GROUP 20:

CSV CHAITANYA REDDY(2017PGP069)

MANDAPAKA SRIDHAR(2017PGP080)
SATISH PARCHANI(2017PGP091)
SAGARICA BRAHMA(2017PGP103)
SUDHANSH SINGH(2017PGP114)

LARGE GROUP INTERVENTIONS & DYNAMICS: REVIEW

The chapter goes on to describe the unique features of large group interventions, which
emerged as a combination of a triumvirate of intellectual traditions in organizations-
psychoanalytic theory, social psychology and systems theory.
Gestalt psychology which originated in Germany and was brought into the US by Kurt
Lewin, emphasised on the holistic design of events that are psychological in nature. Lewin
found himself intrigued by the power of small groups in changing the behaviour of people.
Most researchers after conducting a series of social experiments, found themselves faced with
two basic questions-what happens in groups that change the behaviour of people and how to
understand the influence of groups over individuals.
The act of being part of a group and then reflecting on the processes of the group led to a new
social innovation called the T-Group or Sensitivity Training Group. However, during the
1960s, it was found that this was not an effective approach in organizations and the focus
should be more on solving the problems and deficits in the functioning of an organization.
Survey feedback from employees about the organization and its functioning helps identify the
flaws and thus, focuses more on finding the solution. However, Ron Lippitt found that the
problem-solving discussions that came thereafter, were tiresome, resulting in energy loss.
After much pondering, he realized that instead of focusing on the past while solving
problems, focusing on the preferred future that the people would want for their organization,
might be the way to go.
THE TAVISTOCK TRADITION:
In the UK, the Tavistock Institute was formed to apply social science knowledge to issues at
the individual, group or systems level. Wilfred Bion, a psychotherapist associated with
Tavistock, found that conducting psychotherapy in groups rather than individually could
result in extremities-it could either help accomplish or sabotage a task in entirety. It could
also result in attacking or undermining the leader. He assumed three things that could help
assist or inhibit a group’s task-dependence on each other, fight/flight and pairing.
Trist and Emery designed a process to analyse and facilitate socio-technical systems in
organizations. Their goal was to create a future-oriented strategic action plan for
organizations.
SYSTEMS THEORY:
The open systems theory helped realize the importance of the organization’s environment in
understanding its functioning along with how changes in a part of an organization affects the
whole organization. Richard Beckhard invented the ‘Confrontation Meeting’ to shift the
negativity in businesses to a positive direction. This requires heterogeneous groups of people
to come up with ideas for changes in the workplace to make it better along with a few
priorities that needs attention from the management. These are shared with the management
and they respond and act accordingly. It worked at the same time, across all parts of the
organization and emerged as a success.
THE 1980s:
The field of Organizational Development evolved with a lot of senior practitioners now
gaining ground. One such practitioner, Marvin Weisbord, felt that stakeholders outside the
periphery of the organization should have a say in what was required in the dynamically
changing world of customer needs and technology. The work of W. Edwards Deming
focused on total quality management that depended on what customers required which in turn
increased the criticality of including stakeholders in deciding the fate of the organization’s
functioning.
METHODS FOR GETTING THE WHOLE SYSTEM INTO THE ROOM:
Organizational redesigning concepts have been expanded to include large groups where the
whole system as well as the stakeholders participate.
The question arises how small groups differ from large ones as far as psychological processes
are concerned.
1. THE DILEMMA OF VOICE: Large groups do not allow for much face-to-face
interactions, have a structural dilemma about the time available for each individual to
speak(airtime) as they allow for too little of it. People do not feel recognized, grow
more passive and marginal to the group. The personal sense of responsibility for the
outcome expected from the group, goes down for each person as the number of people
in the group increases. In smaller groups, these issues do not come up, each person
gets a chance to contribute, be heard and responded to.
2. THE DILEMMA OF STRUCTURE: There is an inherent fear of disorganization
and chaos in large groups. The right amount of structure is needed for people in a
group to function properly. Too much or too little structure in places where they are
not required can give rise to anxiety issues and lead to mayhem.
3. THE EGOCENTRIC DILEMMA: At the onset of a large group event, every
employee has their own views of the organizational reality and their ego-centric
mentality prevents them from appreciating the differences in their views. When the
whole organization comes together, people get a chance to see things from different
perspectives. They then get to paint a holistic picture of the organization, rather than
compartmentalizing their views.
4. THE CONTAGION OF AFFECT: Bion coined a term called ‘sentience’ which
helps understand how affective forces can enhance or impede group tasks. People
tend to experience the same feelings in a group even though they don’t necessarily go
through the same experiences. Affect is contagious, and the possibility of swirling
affect is there in all large groups. Small groups reduce the possibility of contagion.
Also, people managing or planning these large group events need to be trained so that
they can understand and deal with the consequences of affect.