Kurt Lewin and the Planned

Approach to Change
A Re-
appraisal
 • Kurt Lewin dominated the theory and practice of
change management for over 40 years and his
approach to change, particularly the 3-Step
model, has attracted major criticisms. The key
ones are that his work
i. assumed organizations operate in a stable state
Abstract ii. was only suitable for small-scale change
projects
iii. ignored organizational power and politics
iv. and was top-down and management-driven
 • This article re-appraise Lewin’s work
describs Lewin’s background and beliefs,
especially his commitment to resolving social
conflict
• Also examine the other elements of his
Cont…. Planned approach to change:
• Field Theory
• Group Dynamics
• Action Research
• and the 3-Step model
 INTRODUCTION
• this article will argue, his contribution to our understanding of individual
and group behaviour and the role these play in organizations and society
was enormous and is still relevant.
• Unfortunately, his commitment to extending democratic values in society
and his work on Field Theory, Group Dynamics and Action Research
which, together with his 3-Step model, formed an inter-linked, elaborate
and robust approach to Planned change, have received less and less
attention
 Cont….
• From the 1980s, even Lewin’s work on change was continuously criticized because
its relevant only to small-scale changes in stable conditions, and for ignoring issues
such as organizational politics and conflict.
• This article examine his approaches to change in the organizational field and its
concludes by arguing that rather than being outdated, Lewin’s Planned approach is
still very relevant to the needs of the modern world
• Kurt Lewin seminal work on leadership style and the experiments on planned
change which took place in World War II in an effort to change consumer
behaviour launched a whole generation of research in group dynamics and the
implementation of change programs.
 Lewin Background
• Lewin used to teach in University of Berlin, after resigning from there he
moved to America.
• In America, Lewin found a job first as a ‘refugee scholar’ at Cornell
University and then, from 1935 to 1945, at the University of Iowa
• Then he started the research program there which includes child-parent
relations, conflict in marriage, styles of leadership, worker motivation and
performance, conflict in industry, group problem-solving, communication
and attitude change, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-racism, discrimination
and prejudice, integration-segregation, peace, war and poverty
 Cont....
• During the World war 2 Lewin did much work for the American war effort. This
included studies of the morale of front-line troops and psychological warfare
• And he also used to speak on minority and inter group relations With the end of the
War, Lewin established the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The aim of the Center was to investigate all
aspects of group behaviour, especially how it could be changed
• Lewin was a humanitarian who believed that only by resolving social conflict,
whether it be religious, racial, marital or industrial, could the human condition be
improved.
 Field Theory

• This is an approach to understanding group behaviour by trying to map out the totality
and complexity of the field in which the behaviour takes place.
• Lewin postulated that group behaviour is an intricate set of symbolic interactions and
forces that not only affect group structures, but also modify individual behavior
• Lewin think there might be some forces and patterns that causes the behavioural changes
• Lewin’s view was that if one could identify, plot and establish the potency of these
forces, then it would be possible not only to understand why individuals, groups and
organizations act as they do, but also what forces would need to be diminished or
strengthened in order to bring about change.
 Group Dynamics
•‘group dynamics’ refers to the forces operating in groups . . . it is a study of these
forces: what gives rise to them, what conditions modify them, what consequences
they have, etc.
•Lewin maintained that it is fruitless to concentrate on changing the behaviour of
individuals because the individual in isolation is constrained by group pressures to
conform.
•Lewin also recognized the need to provide a process whereby the members could be
engaged in and committed to changing their behaviour. This led Lewin to develop
Action Research and the 3-Step model of change.
 Action Research
• Lewin conceived of Action Research as a two-pronged process which would allow groups to
address these three questions
i. Firstly, it emphasizes that change requires action, and is directed at achieving this.
ii. Secondly, it recognizes that successful action is based on analysing the situation
correctly, identifying all the possible alternative solutions and choosing the one most
appropriate
• Lewin stated that Action Research ‘. . . proceeds in a spiral of steps each of
which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the
results of the action.’ It is an iterative process whereby research leads to
action and action leads to evaluation and further research.
3-Step Model
 • Cited as Lewin’s key contribution to
organizational change.
• Not only focused on organizational issues
• Rather forming an integrated approach to
analyzing, understanding and bringing about
change at the group, organizational and
3-Step societal levels.

