The Marriage of Theory and Practice in Large Group Interventions: Renewing the Wedding Vows

By Tarling, John

Abstract Using data from a qualitative study of eight O.D. practitioners and a literature review, the relationship between theory and practice of large group interventions (LGI) is explored A significant dissociation in this relationship is evident, and the possibility of the intervention process tending towards an abbreviated intervention event is revealed. The resulting implications for the O.D. profession and its clients are discussed.

I recently completed a Masters Program in Organization Development (O.D.). My first career was Medical Research, where I specialized in the field of Radiation Biology. While the professions of Medical Research and O.D. initially may seem vastly different, there is an important and fundamental commonality between them, the marriage of theory and practice and their utilization to achieve tangible results. In science, the marriage of theory and practice is of crucial importance. It can get a man to the moon and help eradicate a cancer. In both these examples a theory, or model, is tested by experiment. If the results are as predicted, the model is regarded as correct or useful. If the results are not as expected, either the model is incorrect or it’s being misapplied. This marriage between theory and practice, and how it relates to O.D., was brought home to me when I conducted a research study as part of the completion requirements for the Masters Program.

My research was intended to be an exploratory study of the practical factors contributing to sustainable results of large group interventions (LGI). Here was an opportunity to ascertain the relationship between theory and practice. The theoretical basis for organizational change had been a foundational element of die Masters Program, and my research study which would include a literature review and a qualitative study of the experiences of eight O.D. practitioners would reveal the practical aspects of sustainability.

However, as the study progressed its focus shifted and another more fundamental theme emerged. One that provided me with a new perspective of O.D., and made me reconsider my accepted relationship between theory and practice. It led me to more questions than answers, and raised significant philosophical and professional issues concerning the practice of O.D.. Specifically, the question arose as to whether LGI are moving away from a theory based and process orientated approach, and tending towards an abbreviated intervention event driven by intervention tool development. This paper discusses this emerging perspective, together with the implications for the O.D. profession.

Literature Review

From my background in science, I had always accepted that literature reviews were the foundation of all research studies; new information is built on the data and knowledge acquired from prior investigations. Thus I was surprised to discover that the literature review, as pertaining to LGI, revealed as much poignant information by what was absent as compared to what was published.

The O.D. literature I found pertaining to LGI was extensive. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science has published two special issues, in 1992 and 2005, dedicated to LGI. In addition, there were numerous articles, internet sites and books which detailed intervention methodologies, tiieir theoretical basis, potential value, application, and conference reports. However, in stark contrast to this “long literature and rich lore about the process of organization change and its engagement in large group interventions” (Mirvis, 2005, p. 112) there was a dearth of information that assesses and, in particular, analyzed the outcomes of these interventions. “Unfortunately, there is little indepth research on these processes or documentation of the outcomes they deliver” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 466). Here was my first major discovery regarding LGI: While the literature was extensive, there were an exceedingly small number of studies which assessed intervention outcomes (Polanyi, 2001).

From my science background, it did not make sense that the logistics of an experiment (intervention) would be published, but not the results. This deficiency offered an opportunity to evaluate the relationship between theory and practice in LGI.

Lack of Assessment Data: Theory and Practice Relationship

The work of social psychologist, Kurt Lewin provides a foundational element in the development of large group interventions, it also offers an enlightening perspective to the lack of assessment data for LGI. A significant contribution Lewin made to change management derives from a host of “practical theories” (Weisbord, 2004) which, in part, constitute the Action Research (AR) Model. Action Research “is the foundation for most O.D. interventions.” (Rothwell, Sullivan and McLean. 1995, p.51) and is a …

process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal, or need ofthat system; feeding these data back in to the system; taking actions by altering selected variables within the system based on both the data and on hypotheses; and evaluating the results of action by collecting more data. (French and Bell, 1990, p.99)

This description of AR held more than a little irony when considered in the context of the lack of assessment data for large group interventions, since assessment of LGI in the literature is lacking; the result is a paucity of data. The iterative process of AR and all the benefits it offers to LGI has been rendered mute.

