Key Success Factors of Large Group Interventions

2 
are some of the elements that must be present and carefully considered in the LGIs to 
increase their effectiveness or simply to prevent failures. 
Assumptions are elements accepted as true before there is a proof of their validity: 
They often represent the various authors’ opinions about what is the necessary paradigm 
to use during an intervention. Practices are intervention design elements that prescribe 
certain actions and principles to conduct these actions. 
Such assumptions and practices are perceived as key when the lack of their 
enactment would determine the failure of the LGI, and where success or effectiveness of 
the intervention is dependent upon the achievement of a specific predetermined intended 
purpose. 
A growing number of LGI frameworks based on constructionism, system theory, 
complexity and chaos theory to whole system engagement have been used and 
documented. A fairly recent assessment of these frameworks claiming to engage the 
whole system has reached more than 60 (Holman, Devane, & Cady, 2006). In parallel, a 
growing number of case studies of LGIs, presenting significant changes and results, have 
been documented in many different settings and contexts (Griffin & Purser, 2008). 
Unfortunately, despite the large number of case studies, there is very little 
empirical investigation on these methods; and despite some research currently underway 
that tests certain hypotheses about composition, process and outcome (Worley, Mohrman, 
& Nevitt, 2009), the key success factors of LGIs sill remain diluted in the literature on 
facilitation practices and methods. LGI facilitators and their real-life stories are the focus 
of this research aiming at distinguishing key success factors from accessory elements. 
3 
The main areas of investigation will be key assumptions and practices in play in 
LGIs. In particular, the study will discuss assumptions about human nature and 
capabilities, system involvement and dynamics, LGI purpose and desired outcomes, and 
finally social networks. The practices consist of how practitioners approach LGIs in order 
to be successful. 
This research begins with chapter 2 examining underlying assumptions and main 
practices contained in most of the literature presenting current methods and practices of 
LGIs and the root theory at their support. This list of elements found in the literature 
review will be validated or disconfirmed through in-depth research interviews to LGI 
practitioners. 
Chapter 3 will outline the in depth research interviews methodology and its 
application for the current study. Chapter four will present results of the research, and 
Chapter 5 will offer some conclusions. 
4 
Chapter 2 
Literature Review 
The focus of this chapter is to review the literature about LGIs; the aim is to find 
the roots and the most important themes to ultimately identify the most important areas of 
investigation for the research. The assumption in the search of key success factors of 
LGIs is the existence of few indispensable, but not necessarily sufficient, elements that 
should be present in any intervention independently from the specific purpose, culture, or 
context. 
The theoretical base of LGIs is an ensemble of open system theory, social 
constructionism, values theory, futuring, group dynamics, and large group dynamics 
(Griffin & Purser, 2008). The foundation of the practice about LGIs comes from the 
confluence of three fields of organization development: gestalt psychology, psychology 
of groups, and systems thinking (Bunker & Alban, 1997). An appreciation of both the 
theoretical and practical roots of LGI is fundamental to understand the underlying 
paradigms. 
The literature review will consider the distinction of large group versus small 
group; it will examine the fundamental research, theories, and assumptions underlying 
the interventions; and it will scan the most widely used LGI techniques and practices 
present in literature. 
Large Group Versus Small Group 
The most significant characteristic of LGIs is the ability to have a fruitful 
interaction in a large group. But what is the size of group when it starts being large versus 
5 
being a small one? What are the implications of the shift? The answers to these questions 
are provided in this section. 
With the analysis of how the individual is capable of relating with others, Miller 
(1956) developed a rule of the thumb for the correct small group size that is seven (plus 
or minus two). This range corresponds to the human capacity of keeping up with things 
all at the same time and the limit on the ability to remember sets of independent facts. 
To define small group size, this research used Miller seven (plus or minus two) as 
the magic number. This means that nine is the maximum size of a small group, and any 
group above that number will be considered a large group. 
To understand further why a small increase in group members may cause the shift 
from small group to large group, the number of oneway relationships that exist within the 
group is calculated with a mathematical disposition. According to Miller, the functional 
group limit is seven so the number of relationships is: D= (7*6) = 42 (See Figure 1) 
7,2 
Figure 1 
Number of One-way Relationships in Small Groups (7 + -2) 
6 
It is more than evident in Figure 1 that if the number of people in the group is 
increased by a few people, the number of relationships grows almost exponentially; 
within the definition of small group, increasing the number of people from seven to nine 
(+30%) increases the number of relationships by 70%, going from 42 to 72. 
The literature about teams argues in favor of small groups because “crowds of 
people—by virtue of their size—have trouble interacting constructively as a group, much 
less agreeing on actionable specifics” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 45). 
