Teaming for Today’s Complex Challenges

People working collectively make organizations hum. No matter the task – a radical productivity improvement, a breakthrough innovation, the development of an exceptional customer service culture – people must join together and invest their heads, hearts, and wills to get the job done. When people, with various and relevant skills and perspectives, join around challenges that matter, their collective efforts produce innovations that get implemented.

At its core, facilitating teamwork is about creating space for people to collectively design and execute smart and doable strategies. Reacting to technological and social trends, savvy leaders are placing greater emphasis on learning, knowledge sharing, and collaboration in an effort to develop, access, and integrate the talents of their colleagues.

Today’s teams are challenged with high-stakes issues. Gone are the days when teams could be formed to implement pre-set solutions ordained from above, or when formal and stable teams could operate on the basis of consensus and cohesion. As author Thomas Friedman, writing of the dynamics of an increasingly “flat” world, pointed out, “the next layers of value creation… are becoming so complex that no single firm or department is going to be able to master them alone.” (2005)

Teams are confronted with ambiguous, hard-to-define challenges, involving multiple sets of stakeholders with competing interests, biases, and ways of working. These initiatives require members to learn from each other and from outside experts, to apply and leverage knowledge in new ways, and to go through iterations of collecting and analyzing data before a solution emerges.

I refer to such scenarios as “jamais vu” challenges, because team members have never been there or done that. They are complex in both the tasks to be carried out and the relationships to be developed. These differ from “déjà vu” been there, done that challenges, in which the team members in defined relationships have direct knowledge to apply. Jamais vu challenges abound: healthcare reform, environmental management, global warming, and mergers and acquisitions are all systemic dilemmas that require team members to facilitate complex relationships while forging a new path.

Jamais vu initiatives require a new model of teamwork and collaboration. These collaborations involve members from multiple disciplines, sites, and levels, with diverse backgrounds and expertise. Such teams often work at an accelerated pace, and members must forge relationships to gain perspective and commitment from external experts and stakeholders.

While decisive action – often stemming from the perspective of a single leader or expert – was the focus for traditional teams, discovery, learning, innovation, and distributed action-taking are the fuel for jamais vu teams. In this context, effective teamwork has shifted from a cohesion-based model to a learning-based model to enable streamlined formation, focused discovery, and option generation, experimentation, and energized action-taking.

How do leaders go about organizing for jamais vu challenges? In our book, Building Smart Teams, Carol Beatty and I report on the findings of Carol’s research which narrows the success factors of high performing teams to three critical sets of process and skills. These processes and skills provide a foundation for today’s learning based collaborative climate.

Team Management Practices enable people to define their task and connect to one another

While teams have traditionally focused on their own insular work and processes, today’s teams must take a whole-systems perspective and engage system players in the learning journey. Accordingly, they are more focused on getting a holistic understanding of the challenge, securing required resources and expertise, and defining the process members will follow. Today’s teams are often disbanded as soon as the task is completed. So the focus is on enabling the right people to engage and connect to core tasks as the team’s work unfolds.

Key steps to team formation include:

  • getting a full understanding of the challenge from all relevant points of view, with key success factors;
  • carefully and deliberately defining who needs to lead the initiative and who else needs to be on the team given their expertise, role, or perspective;
  • identifying other stakeholders who need to be engaged for their input, expertise, or feedback;
  • defining the process for fruitfully engaging in this work, including the right tools and technologies; and
  • defining a few key protocols for communicating, decision making and holding each other to account. I refer to this phase of the team’s core work as the define stage.

A robust problem solving process enables team members to work in dynamic alignment

While traditional teams relied on a leader for direction and alignment, today’s teams need to be supported by a robust process as they tackle complex, multi-pronged issues that do not fit within the jurisdiction of a single leader. The process becomes the glue that aligns people around core tasks, and that defines who will be involved and how along the way, including when to consult external experts and other stakeholders.

A good process enables members to share their expertise, fulfill their roles, and remain in alignment as the work unfolds. It also allows for the requisite group learning and resourcefulness. In my work, I employ a four-stage process that enables members to engage in activities that move from:

Defining the task: Setting the focus, scope, and boundaries of the initiative, as well as the engagement strategy of who to involve and how to link key stakeholders to the challenge and each other. Discovery: Collecting and analyzing data to uncover the core issues that need to be addressed and the options for renewal. Designing Strategies: Developing, testing, and refining options into prototypes and straw model solutions. Doing: Codifying recommendations for action, seeking approvals, and communicating plans and involvement strategies for implementation.

Each stage builds from and becomes a platform for each subsequent stage, so that members learn their way forward. Decision makers do not decide on a solution until they have first generated and tested options. Similarly, options are generated from the insights that were generated during discovery. The questions for discovery and the sources for answering them were generated from the way the initiative was ultimately defined.

Communications and conflict handling skills provide an orientation for learning and innovation

Two related orientations are important for effective teamwork and collaboration in jamais vu-land: communications patience and conflict handling skills. Patient communicators are naturally open and curious. Rather than prematurely judging and dismissing data that conflict with their own, they work hard to accept and incorporate relevant views, knowledge, and talents. Patient communicators are adept at sharing their insights and opinions. They are masterful at employing analogies and stories to convey their knowledge in a form that others can relate to.

In turn, members appreciate that conflicting ideas and ways of working are par for the course and do not judge or dismiss members who think or work in ways different than their own. When potentially thorny issues arise, such as a missed deadline, members surface the issues and deal with them. When the team is stuck, members slow down and embark on a strategy to resolve the impasse rather than plowing ahead.


Faced with high stakes and ambiguous challenges, today’s team leaders can employ new methodologies to enable members to develop a holistic view of their task, involve the right people, and engage in a process that facilitates learning, innovation and aligned action. Armed with new insights about leading teams in jamias vu-land, leaders can create the space for enabling and energizing members to deliver solutions that fit the challenge.

About the Author

Brenda Barker Scott, Queen's IRC Facilitator




Brenda Barker Scott has extensive experience in all aspects of organizational development acquired over a twenty-year career in teaching and consulting.  When working with leadership teams she combines strong theoretical knowledge with practical methodologies to ensure that the right people are engaged in the right conversations to design robust and workable solutions.  Brenda is an instructor on a number of the Queen’s IRC programs including Building Smart Teams, Organization Development Foundations, and Organizational Design. A frequent presenter, Brenda has been a keynote speaker for the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Conference Board of Canada, the Human Resources Planners Association of Ontario and the Canadian Institute for Health Research.  Brenda is co-author of Building Smart Teams: A Roadmap to High Performance.

Further Reading

Beatty, C., & Barker Scott, B. (2004) Building Smart Teams: A Roadmap to High Performance, Sage Publications.

Friedman, T, (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.


Enabling Fruitful Learning in Organizations

Take this challenge. Ask fellow employees if they have ample opportunity to learn and apply what they learn at work. Chances are their answers will be varied, with many answering with a sometimes or it depends. This is a conundrum. One does not have to look far to find support for the notion that learning in organizations is a critical capability. In our disruptive world, an organization’s capacity to facilitate learning—to acquire, apply, and spread new insights—has been touted as the fundamental strategic capability and a leading source of competitive advantage.

Why the knowing–doing gap? While we hire people with advanced degrees and send them to respected learning institutes, we often fail to tap the full potential of what employees can and do learn. Add in the notion that most organizations don’t know what people know—let alone provide opportunities for people to share and leverage learnings—and it’s not a stretch to conclude that learning in organizations is often a haphazard endeavor.

Several years, ago as part of a masters research project, Queen’s MIR student Laura Dow joined me in exploring the learning strategies of a wide range of Canadian organizations. Our results confirmed that most organizations do not have a comprehensive learning framework. While all organizations surveyed supported the job-specific learning of individuals, few thought strategically about how that individual learning would be applied, honed, embedded, or spread. Fewer still thought systematically about facilitating learning amongst chosen groups, or about capturing, sharing, and spreading new learnings with relevant others. On another front, only a handful of firms were able to articulate their strategic learning agendas. In other words, firms were not able to define the core capabilities they needed to hone and develop to compete and excel.

