About us
What we do


Anxiety and incompetence in the large group: A psychodynamic perspective

Richard Seel

Journal of Organizational Change Management 2001 Vol. 14, No 5, pp: 493-504

{To download a Word version, click here.}

Keywords: Large groups, Organisational change; Klein, Facilitation, Anxiety.


Insights from psychoanalytic thinking have been widely applied in the field of consulting, training and facilitation; small group theory has also been influential. Perspectives from median [1] and large group work have been less commonly applied. In this paper I explore some of the mechanisms which underlie large group dynamics and show how they can help to illumine some of the destructive processes which may occur when more than about a dozen people meet together. Insights derived from large group perspectives will be used to help explain the dynamics of an organisational event in which a group of experienced consultants were reduced to feelings of profound incompetence and helplessness. Finally I will suggest some ways in which the negative effects of large group dynamics may be ameliorated.


Organisational change is not something which can be directed, controlled or even ‘managed’ (Seel, 2000). It is the emergent result of changes in the relationships between the people in the organisation. If these relationships get ‘stuck’, change will also get stuck.

One result of the growing recognition that change cannot be imposed is the increasing desire to ‘get the whole system in the room’ in order to facilitate organisation change. Approaches such as Open Space Technology (Owen, 1997) and Future Search (Weisbord, 1992) mean that consultants, facilitators and other change agents are now dealing with larger groups of people in their change interventions. The different dynamic of the larger group requires new insights and approaches; otherwise there is a danger of paralysis and disengagement which may lead to the discrediting of the whole change process (see also Gilmore, 1997).

Change provokes anxiety in most of us. Even in smaller groups people sometimes behave in surprising and even disturbing ways. Many writers find it helpful to postulate that this is the result of unconscious or ‘out of awareness’ influences deriving from the psyche of the individuals involved. In particular, attention has focused on the anxiety which is often engendered in group and organisational environments. The work of Melanie Klein, who suggested some infantile mechanisms for dealing with extreme anxiety, has been applied widely in organisational theory and informs the practice of a number of consultants. Her insights were derived from individual analysis but have been extended to cover the small group and also the larger group with more than a dozen or so members.

The contribution of Klein

Melanie Klein extended Freud’s theories about the child’s psychological development backwards in time to speculate about the infant’s mental life. She argued that the first external object the new-born encounters in any sensible way is the mother’s breast. Because of the satisfaction it gives, the breast is perceived as being ‘good’. However, there are also times when the breast is not offered when required or is not able to satisfy the infant’s needs. At these times it is perceived as being ‘bad’. Klein hypothesised that the infant is not able to cope with the extreme anxiety caused by having the same object be both good and bad at the same time. Instead, as a defence against this anxiety, it splits its feelings of love and hate and projects them onto a ‘good breast’ and ‘bad breast’ respectively.

Simultaneously, the infant introjects or internalises its relationship to the good and bad breast, so that their influence remains. Other ‘objects’ such as the mother’s smile are similarly internalised. These objects become, for the infant, the repository of all that is helpful and gratifying or frustrating and persecutory. (Klein, 1952/1997:63)

A further defence, known as projective identification, was identified by Klein in her paper, Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms. Writing of the infant’s desire to project out the bad parts of itself onto (into) its mother she writes, “In so far as the mother comes to contain the bad parts of the self, she is not felt to be a separate individual but is felt to be the bad self” (1946/1997:8). In a later paper (1955/1977) she explains the concept thus:

Projective identification is bound up with developmental processes arising during the first three or months of life (the paranoid-schizoid position) when splitting is at its height and persecutory anxiety predominates. … Identification by projection implies a combination of splitting off parts of the self and projecting them on to (or rather into) another person. (p. 311)

Projective identification can also be seen as a form of communication since the person at whom the projection is ‘aimed’ can often find themselves feeling and acting in ways which are not authentic to themselves but actually derive from the projected characteristics which they have unconsciously assumed. Gilmore and Krantz (1988) argue that awareness of these mechanisms can offer the consultant another dimension in diagnosing a client system.

