimpactonchangepreferences.Forinstance,itmayindicatethataneducationatthehighestlevelpreparespeopleforpositionsofpower,whereYellowrepertoireisrequired.Thatthisseemstobeattheexpenseofalearningorientation(Green)canbeexplainedbythedifficultytobevulnerableaslearnerinapoliticalenvironment.Ofcourse,thisalsohintsatanoccupationalriskthatpeopleinpositionsofpowermayreceivetheleastfeedbackattheirplaceofwork.

Lastly,leadershippositionisalsocorrelatedtocolorpreferences.Thesamplewas

analyzedforcontrastsbetweenmanagers,peopleinstaffdepartments,andexternalchangeagents.YellowandBluearemorerepresentedinstaffdepartmentsthantheothertwo,Yellowleastamongmanagers,andBlueleastamongexternalchangeagents.Redismostrepresentedamongmanagersandleastamongexternalchangeagents.GreenandWhitearemostrepresentedamongexternalchangeagentsandleastinstaffdepartments.These

All rights reserved by the authors.

13

differencesaresignificantforYellow,Red,andWhite(p<.01),andnotassignificantforBlueorGreen(p=0.5and.07respectively).

Allthesecorrelations,ofcourse,areopentointerpretation.Infact,whenwe

teach,weoftenengagewithparticipantsindiscussionabouthowtheirbackground,typeofwork,andsooncouldberelatedtotheirchangepreferences.Wethinksuchhypothesizingisausefullearningexercise.Weliketoillustratesuchhypothesizingherewiththeabovefindingswithregardtothecolorpreferencesbasedonleadershippositions.Onemayarguethatitstandstoreasonthatpeopleinstaffdepartmentswhohavetheleastformalpower,mightwanttowieldinfluence.GiventhatYellowandBluearethecolorsthatwoulddominateoverothercolorstrategieswhenitcomestoconflict,itmakessensethatthesecolorsaretheirpreferredchoice.Asmanagershaveformalpower,theyhavelessneedtowielditallthetime:especiallymiddlemanagerswhoareoftenmorefocusedonkeepingeverybody“onboard,”usingmotivationalstrategies(Red).Lastly,externalchangeagentsaredrawntowardentrepreneurialbehavior(White)anddidacticapproaches(Green)togainentryintotheirclient’ssystemastheyoftenlackformalpowerorlong-standingrelationships.

Allthesepreferencesmightstandtoreasonforeachofthethreetypesof

leadershippositions,butimbalancesinthecolorspectrumalsoposerisks.WhenagroupofmanagersscorelowonYellow,theymaypayinsufficientattentiontochecksandbalanceswithregardtopower.Similarly,whenstaffdepartmentsscorelowonGreenandWhite,thismaycausethemtolackentrepreneurialspiritandneglecttheirownknow-how.Lastly,whenexternalchangeagentsscorelowonBlueandRed,theymaystruggletoreconcileprofessionaldistance(Blue)andcustomerintimacy(Red).Noneoftheserisksseemcoincidental–theycanberegardedaspartandparcelofthetypeofleadershipposition.AdditionalDifferentiationStudies

Onemightnotethattheresultspresentedabovearenotbasedonarepresentativesampleofrespondents.Adisproportionatenumberofrespondentsaremiddle-agedorolderandhighlyeducated,apopulationthatcorrespondswiththetypicalparticipantsineducationalprogramsonchangemanagement.Inoneofthestudies(Test10inTable13-2),weteamedupwithanongoingresearchprojectthatlookedatthevaluesandmentalitiesoftheDutchpopulationasawhole,astudymeanttoaidinthesegmentationofmarkets(Knoop,deCaluwé&Mulder,2009).Atthetime,theresearchersusedarepresentativeonlinepanelof80,000Dutchpeoplebetweentheagesof18and65,allofwhomhadatleastsomevocationaleducation.Themainsegmentationwasintermsofstatusandvalues,creatingeightdifferentclusters,suchas“socialclimbers,”“newconservatives,”and“post-materialists.”Outofasampleofmorethan15,000people,about4,000peoplealsofilledoutthecolorquestionnaire.Inthisresearchwelookedattheprevalenceofclearsympathiesorantipathiesbasedoneitheraparticularlyhighorlowcolorscore(>0.5sd).Onaveragepeoplehadaboutthree“extreme”scoresintheiroverallprofile,bringingthetotaltoabout12,000scores.Sympathiesandantipathiesforallthecolorswereevenlyspread:eachaccountedfor

All rights reserved by the authors.

