Applying Large-Group Interaction Methods in the Planning and Implementation of Major Change Efforts

Introduction Public policy makers, planners, and managers are increasingly relying on what might be called large-group interaction methods (LGIMs) to involve large numbers of people (as few as eight to more than 2,000) in planning and implementing major change efforts (Holman and Devane 1999). These methods are structured processes for engaging large numbers of people to enhance the amount of relevant information brought to bear on a problem; to build commitment to problem definitions and solutions; to fuse planning and implementation; and to shorten the amount of time needed to conceive and execute major policies, programs, services, or projects. Proponents of such methods claim that they provide sets of concepts, procedures, and tools that can help public and nonprofit organizations and communities deal effectively with change. We compare and contrast seven approaches most commonly used in the public sector in the United States and abroad (Real Time Strategic Change, Search Conferences, Future Searches, Strategic Options Development and Analysis, Strategic Choice, Technology of Participation, and Open Space Technology) to illustrate their comparative strengths and weaknesses and to develop an agenda for research. The methods we have chosen illustrate the range of methods available in terms of (1) their usefulness for dealing with differing degrees of mission, vision, and goal clarity; and (2) the differing sophistication of the tools they typically use for problem and solution framing and analysis. We have chosen to focus on methods that do not necessarily require computer support for successful use.(1) What are Large-Group Interaction Methods? The intellectual history of LGIMs began in the middle of this century with the pioneering work on small groups done by Kurt Lewin in the United States and Wilfred Bion in the United Kingdom.(2) Lewin and Bion were reacting, in part, to the precepts and practice of "scientific management," an approach to organizational design and change identified primarily with Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol. The role of the scientific management expert was to gather information and propose specific solutions to senior decision makers, who would then implement them. The workers themselves were viewed primarily as cogs in a machine designed by experts and run by senior managers. In contrast, Lewin and Bion highlighted the importance of gathering information and giving it to people--particularly to work groups--so they could solve their own problems. This led to a search for linked methods of gathering information and facilitating group problem solving. Subsequent theorists and practitioners associated primarily with the National Training Laboratories, the Tavistock Institute, and the field of organizational development have extended this work in a variety of settings and to larger groups. The development of LGIMs had its beginnings in the 1960s, picked up speed in the 1970s, and blossomed in the 1980s. The LGIMs covered in this paper were developed primarily in the 1980s and are the best known in the public sector. Since the 1980s, a number of "hybrid" methods have evolved as practitioners and consultants have mixed and matched elements of the best-known methods to suit particular purposes, specific circumstances, and personal styles (Holman and Devane 1999). All of these methods have the following elements in common: First, they involve large numbers of people, from as few as eight to more than 2,000 at one time.(3) Second, each is structured in specific ways (even when the method involves an effort to minimize structure) and involves high levels of participation. Third, a wide variety of stakeholders are involved. Fourth, single uses of a method typically last from a few hours to three days and can involve a series of workshops or conferences over time. Fifth, a skilled individual or team almost always facilitates the workshops. Sixth, extensive planning is involved, including gaining buy-in from key decision makers and opinion leaders. …