What might a strategic learning framework look like? Before we can answer this question, we need to step back and explore some basic questions that have kept academics busy for years. They are: 1) what is learning, 2) what is the relationship between learning and knowledge, and 3) where does learning take place?

What is learning? Let’s begin with a typical scenario. An organization identifies a gap in the skill-set of a group of employees—let’s says the gap is in innovative thinking amongst a group of middle managers. To remedy this situation, they design a course in innovative thinking skills, hire faculty to teach it, and offer it over a three-day program.

Following the course, can we say that our managers have learned? If we define learning as the acquisition of new insights, as some academics do, we can assume that the managers have acquired new insights—to varying degrees—and therefore that learning has occurred. If however, we take a more rigorous definition of learning, one that suggests that learning requires both the acquisition of new insights and the application of those insights, then our learning cycle is not yet complete. This dual cognitive and behavioural approach to learning is represented by Kolb’s (1984) adult learning cycle. We acquire new insights via a lecture or an experience, followed by reflection and then assimilation through action. Accordingly, learners must have ample opportunity to seek out new insights on the one hand and test, apply, and refine their insights and emerging abilities on the other. At the organizational level, the process of acquiring and applying new insights is represented by March’s (1991) foundational concept of exploration and exploitation.

If learning is indeed active, the process of acquiring new knowledge is not one of a simple receptivity, whereby veridical knowledge is tossed over the fence to those who catch it. Rather, acquiring and leveraging new insights and abilities is dependent on the learners’ motivation to learn, their opportunities to learn, and the mechanisms in place to enable the acquisition and application of knowledge. Support comes from the environment in the form of cues from bosses, strategic goals, standards, rewards, norms, available technologies, and the like. Should, these cues signal that the learning is not valued, supported, or necessary, individual conviction may wane and learning will be stifled. What people learn is, therefore, encouraged by a focused and supportive learning context. Understanding the learning agenda—what we need to learn in order to succeed—is critical to creating motivation and focus. Our middle managers must understand why innovative thinking is a core competence, how innovative thinking will enable them, and how they will be supported.

Why does our definition of learning matter? Quite practically, if we hold ourselves to a more rigorous definition of learning, one that combines learning with doing, then our middle managers cannot simply be sent to a three-day course on innovative thinking. In addition to a program, they must see the real world relevance for innovative thinking, be open to exploring innovative practices and have ample opportunities to practice innovative thinking with pressing challenges, in a supportive context.

What is the product of learning? Learning has an intimate relationship with knowledge; it is the process that brings about a change in know what (insights) and know how (behaviours). Nonaka (1991, 1994) distinguishes between explicit, easily codified knowledge, and tacit knowledge, which is rooted in both know what and know how. While the exchange of explicit knowledge can be shared and integrated amongst members via reports, memos, databases, and lectures, the sharing and development of tacit knowledge, whereby we know more than we can tell, occurs through dialogue and practice as members surface, exchange and absorb know what and know how.

Why does our definition of knowledge matter? If we understand that innovative thinking is tacit in nature—it is both know what and know how—we can no longer assume that innovation skills can be neatly packaged, or stored, or shared as a set of concepts and transferred to managers in a lecture or via a database. Rather, we see that innovative thinking amongst our managers will evolve as they exchange, combine, and build on ideas with others, perhaps after their appetites for innovative thinking have been wetted in a three-day program with their colleagues.

Where does learning take place? To state the obvious, learning in organizations occurs through people, as they acquire new insights and act on them. At the individual level, knowledge is acquired and accumulated as know what in the learners’ minds and know how in the form of expertise and craft. However, learning in organizations must go beyond what individuals learn. Innovation in isolation is clearly not our goal. Rather, our aim is to develop innovative thinking amongst our managers.

Group or community level learning depends on, and builds from, the knowledge and worldviews of individual members and requires an opportunity for learners to join around a common cause, exchange ideas and insights, and combine knowledge. Accordingly, our managers must be involved in processes, forums, networks, partnerships, and communities that enable the requisite exchange, synthesis, and co-creation of innovative ideas and practices amongst peers.

At the organizational level, as knowledge is captured and embedded—in peoples’ heads as norms and values and in organizational features such as strategies, structures, processes, and systems—the organization develops context or a code. In turn, the organizational context influences the future learning of individuals and groups, both the focus of their learning as well as how the learnings are applied, leveraged, and spread. The code continues to evolve, as it consumes the learning of individuals and groups. What might our code for innovation look like? Perhaps the infrastructure for innovation might include: a performance spirit of innovation amongst all leaders, dabble time for creative experimentation, rewards and recognition for sharing ideas, mechanisms for storing innovative ideas, forums for innovative problem solving, and a formal innovation process.

A Framework for Learning: Questions, Not Answers

Given that we have come to define learning as a multi-faceted personal, yet social phenomenon that is context specific, it would appear that a one size fits all definitive framework of learning in organizations is rather fanciful. Perhaps instead, a more useful approach might be to provide a set of powerful questions that, when asked and answered, shed light on the path to fruitful learning. Based on our definitions of learning, knowledge, and supportive context, those questions might be as follows:

  1. What’s our learning agenda? In other words, given our organization’s business, operational model, and strategic goals, in which areas do we need to excel? Ideally, the learning agenda will be scalable to units, across unit endeavors, and to individual roles. Answering this question is essential to developing a strategic and focused learning aim. Once set, the learning aims create a supportive context and build motivation for learning.
  2. Given the learning agenda, who needs to learn? What new insights and behaviours are required amongst individuals, groups or communities? Answering this question will identify the system of players—specific groups and individuals—who need to develop new insights and behaviours.
  3. Given the learning agenda and our understanding of who needs to learn, how will we facilitate the learning? Here we ask: Is the knowledge we are seeking to develop more explicit or tacit in nature? What are the vehicles and forums that will support learning acquisition, application and sharing?
  4. Insights from this set of questions will reveal a multi-pronged approach to learning which may have learners acquiring new abilities in a classroom setting, reflecting and building on them within group forums, applying them in a project team and honing them through a coaching relationship.
  5. Given our learning agenda, what’s the required depth and breadth of the learning? In other words, how will we support knowledge transfer? Insights from this question will reveal the requisite scope for the learning, as well as strategies for sharing the learnings with others and embedding the learnings in processes and systems.
  6. Given our learning agenda, what does a supportive context look like? How can we ensure that the context (or code) expands and adjusts to enable and embed new learning? Explore this question to identify the main organizational elements—from culture, to strategy, to leadership—that enable or prevent the requisite learning.


Learning in organizations is complex and depends of a myriad of personal, social, and environmental factors. Rather than searching for the ultimate recipe for organizational learning, I offer a set of questions as a starting place for this exploration. The questions are meant to tap the tremendous amount of wisdom that has been generated in the literature. How leaders answer those questions, given their specific needs, goals, history, and context, will define their approach to learning. Fostering innovative thinking is going to look and feel differently in every organization. A thoughtful approach to identifying the learning agenda, who needs to learn, how the learning can best be facilitated, the scope of learning transfer, and the key contextual enablers will go a long way in supporting learning. Learning strategies must be home grown. It quite simply will not work any other way.

Selected References

Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2006). The relationship between individual and organizational Learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning, 37(4), 455–473.

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150–169.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2008). Individual, group, and organizational learning. A knowledge management perspective. In I. Becerra-Fernandez & D. Leidner (Eds.). Knowledge management: An evolutionary view of the field, (pp. 13–39). Armonk, NY: Publisher M.E. Sharpe.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

Christensen, C, & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66–76.

Constance, J. (2003). Designing learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 32(1), 46–61.

Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. (2001). Knowing what we know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 100–120.

Crossan M., Lane, H., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organizational Learning: Dimensions for a theory. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337–360.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of thefirm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

De Geus, A. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 66(2), 70–74.

Easterby–Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational Learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 784–796.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.

Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 7(4), 78–91.

Haragdon, A., & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.

Herriott, S. R., Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1985). Learning from experience in organizations, American Economic Review, 75, 298–302.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and literatures. Organizational Science, 2(1), 88–115.

Inkpen, A. C., & Crossan, M. M. (1995). Believing is seeing: joint ventures and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 32(5), 595–618.