14

between9%and11%ofthe12,000scores.Onapopulationlevel,thismeant29%ofpeopleshowedsympathyforYellow,27%forBlue,25%forRed,26%forGreen,and26%forWhite,and31%showedantipathyforYellow,30%forBlue,32%forRed,26%forGreen,and32%forWhite.In51%ofthecasespeoplehadonedominantcolor.Whenanothercolorscoredhighaswell,thosecombinationsshowedapattern:YellowandBluescoreswerepairedoften(8%),aswereRedandGreen(6%),andGreenandWhite(6%).Othercombinationsscoredmuchlower.Correlationsintermsofgender,education,age,orleadershippositioninthisstudyweresimilartowhatthePietersen(2013)studyshowed.Forinstance,menscorehigherthanwomenonYellowandBlueandloweronGreen,White,andRed.

Thestudyalsoshowedsomethingnew–thecolorpreferencesdiffermarkedly

betweendifferentsegmentsofthepopulation.Withoutgoingintothespecificsofthesegmentationmodel,afewexamplescanillustratethispoint.Thestudyshowsthatpeoplewhoarepartoftheeconomicorculturaleliteorontheirwaytobecomingpartofit(“newconservatives,”“cosmopolitans,”and“socialclimbers”)preferredcolorsthatadvanceormaintainadominantposition.TheyhadmuchhigherscoresonYellowandBluethananyoftheotherfivepopulationsegments.Incontrast,thosewhoquestionthestatusquoorturnawayfromitbasedontheircriticalorpostmodernoutlook(e.g.,“postmodernhedonists”and“post-materialists”)veeredtowardstheotherendofthespectrumandhadhighWhitescores.

Weareoftenaskedaboutdifferencesincolorpreferencesbasedonnationalityor

culture.MostofourexperienceisbasedonDutchaudiencesusingaDutchtestordifferenttypesofinternationalaudiencesusinganEnglishtest.Withregardtothelatter,thefindingsdonotappearmarkedlydifferent(seeTable13-2)buttheyalsodonotdistinguishbetweenspecificnationalities.TherearetwosmallsamplesrelatedtoRussia(Test17inTable13-2,giveninRussian)andChina(Test18inTable13-2,giveninEnglish).WeobservehigherscoresonYellowandloweronWhiteinthosetwopopulationsincomparisonwiththeDutchandinternationalscores.Wethinkitisprematuretoseethisasproofofacontrastingprofileinthesepartsoftheworld,somethingthatrequiresfurtherstudy.

USEANDINTERPRETATIONOFTHETEST

Thetestisusefulasaquick“mirror”ofone’sownbeliefsystemsaboutchange.Incombinationwiththecolormodel,changeagentscanusethetesttoassesstowhatextenttheyaremakinggooduseofthefullspectrumofapproachestochange.Theycanreducetheirblindspots,tempertheirantipathytocertainchangepreferences,andexplorenewavenuesofchangethatwerepreviouslyoutofbounds.Theycanalsodiscusstheviabilityofdifferent(color)viewpointsandapproachestospecificissueswithothersandmatchpeople’scapabilitiestospecificundertakings.Theseapplicationsbecometrulypowerfulwhenthetesttriggerspeopletoexploreameta-modelofchange–likeourcolormodel–morethoroughly.Weregardthequestionnaireasanentrypointtotheunderlyingchangetheory.

All rights reserved by the authors.

15

Wehavenoticedfourtypesofdiscussionsthatareoftentriggeredbythetestscores.Afirstdiscussionconcernstheextenttowhichatestscorecorrespondstochangeagentbehavior.Thetestmirrorswhatpeoplethink,andnotnecessarilyhowtheyact.Thetwocancontrastforseveralreasons.Somepeoplehaveahardtimetranslatingtheirbeliefsintoactionbecausetheylackthecapabilitytodoso.Inthiscase,thecontrastilluminatespossiblelearninggoalsforone’sowndevelopment.Otherpeoplefindithardtoactaccordingtotheirbeliefsystembecausetheissuestheyworkondonotwarrantit;thecontrastthenpointstopossiblecareergoals,ifonewantstheirworktofittheirchangepreferences.Inbothofthesesituations,thegapmaybeuncomfortablebutnotdysfunctional–peoplecanstillactwithintheircompetencesandinawaythatfitstheissues.Athirdexplanationismoreproblematic.Whenthetestmirrorsan“espousedtheory”ratherthanthe“theoryinuse”(Argyris,1998),itmaybethatpeopleareunawareofhowtheyact,letalonetheconsequencesoftheiractions.Suchagapcanonlybebridgedbyacknowledgingthatone’sactionsshowone’struebeliefsmoreaccuratelythanone’sspeech.Throughtakingotherpeople’sfeedbackseriously,thisveilcanbelifted,demonstratingthevalueofinterpretingthescoreswithagroupofcolleagues.

