The Four Rooms of Change Theory: One Group's Journey from Confusion to Inspiration
Institute for International Research
April 30, 2002
New Orleans, LA
Drusilla Copeland
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
1
The events of our lives and our interpretation of those events occur in one of four
psychological rooms. The Swedish psychologist Claes Janssen discovered these rooms and
their grounding theory during the late nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies while
doing research for the Swedish Film Institute. "Scientifically, the 4-Room Apartment is
original in that it is made by consensus. Whenever I present it, I always do so by making
the participants create it themselves. I ask them to answer a questionnaire and then to
characterize, with key words two hypothetical person, one who answers no to all or almost
all the questions, and another who answers yes (Claes Janssen)."
My introduction to the Four Rooms of Change Theory was in 1991 while reading Productive
Workplaces by Marvin Weisbord, 1991. Weisbord described the Four Rooms of Change
thusly, " Each person, group, department, company says Janssen, lives in a 'four - room
apartment' (1982 see sketch). Note how the rooms correspond to the positive and negative
sides of Theories X and Y as described in Chapter Six (see chart on p. 131). We move from
room to room, depending on perceptions, feelings, or aspirations triggered by external
events. The rooms represent cyclical phases, not unlike the process of death and dying.
Indeed, change represents a 'little death,' a letting go of the past to actualize a desired
future. We change rooms as we grow."
When I first learned of the Four Rooms of Change theory, I had been using other
diagnostic tools for example, the Meyer's Briggs Type Indicator, the four stages of team
development, the Johari Window, the DISC Model and Organization Culture Index. These
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
2
instruments are useful, but they never seemed to open the groups up to discussion and they
never seemed to energize the group to do their work.
I have found that the most important thing that the Four Rooms of Change Theory and its
related tools give a group, is a common language to discuss problems.
I have used the
theory and several of its associated tools with many groups and individuals. This is how
Claes Janssen describe working with the theory.
"I have done the theory - making by
consensus hundreds of time. It never fails, and the participants always end up with the
same theory, independently - as far as I can judge- of who they are."
Looking at the model, the first room we notice is Contentment.
This could lead one to
believe that the change journey begins in contentment. However, the journey can begin in
any of these rooms. I began my journey with the group in this study when they were in
confusion.
The Theory in Use
The group mentioned in this case study is a maintenance management group, it consists of a
manager and five supervisors.
They are responsible for 100 buses and 40 maintenance
employees whose responsibility it is to maintain this portion of the Utah Transit Authority
fleet. This maintenance shop is one of six maintenance facilities operated by the authority.
The job of the maintenance department is to:

Clean the buses interior and exterior

Fuel them daily, record mileage and fuel use
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
3