Further, “The (AR) model serves as a road map to consultants facilitating change, (and) It helps the consultant track where they are and where they are going.” (Rothwell, Sullivan and McLean. 1995, p. 51). Since LGIs have not had the benefit of a literature- derived, data-based AR improvement process there is the possibility that O.D. practitioners can not “track where they are and where they are going.” This possibility came as a great surprise, and was more than a little baffling; I tried to make sense of the O.D. profession not utilizing one of it own tried and trusted tools.

Since AR is so foundational to the work of O.D., it raised the question: Why have so few assessments been made of the outcomes of LGI?

Possible Reasons for the lack of Assessment Data

Factors that discourage LGI evaluations have previously been discussed. Possible reasons have included lack of time and money, perceived lack of value of evaluation, organizational politics and consultant reputation (McLean, Sullivan and Rothwell, 1995). I want to offer two further reasons, of potential significance, for the lack of LGI assessments.

Protectionism and the O.D. Profession

There is a possibility that the lack of outcome assessment points to a fundamental issue within the O.D. profession itself. The intervention methods currently in use have evolved by rendering their predecessors inadequate or obsolete. Concurrently, the O.D. profession has also undergone an evolution. Its credibility has ebbed and flowed, in part, because of a ‘flavor of the moment’ approach by some practitioners, and the failure of previous intervention methods to produce desired results. Consequently, “organization development practice is accused of being fadistic.” (Bunker, Alban and Lewicki, 2004, p. 404) Is the reluctance to critically assess outcomes based on a fear of revealing yet another O.D. method that isn’t wearing any clothes?

There is the possibility that rather than seeking proactive feedback about the interventions, the O.D. community is willing to let organizations ‘push back’ with their own feedback when outcomes are not satisfactory. While this is supposition, it raises the issue of the consultant’s responsibility both to the O.D. profession and to the client’s needs.

Methodological Texts: Client or Consultant Responsibility?

If consultants do not have some responsibility for the outcome of interventions, there is the possibility they have little inclination to assess their results. What are the consultant’s responsibilities? Are they to the intervention event, or to long-term success? When I read the methodological texts of different intervention methods, I was left with some confusion in this regard; while some texts described the consultant’s role, many were ambiguous as to their responsibility. For example, in The World Cafe: Shaping Our World Through Conversations That Matter (Brown and Isaacs, 2005), while the entire book showed how to create and produce a world cafe, there was no mention of any subsequent follow-up (witii or witiiout die consultant). In The Change Handbook: Group Methods for Shaping the Future (Holman and Devane, 1999) the majority of each chapter focused primarily on the method and technique of the intervention method; die book’s focus was the intervention event, where as implementation and sustainability received only minor attention. Future Search: An Action Guide to Finding Common Ground in Organizations and Communities (Weisbord and Janoff, 2000) provided a comprehensive guide for planning and conducting a Future Search Conference. It was interesting to note, of the texts 250 pages only 8, or a little more than 3% of the book, are dedicated to post conference work. Also, the book left little ambiguity as to the responsibility for the success of the intervention. In listing the eight conditions necessary for success, it stated that there is, “Public (client) responsibility for follow up.” (Weisbord and Janoff, 2000, p. 5). In a fundamental regard, the lack of LGI assessment in the literature did not make sense to me. I saw what appeared to be a disconnection between theory and practice: O.D. practitioners were not applying the AR model to their own interventions. If this wasn’t a divorce it was, at minimum, a temporary separation. I would have another opportunity to view the relationship between theory and practice when looking at the data from the qualitative research component of my project. Qualitative Research Results

I was still curious to discover the practical factors contributing to the sustainability of LGI. Since the information from the literature review was surprisingly meager, I conducted a qualitative study utilizing the experience of eight seasoned O.D. practitioners. I asked the practitioners the same two questions: how did you first learn your O.D. skills and how, particularly in regard to sustainable outcomes, has your practice evolved over time? I scanned the texts of the interviews for common areas of comment; I identified these themes as the factors that affected LGI sustainability.

(Initially this qualitative research was to be a major component of my study. However, since the scope and focus of the study had evolved beyond its initial inquiry, only the results are of relevance to this paper.) Details of the quantitative study are reported elsewhere (Tarling, 2006).