Aseconddiscussioncentersonthebenefitsanddrawbacksofone’scolorprofile.

Weusetheaverageprofile(seeTable13-3)asareferencepointforthis.Peopleoftendebatethevalueofhavingabalancedprofile(closetoaverage)versusamorenarrowprofile,inwhichoneortwocolorsaredominant.Abroadprofilecanallowforstyleflexibility,switchingtodifferentapproacheswhereandwhenneeded.Thiscanbeusefulforthoseinmiddle-managementpositions,wheredifferenttypesofissuesarise,noneofwhichcanbeignoredoreasilydelegated.Incontrast,externalconsultantscanbemoreselectiveaboutthetypesorclientsofissuestheyengage–specializationallowsforamorenarrowprofile.Aseachofthecolorsrepresentsdifferentschoolsofthought,itishardtobecomehighlyskilledinallfivecolorsinonelifetime.Thetestscorescanleadonetopondertheprosandconsofflexibilityversusspecialization.Weareinclinedtospeakinfavorofspecializationwherepossible.Thepowerofanycolor’sapproachispartlydeterminedbythecredibilityandcompetenceofthechangeagent.Specializationallowsformore“colordepth,”whichbenefitschangeeffectiveness.

Thislastremarkisrelatedtoathirddiscussionaboutcollaborationwithothers

whohavecontrastingprofiles.Thetestcanspurconversationsaboutdifferencesandsimilaritiesingroups.Itcanhelppeoplefaceproblemswithcooperation,facilitatemutualacceptance,andcomplementeachother’squalities.Whereagroupisabletodoso,thetestmayhelpthemdealeffectivelywithmultifacetedissues.Arecurringinsightisthattheexistenceofcontrastingbeliefsorvalueswithingroupsdoesnotdetermineiftheyperformwellornot.Groupsseemtoonlybenefitfromdiversitywhentheyareableandwillingtodealwiththetensionsitcreates(e.g.,Shaw&Barret-Power,1992).Thereisoftenasimilardebateaboutwhetherornotitisbeneficialtohaveaprofilethatisalignedwithanorganization’sculture.Here,asimilarconclusionisoftenreached:acolorprofilethatcontrastswithone’ssurroundingscanallowonetobringsomethingtothetablethatothersdon’t.Itcanthusbeanaddedvalue.However,ifoneisnotabletodealwithpossibletensionsthatarisefromthisdifference,suchcontrastswillfailtobearfruit.

All rights reserved by the authors.

16

Afourthdiscussionpointconcernsself-fulfillingprophecies.Whenpeoplehaveacolorpreference,theymayhaveaninclinationtochoosecorrespondingapproaches,gainexperience,andbuildtheircompetence,whichinturnreinforcestheircolorpreference.Thusa“competencytrap”maybecreated,wheretheycannotescapethatpartofthecolorspectrumevenwhenitismostneeded(Levitt&March,1988).Thisargumentmakessensetotheextentthatthereissufficientpre-existingcompetenceinthatcolortoallowforsomesuccess.InmanyorganizationsBlue,Red,andGreenapproachesaresufficientlywidespreadtoallowforsuchpre-existingcompetence.WefinditintriguingthattheaveragescoreonWhiteistwiceashighasthescoreonYellow(seeTable13-3),withtheothercolorshoveringinbetween.ThismightbeexplainedbyWhitebeingmorefashionablethanYellowinpeople’simagination.Itseemsthatmanyliketoembraceidealsofself-direction,innovation,andentrepreneurialism(White)morethanthecommonlydisparagedrealityofpowergamesandpolitics(Yellow).Thisispartlydueto“persuasivelanguage,”inwhichtheupsideoftheWhiteworldisexaggeratedandbeautified–everymessagemaybetweakedtoform,strengthen,orchangetheresponseofothersinadesireddirection(Aarts&vanWoerkom,2008).ThedownsideoftheWhiteworld—thehardworkthatgoesintoit,itslimitsintermsofpredictabilityorefficiency—caneasilyescapeattentionespeciallywhenthereislittlepre-existingcompetenceorpastexperience.ThisdynamicformsanobstacletopullingoffWhite-printchangeeffectively,thusallowingittostaymorepopularinourthoughtsthaninouractions.