These primitive mechanisms are postulated to remain with us as we mature, even after we have learned to accept that good and bad may both reside in a single object. When adults are faced with strong anxiety they may revert to may infantile ways of behaving, and many writers assume that the perspectives of individual psychodynamics can be applied analogously to groups or organisations. Thus Bion writes:

The apparent difference between group psychology and individual psychology is an illusion produced by the fact the group brings into prominence phenomena which appear alien to an observer unaccustomed to using the group. (1951/1977:461)

Writers such as de Maré et al (1991) have argued that culture in the group is the analogue of the mind in the individual. They maintain that many insights from individual psychology can be applied to assemblages of individuals since culture also has both conscious and unconscious aspects and the unconscious aspects of both culture and mind are often expressed through myth, symbol and ritual behaviour.

The small group

Change in organisations has traditionally taken place through the medium of small ‘steering groups’ or ‘project teams’, typically with between five and ten members. The results are frequently unexpected. Psychoanalytic writing on the small group has been used to help explain some of the surprises in group behaviour and to offer consultants approaches to improving their effectiveness (e.g. Jarrett and Kellner, 1996).

The work of Bion (1961) has been particularly influential in the small group arena. He notes that all groups have some kind of task; they all, however casual, meet to ‘do’ something (1955/1977:442). This activity is related to reality and its characteristics are similar to those attributed by Freud to the Ego. Bion also observed that, “Work group activity is obstructed, diverted, and on occasion assisted, by certain other mental activities which have in common the attribute of powerful emotional drives” (1955/1977:444).

Bion hypothesises that these drives spring from some assumptions common to the whole group. He identified three of these ‘basic assumptions’, all of which have the function of attempting to deal with anxiety. The first is that the group has met in order to be sustained by a leader on whom it depends, the second is that two of the group (not necessarily of opposite sex) are to pair off and produce hope, perhaps in the form of some Messiah figure or symbol. The third basic assumption is that the group has met to either fight something or else to flee from it. “It is prepared to do either indifferently” (Bion, 1955/1977:448).

These underlying, usually unconscious, assumptions may have a profound effect on the work of the group, especially in areas relating to the management of time and the development of the group (Bion, 1955/1977:453). Bion also notes that the basic assumptions of the group may change, sometimes several times during a group session, even though the work group may continue on the same topics.

Observation of these rapid changes led Bion to question how fundamental the basic assumptions actually are. He came to the conclusion that they are actually all manifestations of primitive mechanisms of response to psychotic anxiety, especially splitting and projective identification as identified by Klein (1955/1977:457).

The large group

As noted above, organisational change is now increasingly involving larger groups. When the size of a group gets above about twelve people, unconscious forces can become even more significant. The commonality implied by Bion’s notion of assumptions basic to the whole group seems no longer to apply. [2] Turquet notes that, “One of the characteristics of a large group is that many of its members remain in the singleton state, unable, possibly unwilling, to join in and so to go through a necessary change of state.” (1975:94) Main offers the following explanation:

The creation of realistic relations in small groups depends upon its members being able benignly and regularly to project experimentally their various attributes, and to undertake reality-testing….In large groups the multiplicity of relations puts thorough reality-testing at a discount; projection systems and personality invasion may thus run rife in networks of unchecked and uncheckable fantasies. (1975:66)

Patrick de Maré and his colleagues put it this way: “It might be said that the larger the group to begin with, the more primitive are its responses, so that the larger group displays features similar to the unconscious of psychoanalysis. These features include a facility for splitting, projecting, introjecting...” (1991:20).