Model • Successful change project involved three steps

i. Unfreezing
ii. Moving
iii. Refreezing
 Step 1: Unfreezing
• Lewin believed that stability of human behavior was based on quasi-stationary
equilibrium supported by a complex field of driving and restraining force.
• Equilibrium needs to be destabilized(unfrozen) before old behaviors can be
discarded and new behavior successfully adopted.
• The ‘unfreezing of the present level may involve quite different problems in
different cases. Allport . . . has described the ‘catharsis’ which seems necessary
before prejudice can be removed. To break open the shell of complacency and self-
righteousness it is sometimes necessary to bring about an emotional stir up.
(Lewin, 1947a, p. 229)
 • The key to unfreezing ‘….was to recognize
that change , whether individual or group
level, was a profound psychological dynamic
process.
• Schein identifies 3 processes necessary to
achieve unfreezing:
Schein i. Disconfirmation of the validity of status quo.
View-point ii. the induction of guilt or survival anxiety, and
iii. creating psychological safety
• In other words, those concerned have to feel
safe from loss and humiliation before they can
accept the new information and reject old
behaviors.
 Step 2: Moving
• Schein says that unfreezing creates motivation to learn but does not necessarily control
or predict the direction.
• Lewin’s view that any attempt to predict or identify a specific outcome from Planned
change, one should seek to takes into accounts all the forces at work and identify and
evaluate, on a trial-and-error basis, all the available options.
• This is, of course, the learning approach promoted by Action Research
• Approach of research, action and more research which enables groups and individuals to
move from a less acceptable to a more acceptable set of behaviors.
• Without reinforcement, change could be short-lived.
 Step 3: Refreezing
• Refreezing seeks to stabilize the group at a new quasi-stationary equilibrium in order
to ensure that the new behaviors are relatively safe from regression.
• The main point about refreezing is that new behavior must be, to some degree,
congruent with the rest of the behavior, personality and environment of the learner
(Schein)
• Lewin saw successful change as a group activity, because unless group norms and
routines are also transformed, changes to individual behavior will not be sustained.
• In organizational terms, refreezing often requires changes to organizational culture,
norms, policies and practices
LEWIN AND CHANGE: A SUMMARY
• Lewin was primarily interested in resolving social conflict through
behavioral change, whether this be within organizations or in the wider
society. He identified two requirements for success:
(1) To analyze and understand how social groupings were formed, motivated and
maintained. To do this, he developed both Field Theory and Group Dynamics.
(2) To change the behavior of social groups. The primary methods he developed for
achieving this were Action Research and the 3-Step model of change.
 • Underpinning Lewin’s work was a strong moral
and ethical belief in the importance of democratic
institutions and democratic values in society.
• Since his death, Lewin’s wider social agenda has
been mainly pursued under the umbrella of Action
In term of Research (Dickens and Watkins, 1999).
• This is also the area where Lewin’s Planned
Social approach has been most closely followed.
• For example, Bargal and Bar (1992) described
Agenda: how, over a numbers of years, they used Lewin’s
approach to address the conflict between Arab-
Palestinian and Jewish youths in Israel through the
development of intergroup workshops. The
workshops were developed around six principles
based on Lewin’s work:
 Example of Planned Change
(a) a recursive process of data collection to determine goals, action to implement goals and
assessment of the action;
(b) feedback of research results to trainers;
(c) cooperation between researchers and practitioners;
(d) research based on the laws of the group’s social life, on three stages of change –
‘unfreezing,’ ‘moving,’ and ‘refreezing’ – and on the principles of group decision making;
(e) consideration of the values, goals and power structures of change agents and clients; and
(f) use of research to create knowledge and/or solve problems. (Bargal and Bar, 1992)
 • In terms of organizational change, Lewin and his
associates had a long and fruitful relationship
with the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation,
where his to change was developed, applied and
refinedi believe
• Coch and French (1948) observed that, at
Harwood: ‘From the point of view of factory
In terms of management, there were two purposes to the
research:
Organizationa
(1) Why do people resist change so strongly?
l Change: (2) What can be done to overcome this
resistance?
• Since his death, it is the organizational side of
his work which has been given greater
prominence by his followers and successors,
mainly through the creation of the Organization
Development (OD) movement
 Organizational Development
• OD has become the standard-bearer for Kurt Lewin’s pioneering work on
behavioral science in general, and approach to Planned change in particular
• Up to the 1970s, OD tended to focus on group issues in organizations, and sought
to promote Lewin’s humanistic and democratic approach to change in the values
• Since the late 1970s, in order to keep pace with the perceived needs of
organizations, it has moved away from its focus on groups and towards more
organization-wide issues, such as Socio-Technical Systems, organizational
culture, organizational learning and radical transformational change.
NEWER PERSPECTIVES
ON CHANGE
 NEWER PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE
• By the early 1980s, with the oil shocks of the 1970s, the rise of corporate Japan
and severe economic downturn in the West
• Many organizations needed to transform themselves rapidly if they were to survive
• Lewin’s Planned approach began which is Culture-Excellence school
• The Culture-Excellence approach to organizations, as promoted by Peters and
Waterman (1982) and Kanter (1989)
• Impact on the management of organizations by associating organizational success
with the control of a strong, suitable organizational culture
 Cont.
• Peters and Waterman argued that Western organizations were losing their
competitive control
• Because they were too bureaucratic, inflexible, and slow to change, traditional top-
down, command-and-control style of management which is stressful in Culture-
Excellence both internally and within their environments.
• To survive, it was argued, organizations needed to redesign themselves
• Managers needed to encourage a spirit of innovation, experimentation and
entrepreneurship through the creation of strong, appropriate organizational cultures
 Cont.
• Flexibility is essential instead of close supervision and strict rules
• Organizational objectives need to be promoted by loose controls, based on shared values
and culture, and followed through empowered employees using their own initiative.
• Lewin’s model was a simple one, with organizational change involving three stages;
unfreezing, changing and refreezing
• At the same time, Culture-Excellence school were criticizing Planned change
• Claiming that the objectives, and outcomes, of change programmes were more likely to
be determined by power
 Cont.
• Power is also a central feature of organizational change, but it arises from the socially-constructed
nature of organizational life
• In a socially-constructed world lies responsibility for environmental conditions
• create a democracy
• opportunities for freedom
• Innovation
• The other important perspective on organizational change which developed in the 1980s was the
Processual approach
• Processualist reject prescriptive approaches to change
• They rely on inter-relatedness of individuals, groups, organizations and society political struggles and
coalition-building
 Cont.
• Planned approach is too prescriptive and does not pay enough attention to the
need to analyse and conceptualize organizational change.
• Planned change versus a processual approach
• Although this [Lewin’s] theory has proved useful in understanding planned change under
relatively stable conditions
• The processual framework adopts the view that change is a complex and dynamic process
• There are distinct differences between these newer approaches to change
• Culture-Excellence approach versus the analytical orientation
 Cont.
• In the 1980s, two new perspectives on change developed
• The punctuated equilibrium model
• The continuous transformation model
• In equilibrium periods, Organizations as evolving through relatively long periods of
stability in their basic patterns of activity
• Secondly, organizations do appear to fit the incrementalist model of change for a period of
time, there does come a point when they go through a period of rapid and necessary change
• In continuous model, organizations must develop the ability to change themselves
continuously in a fundamental manner.
 Cont.
• One of the problems with all three perspectives on change –
• Incrementalism, Punctuated equilibrium and Continuous change – is that
all three are present in organizational life and none appear dominant.
• In the form of any type of population of organizations one would expect to
see all three types of change
• Jungian concept of the light and dark, these various perspectives on
change may be shadow images of each other
 Lewin’s Work
Criticisms And Responses
 Criticism 1
Lewin’s Planned approach is too simplistic and mechanistic for a world where
organizational change is a continuous and open-ended process.
Response: Criticisms appear to stem from a misreading of how Lewin
perceived stability and change.
Example: Food habits of a certain group at a given time – is not a static affair
but a live process.
He viewed change not as a predictable and planned move from one stable state
to another, but as a complex and iterative learning process.
 Criticism 2
Lewin’s work is only relevant to incremental and isolated change projects.
Is not able to incorporate radical, transformational change.
Response: This criticism appears to relate to the speed rather than the magnitude of
change.
Even in such situations, as Kanter et al.(1992) maintain, these ‘Bold Strokes’ often
need to be followed by a whole series of incremental changes.
Lewin did recognize that radical behavioural or cultural change could take place
rapidly in times of crisis.
 Criticism 3

