Large Group InterventionsEssay Preview: Large Group InterventionsReport this essayThis chapter is all about the unique dynamics that is shared in Large Group Interventions and how to deal with the problems that arises in such groups. At the junction of three intellectual traditions such as psychoanalytic theory, psychology and systems theory that are applied to any organisations, emergence of large group interventions occur. LGI are designed to engage people so that they can think and act efficiently and effectively by keeping mind the whole systems perspective. Kurt Lewin took the innovative to learn the behaviour of people by putting them in small groups. Thus he along with Lippitt conducted many such researches and engaging people in discussions in small groups. The process of getting engage in small groups and reflecting on the same gave rise to a new social innovation called T-group or sensitivity training group.
[Table of Contents]
The Process of the S.F.S.T.U.E.T. Training by Lippitt and Kurt Lewin, p. 617-629 (Kurt Lewin and Kurt Lewin: The Study of the Science of Human Rights, 1991).
[Footnotes]
[1] As with most forms of institutionalised punishment including the deprivation of the right to life and those of the press, the use of large group interventions may be a form of institutionalised denial. For the reasons mentioned above, there are different ways to implement larger group behaviour. In a recent article, Dr. D.D. Zimring made the very clear commitment to a wide range of methods of intervention for people with disabilities: (1) through the use of large group interventions and (2) through a broad range of forms of policy reform.
[2] The definition of ‘large group’ in the UK is ‘the most common definition of the term, generally used in this way only in the UK. But by the wider scope, this has meant many different kinds of collective organisations with different political or social structures.’ S.F.S.T.U.E.T. training has traditionally had a more narrow definition than smaller group intervention groups. This has led to the formation of groups that serve as a bridge on between different sectors, such as teachers’ groups that operate in different contexts and smaller groups that serve as a proxy for each other, or social groups that serve groups and communities. [Lippitt and Lewin 1981]
The following sections are the views of the authors (for the specific section in the following paper I would like to talk about them), though as there are certain points which I think we can all agree on here, as are the views by others, it is our belief that if these views are to be taken into consideration in assessing the overall policy and legal understanding of this area of responsibility, then we would need to take into account the broad range of social movements working in the UK. These ‘national movements’ are usually not individual groups that are engaged in particular work. Instead they are rather local movements which are working to build a movement amongst many people in various ways, to build a collective movement out of different organisations. This is what distinguishes these movements. In that sense the National Defence Front and the National Union of Teachers have been quite successful at creating a national movement as the same group has done many other similar organisations with much greater impact. While organisations have often been linked to politics and are linked to the public interest and which are well connected in the wider community, they are not related to politics and may be connected to the wider social struggle for a more just and equitable system of governance. Thus many of the key elements of the national movement must be in opposition to what and which campaigns are being waged. [Kurt Lewin and Lippitt 1980]
In the last several decades, over 200 different types of groups have arisen – those in teaching, law and community arts, for example – both with and without intervention. All of these groups can have a clear and identifiable mission, including the task of bringing about justice for people based on the basis of equality between all people including those based on gender-based discrimination (P.H. Bewley: The Politics of Gender in America, 2002 – 2006], the role of non-union members in the way a school is governed, the role of gender in the way schools are run, the role of gender in the way sex is treated in schools, and the role of gender in the way that education is produced by different sectors of our society. Some work under the umbrella of ‘group practice’, while
[Table of Contents]
The Process of the S.F.S.T.U.E.T. Training by Lippitt and Kurt Lewin, p. 617-629 (Kurt Lewin and Kurt Lewin: The Study of the Science of Human Rights, 1991).
[Footnotes]
[1] As with most forms of institutionalised punishment including the deprivation of the right to life and those of the press, the use of large group interventions may be a form of institutionalised denial. For the reasons mentioned above, there are different ways to implement larger group behaviour. In a recent article, Dr. D.D. Zimring made the very clear commitment to a wide range of methods of intervention for people with disabilities: (1) through the use of large group interventions and (2) through a broad range of forms of policy reform.
