An Overview of Kurt Lewin and the Harwood Studies
LDRS802: Organizational Systems, Change, and Leadership
16 February, 2020
Heather Gennette
Introduction
This article by Professor Bernard Burnes examines the first phase of the Harwood studies
and how the experiments laid the foundation for organizational development (OD) and
participative management. Burnes mentions that there are several other studies commonly used
in research on OD, and this particular study is rarely cited, but the results have been instrumental
in OD. Lewin took his research on group behavior from the laboratory and implementing his
work in a real-life setting. The article is a step-by-step process of how Lewin and his colleagues
implemented concepts such as group decision-making, self-management, and leadership
development at Harwood Manufacturing Corporation (Burnes, 2007).
Thesis
It seems as though Professor Burnes is upset at the lack of exposure the Harwood study
has received in research. He states, “even leading writers in the field either do not mention the
Harwood studies or provide only a passing reference to them” (Burnes, 2007). Burnes feels as
though it had a more significant impact on the OD than other well-known studies and proves its
worth to OD in this article. Burnes wrote a very similar article in 2019 on Alfred J. Marrow and
his contribution to OD in the Harwood studies. He again mentions how this particular
contribution to OD has been "largely forgotten." It is evident that he has a bone to pick with
those who write about Lewin and fail to mention his work at Harwood.
Main Points
The research conducted and concepts implemented at Harwood Manufacturing
Corporation was a hands-on experiment by Lewin and his colleagues over a 30-year time frame.
The Lewin years took place from 1939 to 1947, and they are known to Burnes as some of the
most influential years in OD history (Burnes, 2007). He listed four reasons as to why he wanted
to write and defend his stance on the importance and relevance of the Harwood studies. These
reasons were:
1. They played a central role in the development of Lewin’s work on change.
2. They played a key role in moving research on group behavior and group change from
the laboratory into the real world.
3. They provided the test bed for and laid the foundations of the philosophy and
approach to change adopted by the OD movement.
4. The studies ran for more than 30 years in one organization and are one of the rare
examples of a genuinely longitudinal study. As such, they provide significant support
for the efficacy of participative management.
Before his time at Harwood, Lewin spent his time studying and trying to understand how
to bring about change in group behavior. The corporation allowed him to apply his theories and
concepts in a real-world setting (Burnes, 2007). He initially visited the plant by the President,
Alfred J. Marrow, to help with employee retention. However, there were many other issues that
needed to be addressed, and the company allowed him to try his theories. The fundamental
studies that took place were group decision-making, self-management, leadership training,
changing stereotypes, and overcoming resistance to change. The experiments that took place
gave birth to the concept of participative management and where the tools used in today’s OD
movement were created (Burnes, 2019).
In the article, Burnes makes his case as to why the Harwood studies laid the foundations
for OD and contributed to several milestones in the development of organizational change
(Burnes, 2007). Many of the issues that Harwood faced are very similar to those faced by
organizations today, and the theories and concepts put into place are still used by OD consultants
and researchers to help those companies change their way of doing things.
Burnes largely contributed the reason for the Harwood studies not being mentioned in
scholarly writings was due to Lewin’s death in 1947. Marrow continued the organizational
changes Lewin implemented while alive, but experimentation was minimal. There were change
initiatives and participative management studies done by Dr. Gilbert David and John French that
brought the company great success (Burnes, 2019). Without Lewin's ideas, Harwood was not
newsworthy and was documented by Alfred Marrow in his biography on Lewin (Burnes, 2007).
Critical Assessment
The article is relevant to this course on organizational development. Lewin is known for
his work in group decision making, self-management, participative management, and various
other concepts that are still being used today. Burnes's passion for wanting to make it known
that these theories were first implemented at Harwood is admirable. Many others have written
about Lewin’s innovative work in OD, but little has been mentioned where these concepts were
created and tested. Burnes proved that Lewin's work done at Harwood has stood the test of time
and is still relevant today.
When I looked for additional research on the Harwood studies, I found that Burnes was
right. Most of the work that I found was his (Burnes) and one other by Desmond and Wilson
(2018) on the union perspective of the studies. In this article, they call the studies "a cautionary
tale against the assumption of a monolithic view that equates the interest of management with
that of the organization" (Desmond et al., 2018). The authors spoke about a unitarist and
utilitarian perspective that had a completely different tone than Burnes. They spoke mostly
about the Harwood studies the impact participative management had on unions, calling it a
"Trojan Horse." The article states, "the perspective adopted by Kurt Lewin and his associates
that is arguably among the most benign expressions of this tendency thus laid them open to the
accusation that they acted as servants of power (Baritz, 1960) who used democracy as a means to
engineer consent” (Graebener, 1986, 1987; Desmond et al., 2018). They make it seem as though
participative management is a way to trick employees into thinking they have a say, but all
management cares about is productivity and profits.
Reflection
I find it very interesting that Lewin and his associates were able to accomplish so much in
only eight years. Burnes seems very passionate about the Harwood studies and the vast
contributions to OD that happened there. From all that I have read on Lewin in Weisbord (2012)
and the articles mentioned above, it seems as though he is the father of OD. His ideas and
theories that he put to work at Harwood seemed to yield amazing results. Although Desmond et
al., (2018) seems to find the work of participative management in the Harwood studies as a
hidden agenda by management, I still think that these concepts are relevant and useful for
organizations.
The Harwood studies gave birth to participative management, and that is something that I
try to implement in my life. Although I am most typically the leader in my office and at home, I
only get things done with the help of my team (co-workers and family). We all take part in the
decisions that are made (group decision-making), and then I also give those around me to take on
tasks and responsibilities and allow them to manage themselves (self-management). There were
several concepts that I wish my entire organization would implement, but for right now, I will
continue to practice these in my own office and evaluate our productivity.
References
Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt lewin and the harwood studies: The foundations of OD. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213-224,227-231. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/docview/236352406?accountid=27424
Burnes, B. (2019). The role of alfred J. marrow and the harwood manufacturing corporation in
the advancement of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(4), 397-427.
doi:[Link]
Desmond, J., & Wilson, F. (2019). Democracy and worker representation in the management of
change: Lessons from kurt lewin and the harwood [Link] Relations, 72(11),
1805-1830. doi:[Link]
Weisbord, M. (2012). Productive Workplaces: Dignity, meaning, and community in the 21st
century (3rd ed.). San Francisico, CA: Jossey-Bass