An example of splitting in the large group, which I have observed on a number of occasions, occurs when someone says that everything has got too ‘intellectual’ (or possibly too emotional, but it’s usually the former) and people need to start responding from their feelings. The observation may be justifiable but often leads to a major polarisation with some people in tears and others getting ever more cerebral. Value judgements start being made about which of the two is more ‘authentic’ and the group ceases to pay any attention to task. At least half the group withdraw completely at this point and it needs a major shift to get the dynamics unstuck.

Projection also comes into play in the large group — not onto another person such as the leader, but onto the group itself. This has two consequences: firstly it simplifies relationships, absolving the individual from having to engage with a large number of other people; secondly it reduces the possibility that the individual will suffer attack from others (Main, 1975:68).

The effect of this simplification can be dramatic: individuals who withdraw from personal relationships with other group members are alone and find themselves much more subject to the pressure of inner anxieties and more likely to project unwanted aspects of the self onto the group. This, in turn, can lead to a loss of self-esteem as the self is depleted as a result of the projection:

Many individuals because of projective loss now become ‘not themselves’. Awed by ‘the group’ they are unusually quiet, modest. deferential, and may have noticeable difficulty in thinking or in making unprepared or unwritten statements. The self may now be felt as too ordinary, motives are not noble enough, abilities too few. (Main, 1975:68)

The felt need to make ‘Nobel Prize’ quality contributions inhibits many people in the large group because they fear that their words will seem silly or inadequate. As a result the flow of offerings which are the stuff of good conversation dry up and there is a sense of ‘stuckness’ and lack of cohesion in the group. Productive change becomes impossible and the status quo is reinforced by default.

The case study

In order to demonstrate the powerful influence of large group dynamics I will introduce an account of an event which led to about twenty consultants, including myself, becoming almost totally disabled and incompetent. Because I was a participant I will include data about my own feelings as I recall them — although I am aware that my memory is sometimes a bit unreliable when I have experienced strong emotions.


The incident described took place at an assessment day in 1998 run by Directions, a Birmingham-based consultancy (the name of the consultancy and other individuals have been changed). The day came about because they had recently been successful in gaining a number of large contracts and had placed an advertisement seeking more partners and associates. A large number of freelance consultants responded, all of whom were invited to the assessment day. A few people, including myself, had had some previous contacts with Directions but for the majority this was their first involvement.

The invitation from Directions offered some broad objectives for the day:


    To provide an opportunity for potential associates/consultants to familiarise themselves with aspects of the Directions approach (and vice versa).


    To explore issues in facilitation and consulting in a way which is (hopefully) stimulating, enjoyable and valuable.


    To explore the potential for working together and, if appropriate, to identify the next step(s).

As a scene-setter this list of objectives could immediately set up some anxieties for the freelances. The most important objective for me (and, almost certainly, for the other respondents to the advertisement) was to explore the potential for working together. Yet this is only third on the list of Directions’ stated objectives. There is a dissonance here which could lead to a loss of clarity and confidence in the participants.

Many top-down change programmes fall into the same trap. Staff are bombarded with well-intentioned communications about customer service, greater efficiency, more humane ways of working and so on. All are laudable and doubtless sincerely meant but the key issues for staff: ‘Will I still have a job?’, ‘Does this mean I’ll have to move house?’, ‘Will I get more money’ or even ‘I suppose I’ll have to work for Fiona now!’ are rarely addressed. Anxiety levels immediately go up, infantile responses kick in and adult to adult communication becomes difficult, of not impossible.

Brutal honesty is an alternative: ‘We need to lose about fifty jobs’, ‘Everyone will have to move to Newcastle’, or even ‘We aren’t sure but it looks like Fiona will be heading the division.’ It is seldom popular at first but — once the initial anger has passed — it does permit the possibility of dialogue.

The event

I arrived at 9:30 at the Directions offices. The room was already packed with people. Jeremy (the UK director) greeted me and explained that the actual event would be taking place at a venue up the road. After coffee, orange juice, some snatched fragments of conversation and much noise and confusion we walked to the new location. As we crossed the road someone remarked that it felt like being in a school ‘crocodile’ again. Others nodded and murmured agreement. On arrival we went into a room with a large mirror on one wall. It soon became clear that this was one-way glass and that the room was a studio, used for observing and recording marketing focus groups (there was also a video camera permanently installed, though not recording).