[2] The definition of ‘large group’ in the UK is ‘the most common definition of the term, generally used in this way only in the UK. But by the wider scope, this has meant many different kinds of collective organisations with different political or social structures.’ S.F.S.T.U.E.T. training has traditionally had a more narrow definition than smaller group intervention groups. This has led to the formation of groups that serve as a bridge on between different sectors, such as teachers’ groups that operate in different contexts and smaller groups that serve as a proxy for each other, or social groups that serve groups and communities. [Lippitt and Lewin 1981]
The following sections are the views of the authors (for the specific section in the following paper I would like to talk about them), though as there are certain points which I think we can all agree on here, as are the views by others, it is our belief that if these views are to be taken into consideration in assessing the overall policy and legal understanding of this area of responsibility, then we would need to take into account the broad range of social movements working in the UK. These ‘national movements’ are usually not individual groups that are engaged in particular work. Instead they are rather local movements which are working to build a movement amongst many people in various ways, to build a collective movement out of different organisations. This is what distinguishes these movements. In that sense the National Defence Front and the National Union of Teachers have been quite successful at creating a national movement as the same group has done many other similar organisations with much greater impact. While organisations have often been linked to politics and are linked to the public interest and which are well connected in the wider community, they are not related to politics and may be connected to the wider social struggle for a more just and equitable system of governance. Thus many of the key elements of the national movement must be in opposition to what and which campaigns are being waged. [Kurt Lewin and Lippitt 1980]
In the last several decades, over 200 different types of groups have arisen – those in teaching, law and community arts, for example – both with and without intervention. All of these groups can have a clear and identifiable mission, including the task of bringing about justice for people based on the basis of equality between all people including those based on gender-based discrimination (P.H. Bewley: The Politics of Gender in America, 2002 – 2006], the role of non-union members in the way a school is governed, the role of gender in the way schools are run, the role of gender in the way sex is treated in schools, and the role of gender in the way that education is produced by different sectors of our society. Some work under the umbrella of ‘group practice’, while
This study done by Lewin lead to the foundation of National Training Laboratories (NTL) by Bradford, Benne and Lippitt that mainly help individuals to learn about the groups, considering themselves as members and leaders of the group and experiencing the change. Lewin’s study on various aspects of the group life was carried further by the above mentioned people.
LGI are suited for handling complexity that usually traditional model have. The Tavistock Tradition describes the three basic assumptions i.e. dependence, fight or flight and pairing. These assumptions either can inhibit or facilitate the primary task of any groups. Later in this chapter the concept of open system theory with the dilemmas that are associated with the operation of the larger groups is discussed. the major problem associated with the larger groups are that some people talk a lot while some stay silent. This is because people do not get an opportunity to deliver, most feel it difficult when recognised. Thus these people who find it difficult to speak becomes more passive and it becomes difficult for them to come out of it while the people who speak more gets the lead. This phenomenon is described as “Diffusion of Responsibility” in the chapter. According to this theory the more the size if the group increases, the self sense of responsibility for the group decreases which effects the performance of an individual adversely. So one of the solution for the problem stated earlier is Simu-Real that individuates a person in by placing him in his own work groups. This encourages a person to be responsible for their own experience. In this method an individual is played in small group which allow them to participate and get engaged and thus they accomplish the task assigned to the large group easily.
The conundrum of structure that leads to complete disorganisation. Because of the people from different cultures and their different views, anxiety always develop in the large groups. This can be solved by defining the agendas and job descriptions very clearly to the group members. But the only problem in front of us is that we do not know what structure is required to hold the anxiety that is existing in the group.
The egocentric dilemma is the next issue discussed in the chapter where different people come up with different perspectives on organisational reality and they think that their perspective is the only true reality neglecting the others. So in order to ensure that different people share their view with each other it is necessary that they interact with the people from different departments of an organisation.
The contribution of Bion is described in the later part of the chapter that describes how affect flows in larger groups with its implications. In and all this chapter describes the functioning of larger groups is absolutely different from those of small groups, with highlighting the major issues like individuation and affective contagion that exist in large groups that can be dealt by increasing interaction among the people, forming the small groups within the large group, formulation of a better structure that reduces chaos by increasing harmony among the individuals.
This chapter is all about the unique dynamics that is shared in Large Group Interventions and how to deal with the problems that arises in such groups. At the junction of three intellectual traditions such as psychoanalytic theory, psychology and systems theory that are applied to any organisations, emergence of large group interventions occur. LGI are designed to engage people so that they can think and act efficiently and effectively by keeping mind the whole systems perspective. Kurt Lewin took the innovative to learn the behaviour of people by putting them in small groups. Thus he along with Lippitt conducted many such researches and engaging people in discussions in small groups. The process of getting engage in small groups and reflecting on the same gave rise to a new social innovation called T-group or sensitivity training group.
This