Kellogg, K., Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: structuring coordination across boundaries in post-bureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 22–44.

Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 37–50.

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, Fall, 5–23.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

Mack, A. (2003). Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 180–184.

March, J. G., (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2(1), 71–87.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, November-December, 96–104.

Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge, Organizational Science, 5(1), 14–37.

Redding, J., & Catalanello, R. (1994). Strategic Readiness: The making of the learning organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 1(2), 125–134.

Srikantia, P., & Pasmore, W. (1996). Conviction and doubt in organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 42–53.

Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: the key to management innovation, Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 63–74.

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2003). Organizational learning and knowledge management: Toward an integrative framework. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organization learning and knowledge management (pp. 122-141). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 225–246.

Wenger, E.C. (2006). Learning for a small planet, version 2, revised September 2006. Appendix 1. Social learning theory: identity, social structure, and meaningfulness. Retrieved May10, 2009, from

Zack, M., H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125–145.

Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76–92.

Organizational Learning: A Literature Review

While a comprehensive model for organizational learning (OL) remains elusory, the wide web of scholarly conversation and debate has spurred rich insight into the central questions of how and what people learn in organizational settings. This paper is aimed at exploring some of those debates, with a view to identifying a complementary set of factors that, if present, might tip the balance towards more fruitful learning in organizations. I begin by exploring the debates shaping the literature through two central questions: 1) What is learning? and 2) Can organizations learn? Based on the insights gained, I turn to the question of how organizations can increase their capacity to learn.

Download PDF: Organizational Learning: A Literature Review

Exploring the Roots of Large-Group Change Techniques

With organizations and their environments in a state of constant flux, organizational development scholars have been challenged to create and practice methodologies that enable fast, yet comprehensive change. In answer to the call, a wide range of large-group change techniques has emerged to promote whole-systems adaptability. While the technologies differ in their focus and approach, all share a common assumption base, stemming from a deep intellectual root system.


Strip away the visions, strategies, metrics, reports, and at its core, organizational change occurs through committed and energized people. Whether the challenge calls for a radical productivity improvement, a breakthrough innovation, or the development of an exceptional customer service culture, change requires people, working collectively, to engage in conversations and experiences that inspire new ways of seeing, thinking and acting (Dannemiller & Jacob, 1992). Paraphrasing sociologist Philip Selznic, ‘strategies take on value as committed people infuse them with energy’ (1957, in Mintzberg, 1994).

While our organizational challenges necessitate collective learning and creativity, the collective situation that organizations face is often not apparent, as people see challenges from their own frame of reference (Argyris, 1980). When people do not connect the dots between issues and opportunities, organizations remain fragmented and inefficient. Schein (1996) suggests that gaps between the operating norms, worldviews, and interests of various groups in organizations-mainly those who operate on the front line, those who engineer systems, and those who lead-create a cultural divide that prevents learning and whole-system adaptation. When organizations attempt to redesign or reinvent themselves, says Schein, the cultures collide and failure occurs. Schein’s antidote is to create mutual understanding amongst stakeholders so that joint opportunities can be identified and realized.

What does mutual learning and co-creation look like and how is it facilitated? In answer to the call, a wide range of large group change techniques has emerged to join organizational members around the process of diagnosing, envisioning and enacting fast, effective change. The large-group change techniques, heralded as a breakthrough in change implementation theory (Bunker & Alban, 1992 ), enable large numbers of stakeholders to join around pressing organizational challenges, by creating a common appreciation of why change is necessary, to what and how-activities typically reserved for the top team. Proponents claim that large-group techniques produce better substantive outcomes, and just as importantly, widespread understanding and commitment amongst the people who need to implement them (Bunker & Alban, 1992a; Weisbord, 2004). As Dannemiller and Jacobs (1992) suggest, the change techniques are a revolution in common sense. They contend that when you “Bring together all the interested and affected parties to a change, provide them with the right information and an opportunity to work together interactively-be they 5 or 500-and they will create their future. Most important, they will then be empowered to do the right things to make that future a reality. Nothing more than basic common sense” (p. 481).

While large-group change methodologies are relatively new, their genealogy stems from a solid theoretical foundation including systems thinking, action research, and group dynamics, amongst others. Below, I define large-group change techniques and then turn to exploring the rich theoretical assumption base from which the techniques have evolved.

Large-Group Change Techniques

Building on the foundational notion that organizations are best understood as whole systems, large-group intervention technologies bring together the stakeholders of a system (from 32-2300) to join around important organizational challenges (Bunker & Alban, 1997; Manning and Binzagr 1996). A number of large-scale technologies have been developed since the 1980s including Future Search, Open Space, Simu-real and the Search Conference, to name a few (Bunker & Alban, 1997). All technologies are designed to connect the stakeholders of a system around a series of meaningful and progressive conversations. Owen’s (1992) Open Space-the least structured approach-asks participants to define the meeting topics and facilitate or attend the meetings of their choosing. Alternatively, Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff’s (1995) Future Search Conference joins stakeholders, working in max mix groups, in successive tasks from reviewing the past, to diagnosing the present, to envisioning and planning for a preferred future.

Independent of the technique employed, large-group techniques engage stakeholders in activities to promote individual and organizational learning in service of longer-term organizational capacity building. Here, change agents act as guides and role models, creating the space and time for stakeholders to join around organizational challenges and to develop a joint diagnosis, strategy and action plan. Employing a whole systems perspective, change agents facilitate a deep appreciation of the relationships amongst stakeholders by bringing them together to dialogue around and achieve a broader mutual understanding of their interdependence and the impact of change in one area to the others. With a focus on the preferred future that people want to create, people are assumed to act responsibly and in accordance with universal human needs and values. The opportunity to sensemake, learn, engage in dialogue, build relationships and facilitate an emotional attachment to the challenge and to colleagues, have all been identified as important levers for change (Manning & Binzagr, 1996; Huy, 2001).

While not exhaustive, a brief description of six large-group change methods is provided below to demonstrate the range of techniques available. These methods include Appreciative Inquiry Summit, Future Search, Open Space, Self-Design for High Performance, Whole-Scale Interactive Process, and World Cafe Conversations. For a fuller description of large-group techniques refer to Bunker and Alban’s (1997) Large Group Interventions and Handbook of Large Group Techniques (2006). For a comparative framework, refer to Weber and Manning, (1998). Together these resources were used to develop the descriptions below.

Appreciative Inquiry Summit

Cooperrider and Srivastva’s (1978) Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is the art of asking questions to discover the life-giving elements of a system when it is at its best-most alive, effective, and capable. The philosophical underpinning holds that the stakeholders of every system have untapped and inspiring insights, and that this energy-once mobilized-is what drives transformational change. Accordingly, AI questions ask people to share their most positive stories and aspirations, including achievements, potentials, innovations, strengths, high point moments, lived values, competencies, and insights. Over the course of a summit, typically running from one to three days, stakeholders gather in small and larger groups to first discover ideal statements of excellence, then to develop dreams of preferred futures based on the idealized statements, and then to design solutions and action plans together.

Future Search

Developed by Weisbord and Janoff (1995, 2000), Future Search convenes a representative group of 64 stakeholders (customers, suppliers, managers, subject matter experts, etc.) for a three-day conference to focus on a common organizational challenge. Through a series of structured activities, participants reflect on their past, explore their present, create ideal future scenarios, identify common ground and make action plans. The authors refer to their technique as a “learning laboratory” (p. 2) whereby people work through complex issues and dilemmas to create a sense of clarity and commitment for moving forward. The authors describe the experience as a roller coaster ride during which participants get on-board, explore reality (despair), take responsibility for their part, create visions, and plan realistic actions. The process has been widely used for both organizational and community development with reportedly great success throughout North America and internationally including Europe, Africa, India.

Open Space

Harrison Owen’s (1992) Open Space brings together individuals who are interested in a challenge or issue. Participants are invited in share potential ideas and agenda items and to become discussion leaders for others who want to join them. Interested parties then meet and together they accomplish whatever it is they want to, from pure discussion to action planning. For each meeting, topics and recommendations are recorded, posted for all to see and also compiled in a report. Owen suggests the power of the process comes from its ability to connect people around purpose, especially when the issues are complex or contentious. Open Space has been used with success in a variety of industries and cultures to achieve a wide range of goals including strategic planning, organization redesign, market research and product development.

