Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: a review and Re-evaluation

Figure 3. NHS force field analysis (NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement 2008)

This figure is taken from the UK National Health Service’s (NHS) Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Therefore, one might assume that any change tools it was advocating would be well sup- ported by an understanding of the underlying princi- ples or theory. However, though the Institute’s website states that ‘Force Field Analysis is a manage- ment technique for diagnosing situations, developed by Kurt Lewin, a pioneer in the field of social sci- ences’, and provides a reference to a collection of Lewin’s papers which is out of print, there is no mention of field theory or its precepts (NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement 2008). Force field analysis is put forward as a relatively straightforward technique for identifying forces for change and forces against. Even more puzzling is the fact that it appears to be seen as an approach to change in itself without any mention of the other elements of Lewin’s planned change. In fairness to the NHS, this is not unusual: most of those who advocate this variant of field theory also ignore the bulk of Lewin’s work. This is perhaps why Boje and Rosile (2010) claim that force field analysis trivializes Lewin’s field theory.

Certainly, the shortcomings and lack of rigour in this watered-down version of field theory can be seen if one compares Figure 3 with Lewin’s representa- tion of a life space as depicted in Figure 2. The com- parison shows that Figure 3 is only focusing on a few elements directly behind or in front of points O and
G. Other elements within the life space, including important relationships and the overall context, are either ignored or not recognized. Schein (1996, p. 28) observed: ‘For change to occur, this force field had to be altered under complex psychological con- ditions because, as was often noted, just adding a driving force toward change often produced an immediate counterforce to maintain the equilibrium.’ At best, just focusing on a few obvious driving and restraining forces, and ignoring the ‘complex psy- chological conditions’ that make up the entire life space, will only provide a very partial understanding of the situation, if not a misleading one. The conse- quences, or unintended consequences, of change ini- tiatives based on such poor foundations are unlikely to be what the change initiators expected. As Merton (1936) argued, unintended consequences arise from an ignorance of the factors that are likely to influence the outcome of an action and of any consequences other than those expected. Force field analysis bereft of Lewin’s field theory is likely to lead to such igno- rance. In effect, ignoring the complexity of human behaviour by reducing it to a simple stimuli-response formula renders unintended consequences inevitable. This may help to explain why it is estimated that some 60–80% of change initiatives fail (Burnes
2009).
It could of course be argued that what proponents of force field analysis are doing is taking Lewin’s mathematically over-complex field theory and making it readily and quickly applicable to organiza- tional life, i.e. they are trying to re-establish its rel- evance. However, there are three problems with this argument. First, most users do not appear to know

that it is a simplified version of Lewin’s theory and, consequently, are not in a position to judge the value or utility of the ‘simplification’ (see ODI 2009). Second, as argued above, while Lewinian topology may be suspect, his gestalt-based field theory and his use of conventional topology to generate life space diagrams are in themselves quite robust and usable (Burnes 2007; Lippitt 1939; Marrow 1969). Lastly, as our understanding of organizations has developed, the trend has been to move from seeing them from the mechanical–behaviourist perspective of Scien- tific Management to understanding them as complex and difficult-to-change social systems (Burnes 2009). Unfortunately, force field analysis seems to want to buck this trend. It appears to have replaced the complex–social perspective of Lewin’s field theory with a simplistic, mechanical–behaviourist approach.
The key issue is whether or not it is possible to apply Lewin’s field theory without Lewinian topol- ogy. To answer this question, one has to examine his major work on the topic: Principles of Topological Psychology (Lewin 1936). This is the nearest Lewin gets to producing a field theory handbook. As with most of Lewin’s work on the application of field theory, it is not an easy read. However, it does have a number of benefits that recommend it to anyone interested in understanding and using field theory. First, in the main it is bereft of the mathematical formulae that pepper Lewin’s later work on the topic. In this book he uses conventional topology to con- struct life spaces rather than Lewinian topology. Second, it takes the reader through a step-by-step process of understanding the principles and some of the practicalities of constructing and using life spaces. Its major drawback is that it does not provide the reader with real-life examples of the use of field theory, though, as the title suggests, this was not the purpose of the book. However, in Lewin’s later work, he does show how he applied field theory to real situations: see especially the examples given in the three collections of his papers: Field Theory in Social Science (Cartwright 1952a); Resolving Social Con- flict (G W Lewin 1948); and The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader (Gold 1999).
A small number of researchers have shown how Lewin’s original conception of field theory, i.e. without the mathematics, can be successfully applied to change initiatives. For example, Brager and Hol- loway (1993) applied field theory to change at a large health facility for elderly people. The study shows the many elements that go to form a life space and
the complexity involved in data collection and ana- lysis. It also shows that data collection must continue throughout the change process and that its assess- ment is not a linear process, but an iterative one whereby, through discussion of their own behaviour, the participants gain insights into and understanding of their situation.
A second example is a study by DePanfilis (1996), which applies field theory to the implementation of child mistreatment risk-assessment systems. As with the Brager and Holland study, this one demonstrates the complexity of constructing a life space. However, though DePanfilis also discards Lewin’s mathemat- ics, she does attempt to give some weighting to the forces within the life space by labelling their impor- tance as high, low or uncertain. In addition, what both studies show is that constructing and interpret- ing a life space is a slow and participatory process that needs to be facilitated by an experienced change agent. The power of Lewin’s work, as these two studies show, and as Schein (1996) maintains, lies not in mathematical formalization, but in its ability to construct life space models that identify important psychological forces and how they interact with each other. The main data on which Lewin constructed life spaces was the participants’ ‘verbal reports’, percep- tions, of their own situation (Deutsch 1968, p. 416). Though this renewed interest in applying field theory is interesting in and of itself, it takes on a greater sense of importance if two other factors are taken into account. The first is a growing recognition of the relevance of the breadth of Lewin’s work to contemporary organization concerns, especially change, ethics and values (Boje et al. 2011; Burnes 2004a; Burnes and By 2012; Coghlan and Jacobs 2005; Elrod and Tippett 2002; Hendry 1996). The argument is that Lewin’s work, including field theory, is not just of historical interest, but has con- tinuing relevance for academics, practitioners and
change participants.
The second and related factor is that newer forms of OD, such as dialogic OD and AI, which are based on a social constructionist perspective, have also been linked to Lewin’s work (Burnes 2004a; Oswick 2009; Van Nistelrooij and Sminia 2010). As a major review of OD by Burnes and Cooke (2012) argues, though Lewin is often painted as a modernist with a unitary view of reality, the gestalt psychology that underpins field theory maintains that individuals and groups perceive and experience the world from their own perspectives, i.e. they have their own view of reality. This is interesting if one considers the criti-