The initial gathering at the Directions offices served to increase the anxiety. Arrival often permits a release of tension gathered during the journey. Here the arrival was only temporary. Tension could not be released but was, if anything, enhanced. The remark about the school crocodile was indicative of a sense of regression to more infantile anxiety states. Looking back I can remember identifying with the remark and starting to feel myself slipping into a dependency mode where I was prepared to let things happen to me.

I can also remember the frisson of mixed shock and fascination when I realised that the large mirror was actually one-way glass. I sought out the observation room and watched as people settled themselves down, some still unaware of the nature of the room. At a rational level it was a satisfactory venue but emotionally it felt uncomfortable and added to my sense of unease. Several others commented on it with a slightly forced jocularity which I suspect masked similar feelings.

Companies recognise the need for good face to face communications during change. But too few pay much attention to setting and environment. The ‘road show’ approach, now so popular, where managers ‘present’ to staff can infantilise staff and reinforce divisions. Exploring more relaxed approaches, such as a café society where people sit around small tables and listen and have conversations with one another could be more productive.

There was just enough room to sit in a large circle around the walls of this room. There were about twenty people present, five of whom were Directions consultants. Jeremy led a round of verbal introductions and then explained that he didn’t want to say too much about Directions at that time and that after a couple of initial exercises there was no planned agenda but the space was available to see what might happen.

The introductions were the usual kind and I found that I forgot nearly every name almost immediately. Even worse, I wasn’t clear who were Directions consultants and who were freelancers. One of the defensive tendencies people have in the face of anxieties in the large group is to retreat into depersonalisation. This hinders the development of real work but reduces the perceived risk of attack from others in the group. The somewhat cursory and, for me, uncertain introductions helped create (and certainly did little to prevent) conditions where such depersonalisation could occur. The announcement that there was only ‘available space’ later in the day also provoked some fairly anxious feelings for the group (at least, it did for me).

After an ‘energising’ exercise led by Sarah, another Directions consultant, Jeremy suggested that we contract with each other to consider what we wanted from the day and to set some ground rules. We broke into small groups, each with one Directions consultant, a setting which immediately felt safer and more personalised.

On return to plenary the ensuing discussion was, to my mind, shallow, predicable and avoided the ‘real’ issues such as wanting or needing employment. There was talk of the need to be collaborative rather than competitive — unrealistic in the circumstances, but yet another way of trying to reduce anxiety. One of the freelancers facilitated this session, using a number of ‘degenerative’ interventions’ (Heron, 1975); in particular ‘benevolent takeover’ and ‘oppressive overteach’. This may have been his natural style but may also have been triggered or enhanced by introjecting some of the perceived power and competence of the Directions approach.

This marked the end of the prepared agenda and Jeremy invited contributions from the group. Dull panic descended; I was aware of a massive reluctance to ‘perform’ and a feeling that nothing I could possibly do could be good enough for a room of fellow professionals, let alone the critical gaze of the Directions consultants. In Klein’s terms, I had split my competence from my incompetence and projected it out into Directions. By then identifying my competence with them I was clearly unable to act effectively. Since no-one else acted either, I suppose that similar processes were going on for others.

Similar outcomes can occur in large meetings such as briefings or road shows when people are asked for questions or comments. The majority will project assumptions of omniscience (and possibly omnipotence) onto senior management — they’ve got all the answers so why ask us? Others will do the reverse, assuming total incompetence on the part of the senior team and taking on the role of saviour of the group. Neither the silence of the majority nor the garrulous invective of the minority should be taken as representative of real feelings or reactions.