Search Conference & Participative Design

The Search Conference methodology, first developed in 1959 by Fred Emery and Eric Trist and later refined by Fred and his wife Merrelyn, is based on the assumption that people, working collectively, will find common ground, design preferred futures, and act responsibly, given the right conditions – mainly systems thinking, people within the system involved, participant rather than expert driven problem solving, democratic structure, effective dialogue and search for common ground (Emery & Purser, 1995). Accordingly, the Search Conference process brings groups of stakeholders together for a series of conversations: environmental analysis, followed by system analysis and preferred futuring, followed by an analysis of systemic constraints that may prevent progress. Stakeholders are encouraged to follow the Search Conference process with a series of participative design workshops, in which stakeholders learn how to design a mutually respectful, democratically oriented, organization. Outcomes include the development of “to be” designs and action plans, based on the dual principles of redundancy of parts and redundancy of functions. While first developed and practiced in Australia, the methodology was introduced to North American organizations in the early 1990s and has been widely employed in the public and private sectors.

Self-Design for High Performance

The Self-design for High Performance change methodology (Ledford & Mohrman, 1993) begins with top managers defining the broad parameters for a high-performance, high-involvement workplace. Next, a team of organizational members from all levels and functions begin the process in earnest by identifying the guiding values and developmental needs of the system. Changes are implemented iteratively, but with the whole system in mind, by the multi-functional, multi-level team. Reporting on the results of an intervention within a multi-plant manufacturing organization, the authors reported a notable impact in the areas of job satisfaction, job design, supervision, control and teamwork. They also concluded that the politics of information sharing and cooperation between some units prevented a fundamental shift in the organization.


Developed by Kline (1992), Simu-real brings up to 50 stakeholders of a system together for a one-day session to participate in simulated activities and follow-on conversations that tap into the effectiveness of both formal and informal relationships within an organization. Topics for a Simu-real session are defined in advance by management or an organizing committee, as well as decision-making protocols. Simu-real has been used in a variety of organizations for the purpose of problem solving, strategic planning, organizational design and relationship building.

Whole Scale Interactive Process

The Whole-scale Interactive Process, based on the work of Lippitt (1983), Beckhard (1967) and Dannemiller and Jacob (1992) convenes a representative sample of the whole system of stakeholders in a summit style conference for the purpose of creating a joint data base around why change is needed, to what and how. Learning, teamwork, and empowerment are key value-oriented themes that underpin this approach. Accordingly, activities include talks from speakers to share key insights and knowledge, exercises to explore the status quo from multiple perspectives, visioning activities and conversations to enable realistic action planning. Dannemiller and Jacob (1992) refers to the process as a revolution of the common sense, for if you bring together the right people, give them useful information, and provide them with the space to work cooperatively, they will create a robust and doable preferred future. The process has been widely used in diverse organizational settings and results including the development of frame breaking strategies, relationships and innovations (Dannemiller Tyson Associates, 2000).

World Cafe Conversations

Juanita Brown’s (2005) World Cafe is a methodology for hosting conversations about issues, challenges, and opportunities that matter. In this technique, much time and attention is devoted to defining provocative questions that table facilitators ask and stakeholders ponder. The analogy of the cafe is meant to capture the spirit of a setting designed for informal, yet meaningful conversation. With each table assigned a facilitator and a unique topic, people move from table to table over successive rounds of conversation depending on their interests. Each round of conversation is designed to link and build on previous rounds and as people move between groups they cross-pollinate ideas, discover new insights and define common ground. Often, the collective intelligence of the stakeholders is captured via colourful artistic depictions of key themes in murals. The authors claim that relationships amongst stakeholders are strengthened as people converse, build on insights, and co-evolve aspirations and plans for the future.

While the specifics of the techniques vary in their focus, involvement parameters, degree of structure, and time frames (Weber & Manning, 1998), all share a set of common assumptions (Manning and Binzagr, 1996), which I turn to below.

Assumptions Underlying Large-Group Techniques: How the Theoretical Roots Inform Practice

Pasmore and Fagans (1992) developed a continuum of participation from lower level techniques that ask participants to conform and contribute to higher-level techniques that ask people to challenge, collaborate and co-create. Interestingly, the authors point out that different forms of participative approaches involve different assumptions and techniques, which produce different results. By nature, a conforming and contributing approach to participation limits stakeholder participation to small incremental adjustments within an existing system; a form of redecorating per se. While redecorating efforts have their place, the scope and focus of the change initiatives are necessarily bounded within the current operating paradigm and systems architecture. However, when a full and open-minded exploration of what can be is required-dismantling and rebuilding so to speak-higher forms of participative techniques are required to provide opportunity and space for people to think and design beyond the current system. Large-group techniques based on a set of core assumptions that promote systems thinking, learning and co-creation, enable the highest forms of participative competence (Pasmore and Fagans, 1992).

Manning and Binzagr (1996) identify a set of core assumptions that underpin all large-group techniques. Below, I explore this deep root structure by looking back to identify the theoretical origins and looking forward to show how each assumption informs current practice.

Assumption 1: Central to all large-group change techniques is the assumption that organizations are “whole systems.”

Viewing organizations as whole systems causes one to see the patterns and connections between system elements, not simply the reducible parts. While reductionist thinking causes one to isolate and study the parts in a sequential cause-and-effect paradigm, whole systems methodologies surface the web of relationships between people, structures, norms, processes, and so on, to explore how the parts interact to influence the whole. As Marvin Weisbord (2004) suggests: “the main ah ha of open systems thinking is that everything counts” (p. 201).

Theoretical Roots

Kurt Lewin (1947) was amongst the first scholars from the social sciences to borrow ideas and theories from the biological sciences to provide a conceptual lens for understanding human behaviour. From a system’s lens, Lewin developed the profound insight that behaviour is a function of the complex relationship people have with their environment. In order to understand human behaviour and promote change, reasoned Lewin, one needs to understand the rich interplay between environmental forces (for example rules, protocols, systems, structures) and personal psychological forces (for example, thoughts, aspirations, needs, desires, fears) that either push toward, or pull away from ideal solutions.

Lewin referred to a stakeholder’s immediate system as one’s life space-the interplay of external and internal forces that shape how one sees and responds to the world. To understand these forces, Lewin designed typological maps, defining the relationships between supporting and opposing forces around a change goal. He surmised that as opposing forces were diagnosed and reduced, enabling forces would create change, a change formula he referred to as unfreezing, moving and refreezing (Lewin, 1947). Lewin’s understanding that challenges cannot be removed from context, dissected into chunks, and isolated to decipher a single cause, informed his research philosophy and methodology, later referred to as action research. Appreciating that if you want to understand a system, you must seek to change it, action research engages the researcher and client in a learning journey to explore organizational dilemmas within the context of the perceptions and aims of the key players and the systems’ stew in which they live (Schein, 1996; Weisbord, 2004).

Lewin’s discovery-that motivation is a function of the complex interaction between psychological, social, and physical forces, and not simply a function of how well one is trained and rewarded, as hypothesized by Frederick Taylor-paved the way for profound openings in organizational science (Weisbord, 2004). For example, Lewin, working alongside colleagues Ralph White and Ronald Lippitt, showed that leadership style had a profound impact on the behaviour of followers. Working with groups of boys who belonged to volunteer arts and crafts clubs, the researchers found a striking difference in the boys’ behaviour as they varied their leadership style from autocratic, to democratic, to laissez-faire. With autocratic or laissez-faire leadership, the boys were much more likely to be aggressive or apathetic, while with democratic leadership the boys were much more likely to play nice and stick to task. Commenting on the forces creating the variations, the researchers concluded that tension (or annoyance with the leader), freedom of movement, rigidity of group structure and each child’s style of living, were critical variables influencing the boys’ behaviour (Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939 in Weisbord, 2004).

