Working elements

Success factors resulting from the basic principles

The basic principles of LSI consequently implicate some design requirements, which can be seen as the "working elements" of LSI. They form the success factors of the intervention design and performance. Although each Large Group Intervention method has a different interpretation and form, I think they all share those elements, as shown in the figure working elements.

Intervention

LGI (the Large Group meeting) is planned as part of a larger effort

In our experience, practioners of all Large Group Methods struggle with maintaining patterns after the event (Eoyang & Quade 2006). Onetime events can lead to cynicism and greater resistance to change. The more successful an event, the more urgent the long-term task to create new ways of working (Bunker & Alban 2006 p. 44). Sustaining the momentum after the LGI is essential (Schruijer 2006; Eijbergen 2008). Gilmore & Bing (2006) emphasize that the post-event strategy must be developed before the event.

Grieten, Labrechts & Corthouts (2006) state that it is not primary the LGI as a method that is important, in essence it is the quality of relation and condition created before, during and after the LGI that is of decisive importance for success of the change process.

Indicators:

• A post-event strategy is planned, or a sequence of LGIs is planned
• The timing of the LGI: not to early and not to late in the process
• Road map of the bigger process is available

Another voice: Future Search is a planning meeting that includes the follow up structure, planned by the participants themselves. So no post-event strategy has to be developed before the event (Weisbord & Janoff 1995).

Working with a planning group for all essential decisionas regarding design, management and logistics

Other names for planning group I found: project group, steering committee, preparation team, support group. For practical reasons I use the term planning group.

Indicators:

• Planning group with key stakeholders, people who have the credibility and connections to get all the other participants to come
• Planning group with diversity in perspectives, interests, identities, potential contributions; a cross section of the system
• Knowledge and ability to select stakeholder groups, especially the under-bound groups
• Facilitator helps the planning group find the common ground of interest across all the stakeholder groups
• Awareness that whole system issues surface as prelude to the larger meeting; points of conflicts are elicited
• Alternative designs with enough diversities are offered and discussed
• An invitation strategy for getting people to commit to the meeting time
• Invitation with strategic questions and a challenging title
• Conscious attention is given to the inclusiveness of participants who represent alternative or opposing perspectives on the issue at hand
• Division of responsibilities is clearly enunciated at a very early stage; participants are responsible for the outcomes of the large group conference
• Planning group has enough confidence in the process

Design is coherent with context, task, relations and directions

How well the principle of compatibility is followed determines how well the remainder can be followed (Cherns 1987). Barbeau and Aronson (2006): there should be contextual, task, relational and directional coherence. The design is a projection screen onto which people put their expectations, visions and aspirations.

• Principles of LSI are respected in design, using them in combination
• Adequate LGI method selected, limitations of the method are discussed
• Awareness of pattern-setting activities that may amplify or dampen the effects of change after the large group meeting
• Awareness that the mere categorization of people into different groups is a sufficient condition for negative stereotyping to develop
• Enough time for preparation and invitation
• Good timing of events considering the circumstances
• Minimal and flexible design for real time adaptation, no more rules than strictly necessary
• A broad spectrum of learning styles is met, work forms addressing head, heart and hands
• Division of work done by planning team and in large group meeting is balanced with available time and budget
• LGI is interactive as much as possible
• Enough time and space to get the work done
• Adequate project management

Participants: getting the right people in the room

• Inclusion of stakeholders: Whole system is in the room (representation, micro cosmos), working across boundaries of the organization; minimum 3 X 3 rule: 3 levels, 3 functions
• Invite those who can influence or are influenced (ARE-IN: with Authority, Resources, Expertise, Information, Need)
• Build critical mass, with capacity to facilitate and lead change
• Highly diverse group: interest, opinion, age, sex, culture
• Unusual meeting: Provide a forum for dialogue among people who rarely have an opportunity to hear one another
• Stakeholders can and will come

Representation: consideration to those who are not present

• Prevent “ghosts”: Prebsents, champions who are only psychological present, can have a strong impact, real or imagined power
• Identify key stakeholders who were unable to attend and arrange to brief them immediately
• All relevant parties are represented in an acceptable way, the number of participants is considered consciously
• Re-use the event briefing materials and working notes to sweep in people who were unable to attend

LGI enables everyone's contribution (inclusiveness, building trust)

• Non-coercive process: people are free to come, no threats or sanctions
• Meeting managed so the entire group can be in dialogue in each stage
• No one is in the “expert” role: no long monologues, presentations etc. , each person having a chance to speak and listen
• Search for common ground: Not an activism against the authority structure, but for the world we want
• Powerful questions that stimulate mind, heart and soul to attract collaborative engagement
• Facilitators invite openness, but participants decide what to reveal
• Leaders express openness, not being in control; they do not intervene or try to control the process, and they contain anxiety
• A structure that let weaker people contribute as well, also room for individual work: a balanced mixture of work in small groups, large group and individual work
• Structure of the event/day facilitates containment, dealing with unpleasant feelings
• No Press invited; if unavoidable, pay special attention to their attitude and reports
• The composition of the small groups must build trust that this is not another form of manipulation
• Participants need no special knowledge or prior training to succeed
• Balance in energetic level of activities
• Meeting face to face is stimulated, to build trust, share information and enhance new relationships; use of technology must serve, not hinder, this process
• Duration and work forms meet the need of people who are not used to or unable to sit still for a longer time (for instance children, disabled, outdoor workers)

Divergence: Explore the whole before fixing any parts, enganing new connnections, building a common database of the system

Explore the whole, before fixing any part (Weisbord & Janoff 1995).