Sensing the panic, Jeremy eventually suggested a couple of exercises to help bring in some containing structure. One of these invited people to align themselves across the room as an analogue of how keen they were to facilitate a session. Feeling a little better, I placed myself in the middle of the room; only to discover that nearly everyone else was behind me and that I was amongst the most eager!

As a result I and three others agreed to work with John, a Directions consultant, to prepare the next session. He fairly quickly took charge of this, suggesting that we facilitate a review of the morning so far, using mime. I misunderstood his intentions at first, supposing that he was merely offering suggestions as in a brainstorm. However, when I suggested another approach (the use of drawings to capture feelings and impressions) I was firmly rebuffed and told that collaborative activity was needed. Again, this may have been his normal style but I suspect that he was affected by having introjected the massive projection of competence, almost omnipotence, which the freelancers had put into the Directions group. The exercise itself went quite well and took us up to lunch time.

When we reconvened after lunch the composition of the group had changed. Three people had left, including one Directions consultant, and two people had arrived. Apart from a passing reference, there was no attempt to introduce the newcomers or to accustom the group to its new composition. Yet this change in membership was, from a psychodynamic perspective, no trivial matter and re-affirmed all the pre-lunch unease and anxiety. de Maré et al note that, “Experience in the median group [around 20 members] shows that there is a difficulty in developing sufficient fellowship for the group to be able to affirm positively the advent of a new member and to differentiate this arrival from the intrusion into the family of a new-born infant.” (1991:24)

Certainly, the afternoon progressed badly. No-one wanted to ‘take the space’ as Jeremy put it. When one person eventually did, he was clearly all at sea; unsure of what to do or how to do it. I found myself retreating almost totally into myself, saying nothing at all for over an hour. Main’s (1975) description of the effects of projection in the large group seems to fit my experience very well:

In large unstructured groups — with memberships of over 20 or so — projective processes may be wide-spread and can lead to baffling, even chaotic situations, which can bring the group’s work to a standstill. The members will sit in long uneasy silences with even the most resourceful lacking the capacity for contributing usefully. It seems that many individuals at such moments actually do not have their full thinking-capacities at their own disposal. …they have denied, split off and projected much of their mental vigour outside themselves, occasionally into particular individuals but more often into a vague non-personal creation which they call ‘the group’. In the presence of this mysterious powerful ‘group’ they will actually feel stupid, helpless and afraid of what it may do to them if they speak or move incautiously. (p. 60)

This characterised most of the afternoon. One or two suggestions were made but sank like stones into the apathetic narcissism which prevailed. Eventually someone suggested asking the Directions consultants some questions. This suggestion was enthusiastically accepted by the majority. I remember feeling that it was a cop-out but had no energy or courage to voice this feeling to anyone else while in the large group.

I believe that the general acceptance of this exercise was based on a number of factors. Firstly, it did address some ‘work group’ issues since the first stated objective in the invitation was to find out more about Directions. Secondly, it was safe since the focus moved away from the freelancers to Directions. Thirdly, it fitted with the projected competence from the freelancers to Directions and, for me at least, had overtones of supplicants sitting at the feet of the master (although this may be purely my personal fantasy — I haven’t had the chance to check it out with anyone else).

Inviting staff groups to ask questions is a common approach during change initiatives. It seems like a good way to get participation, to ensure that everyone has ‘understood’. Yet these sessions rarely serve their stated purpose. Instead they fill up the time, help people avoid real interaction and reinforce the split between ‘them’ and ‘us’. Finding ways to facilitate real dialogue is much tougher but much more productive.

Further discussion

With the benefit of hindsight, the Directions event could have been managed better. We can draw the following lessons for anyone designing and facilitating a large group event:


     Try to put yourself in the place of the participants. When setting parameters for an event, try to be aware of potential anxieties and issues for potential participants. Address these as directly as possible in any pre-event communications.


    The journey to an event can be a time of heightened anxiety. All sorts of fantasies may be experienced by participants on their way. Be aware of this and offer some unpressurised structure to the arrival part of the event. All too often there is a kind of ‘dead time’ before an event starts when a few cliques form and when others mooch about feeling even more alone and anxious than before they arrived.