Across the pond in the UK, Trist and Bamforth (1951), of the Tavistock Institute, identified the importance of both social and technical systems (STS) for worker productivity, motivation, and sense of belongingness. Working with members of a coal mining company, and responding to the anomie that developed due to the disruption of their teamwork as a new technology was implemented, Trist introduced a technique that attended to both the coal miner’s need for social cohesion and the industry’s need for efficiency via new technology. The STS perspective enabled designers to see that both social and technical systems are necessary and need to be aligned and jointly optimized.

The interplay between behaviour and environment is a theme that has had remarkable staying power. From Lewin’s (1947) early observations that behaviour cannot be understood outside of the context of its environment, systems thinking has evolved from a focus on working with individuals or groups in first generation OD theories, to a focus on organizational transformation in second generation theories, to a focus on continuously evolving whole systems in third generation theories. Accordingly, while the first generation OD approaches of the 1950s, 60s and 70s focused on personal development, job design, and group dynamics, contemporary techniques emphasize organization-wide transformation and on designing whole systems for continuous and cumulative change (Seo, Putnam and Bartunek, 2004).

Application to Large-Group Techniques

Large-group theory facilitates whole systems transformation via a number of techniques. Many approaches, including Dannemmiller’s (2000) Whole Scale Change, Weisbord and Janoff’s (2000) future search, and the Emery’s (1996) Search Conference begin with an examination of the environment to ascertain the organization’s responsiveness to the internal and external drivers of change-the systems stew so to speak. To promote the ability of participants to view their organization as a series of interconnected parts, stakeholders are tasked with exploring the social and task-orientated relationships amongst people, between units, throughout levels, and between the organization and its partners. The resulting broader, mutual appreciation of their interdependence enables stakeholders to understand the impact of change in one area on the others. Moreover, as stakeholders explore their challenges from a wider-angle view, opportunities emerge for deep frame breaking change throughout all levels and functions. Via participation in the process itself, stakeholders develop expanded mental models, new relationships, and skills for collaboration-all factors that alter one’s life space, enabling personal and organizational transformation (Dannemmiller, 2000; Weisbord & Janoff, 2000).

Assumption 2: The best way to view organizations as whole systems is to promote dialogue among the stakeholders of the system, a notion Marvin Weisbord (1992) refers to as “getting the whole system in the room.”

Given that people see and understand their world from the vantage point of their life experiences (Lewin, 1947) and cognitive schemas (Argyris, 1980), dialogue amongst the stakeholders of the system enables people to explore issues and opportunities from a wider-angle view (Dannemiller & Jacobs, 1992; Schein, 1996; Weisbord, 2004). By bringing system stakeholders together from diverse, yet connected functions, perspectives, levels, and disciplines, people develop an understanding of their interconnectedness. Moreover, moving between small and large-group forums, people have an opportunity to relate with each other, note differences and similarities, and develop a real appreciation and empathy for each other’s interests (Hirschhorn, 1992). At its most basic level, collective conversations enable people to see beyond their habitual patterns of thought and action and to diagnose their challenges from a more holistic view. As new learning is absorbed through dialogue and experimentation, the players become rooted in a deep sense of knowing that provides a context for moving forward together.

Theoretical Roots

Identifying and involving the gatekeepers (or stakeholders) of the system is another pivotal finding of Lewin’s (1953) that has stood the test of time. While working with the anthropologist Margaret Mead during World War II, Lewin conducted the first of many experiments that led him to appreciate the core role that gatekeepers have in unfreezing, moving, and refreezing a system. The setting was Iowa during WWII, when Lewin was asked to help reduce civilian consumption of rationed foods, mainly meat. The problem was that even though traditional meats were scarce, families were resistant to trying other non-scarce meats such as beef hearts, sweetbreads, and kidneys.

Knowing that housewives were the shoppers and preparers of food, Lewin reasoned that they were the gatekeepers who controlled the situation. He believed that if the housewives were engaged in the problem-solving process, they would be more likely to change their shopping and meal preparation habits. To test this hypothesis, Lewin set up a controlled experiment with several groups of housewives. In one group, a nutrition expert lectured the group on the benefits of cooking and consuming the non-scarce meats and provided cooking tips and recipes. In the other groups, the women were given the facts, and asked to discuss and create their own meal plans. Lewin’s hunch was confirmed. Women in the “discuss and decide ourselves” groups were more likely to change their eating habits than the group who was lectured to. Specifically, while 3% of the group that was lectured to served up the non-scarce meats, 32% of the “discuss and decide ourselves” groups prepared the meats for their families (Lewin, 1953 in Weisbord, 2004). Lewin believed that when gatekeepers are involved in defining the change problem and designing the solution, restraining forces are reduced, thus enabling change to occur. Moreover, because solutions fit within the context of the gatekeeper’s revised life-space, they are doable and more likely to be supported with enabling anchors (Schein, 1996).

Building on Lewin’s (1953) pivotal finding that involvement leads to commitment, Beckhard (1967) was amongst the first to experiment with engaging the whole system in problem solving (Bunker & Alban, 1992a; Dannemiller & Jacobs, 1992). Beckhard’s confrontation meeting brought together large groups of managers representing the whole system (upwards of 70 people) for the purpose of information collecting, information sharing, priority setting, action planning and follow-up. Referring to the benefits of the approach, Beckhard identified better, faster decision-making, based on accurate, real-time data and increased commitment to organizational goals. Residual results included an enhanced capacity for decision-making amongst people as well as better communication and collaboration between units (Beckhard & Harris, 1967)

Application to Large-Group Change Techniques

Employing the dual insights that the gatekeepers are pivotal players and involvement leads to commitment to change, large-group techniques are designed to connect the stakeholders of a system around a series of meaningful and progressive conversations that move from a diagnosis of the challenge in its current context to creating a vision of the desired future to action planning (Bunker & Alban, 1992 a; Seo, Putnam and Bartunek, 2004)

While some techniques, like Open Space (Owen 1992) assume that the “right” people are those who join in dialogue, other techniques like Weisbord and Janoff’s (2000) Future Search or Dannemiller and Jacob’s (1992) Whole Scale Change purposely define the max mix groupings, so that the stakeholders are mixed to the max. All methods enable stakeholders to mix in different configurations and to gather as a whole in plenary sessions to promote the cross-pollination of ideas and a deeper insight of the system dynamics (Bunker & Alban, 1992a).

Lewin’s (1947) action research process provides the basic methodology for this joint learning journey (Bunker & Alban, 1992 a; Dannemiller & Jacob, 1992; Manning & Binzagr, 1996). Unlike traditional problem solving approaches whereby top managers diagnose, decide, and pass their solutions over the fence to implementers, collective conversations and action learning amongst a wide group of stakeholders enables learning, deciding, and implementing to be “one and the same” (Dannemiller & Jacob, 1992, p.486). Reflecting on their success at Ford Motor Company, Dannemiller and Jacob (1992) claim that: “a common database was a critical ingredient to the success at Ford. Seeing the world through the eyes of each other enables large groups of people to find common ground. By building a common database of dissatisfaction, vision, and first steps needed to bring about change, a paradigm shift occurred in which a critical mass of the system made a commitment to change. There exists a saying: you can influence as far as you can see. At Ford, the farther they could see, the more they chose to influence.” (p. 485)

Assumptions 3&4: Organizations are socially constructed AND organizational members have the capacity to self organize and redefine their reality.

Daft and Weick (1984) describe organizations as interpretive systems and organizational reality as a function of the dominant mental models of organizational members. From this social constructivist perspective, organizations are what we make of them or what we make them to be. If organizational reality is a reflection of the collective thoughts and activities of members, then organizational transformation occurs as members join to articulate, test, and refine their mental models, leading to expanded behavioural repertoires (Barrett, Fann Thomas & Hocev, 1995). This process of acquiring and applying new insights is the process of learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999, Garvin, 1993; Hedburg, 1981; Stata, 1989).

Historical Roots

Once again, Lewin’s (1947, 1953) work provides the deep root structure from which other theoretical advances follow. Viewed from a cognitive perspective, Lewin’s notion of unfreezing, change, and refreezing can be understood as unlearning and relearning (Schein, 1996). Unfreezing occurs as learners are exposed to and accept disconfirming data, thus opening up the possibility for learning. Change occurs as new insights are formed via experiences, experimentation, and feedback to cause a frame-breaking cognitive restructuring. New insights become anchored as they are supported by revised norms, protocols, and organizational features.