Factors Identified That Affect Sustainability of LGI

Four significant themes emerged from the qualitative study. First, for sustainability to take place, six out of the eight O.D. practitioners, spoke of the need for either a cultural shift or building a capacity of self-sufficiency to maintain change. second, six out of the eight O.D. practitioners identified a responsibility for O.D. consultants to educate their clients to prepare for the long term commitment necessary to bring about change; to emphasize that change is not an event, and to focus beyond the intervention event if the successes achieved there are to be carried forward. Much of the client education was part of the pre-conference work, which was another theme identified by five out of eight O.D. practitioners. The pre-conference work was not just to prepare and plan for the intervention event itself, it was essential that some of the planning time is also spent preparing for the post- conference work. Finally, it was clear that adequate postconference work is not only needed to bring about successful interventions, it is critical. Five out of the eight O.D. practitioners spoke of its importance.

From the identified themes I concluded that culture change is crucial for sustaining the results of LGI. This was not entirely new information, the relationship between theory and practice was clearly evident; I remembered the work of Kurt Lewin and Edgar Schein and its contribution to organizational change. I was eager to compare their work with the qualitative data.

Qualitative Data: Theory and Practice Relationship

In addition to the AR model, another significant contribution Kurt Lewin has made to O.D., and in particular to organizational change, is his theory of how change takes place in individuals and with groups: the threephase process of unfreezing, changing or moving, and refreezing (Lewin, 1958, Schein, 2004; Weisbord, 2004). Edgar Schein has extended Lewin’s work, and has successfully adapted the original change model for use in modern corporate culture (Schein, 1987). Schein’s work not only offers theoretical and experimental insights into the complexity of each of the three phases (Schein 2004), it also provides practical guidance and suggestions about how to navigate and facilitate the change process while being immersed in its complexity (Schein, 1999). The importance of culture shift and its relationship to achieving desired change within organizations is evident throughout Schein’s work.

I viewed the work of Lewin and Schein, and the practical experience of the O.D. practitioners in the qualitative study as a good marriage between theory and practice. However, since Lewin carried out his pioneering work in the 1940s and 50s, and much of Schein’s foundational work addressing culture and organizational change was undertaken prior to 1985,1 was interested to see more recent perspectives on this theory and practice marriage. Therefore, I decided to search text books, more recent articles, and the current change methodological texts. I discovered, for the second time, what was absent in the literature revealed as much as was published.

Literature Review Revisited: Theory and Practice Relationship

When I revisited the O.D. literature, focusing on change theory and culture shift as it applies to LGI, I was again surprised with the findings.

In O.D. text books, I found that while significant reference were made to the pioneering work of Kurt Lewin, few reference were made to Schein’s work unless Schein was the author. A personal and subjective observation I made while viewing the O.D. books was that while the work of Lewin was often emphasized as being foundational to O.D., there appeared to be a lack of focus given to the refreezing component of Lewin’s three phase change process. For example, “the Lewinian model of change is fundamental to our conference approach. The essence of the future search is to unfreeze and move a system in the direction of meaningful, deliberate, agreed upon, preferred change.” (Frank, Angus and Rehm, 1992, p142). It is interesting to note here, that while tribute is paid to the importance of the unfreezing component of Lewin’s change theory, it being the essence of Future Search, no reference was made to the refreezing component.

The collective works of Lewin and Schein in the literature are extensive. In light of this it was interesting to note that in The Change Handbook: Group Methods for Changing the Future (Holman and Devane, 1999) there is no reference to the work of either Lewin or Schein. Similarly, while the March 2005 issue of The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences was dedicated to large group intervention, no reference was made in any of the articles to Lewin’s work and only one tangential reference was made to Schein’s work.

If Lewin’s theory of how change takes place is correct, and Schein’s practical work with change in the corporate culture is valid, then where in the O.D. literature was evidence of the refreezing element in the change processes? With so few assessments of LGI, the practical details of the refreezing attempts are unknown. In fact, it is unknown whether the refreezing element of the change process was even attempted. Information detailing the practical refreezing process employed in LGI would be of immense value to O.D. practitioners. I viewed the absence of this data as an indication of disconnection between theory and practice.