    Check that the venue is ‘safe’. The Directions venue wasn’t safe because of the two-way mirror. A conference room next to the CEO’s office may also be unsafe for some members of staff. You don’t always have a choice, but if there are some potential concerns, acknowledge them and do your best to minimise them.


    Introductions in a large group need to be handled with care. Name badges are not popular nowadays but they can be very helpful in avoiding the depersonalisation which can so easily occur in the large group. It is also worth taking time to give everyone a chance to get to know at least the majority of other people by name. There are a number of activities and games which can help with this (throw a cushion and name the recipient, try to say everyone’s name in turn around the room, find a colour or animal for everyone associated with their name, etc.)


    Be clear about the agenda. You don’t have to disclose everything that is going to happen; indeed in an ‘Open Space’ event you will not know what is going to happen. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to give a broad outline of the day to provide some boundaries since lack of perceived boundaries is one of the greatest sources of anxiety. Make it clear who ‘controls’ the agenda; is it negotiable or is it fixed? When will the day end? When will there be breaks?


    Keep changing the configuration. The large group can easily get ‘stuck’. If you keep changing the group size or even just get people to stand up and ‘mill around’ from time to time you can help avoid this stuckness.


    Act to break the pattern. If the discussion in the large group appears to be stuck in a shallow ‘circular’ mode (what in complexity theory might be called a ‘limit cycle attractor’) and you don’t want to change group size or stop the conversation you could try a direct intervention reflecting upon your own here-and-now experience. The outcome is far from certain though; it may have a cathartic effect but it may also lead to massive projection onto you — either of god-like abilities of being able to empathise or of demonic lack of sensitivity and understanding.


    Pay particular attention to yourself. Be aware of the possibility of introjecting the group’s projections. Do you feel really ‘on top’ of what is going on? Do you feel really incompetent today? In either case, beware. Try to ask yourself how much is you and how much is the group. It is in cases like these where the value of a co-facilitator is so clear. They may be similarly affected but at least there is a chance that you can do some serious reality checking with them.


    Handle people’s arrivals and exits carefully. You can’t stop people leaving early or prevent them from arriving late but when they do there is often a temptation to try to minimise the disruption caused. This is probably a mistake. It is normally better to take the time to acknowledge the change in group composition and then to continue with the work.


    Avoid making life too easy for the group. Finally, although it is important to manage boundaries clearly in order to provide a safe environment, it is not a good idea to provide ‘cop out’ activities such as the final question and answer session at the Directions day. Good things can come out of large group events and some of the difficulties encountered are important for growth to occur.


The large group is more than the small group ‘writ large’. It has its own traps and pitfalls but also its own potential for work of a kind which cannot be done in other forums. As de Maré argues, the large group is where issues of culture can be explored and which provides, “a setting in which we can explore our social myths (the social unconscious) and where we can begin to bridge the gap between ourselves and our socio-cultural environment…” (1991:10).

A knowledge of the unconscious forces which can affect this environment can help a consultant to make sense of what is happening and to devise appropriate structures and processes which will enable participants to make the most of the large group experience.


1. de Maré et al (1991:16) make a (somewhat fuzzy) distinction between median groups, with perhaps 15 to 30 members and large groups with more than 30. There is some evidence to suggest that large groups behave more like small groups than median groups: Hopper and Weyman (1975) report that some psychotherapists find that groups of 50 to 75 evince many of the characteristics of those with fewer than ten members. [Return]

2. There is actually some disagreement about this. Turquet (1975:116, 130) denies that basic assumptions are present in the large group; Whiteley (1975:193) claims that they still apply in groups of 50 or so. Lawrence et al (1996), drawing on their experience of large group work in the Tavistock/Leicester Working Conferences on Group Relations, argue that they increasingly come across a new basic assumption — that of ‘Me-Ness’. People acting under this assumption, “act as if the group had no existence because if it did exist it would be the source of persecuting experiences.” Thus, although they assert that commonality can occur in the large group, they suggest that it is a commonality of individuality. [Return]


Bion, W.  (1961), Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, Tavistock, London.