Katzenbach and Smith pointed to constraints such as physical space and a series 
of complex obstacles to large group functioning like crowd behaviors that prevent intense 
sharing of viewpoints, resulting in a less clear statement of purpose that typically gets set 
by hierarchical leaders. They argued “large numbers of people usually cannot develop the 
common purpose, goals, approach, and mutual accountability of a real team. And when 
they try to do so they usually produce only superficial missions and well-meaning 
intentions (1993, p. 46). 
On the other side, biological research explained human limits of social interaction 
in large social groups with a positive correlation between brain neocortex size and social 
group size in primates (Dunbar, 1992). Dunbar sets for humans 150 as the maximum 
number of people with whom it is possible to have a genuine social relationship. He 
supported his study with a comparison of a series of functional working units, where the 
size limit is empirically set at 150 people. Dunbar’s social group of 150 implies that the 
maximum functional number of one-way connections in a genuine social group is: 
D= 22,350 (See Figure 2). 
150,2 
7 
Figure 2 
Number of One-way Relationships in Large Groups (10-2,500) 
However in LGIs there seems to be no upper limit. There are successful case 
studies of more than 2.000 people interacting successfully, therefore reaching well above 
Dunbar’s number. Social capability in such settings goes well above the multi-million 
possible one-way relationships. 
Traditional organization development practitioners noted that typically group size 
and participation were adversely related (Pasmore & Fagans, 1992) and that normally 
large groups induce stereotyping, decreased ownership of ideas, increased abstraction, 
and hesitation in expressing unique thoughts (Weick & Quinn, 1999). 
Increasing the size of the group undoubtedly influences its internal dynamics; the 
limits for a functional working group set by classic literature are precise and strict, but 
there is evidence that under different paradigms, these limits can be overridden. 
The step leading toward LGIs necessarily needs a different level of understanding 
about the relationships between individuals, groups, and their environment. The evolution 
8 
in sciences such as chaos theory, complexity theory, constructionism, and systems theory 
offers new paradigms in observing and working with large groups. Complexity theorists 
describe systems in significantly distant and sometimes opposing ways. The different 
approaches settle on a continuum of views, starting from a connected multitude of 
autonomous individuals to seeing interrelationships as the main building blocks of reality, 
therefore abandoning individual entity autonomy (Stacey, Griffin, & Shaw, 2000). From 
the first point of view, the system is seen as composed of networks of autonomous agents 
that behave on the basis of environmental patterns. Such patterns may be perceived from 
objective realities from an outside observer and therefore can be modeled and predicted. 
On the other side of the continuum, there is the participative perspective, where humans 
are members themselves of a complex network from which is impossible to stand outside, 
thus making the reality impossible to model to prediction. This sight represents reality as 
an inter-subjective view, and the interaction with others jointly constructs and co-evolves 
the reality. The emerging patterns are unpredictable self-organizing processes, and 
creative forms of reality are, in this case, obtained through a wide participative approach 
to understanding the complexities of organizations (Stacey, et al., 2000). 
Cooperrider and Whitney defined social constructionism as an approach to human 
science and practice, which replaces the individual with the relationship as the locus of 
reality and possibilities (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). 
The main argument here is that LGIs, rather than focusing on the individual 
interactions between individuals in groups, leverage the entirety of relationships and the 
main patterns of interactions in the system, shifting the focus from individual interactions 
to systemic patterns. 
9 
Focusing on understanding and controlling a multitude of individual interactions 
overwhelms human social capacity; therefore, current LGIs exploit different paradigms 
and methods. The focus of this research project is finding the key elements that allow 
wide engagement and decision patterns to emerge during LGIs.
Fundamental Theories and Assumptions Underlying LGIs 
While the specific techniques of intervention vary dramatically across the 
multitude of methods, some common assumptions constitute the shared core guiding 
these techniques. Several authors have developed a set of assumptions about what main 
success factors are; the authors often compare the characteristics, processes, and 
assumptions of the different interventions but rarely relate those to the interventions 
tangible outcomes (Bunker & Alban, 1992). What follows is a review of the common 
assumption across most if not all methods and their theoretical foundations. 