Perform routine and major maintenance repair

Make sure buses are ready for morning schedule
I became involved with this group when I was asked by the manager to work with one
individual who was having problems. After working with this individual, I was then asked to
begin working with the entire group.
The Case Study:
The journey began in fall of 1999, the manager asked me to intervene. From the manager's
point of view, the management team was not working well together. He described for me a
staff meeting that had not gone quite right. After listening to the manager's concerns, I
agreed to begin the process of working with this group but before I would proceed. I asked
for four things: 1) a contract between the manager and me, 2) a contract between the
manager and his staff, 3) an opportunity to interview each supervisor to hear his/her side
of the story and 4) a feed back meeting with the group. The agreement was made and the
work began.
The Contract:
During the contracting meeting, I asked the manager several questions that I thought would
give him and me insight into the situation. The outcome was that the manager requested
personal consultation. The goal of these sessions was to help him develop his managerial
skills.
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
4
The manager's request to work on his own developmental issues was intriguing. It is not that
often that clients are willing to see or to understand their roles and their impact on the
group's dynamics.
The Interviews:
I interviewed each supervisor in my effort to understand the situation. In retrospect, I
should have skipped the individual interviews and brought the group together and
introduced them to the Four Rooms of Change Theory. I would have started with the
Introduction to the Four Rooms of Change Theory. I would have then introduce the Team
Barometer and perhaps at the very end, I would have introduced the Personal Dialectic with
the Outsider Scale if it had been necessary.
However, there were good reasons for not following the intervention path mentioned above.
The most obvious reason was my inexperience with the tools. To help move the group
through their conflict and to accelerate the process of opening up more quickly I should
have use the tools in the order described above. Its like this quote from another manager
that Claes Janssen mentions in his manuscript, "it is strange that four simple words can tell
you so much, said a manager who had used the theory for three years and had every reason
to feel content, just as I had, considering the good experiences with it he had described to
me (making it common knowledge in his company in particular)."
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
5
Here are the questions that I asked the group.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What would you like to gain from the next few weeks that we
are going to spend together?
What are your career aspirations here at the authority?
Describe for me your relationship with your supervisor?
Describe for me your relationship with your peers.
The manager has been promoted. The Directors have decided
to promote one of the current supervisors here at this division
to the position of manager. Who would you recommend to fill
the position? Please tell me why?
Do you agree or disagree with this statement: In this division's
management group, I am comfortable brining up new ideas or
expressing my opinion in our meetings?
After the interviews:
I worked with the group in a traditional way.
There were sessions where the group
intellectualized about their issues. The meetings were "oh so nice" although something was
obviously wrong. They all could feel the discontent but no one could name it. After the
meetings the group's behavior had not changed they were still finding it difficult to have
genuine dialogue with each other. The manager was feeling despair.
Introducing the Four Rooms of Change Theory:
After one of my sessions with the manager, I decided to introduce him the to Four Rooms
of Change Theory at our next session. At the next session, the manager experienced the
theory. He concluded that he liked it and he wondered if it could help the group. We
agreed to expose the group to the 4 Room Apartment at the next meeting. We started
with the Seven Questions (the assessment that participants at this conference will
complete) and moved to the Personal Dialectic with the Outsider Scale. What happened in
that meeting was unlike anything I had experienced with a group of people experiencing so
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
6
much conflict that they had difficult talking to each other in staff meeting. Instead of
"typing" each other and deciding that could never work together as I have observed with
other instruments. They discovered their common dilemma and began conversing in a real
way about what was happening in the group and the tension between individuals.
In the next few meetings the group completed the Personal Dialectics with the Outsider
Scale. This assessment allowed the group to become aware of their own individual behavior
and to see how their behavior impacts their ability to work with others. It helps them to
differentiate, integrate and appreciate the differences in the group.
Before moving on and without spending too much time, I would like to define dialectics.
"The word dialectics has a double meaning. On the one hand, it means tension between
opposites-the thesis, the antithesis, and their possible synthesis. On the other hand, it also
means the art of dialogue (Claes Janssen, 1997)."
Most conflict is caused by tension
between opposites and the inability to have a dialogue. We used this instrument to continue
the development of the group relations. The Personal Dialectics has two sets of questions.
The first helps the individual identify whether or not he or she is a Self-Censor or an
Outsider. The second set helps the participant to discover his or her comfort level with his
or her personal integration.
Here is a sample question from the Personal Dialectics:
1.
Do you think children should be brought up so as to encourage
individuality and independence, even if their values would then
differ from those of society in general?
1b. Has your upbringing encouraged
your individuality and
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
independence?
7
I am not sure it would be useful to print the scores without giving you more details about
the instrument. However, it also doesn't seem right not to print them.
1. Participant A
2. Participant B
3. Participant C
4. Participant D
5. Participant E
6. Participant F
16
05
09
08
10
17
Group Integration Average
.53
.75
.57
.66
.33
.69
.58
After careful discussion of the importance of both points of view and the fact that each of
us hold in us what hate or fear the most in others. The level of dialogue continued to evolve.
This change was not a straight line but more like a roller coast ride or like a circle that
Weisbord described.
It is also important to look at the group's integration score. Since the integration has to do
with the individual level of contentment. As you can see, this group personal integration
score is not very high. It is below the international average that Claes Janssen found after
testing this instrument on hundreds of participants. The average personal integration score
is .66.
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
8
The Retreat:
In February 2000, there were improvements but the group was still struggling.
They
seemed to be in denial about their relations. If asked how things were going they would all
say okay, but they most often could not make eye contact, not until the retreat. It was at
this retreat that the group was finally able to confront the issues that were creating
conflict in the group. The issues included:

a laptop computer,

the development of computerized spreadsheets for tracking
work orders and other department data,

it was the time one supervisor was spending using the laptop and
a way from his crew

the fear of having to learn to use the computer.
What they discovered was enlightening. The supervisor who had possession of the laptop
admitted that he liked it but he was only doing what the manager had asked him to do. He
also admitted that he hated the computer because it took him away from working with his
crew. After some very open and frank conversation, there was a silence. The group had
just moved from denial into confusion. Although confusion is often thought of as loud and
filled with activity, confusion is sometime silent because it seems to come from out of
nowhere and you are not sure what to do with the information, feelings, etc. The retreat
ended with everyone feeling inspired and able to talk openly with each other.
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
9
November 2000
In November 2000, the manager wanted to an assessment to analyze the group's health.
He believed the group was functioning well, but he wondered if there was an objective way
to find out. I recommended using the Team Barometer. Please look at the diagram below to
see the results of the team barometer:
Contentment
2.0
2.1
2.3
1.9
1.4
Composite: 1.9
Renewal
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.7
Composite: 2.0
Denial
.0
.0
.3
.2
.2
Composite: .04
Confusion
.0
.0
.2
.3
.5
Composite: .20
One could conclude from looking at these results that the groups is in a good position to
work together. This is group is in good shape. The consultant may want to look at the low
scores in Denial and ask the question "could it be that the group is in denial about it ability
to work together?"
The Team Barometer allowed the groups to expose and scrutinize its own dynamics using
Wilfred Bion's Theory of group dynamics. It was clear from their responses that they
understood working group and they were content with the group.
The characteristics of
the group when it are not functioning as a working group was a tendency toward dependency,
the next highest score was Fight/Flight and the final was Pairing. What we learned is the
group will rely on the manager to tell them what to do when there is high anxiety in the
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
10
group but the manager is more likely to experience flight or fight when his personal anxiety
is high.
Since the group found that they tended to depend upon the manager in a crisis—and they
were facing a new crisis, the manager decided to give the group an assignment [How do we
increase miles between road calls?] This was a crisis for the Division; their miles between
road calls were lower than any other Division in the organization. They were asked to come
up with a strategy, an implementation plan, and a way to involve the employees.
Their
resulting plan was solid and the results have been positive. The feed back to the manager
was positive.
The supervisors like making their own decisions and improving the
performance of the shop. The feed back to the manager was thank you for giving us the
opportunity and supporting us.
Feed back from group:
In January 2001, I met with the group to plan their 2001 Retreat. I asked them how they
felt about working together and if this journey had been worthwhile.
Here are their
comments:
It has been worthwhile and rewarding but there have been some disappointments.
It like flying on a journey taking off can be the scariest part.
It felt up hill at first but now it feels like we are on a plateau.
It has been a long and dirty road. Working together feels normal, not a bad thing.
Depending upon each other is what is helping us keep this together. If we had not
developed these relationships, we would be at each other's throats, blaming each
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
11
other.
The comments above are of course simply a snapshot into one group’s
journey.
Summary:
As I think about the Four Rooms of Change Theory and its associated tools, it is my opinion
that the process is successful because the participants have to deal with issues in the here
and now. The process doesn't allow you to dwell on the past or to gaze into the future. It
exposes problems that are here and now and it compels us to work in the here and now.
As we face life's situations there is an emotion that accompanies each situation. As we
become aware of the situation and the associated emotions we then find the need to move
or to make a change. These psychological steps make up the Four Rooms of Change.
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
12
Bibliography
Gozdz, Kazimierz ed., Community Building, Sterling & Stone, San Franciso, 1995
Janssen, Claes, The Four Rooms of Change, published in Swedish 1995, 1996 English
manuscript.
Weisbord, Marvin, Discovering Common Ground, Berrett Koehler, San Franciso, 1993.
Weisbord, Marvin, Productive Workplaces, Jossey -Bass, San Franciso, 1991.
Weisbord, Marvin and Sandra Janoff, Future Search, Berrett Koehler, San Franciso, 1999.
Institute for International Research Conference April 30, 2002 through May 1, 2002
New Orleans, Louisiana
V2
13