Appreciating that it is unsettling and anxiety-provoking for members to examine and adjust their mental models, Lewin took great care to create a psychologically safe space for stakeholders to explore competing assumptions and co-create a set of revised, holistic ones. As Schein (1996), reflecting on Lewin’s technique, notes: “His involving workers on the pajama assembly line, his helping the housewives’ groups to identify their fear of being seen as less ‘good’ in the community if they used the new proposed meats, and his helping them to evolve new norms were a direct attempt to deal with learning anxiety. This process can be conceptualized in its own right as creating for the learner some degree of “psychological safety” (p. 29-30).

Learning anxiety, Ron Lippitt (1983) discovered, is reduced when the group task is goal-oriented rather than problem-focused. Working with large groups (from 30 to 300) in the 1970s and 80s, Lippitt noticed that a group’s vitality, creativity and commitment was enhanced when members were forward looking. Comparing the results of groups focused on problems or aspirations, Lippitt observed that groups focused on a preferred-future not only created more innovative and robust solutions, they were also more energized and committed to achieving them. For Lippitt, the key to preferred futuring was the involvement of all system stakeholders (Bunker & Alban, 1992a; Dannemiller & Jacob, 1992).

The seminal work of Argyris and Schon (1978, 1996) on overcoming defensive routines to enable double loop learning, has become instrumental to our understanding of cognitive development. For Argyris and Schon, learning involves the detection and correction of error, whereby single loop learning occurs as members reflect and adapt within their current cognitive framework and double loop learning challenges members to expand their cognitive repertoire. In essence, Argyris and Schon suggest that organizational transformation requires the ability of members to overcome their defensive routines by confronting existing assumptions and revising them as the environmental context shifts.

Academics have continued to study the many processes and conditions associated with the development of new conceptual insight within a community of learners. Those focusing on conversation and discourse (Barrett, Thomas, & Hocev, 1995; Ford & Ford, 1995) suggest that how organizational leaders shape the collective conversations during change determines which challenges or opportunities get noticed, how they are understood, the solutions that emerge and the actions that are taken. Those exploring community learning (Brown & Dugid, 1991; Cook & Brown, 1999) have identified how social interaction enables the exchange, synthesis and broadening of individual member knowledge into the synergistic knowing that resides amongst the group.

Key to the construct of group or community learning is the notion that members absorb new insights through active participation and insider involvement, as members adopt the worldviews, practices and language of their community (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave and Wenger, 1991). As new assumptions and practices are embraced and embedded in norms, protocols and organizational features, organizational culture, routines and practices are transformed (Schein, 1996).

Application to Large-Group Change Techniques

Building from the notion that organizational transformation occurs as people acquire and apply new insights, all large-group change techniques engage stakeholders in conversations and experiences that enable shifts in assumptions and behaviours. Moreover most techniques enable participants to surface and examine deep-rooted assumptions and beliefs that lead to frame breaking, gamma oriented changes (Weber & Manning, 1998).

To overcome defensive routines, large-group techniques provide welcoming spaces for stakeholders to learn together. All approaches provide procedural and logistical guidelines for facilitation, as most techniques guide the nature and flow of conversations, pacing, and behavioural protocols. Future visioning is employed as a low-risk way for members to explore competing perspectives and co-create a shared, holistic set of aims (Manning & Binzagr, 1996; Weber & Manning, 1998). As members converse, share stories, shape scenarios, and build a common database of ideas and experiences, a sense of “knowing” amongst the stakeholder community is generated, building common ground for change. Together, these protocols and methods foster an inviting and psychologically safe nutrient environment for conversing and learning (Hurley & Brown, 2010; Weber & Manning, 1998).

Dannemiller’s (2000) Whole Scale Change Process provides a fitting example of how community learning and organizational transformation occur over the course of a three-day summit. By working through a series of conversations, from why change to what and how, stakeholders have an opportunity to join around common challenges and shift attention and meaning making from joint diagnosis to joint design to joint action. Interestingly, the authors suggest that each conversation provides a foundation for subsequent conversations, such that stakeholders first build a joint need for change, followed by an ideal vision, and then action plans. According to the authors, if any conversation is superficial or missing, change will not occur: “Our version states that for change to occur, the product of dissatisfaction with the present situation (D), a vision of what is possible (V), and first steps to reach the vision (F) must be greater than resistance to change (R). If any element is missing, the product will be zero. Since we all resist change to some extent, if the product is zero we will not overcome resistance and no change will occur. In other words, if people are able to absorb new information, they will see the world differently (paradigm shift) and, once their paradigm shifts, their behavior will change as a result” (Dannemiller Tyson and Associates, 1994, p. 6).

Assumption 5: All people share a set of values that are inherently “good” and these values ultimately influence voluntary collective action.

All large-scale methods share the assumption that when people come together out of their own volition to connect in service of a common organizational cause, they will do so responsibly and be driven by a set of core values defined by McGregor’s (1960, 1985) Theory Y assumptions and Maslow’s (1954) basic human needs for love, belongingness, and respect (Weber & Manning, 1998).

Historical Roots

It was McGregor (1960, 1985) who, in his seminal book The Human Side of Enterprise, highlighted the profound insight that our basic assumptions about human nature and motivation are “behind every managerial decision”(p. 33). McGregor labeled these deep rooted assumptions as Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X assumes that employees are intrinsically unreliable, so much so that, left to their own devices, they will avoid work and shirk responsibility. On the other hand, Theory Y assumes that people are intrinsically motivated, as long as the right conditions are present, including motivating goals and the time, space, and resources to achieve them.

McGregor surmised that Theory X assumptions are deeply rooted in our managerial psyche and responsible for our tendency to design organizations with tight, centralized controls and to lead people via coercion in the form of rewards and punishments. Describing the insidious sway of this mindset, McGregor (1960, 1985) explains, “The ‘psychological environment’ of industrial management-like water for fish-is so much a part of organizational life that we are unaware of it. Certain characteristics …of organizational life are so completely established, so pervasive, that we cannot conceive of them being otherwise. As a result, a great many policies and practices and decisions and relationships could only be – it seems – what they are” (1985, p. 49).

McGregor devoted his life’s work to attempting to point out the inadequacies of Theory X thinking and the negative, self-fulfilling results of Theory X behaviours. Much like Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of human needs, McGregor understood that people have common, core needs that ultimately drive behaviour. While physical needs, such as hunger drive a person to seek sustenance, so too does the need for belongingness cause people to join groups and communities. Higher-order needs, mainly those for self-esteem, status, and ultimately self-fulfillment, can only be satisfied through developmental pursuits that result in new capabilities, achievement, recognition, and fulfilling one’s creative potential.

Organizations with steep hierarchies, centralized decision making, and tightly controlled work protocols, claimed McGregor, deprive employees of their inherent human needs. A philosophy of management by direction and control of employees has limited value in motivating people whose important needs are social and egoistic. Not only is human development stifled, reasoned McGregor, a lack of opportunity for real development causes employees to become “sick”, with the resulting symptoms expressed as malaise, resistance, and hostility. According to McGregor, “People, deprived of opportunities to satisfy at work the needs that are now important to them, behave exactly as we might predict-with indolence, passivity, unwillingness to accept responsibility, resistance to change, willingness to follow the demagogue, unreasonable demands for economic benefits. It would seem that we may be caught in a web of our own weaving” (1985, p. 42).

Theory Y assumes that work can be an intrinsic and welcome source of stimulation for people, which produces its own reward in the form of self-pride, personal satisfaction, and self-actualization. Consequently, people seek challenging experiences via which they can develop, grow, and hone their innate talents. The role of management then, is not to direct and control, but to unleash and nurture the talents and ingenuity of employees. Finding ways to integrate, rather than subsume human needs and aspirations with those of the organization, suggested McGregor, would accomplish the dual goals of employee development and organization development-an idea that has gained much traction in recent years (Pasmore & Fagans, 1992).

