Christopher G. Worley, Susan A. Mohrman and Jennifer A. Nevitt, all of University of Southern California, published “Large Group Interventions: An Empirical Field Study of Their Composition, Process, and Outcomes” as the lead article.
Large group interventions are an important method of organization change. The large group intervention literature is largely descriptive and normative and contains a number of case studies that describe the process and some immediate outcomes. There is a large void with respect to empirical investigation. This research tested fundamental hypotheses related to large group composition, process, and outcomes in a field study. Six large group interventions (decision accelerators) were used to develop clinical service area strategies and instigate strategic change in a health care system. The results support the assertion that stakeholder diversity in the group’s composition affects the number of stakeholder perspectives that were heard during the meeting and the breadth of issues addressed during decision making, but failed to support the assertion that composition affects the intensity of debate and disagreement. Stakeholder diversity had a weak relationship with novel and relevant large group outcomes, but debate intensity was strongly related to those outcomes. The implications of these results on large group intervention research and practice are discussed.
Are you interested in receiving email alerts whenever a new article or issue becomes available online? Then click here!