There are additional data that provided an added perspective to LGI and the marriage of theory and practice. Estimates of LGI success rates available in the literature were not encouraging: Only 30% of change efforts crucial to an organization’s success achieve intended results (Miller, 2002), successful implementation of strategic plans is between 10%-30% (Raps, 2004), and reengineering success rates for Fortune 1000 companies is less than 50% (Strebel, 2001). Also, in their book Futures That Work, Rehm et al cited a 1999 Fortune magazine article entitled “Why CEOs Fail”, they note, “one variable – the inability to get a strategy executed – was the determining factor in 70% of recent firings of CEOs … It wasn’t the lack of a sound strategy that ousted these titans – but rather lack of execution.” (Rehm et al, 2002, p. xiii). The contribution that lack of refreezing made to the success rates of LGI and firings of CEO’s is unknown. The data are not available.

There was another piece of data in the literature that I found intriguing. A recent study asked O.D. practitioners to rate the influence of 23 O.D./Psychology theorists. Edgar Schein and Kurt Lewin were ranked one and two respectively (Piotrowski, Vodanovich and Armstrong, 2001). While Schein was deemed by O.D. practitioners to be the theorist that influences their work the most, he was rarely, if at all, cited in LGI literature.

This paradox left me with a nagging feeling. In an attempt to resolve it, and to help better understand my own research data, I contacted Edgar Schein and initiated an email conversation. Some of his observations and comments are included in die next section of this paper

(I started this research project with the goal of shedding some light on those factors that sustain LGI results, but I ended up in a completely different place. More questions have been raised than have been answered, and many point to O.D. practitioners and how they practice their craft.)

Implications for the Organization Development Profession

What was going on here? I saw no clear answers that explained the data or helped put my findings in a comprehensive package; I could not make complete sense of it. However, I did see connections between the data. As I looked and re-looked at this information, a single interconnecting theme continually pushed to the foreground; I saw the possibility of a habitual lack of follow-up in LGI. Or, to rephrase it as a question: Was there a tendency, in LGI, of the intervention process being abbreviated to an intervention event?

Intervention Event Rather Than an Intervention Process?

One factor the O.D. practitioners identified as crucial for sustainability of LGI resonated with me: Change is not an event. However, viewing the data as a connected whole, I saw circumstantial support for the possibility of the intervention process tending to an intervention event. Further, western pragmatism has always favored quick fixes, magic bullets, root causes and other instant solutions over processes that are less predictable, that take more time, etc…..even though the evidence is that if you want real change, it is process that you need. (Personal communication, Edgar Schein)

The disconnections I saw, between theory and practice, could be the manifestation of two distinct approaches to LGI. The current practice of O.D. seemed to be driven by tools (Intervention methods), compared with the work and approach of Lewin and Schein, which utilized tiieory and process.

It bothers me about the whole field of O.D.. It is more driven by values and by tool development than by theory. For example, I consider Process Consultation to be based on a theory of how human relations and groups really work. Yet PC is treated as one of dozens of intervention tools, rather than a theoretical underpinning to all interventions. (Personal communication, Edgar Schein)

The divergence of theory and practice may explain why the works of Lewin and Schein were rarely cited in die current LGI literature.

In a recent study of the diffusion of large group interventions in German speaking countries, Susanne Weber cautioned of the danger of the intervention process tending to an event, and the…

degeneration of events into an organizational playground without transformative learning. Organizations may employ LGI’s to be ‘up to date’ and ‘en vogue.’ LGI’s could end up as nothing more than communicative play areas with little effectiveness in fostering organizational change. (Weber, 2005, p. 119)

If LGIs are tending to become an intervention event, I believe the responsibility is to be shared between the client and consultant. Viewing the various intervention methods in the literature, I got the impression of them being a packaged commodity, something that can be sold to a client. Process, in contrast, does not come in a package. It is ambiguous and harder to sell.

There is a strong current in the US consulting industry generally, not just O.D., to develop ‘products’ that can be sold. I am sure there is mutual collusion between the client and consultant on buying packages, events, because it is easier to budget for tiiem and to plan for them, than to get into a project that is open-ended and may involve processes that are uncomfortable somewhere down the line. (Personal communication, Edgar Schein)

Is the focus and resulting packaging of intervention tools yet another manifestation of the faddism of which O.D. has been accused? “Practitioners go to conferences looking only for some new tool to add to their wares. Clients are eager for the new and different, for any magic that will make change easier.” (Bunker, Alban, and Lewicki, 2004, p.404). If an abbreviated process is what the client wants, is it the consultant’s obligation to accept this and provide the best services under the circumstances? Suzanne Weber had some thoughts about this:

The more liberties are taken with LGI, the more it is up to the consultant to make good decisions about what should be done and not done. The question of the deeper essence and the philosophy of consulting arise. The being of the consultant becomes more and more important than their doing. (Weber, 2005, p.120)

I thought Suzanne Weber’s contention was poignant. The O.D. profession and the clients it serves would obviously benefit from adequate follow-up work, and assessments of interventions. The O.D. profession, in some measure, chooses not to do this. In doing so, it does a disservice, not only to its clients, but also to the practice of O.D. itself.