McGregor argued that the inherent value of Theory Y assumptions was in the possibilities this new thinking would open up for managerial practices and polices. At its root, McGregor was careful to emphasize that Theory Y does not mean country club or laissez faire management, but rather trusting that, given the right conditions, employees can and will behave responsibly and work to advance meaningful organizational objectives. As Schein (2010), commenting on the nexus of McGregor’s Theory Y explains, “And that misunderstanding-that Theory Y means country club, loose management, means participation-is where I think, to this day, people don’t understand that that was never what McGregor said. What McGregor said is, “If you trust your people you get better results” (p. 114).

Application to Large-Group Change Techniques

Building squarely from a Theory Y assumption base, large-group techniques are designed to tap the goodwill, ingenuity, and natural motivation of organizational members. It is assumed that when people are empowered to solve pressing organizational challenges, they will do so responsively and the common ground they seek will be rooted in universal human needs and values (Weber & Manning, 1998). To enable people to discover how personal aims are connected to organizational goals, large-group techniques join people, out of their own volition, in service of a common need or cause. Participants are invited, not mandated, to attend sessions and while present, encouraged to self-select into working groups with tasks that are meaningful to them. For example, Owen’s (1992) Open Space technique asks people to co-create their own agenda and invites people to join around the topics of interest to them. With the law of two feet, people are guided to attend meetings that matter to them and to leave when their interests and energy shifts. With a philosophy of whoever comes are the right people, it is acknowledged that the people who attend are the most qualified, able and passionate about the work. Similarly, whatever happens is the only thing that could have prohibits people from searching for the one right answer, in service of tapping the ideas and solutions of those who are gathering in the here and now. Finally, when it’s over, it’s over acknowledges that getting the work done is more important than sticking to an arbitrary schedule. Alternatively, Juanita Brown’s (2001) Cafe Conversations ask people to identify and join the conversations that appeal to them most, and Cooperrider’s (1978) Appreciative Inquiry is a way of asking questions and envisioning the future that builds on the basic strengths and deep rooted desires of people. In so doing, these techniques surface the strong links between individual aspirations and organizational goals and squarely place the onus of transformation on the shoulders of the system stakeholders.

Designers of large-group change techniques suggest that the role of the facilitator is to create both the psychological and physical space for joint discovery. The role of the facilitator is not one of defining goals and directing change, but of discovering or unleashing energy for change (Bunker & Alban, 1992a; Weber & Manning, 1998). For example, Owen (1992) suggests that the facilitator’s role during an open space meeting is to “create an open forum in order for the ‘energy’ that always exists among a group to emerge” so that it can be channeled for productive use (in Manning & Binzagr, 1996, p. 274). Similarly, Weisbord and Janoff (1995) describe Future Search as a process that unleashes creative energy as people “simultaneously discover mutual values, innovative ideas, commitment, and support” (p. 3) and Dannemiller and Jacob (1992) describe their work as “releasing the knowledge, creativity and skills of the workforce”. (p. 482)

Why do Large-group Change Techniques Work?

Perhaps Dannemmiller’s (1988, in Dannemiller & Jacob, 1992) arthritic organization is an apt starting place for exploring why large-group techniques are effective. An arthritic organization is one in which functional units cease to communicate or connect, due largely to the specialization of tasks and the development of horizontal fiefdoms. As domains become tightly defined, rigidity sets in and the system is no longer able to adapt its processes or relationships in response to changing environmental conditions. In effect, each silo of the organization works independently in isolation from all others.

If we think of the organization as interconnected systems that must collaborate and connect in service of its customers, we see that Dannemiller’s arthritic organization sets the stage for polarization and confrontation, rather than collaboration and alignment. The arthritic organization, with procedural, emotional, and structural blockages at each joint, prevents people from communicating, learning, and adapting. As mishaps occur between units who need to collaborate but don’t, feelings of depersonalization and paranoia escalate, ultimately resulting in greater mistrust and polarization of goals and values (Hirschhorn, 1992).

Large-group change techniques, on the other hand, appear to be an antidote to the causes of conflict, and conversely, an enabler of collaboration. First they bring the stakeholders of a system together in a common, public setting, with boundaries for respectful interaction and skilled facilitation. Structure and boundaries create both a physical and psychologically safe space for people to voice their opinions, be heard, and hear others. People working in targeted task groups have an opportunity to connect with each other, note differences and similarities, and develop a real appreciation and empathy for each other’s interests (Dannemiller & Jacobs, 1992; Hirschhorn, 1992). Small-to large-group activities give people the opportunity to join and feel connected to each other and create the shift from individual to group goals; important elements for enabling people to work collectively (Jack Gibb, 1970, in Dannemiller & Jacobs, 1992).

As people join in and connect with each other, the stage is set for learning. Through action learning, a common database is built first around “what is”, then around “what can be” and next around “how to move forward”. Accordingly, people develop new, expanded mental models that provide a platform for the creation of super-ordinate common ideals. As they work collectively, people are confronted by the reality of their humanness and can choose to dissolve harmful stereotypes that have filtered their images of each other and prevented the formation of healthy working relationships. Simply put, large-group techniques provide an alternative structure-from a slow moving arthritic one, laden with unhealthy conflict producing dynamics-to an adaptable, collaborative one, whereby members share and agree on data, define joint interests, find super-ordinate values and build relationships. Activities, Dannemiller (2000) suggests, lead to the creation of healthy, aligned organizations with “one heart, one brain” (p. 27). An antidote to the arthritic organization syndrome, large-group technique creates porous, easy to penetrate boundaries amongst people and units of all levels, to enable deep and pervasive action.


In his video Productive Workplaces, Marvin Weisbord suggests that in its heyday, factory managers adopted the techniques of scientific management, but left out the values associated with worker respect, union-management cooperation and employee development. “They took the words”, Weisbord claims, “but forgot the music.” As a result, scientific management became paradoxically associated with piecemeal pay and management-worker strife. Noting the same sentiment, McGregor (1960,1985) referred to new strategies without a requisite shift to Theory Y attitudes as putting “old wine in new bottles” (1985, p. 42). It’s a familiar story, and over the years we’ve seen techniques such as workplace re-engineering and the learning organization, hastily employed, minus the rich theoretical underpinning which gives the techniques their real force and meaning.

As we have seen, large-group change techniques are based on a sound, theoretical underpinning including whole systems thinking, action learning, conversation, and group development (Weber & Manning, 1998; Manning & Binzagr, 1996). Armed with a deep appreciation of these theoretical assumptions, contemporary scholars and practitioners are mixing and matching various activities from the original techniques, and incorporating new thinking and methodologies such as scenario planning (Bunker & Alban, 1992 b). These innovations confirm that the conceptual framework underpinning large-group theory is remarkably robust and that as long as the values are honoured, techniques can be employed interchangeably. As practitioners and theorists, it is our duty to honour the deep root structure from which our innovations are based, thus ensuring the words and music evolve together.


Argyris, C. (1980). Overcoming organizational defences. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Barrett, F., Fann Thomas, G., & Hocev, S. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale change: A social construction perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(3), 352-372.

Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1967). The confrontation meeting. Harvard Business Review, 45(2), 149-155.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Brown, J., & Issacs, D. (2001). The world cafe: Living knowledge through conversations that matter. The Systems Thinker, 12(5), 1-9.

Brown, J., & Issacs, D. (2005). The world cafe: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler.

Bunker, B. & Alban, B. (1992a). Editors’s introduction: The large group intervention – a new social innovation? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(4), 473-479.

Bunker B.B., & Alban B. (1992b). Conclusion: What makes large group interventions effective? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(4), 579-591.

Bunker, B. & Alban, B. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cook, S., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.

Cooperrider, D. & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.) Research in organizational change and development: Volume 1 (pp.129-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295.

Dannemiller, K., & Jacobs R. (1992). Changing the way organizations change: A revolution of common sense. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(4), 480-498.

Dannemiller Tyson Associates. (2000). Whole-Scale change. unleashing the magic in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Emery, M., & Purser, R. (1996). The search conference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541-570.

Hedburg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn? In P.C. Nystrom & W.H. Starbuck (Eds). Handbook of organizational design (pp. 8-27). London: Oxford University Press.