CONCLUDINGREMARKS

Ourtestofpointsinitsfinalversionisareliableandvalidinstrumenttomeasureindividualchangepreferences.Theaveragescoresandstandarddeviationsarerobustandstableovertime,andindividualscorescaneasilybecomparedwiththeaverageofdemographicsegments.Thetestcangiverisetodiscussionsthataidprofessionalizationandcollaboration.Inourview,thequestionnaireisprimarilyanaidtoreflection.Thescoresaremeanttostimulatediscussionabouttheirinterpretationratherthantobeadefinitiveansweraboutone’sstyle.Weareinclinedtoregardthislimitationasstrengthratherthanaweakness.

Thetestresultsreportedheregiverisetopossiblenewinquiries.Oneavenue

focusesonmorein-depthanalysisofthecontrastinchangepreferencesbetweendifferentpopulationsegmentsorcultures.Anotheravenueismorein-depthstudyofwhatunderliesthecontrastsbetweenparadigmsofchange.Wewerepleasantlysurprisedbythecleardifferentiationofthecolorsthatresultedfrommultidimensionalscaling,butourexplanationofthetwodimensionsisbynomeanstheendofthediscussion.Itcouldbeworthwhiletoexplorethisfurtherandtocontrastitwithotherstudiesinwhichchangeparadigmsareanalyzedintwodimensions(e.g.,Huy,2001;Higgs&Rowland,2005).Weinviteyoutotakethetest(seeLinkstotheTestbelow)andtoreflectonyourownthinkingaboutandpreferencesfordifferentapproachestochange.

All rights reserved by the authors.

17

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Manypeoplecontributedtothedevelopmentofthequestionnaire,especiallymasterstudents,asisclearbytheincludedreferences.WewanttoacknowledgeB.Pietersenspecifically.

LINKSTOTHETEST

ColortestforchangeagentsinEnglish:http://tg.quaestio.com/survey/qst/COLORSCAN(retrievedonJanuary1st,2015)ColortestforchangeagentsinDutch:http://www.twynstragudde.nl/kleurentest(retrievedonJanuary1st,2015)

REFERENCES

Aarts,N.,&Woerkom,C.van(2008).Strategischecommunicatie:principesen

toepassingen[Strategiccommunication:Principlesandapplications].Assen,TheNetherlands:VanGorcum.

AbbasZaidi,J.(2013).UnlearningforChange?Effectsofobviouslyhiddenpowerplay,cannypoliticsanddeafeningsilenceofmanagersonOrganisationalUnlearning.Acomparativestudyinthreeex-socialistbloccountries.Non-published,nonaffiliatedresearchpaper.

Argyris,C.(1998).Knowledgeforaction:Aguidetoovercomebarrierstoorganizationalchange.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Beer,E.,&Nohria,N.(Eds.)(2000).Breakingthecodeofchange.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Blinkhorn,S.,Johnson,C.,&Wood,R.(1988).Spuriouserandspuriouser:Theuseofipsativepersonalitytests.JournalofOccupationalPsychology,61,153–162.

Buono,A.F.,deCaluwé,L.&Stoppelenburg,A.(Eds.)(2013).ExploringtheProfessionalIdentityofManagementConsultants.Charlotte,NC:InformationAgePublishing.

Buono,A.F.&Kerber,K.(2005).Rethinkingorganizationalchange:Reframingthechallengeofchangemanagement.OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,23(3),23-38.

Caluwé,L.de&Vermaak,H.(2003):LearningtoChange:Aguidefororganizationchangeagents.SevenOaks:SagePublications.

Caluwé,L.de&Vermaak,H.(2004):Changeparadigms:Anoverview.JournalofOrganizationDevelopment,22,(4),9-18.

Cooper,C.R.&Schindler,P.S.(2008).Businessresearchmethods(10thed.)Boston,MA:McGraw-Hill.

Higgs,M.,&Rowland,D.(2005).Allchangesgreatandsmall:Exploringapproachestochangeanditsleadership.JournalofChangeManagement,5(2),121–151.

All rights reserved by the authors.

18

Hosking,D.(2006).Notleaders,notfollowers:Apost-moderndiscourseofleadershipprocesses.InB.Shamir,R.Pillai,M.Bligh,&M.Uhl-Bien(Eds.),Follower-centeredperspectivesonleadership:AtributetothememoryofJamesR.Meindl(pp.243–264).Greenwich,CT:InformationAgePublishing.

Huy,Q.N.(2001).Time,temporalcapabilityandplannedchange.AcademyofManagementReview,26(4),601–623.

Kessener,B.,&Termeer,C.J.A.M.(2006).Organiserenvandiepgaandleren:Veranderenalsreflexiefbetekenisgeven[Organizingdeeplearning:Changeasreflectivesensemaking).Management&Organisatie,3/4,236–250.