Conclusion

I see a number of disconnections in the marriage between tiieory and practice as it applies to LGI. I view these disconnections as a fundamental flaw in the work of O.D.. While a distinct possibility exists that the LGI process is tending to an abbreviated intervention event, I am not convinced it offers a full explanation to all the data discussed in this paper. However, I do believe that the O.D. profession can only benefit from an open and forthright dialogue on the subject. I see opportunities to bring values and tools, together with theory and process, to form a comprehensive intervention approach that can only enhance the quality of service O.D. practitioners provide to their client. It could be that theory and practice would benefit from reestablishing their marriage vows.

Organization Development practitioners rate Kurt Lewin as the second most influential theorist. I’m sure his famous line, “nothing is so practical as a good theory” resonates with many. It must be remembered however, there is a proviso with this quote. A theory can only be practical if it is put into practice.

References

Brown, J. and Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Cafe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bunker, B., Alban, B., and Lewicki, R. (2004). Ideas in currency and O.D. practice: has the well gone dry? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40, 403-422.

Frank, G, Angus, D., and Rehm, B. (1992). In discovering common ground. By Weisbord, M., San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

French, W, and Bell, C. (1990). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organizational improvement. (4th Ed.) NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Holman, P. and Devane, T. (1999). The change handbook. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decisions and social change. In. readings in social psychology (3rd Ed). Ed. by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 197-211.

McLean, G, Sullivan, R., and Rothwell, W (1995). Evaluation. Practicing organization development: A guide for consultants. Ed. G, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, D. (2002). Successful change leaders: what do they do that’s different? Journal of Change Management, 2, 359-368.

Mirvis, P. (2005). Large group interventions: change as theater. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 122-138.

Piotrowski, C, Vodanovich, S., and Armstrong, T. (2001). Theoretical orientations of organizatioal development practitioners. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 307-312.

Polanyi, M. (2001). Toward common ground and action on repetitive injuries: An assessment of a future search conference. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 465-487.

Raps, A. (2004), Implementing strategy. Strategic Finance, 85, 49- 53.

Rehm, R. et al. (2002). Futures that work. New Society Publishers

Rothwell, W, Sullivan, R., and McLean, G (1995). Models for change and steps in action research. Practicing organization development: A guide for consultants. Ed. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Schein, E. (2004). Kurt Lewin’s Change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Retrieved 10/30/2004, from www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/ kurt_lewin’s_change_theory.htm

Schein, E., (1999). The Corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E., (1987). Process consultation, Vol. II., Addison- Wesley

Strebel, P., (1996), Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business review, 74, 86-92.

Tarling, J., (2006). The marriage of theory and practice in large group interventions: Renewing the wedding vows. Culminating Paper for an M.A. in Organization Development, Sonoma State University.

Weber, S., (2005). The Dangers of success: Diffusion and transition of large group interventions in German-Speaking Countries. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 41, 111-121.

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

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

John Tarling’s education and career experiences are diverse. He was raised and educated in England, obtaining a Ph.D. in Radiation Biology. He worked in a number of different areas of medical research in the UK and the US, in both academia and industry. John lives in Northern California, where for the past 16 years he has owned and operated a small building company (his tangible, constructive and business sides). He obtained an M.A. in Organization Development from Sonoma State University, and currently consult in the San Francisco Bay area (using those sides of his previous careers in addition to his intuitive and humanistic sides). John shares his time between the building business and O.D. consulting practice.

Contact Information

John Tarling

1110 Dry Creek Rd.

Healdsburg, Ca 95448

jtarling@earthlink.net

Copyright O. D. Institute Spring 2008

(c) 2008 Organization Development Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.