Social and Trustworthy Human Nature 
The pillars of the effectiveness of LGIs are the participants, their perspectives, 
their commitment, their ownership of outcomes, and the ability to see and pursue the 
common good. No LGI can do without such pillars. The theory supporting this view 
about humans comes from McGregor’s Theory Y (McGregor, 1966). Schein summarized 
and defined this theory as follows: 
Theory Y, in essence, states that man is capable of integrating his own needs and 
goals with those of the organization; that he is not inherently lazy and indolent; 
that he is by nature capable of exercising self-control and self-direction, and that 
he is capable of directing his efforts towards organizational goals. (Schein, 1974, 
p. 6) 



10 
Theory X states the exact opposite. LGIs are based on the concept of personal 
ownership, voluntary actions, and freedom from typical constraints. Believing and acting 
out of Theory Y is fundamental to LGIs, moving out of Theory X, where the hierarchical 
powers are in charge of all the aspect of change including motivation and control, to 
Theory Y where change is based on ownership, internal commitment (Argyris, 1998), 
self-control, self-direction, and shared personal and organizational goals. Personal 
ownership can be created only if organizational members believe that their contribution 
will make a difference for the better (Manning & Binzagr, 1996). 
While McGregor (1966) stated that it is management's task to integrate 
organizational and individual goals, Schein (1974) disagreed with this normative 
proposition. In LGI the responsibility around the alignment of organizational and 
individual goals is up to the entire community of participants, which is more in line with 
Schein’s view. 
Whole System Involvement 
LGIs aim to invoke large-scale change. This concept emphasizes the involvement 
of the whole system in condensed time periods, in this change effort. The assumption that 
is essential to involve the whole system comes from open system theory. A system is 
commonly defined as a set or arrangement of things so related or connected as to form a 
unity or organic whole. The inclusion of all the elements of the system can vary 
significantly among methods; however, in all of them, at least a representation of each 
system category of agents is present. The inclusion of the whole is a prerequisite to a 
comprehensive vision of the present state, the wholeness of intent toward a common 
desired future, and is the basis for finding leverages for the enactment of the change. 
11 
LGIs need critical masses of people committed to bringing the system to the desired state 
and who feel ownership for the decisions they contributed. 
The size of involvement is defined differently by LGIs: as the totality of the 
people in the system; a large representation of the system; the representatives of all 
stakeholders; or all people with the power, knowledge, and passion for change. The 
commonality across methods is that no influential or affected stakeholder should be left 
out from the intervention. 
Even if large groups have a better chance to include differences in interests, 
knowledge, background, and values, a large group does not imply diversity by default; it 
needs to be planned. A balanced representation of different views is fundamental for an 
appreciation of the whole. Diversity brings fresh ideas, different views, and eventually 
new options. The inclusion of diversity implies promoting constructive dissent and 
systemic synergy (Griffin & Purser, 2008). LGIs promote the use of diversity by being 
inclusive and open to differences and embracing it in the wholeness of opportunities, 
views, and actions. 
Recent literature has verified empirically that balanced representation of different 
stakeholders enables a synergistic exploration of options, while unbalance in the 
representation of different stakeholders drifts the discussion toward the most represented 
group (Worley, et al., 2009). This balance in the representation of different stakeholders 
is significantly related to the variety of perspectives expressed in conversations and to 
broader considerations of facts in decision-making. The balance will also reduce the 
pressure to conform to the point of view of the majority while giving up individual’s own 
perception of reality (Asch, 1955). 
12 
The representational balance in the large group will not guarantee a productive 
interaction or that the participants will feel they can be heard (Bunker & Alban, 1997), 
and not even that mere balanced inclusion will result in more intense conversations 
leading toward creative and relevant outcomes (Worley, et al., 2009). The interaction 
method should therefore foster the real and declared possibility of all stakeholders to 
contribute to a meaningful purpose. The work of participants should shift from asking the 
group to find causes of the issues beyond self to what is the group capability to move 
toward the chosen purpose (Holman, et al, 2006). 
System Dialogue 
Developing a system view requires that a dialogue is created between all system 
stakeholders (Manning & Binzagr, 1996). The organization itself should study the pattern 
of relationships between system elements and identify boundaries defining internal and 
external relationships and what leverages could be used to affect the whole. To enable 
systemic change, dialogue between all system elements is required. It is through dialogue 
that relational bonds are formed and viewpoints shaped (Bohm, 1996). According to 
Schein (2003), practicing dialogue creates a new possibility for effective communication. 
Communication helps to establish organizing processes by its members. The intensity of 
the conversation is positively correlated with creative and relevant outcome (Worley, et 
al., 2009). The dialogue uncovers the different views in the system about the system, 
bonding them into a richer view of the whole respecting the sum of individual views; 
than groups can explore deeper and more complex issues because they can suspend 
individual assumptions (Senge, 1994). In LGI settings the practice of dialogue helps 
participants to think more generatively, creatively, with a greater sense of the whole