Knoop,L.,Caluwé,L.de&Mulder,M.(2009)Zoekennaarsynergietussenveranderkundeenmarketing:eenverkennendestudienaarovereenkomsteninachterliggendewaardenvaneenveranderkundeeneenmarketingcommunicatiemodel.[Searchingforsynergybetweenchangemanagementandmarketing:exploringthecommonalitiesinunderlyingvaluesbetweentwometamodels]ManagementenOrganisatie,6,20-38.

Kruskal,J.B.,&Wish,M.(1978).Multidimensionalscaling.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.Lankreijer,B.(2007).Validation:kleurentest[Validation:Colortest]Researchpaper.

Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:VrijeUniversiteit.Levitt,B.,&March,J.G.(1988).Organizationallearning.AnnualReviewofSociology,14,

319–340.Lewis,M.W.(2000).Exploringparadox:Towardamorecomprehensiveguide.Academyof

managementreview,25(4),760-776.Loo,R.(1999).Issuesinfactor-analyzingipsativemeasures:Thelearningstyleinventory

(LSI-1985)example.JournalofBusinessandPsychology,14(1),149–154.Martins,Dias,S.(2000).Eenexploratiefonderzoeknaarhet‘denkenoververanderingin

vijfkleuren’binnenTwynstraGudde[Anexplorativestudyof‘thinkingaboutchangeinfivecolors’atTwynstraGudde].Master’sthesis.Rotterdam:ErasmusUniversiteit.

Meyerson,D.E.(2003).Temperedradicals:Howeverydayleadersinspirechangeatwork.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Nistelrooij,A.van,Caluwé,L.de&Schouten,N.(2007)Managementconsultants’colorfulwaysoflookingatchange:AnexplorativestudyunderDutchmanagementconsultants.JournalofChangeManagement,17,3-4,243-254.

Oort,M.(2006).Preferencesfororganizationalchange.Master’sthesis.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:VrijeUniversiteit.

Pietersen,B.(2013)HowvalidarethequestionnairesonthecolorsofchangebyCaluwéandVermaak?Anextensivequantitativeanalysisoftheframework.Masterthesis.Amsterdam:VrijeUniversiteit.

Saville,P.,&Wilson,E.(1991).Thereliabilityandvalidityofnormativeandipsativeapproachesinthemeasurementofpersonality.JournalofOccupationalPsychology,64(3),219–238.

Scherer,A.G.,&Dowling,M.J.(1995).Towardsareconciliationofthetheoryofpluralisminstrategicmanagement:IncommensurabilityandtheconstructivistapproachoftheErlangenschool.AdvancesinStrategicManagement,12,195–247.

Schön,D.A.(1987).Educatingthereflectivepractitioner.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.Sekeran,U.&R.Bougie,R.(2009).Researchmethodsforbusiness:Askillbuilding

All rights reserved by the authors.

19

approach.(5thed.).WestSussex(UK):Wiley&SonShaw,J.B.,&Barret-Power,E.(1998).Theeffectsofdiversityonsmallworkgroup

processesandperformance.HumanRelations,51(10),1307–1325.Smith,W.,&Lewis,M.(2011).Towardatheoryofparadox:Adynamicequilibriummodel

oforganizing.AcademyofManagementReview,36(2),381–403.Tummers,M.(2009).Validationofthecolorsofchange:Ameta-analysisof1,737of

changeagents.Master’sthesis.Amsterdam:VrijeUniversiteit.Velde,E.G.,vander,Jansen,P.G.W.&Anderson,N.A.(2008).GuidetoManagement

ResearchMethods(2nded.).Oxford,UK:WileyBusinessEconomics.Ven,A.H.vande,&Poole,M.S.(1995).Explainingdevelopmentandchangein

organizations.AcademyofManagementReview3,510–540.Vermaak.H&Caluwé,L.de(2015).Creatingacolorfulmodelofchange:Acasestudyof

theorydevelopment.PaperpresentedattheAcademyofManagementAnnualConference,Vancouver,BC.

Wierdsma,A.(2007).Amethodologyforincreasingcollectivecompetence:Acontextforco-creativechange.InJ.Boonstra&L.deCaluwé(Eds.),Interveningandchanging:Lookingformeaningininteractions(pp.243–260).Chicester,UK:Wiley.

Xu,Y.(2011).AresearchofinvestigatingculturaldifferencesbetweenChineseandDutchintheworkingenvironment.Master’sthesis.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:VrijeUniversiteit.