Ignoring the role of power and politics in organizations and the conflictual
nature of much of organizational life.
Response: Anyone seriously addressing racism and religious intolerance, as
Lewin was, could not ignore these issues.
Taking into account differences in value systems and power structures.
 Cont.
Quotation:
• problems of attitude and stereotypes
• change of the legal structure of the community
French and Raven’s Power/Interaction Model, on which much of the
literature on power and politics is based, owes much to Lewin’s work.
 Criticism 4
Lewin is seen as advocating a top-down, management-driven approach to change
and ignoring situations requiring bottom-up change.
Response: Lewin was approached for help by a wide range of groups and
organizations.
Regardless of who identified the need to change, Lewin argued that effective
change could not take place unless there was a ‘felt need’ by all those concerned.
He believed that only by gaining the commitment of all those concerned, through
their full involvement in the change process, would change be successful.
 Conclusion
Lewin undoubtedly had an enormous impact on the field of change.
Three issues:
1. Nature of his contribution.
2. Validity of the criticisms levelled against him.
3. Relevance of his work for contemporary social and organizational
change.
 Key Points
Looking at Lewin’s contribution to change theory and practice, there are
three key points to note.
The first is that Lewin’s work stemmed from his concern to find an effective
approach to resolving social conflict through changing group behavior.
The second point is to recognize that Lewin promoted an ethical and
humanist approach to change.
The last point concerns the nature of Lewin’s work.
 Criticism
The main criticisms levelled at Lewin are that:
1. Simple and mechanistic
2. His approach to change is only suitable for isolated and incremental
change situations.
3. He ignored power and politics.
4. He adopted a top-down, management-driven approach to change.
Thank You
Any questions?