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

Figure 4. Husband T1


Figure 6. Husband and wife T2


Figure 5. Wife T1

cisms of Lewin from the social constructionist per- spective. For example, Tsoukas and Chia (2002) are critical of what they see as Lewin’s static, stage model of change. However, if one compares Lewin’s gestaltian approach to organizational life with theirs, which stresses the role of flux, perception and sense- making, there are some intriguing parallels. A similar observation can be made of Hatch’s (1997) criti- cisms and her own view of organizational life. There- fore, what field theory offers, counter to many of Lewin’s critics, is a method for identifying indi- vidual and group realities and creating a new organ- izational reality.

This can be seen in Boje and Rosile’s (2010) application of field theory to storytelling, which is itself a social constructionist approach to organiza- tional change (Boje et al. 2011). They use a classic Lewin (1940b) example of marriage to show how multiple realities can give rise to conflict in relation- ships and how this can be resolved by creating a single reality (see Figures 4–6). Figure 4 shows the husband’s life space (reality) at T1. He intends to move closer to his wife’s position and expects her to reciprocate. However, Figure 5 shows that his wife’s appreciation of the situation at T1 is very different, she expects her husband to move away from her and, in response, intends to do the same. Figure 6 shows a
new joint reality at T2 that incorporates what actually happened. Boje and Rosile (2010) argue that only with this joint understanding of their reality (life space) does it become possible for the couple make

successful changes to their relationship.

If one looks at AI, for example, it is possible to see how this non-mathematical version of field theory could be applied to this newer variant of OD. Appreciative inquiry is a form of action research that incorporates dialogic OD and social constructionist theory and comprises a four-stage approach to change: Discovery, Dream, Design and Deliver/ Destiny (Bushe 2001, 2011). As such, it has strong similarities to three of the four elements of Lewin’s planned change, i.e. group dynamics, action research and the three-step model of change. Its underlying social constructionist philosophy is also consistent with Lewin’s gestalt psychology. However, AI does not include field theory. Yet, if one considers that AI begins by attempting to reveal and understand the multiple views of reality in a group or organiza- tion, and then moves on to attempt to construct a new, joint reality, this seems like a situation made for field theory. Applying field theory to AI would have the triple advantage of providing AI with a robust and theoretically sound approach to identifying and unifying multiple realities, facilitating the wide- spread participation that is crucial to AI (Bushe 2011), and reuniting all four elements of planned change.
It could be argued that it would be too time- consuming and involve too many people for Lewin’s field theory approach to change to be made to work, but that could be said of a number of organizational techniques. For example, large-group/whole-system OD interventions, such as Weisbord’s (1987) concept of ‘getting the whole system in the room’, attempt to involve the whole organization. Similarly, the ringi system of decision-making, which is extensively and

successfully used in Japan, seeks organization-wide involvement (Tennant and Roberts 2001).
To sum up, therefore, in examining field theory, we appear to be presented with three variants: first, Lewinian topology that sacrifices relevance in the pursuit of rigour; secondly, force field analysis that sacrifices rigour in the pursuit of relevance; and lastly, Lewin’s original field theory based on gestalt psychology and conventional topology, which appears to possess both rigour and relevance, and does seem to be consistent with and useful for newer forms of OD.