• Reality is perceived in the complexity of its constant becoming; focus is on dynamics in relations, not on positions
• Systems models are created and visualized, so each person is experiencing the whole of their organization or community, in time and space
• Making sense together by honouring the past
• Engage in dialogue about perspectives on the present
• Elicit people’s dreams, making a shared picture of the preferred future
• DivCross pollination connects diverse perspectives, by travelling small groups or sitting in mixed stakeholder groups
• The right information is publicly available at the right time to stakeholders
• Group memory is created by visualization; everything is worked out on i.e. flip charts
• Sufficient “soak” time to digest all the data, interpretations and emotions

Leadership is distributed by shared responsibility and self-management

Decisions that have been taken after a joint problem analyses and solution generation are binding (Gray 1989)

• Structure facilitates self-management, puts the participants in leadership roles
• Focus on contribution: focus on the relations, we instead of the I
• No speakers or consultants telling participants what to think or what to do
• People do all their own data gathering, assembly, analyses, dialogue and wrapping up
• A level playing field, no remote control: people have the work authority needed to accept responsibility for their performance and to give what they have to offer, whatever position they come from
• “The majority rules”, or power plays in design and performance are not accepted
• People have a right to hold back and accept the consequences (no outcome)

Convergence: Tapping into collective intelligence

• Listen and look together for patterns, insights and deeper questions
• Observing the thought process in yourself and others: notice fragmentation or incoherence
• Suspending judgment, assumptions and certainties: Experience unwritten and unconscious rules and patterns
• Accessing the generative order in dialogue, sensing a mutually shared field, experience of a sense of community or collective wisdom
• Playful moments, signs of humour

Conference setting for the LGI facilitates the process, the room setting symbolizes the principles of LSI

• Informal and hospitable atmosphere, a well lighted room with windows
• A neutral and accessible place for all participants, psychological safe
• Location is physically safe to work with large groups
• Location and room setting encourage feelings of equality
• Personal comfort is as high as possible: beverages available at any time, good food, atmosphere, logistics, serving cultural needs
• Meeting physically is necessary to make eye contact: helps building trust, enhances new relationships and invites strategic conversations
• Residential conference gives participants time to interact outside the formal group time, away from other commitments
• Room setting facilitates sharing of information, knowledge, learning
• Facilitators are satisfied with the meeting room

Action planning for next steps is done in the LGI, or soon after

• Energy and ideas are channelled into action planning, identifying next steps
• Common ground and future action first; problems and conflicts are background information
• Agreements are reviewed plenary
• Meeting and progress are celebrated
• Immediate reporting at the end of the LGI, or soon after

Reflection on conditions and principles during LGI

• Continuation thinking begins at start-up, reflection on the action learning questions: what’s happening, what are we learning, what do we need to do next, how to continue
• Participants understand they have a role in diffusion of the conference outcomes throughout the greater system
• Attention is given to the conditions and principles that produce effectiveness

Building of capacity to work participatory

• Facilitators help people explore and develop new patterns of working on engagement, in their own organisation and in the larger system
• Training of support teams in designing their own LGI meetings; grasping is easy, applying is difficult
• Training is planned for people to carry out new roles and to relate with each other in new ways; combination of training and large group conferences

LGI is managed well by facilitators

Facilitators:

• Prepare themselves for "holding space"; room set-up and materials are ready well before starting time
• Make people feel welcome, by setting the right tone
• Set the context by clarifying purpose and process
• Communicate clearly the rules of the game, displayed on the wall and/or in a participant workbook
• Deal with frustration, anger and anxiety; not ignoring them
• Facilitate exploration, work with diversity rather than reducing it via power, stereotyping, conflict avoidance, conformity
• Help people avoiding discussion or debate to engage in constructive dialogue, in function of the jointly defined goals
• Understand thoroughly the level of polarization and manage time to permit the fullest discussion of difference among participants: facilitate the deepest level of common ground instead of a superficial or narrow area
• Keep a clear focus on issues and task

Building of a post-event support structure, during the LSI a delivery system for change is made or initiated

• Follow up planning sessions
• Agreement on a protocol for decision making
• Learning Fairs or workshops for people throughout the organization to share what action groups are doing
• Procedure for monitoring of the action plan, for measuring results, progress and communication
• Building of a systematic and stakeholder-oriented evaluation
• Initiation of ongoing communication processes, an information system is designed in cooperation with primary users (review meetings, newsletters, website, interactive tools)
• Action groups, implementation planning teams, task forces and other temporary structures are put in place
• Agreement with a champion who promises to continue sponsoring the process, affirming and supporting the normative change
• Circulate ideas from the LGI and invite comments from both attendees and other on specific issues
• Adding representatives to an existing group for new interactions
• Infiltrate agendas of already scheduled meetings both inside and outside the organization with relevant follow up from the LGI
• Connection to the existing cycle of policy making

Contra indications to hold the LGI

• Meeting goal is fuzzy or irrelevant to most participants
• People can’t or won’t come 100% of the time
• An important stakeholder group is absent
• Design reinforces the existent power relations (an existing group, LGI has to be tailored to an already planned meeting)
• No time or resources to realize the design in a proper way