Bion, W.  (1977), “Group dynamics: A re-view”, in Klein, M., Heimann, P. and Money-Kyrle, R. (Eds.), New Directions in Psychoanalysis: The Significance of Infant Conflict in the Pattern of Adult Behaviour, pp. 440–477. Karnac, London. (Original work published 1955)

de Maré, P., Piper, R. and Thompson, S. (1991), Koinonia: From Hate, through Dialogue, to Culture in the Large Group, Karnac Books, London and New York.

Gilmore, T. (1997), “The social architecture of group interventions”, in Neumann, J., Kellner, K. and Dawson-Shepherd, A. (Eds.), Developing Organisational Consultancy, pp. 32-48. Routledge, London.

Gilmore, T. and Krantz, J. (1985), “Projective identification in the consulting relationship: Exploring the unconscious dimensions of a client system”, Human Relations, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 1159-1177.

Heron, J. (1975), Six Category Intervention Analysis, University of Surrey Human Potential Research Project, Guildford.

Hopper, E. and Weyman, A. (1975), “A sociological view of large groups,” in Kreeger, L. (Ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 157-189, Constable, London.

Jarrett, M. and Kellner, K. (1996), “Coping with uncertainty: A psychodynamic perspective on the work of top teams”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 52-66.

Klein, M. (1977), “On identification”, in Klein, M., Heimann, P. and Money-Kyrle, R. (Eds.), New Directions in Psychoanalysis: The Significance of Infant Conflict in the Pattern of Adult Behaviour, pp. 309-345. Karnac, London. (Original work published 1955)

Klein, M. (1997), “Notes on some schizoid mechanisms”, in Envy & Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963, pp. 1-14, Vintage, London. (Original work published 1946)

Klein, M. (1997), “The emotional life of the infant”, in Envy & Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963 pp. 61-93, Vintage, London. (Original work published 1952)

Lawrence, W., Bain, A. and Gould, L. (1996), “The fifth basic assumption”, Free Associations, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 28-55.

Main, T. (1975), “Some psychodynamics of large groups”, in Kreeger, L. (Ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 57-86. Constable, London.

Owen, H. (1997), Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

Seel, R. (2000), “Culture and complexity: New insights into organisational change”, Organisations & People, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 2-9.

Turquet, P. (1975), “Threats to identity in the large groups”, in Kreeger, L. (Ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 87-144. Constable, London.

Weisbord, M. (1992), Discovering Common Ground, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

Whiteley, J. (1975), “The large group as a medium for sociotherapy”, in Kreeger, L. (Ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 193-211. Constable, London.

© 2001 mcb Press

This article is indexed here.

Send mail to richard@new-paradigm.co.uk   with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 12th January 2008
14, Vintage, London. (Original work published 1946)

Klein, M. (1997), “The emotional life of the infant”, in Envy & Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963 pp. 61-93, Vintage, London. (Original work published 1952)

Lawrence, W., Bain, A. and Gould, L. (1996), “The fifth basic assumption”, Free Associations, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 28-55.

Main, T. (1975), “Some psychodynamics of large groups”, in Kreeger, L. (Ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 57-86. Constable, London.

Owen, H. (1997), Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

Seel, R. (2000), “Culture and complexity: New insights into organisational change”, Organisations & People, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 2-9.

Turquet, P. (1975), “Threats to identity in the large groups”, in Kreeger, L. (Ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 87-144. Constable, London.

Weisbord, M. (1992), Discovering Common Ground, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

Whiteley, J. (1975), “The large group as a medium for sociotherapy”, in Kreeger, L. (Ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 193-211. Constable, London.

© 2001 mcb Press

This article is indexed here.