Hirschhorn, L. (1992). The destruction of a synagogue community: Polarization in a postindustrial world. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(4), 549-565.

Hurley, T., & Brown, J. (2010). Conversational leadership: Thinking together for a change. Oxford Leadership Journal, 1(2), 1-9.

Ledford, G., & Mohrman, S. (1993). Self-Design for high involvement: A large-scale organizational change. Human Relations, 46(1), 143-173.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.

Lewin, K. (1953). Studies in group decision. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics, research and theory (pp. 483-492). Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.

Lippitt, R. (1983). Future before you plan. In R. A. Ritvo & A. G. Sargent (Eds.). The NTL manager handbook (374-381). Arlington, VA: NTL Institute.

Manning, M., & Binzagr, G. (1996). Methods, values, and assumptions underlying large group interventions intended to change whole systems. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4(3), 268-284.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.

McGregor, D. (1960) The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McGregor, D. (1985) The human side of enterprise (25th Anniversary Printing). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Mink, O. G., Esterhuysen, P. W., Mink, B. P., & Owen K. Q. (1993). Change at work: A comprehensive management process for transforming organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 107-114.

Owen, H. (1992). Open space technology. Potomac, MD: Abbott Publishing.

Pasmore, W., & Fagans, M. (1992). Participation, individual development, and organizational change: A preview and synthesis. Journal of Management, 18(2), 375-97.

Seo, M., Putnam, L., & Bartunek, J. (2004). Dualities and Tensions of Planned Organizational Change. In M. Poole, M. & S. Van de Ven (Eds.). Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73-107). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schein, E. (1996). The three cultures of management: Implications for organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9-20.

Schein, E. (2010). In his own words: A conversation with Edgar Schein. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 15(2), 112-120.

Trist, E., & Bamforth, W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long wall method of coal-getting, Human Relations, 4, 3-38.

Weber, P., & Manning, M. (1998) A comparative framework for large group organizational change interventions. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore, W.A. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 225-252). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Weisbord, M. (1992). Discovering common ground. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Weisbord, M. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2000). Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Participation that Matters: Creating Shifts that Enable Individual and Organizational Change

To lay the groundwork for true and effective participation among stakeholders, change agents must create an environment that enables high quality conversations and learning interactions and that engenders strong positive emotions.

A few years ago, under the direction of a new facility manager, the Human Resources Director of a large Canadian oil refinery approached me to complete a whole-systems operational assessment. I advised an alternative approach, suggesting that I facilitate the work of a steering team that would guide this critical effort and design its own set of interventions. While the HR Director was intrigued by the approach, she declined, saying that she had “no time” as the new facility manager wanted the recommendations yesterday. I gave her the names of several consulting firms and the assessment was duly completed. Two years later she called me and reported that none of the consultant’s recommendations had been implemented. I asked why, and her answer confirmed a deep truth about enabling change. In essence, she said that because senior managers and key staff were not involved, they did not support the recommendations. Sadly, they had a strategy with no people committed or energized to make it happen.

Download PDF: Participation that Matters: Creating Shifts that Enable Individual and Organizational Change

Organization Development Primer: Change Management, Kurt Lewin and Beyond

While change theorists explore the process of planned change from various perspectives, most would acknowledge the intellectual roots of their work stem from Kurt Lewin’s laboratory. Scratch the surface of planned change theories and Lewin’s spirit and conceptual framework will not be far below. A German-born psychologist, Lewin was considered the “founder of social psychology.” What follows is an exploration of how Lewin’s work provided the deep root structure from which planned change theory has evolved.

Download PDF: Organization Development Primer: Change Management, Kurt Lewin and Beyond

Organization Development Primer: Theory and Practice of Large Group Interventions

With organizations and their environments in a state of constant flux, organizational development researchers have been challenged to develop methodologies that enable fast yet comprehensive change. In response, a wide range of large-group change techniques has emerged, including future search, open space, simu-real, and search conference.

Dowload PDF: Organization Development Primer: Theory and Practice of Large Group Interventions

Organization Development Primer: A Review of Large Group Interventions

Large group interventions are designed to help people collaborate effectively by thinking and acting from a whole-systems perspective. “Whole systems” refers to the way an organization operates internally through its processes and externally through its relations to customers and other stakeholders. There are a number of core values underpinning all whole-systems change methodologies.

Download PDF: Organization Development Primer: A Review of Large Group Interventions

Energizing Organizational Readiness

At its core, facilitating organizational change is about energizing the right people to design and execute smart strategies. As sociologist Philip Selznik says: “Strategies take on value only as committed people infuse them with energy.”

Simply put, all organizational change is envisioned and enacted by committed, engaged, and at times, adventurous people. While energized people are required for change to happen, more often than not, people don’t start out that way. At the onset of any given change initiative, approximately 10% of the target population will be energized supporters, another 10% will be staunch resistors and the remaining majority will take a wait and see approach. While these bystanders are not active saboteurs, they are not energized to exert the necessary effort to make change happen. This too is resistance.

And so, for every planned change effort, small or system wide, we should expect resistance. It is a normal and natural human reaction to change. In fact, people resist for good reasons. People simply may not have enough data and information to understand the why, what and how of the change; this is informational resistance. Alternatively, people may resist for personal reasons; they may feel a sense of loss of familiar work patterns and relationships, or fear that they may fail or lose power, control, and status. Or the resistance may be more culturally based; people may believe that the change can’t possibly work in their organization; they may fear that the leadership are not capable or committed to the change goals or they may see the norms and culture rooting people to the status quo. Whatever the possible causes, people are more invested in spending time and energy preserving the status quo and the devil they know.

If we as change agents forge ahead and try to make the change happen, and fast, we feel its full force. When the going gets tough, and it always does, it is we who must solve all the problems, configure all the workarounds, and remove all the barriers. While we expend much energy, just like the mythical Greek king, Sisyphus, we never make any real headway.

A Better Way: Dannemiller’s DxVxF>R

Building on the pivotal work of Richard Beckhard (1969), who recognized that for change to occur, people must experience a greater pull towards the change than the pull they feel from the status quo, Dannemiller and her associates (1994) created a change process designed to energize a critical mass of stakeholders to accept and create change. Her change process is built on the notion that for change to occur, people must have a deep appreciation for the why, what, and how of the change, or DxVxF as they describe as follows:

Our version states that for change to occur, the product of dissatisfaction with the present situation (D), a vision of what is possible (V), and first steps to reach the vision (F) must be greater than resistance to change (R). If any element is missing, the product will be zero. Since we all resist change to some extent, if the product is zero we will not overcome resistance and no change will occur. In other words, if people are able to absorb new information, they will see the world differently (paradigm shift) and, once their paradigm shifts, their behaviour will change as a result.1

What is the best way to create DxVxF?

There is no substitute to engaging people in critical conversations with colleagues, customers, suppliers and experts to explore and identify the many reasons for change, the desired possibilities for the future and the paths to getting there. Building a critical mass of support through DxVxF creates leverage. It is a strategy that enables change agents to join with people, to make them all smart about why change, to what and how.

Working with change leadership teams over the years, one of most compelling insights that I’ve had, is that if you spend time creating D and V, you will create the spark for working at warp speed when you reach F – or implementation. That’s because when people have a deep appreciate of why change is necessary (D), and what the ideal solution encompasses (V), they know what to do; the right actions (F) are embedded in their DNA. That’s why a brilliant diagnosis made by a select few may be a waste of time if it does not resonate with the people who need to make it happen. In many ways, change is all about learning, and doing the diagnosis is a critical step. You need to think carefully about who needs to be engaged in real learning for the change to succeed.

The simple truth is that energy for change is a product of the process that we use to lead change. When our process enables the right people to embrace the big questions about why change and to what, and to stay in a place of uncertainty and confusion while we collect data and sort out the answers, we create the basis for real learning, sound decisions and speedy implementation.

1 Dannemiller Tyson Associates, Inc. Real Time Strategic Change: a consultant guide to large scale meetings. Page 6.



Maurer, Rick. Beyond the Wall of Resistance: Unconventional Strategies That Build Support for Change. Bard Press, 1996

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Learn more about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information at Queen’s University.