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

Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A Review and Re-evaluation
Field theory was central to Kurt Lewin’s work yet, after his death, interest in it declined significantly until the 1990s when a variant, force field analysis, became widely used. This paper examines the origins, purpose and continuing relevance of field theory. It especially looks at the influences of gestalt psychology, topology and Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of science on its development. It argues that Lewin’s attempt to replace conventional topology with his own Lewinian mathematics-based topology in pursuit of scientific rigour resulted in the undermining of its relevance. The paper also compares force field analysis with Lewin’s original conception of field theory and shows that it has significant weaknesses in terms of rigour. It concludes that a return to Lewin’s original conception of field theory, based on gestalt psychology and conventional topol- ogy, can provide academics and practitioners with a valuable and much-needed approach to managing change.

Introduction

Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) was one of the leading psy- chologists of his generation (Marrow 1969; Tolman 1948). His work provided the foundations of Organ- ization Development (OD) and is still considered by many as central to it (Boje et al. 2011; Burnes 2004a, 2007; Burnes and Cooke 2012; Cooke 2007; Cummings and Worley 2005; French and Bell 1990; Kleiner 1996; Wheeler 2008). As Edgar Schein commented:

There is little question that the intellectual father of contemporary theories of applied behavioural science, action research and planned change is Kurt Lewin. His seminal work on leadership style and the experiments on planned change which took place in

The authors would like to thank Allan Macpherson, Associ- ate Editor IJMR, and the three reviewers of this paper for their help, advice and support. They would also like to thank Professor Ladd Wheeler for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
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. (Schein 1988, p. 239)

In his lifetime, Lewin was best known for the development of field theory (or topological psychol- ogy as he also called it), which provided the theoreti- cal underpinning of all his applied work (Cartwright 1952b). A notable example in the management context was his ground-breaking study of leadership styles, which demonstrated the efficacy of demo- cratic over laissez-faire and autocratic leadership styles (Lewin 1939b; Lewin et al. 1939; Lippitt 1939). For Danziger (2000, p. 349), the significance of this piece is not just what it says about leadership, for which it is best known, but because it is a ‘para- digmatic’ Lewinian exemplar of field theory.

Lewin developed field theory over a 25-year period starting in the 1920s (Cartwright 1952a; Marrow 1969). Drawing on field theory in physics, he argued that ‘the order of coexisting facts in a psychological or social situation can be viewed as
[a life] space’ (Lewin and Lorsch 1939, p. 401). Lewin’s field theory states that it is possible to under- stand, predict and provide the basis for changing the behaviour of individuals and groups by constructing a ‘life space’¹ comprising the psychological forces influencing their behaviour at a given point in time (Back 1992; Diamond 1992). Lewin originally devel- oped field theory in order to understand individual behaviour, but later he used it mainly as a method for analysing and changing group behaviour (Burnes 2007).
Field theory played a central part in all Lewin’s work by allowing him and his associates to under- stand the forces that sustained undesired behaviours, and to identify those forces that would need to be either strengthened or weakened in order to bring about desired behaviours (M. Lewin 1998). It was one of the four elements that make up Lewin’s planned approach to change, the others being group dynamics, action research and the three-step model of change (Burnes 2004a). The role of field theory and group dynamics was to understand how particu- lar social groupings were formed, motivated and maintained. The role of action research and the three- step model of change was to change the behaviour of these social groups. Though there is a tendency to treat these as separate aspects of Lewin’s work, Allport (1948, p. ix) states: ‘All of his concepts, whatever root-metaphor they employ, comprise a single well-integrated system.’
However, the foundation on which planned change was built was field theory. Without this, it is not possible to understand the forces that maintain current behaviour and identify those that would have to be modified in order to bring about change. Unfor- tunately, while group dynamics, action research and the three-step model of change have garnered much support since Lewin’s death in 1947, ‘the general understanding of field theory by social scientists has grown increasingly vague’ (Gold 1992, p. 67; see also Danziger 1992, 2000; Deutsch 1968). Indeed, by the 1980s, leading books on OD and social psy- chology hardly mentioned field theory per se (e.g. Cummings and Huse 1989; French and Bell 1984; Lindzey and Aronson 1985). In the 1990s, there was a renewed interest in field theory (Back 1992; Gold

1992; Hendry 1996; Schein 1996), but, as will be shown, what generally emerged was a watered-down version of Lewin’s original concept.

In reviewing and re-evaluating field theory, we argue that the main reason for the decline of field theory was Lewin’s pursuit of mathematical rigour over practical relevance. As Gulati (2007, p. 775) notes: ‘A long-standing debate among management scholars concerns the rigor, or methodological soundness, of our research versus its relevance to managers.’
It is a debate that continues to preoccupy manage- ment scholars (see Bartunek 2007; Hodgkinson and Rousseau 2009; Polzer et al. 2009). Schultz (2010) neatly sums up the debate, arguing that achieving rigour and relevance is a difficult balancing act – too far down the rigour route; and research can lose its relevance – usability – for practitioners; too far down the relevance route, and practice ceases to be based on methodological soundness.
Lewin was popularly iconized in Marrow’s (1969) biography of him: The Practical Theorist. The book’s title comes from Lewin’s famous aphorism ‘that there is nothing so practical as a good theory’ (Lewin 1943–44, p. 169). Lewin’s yardstick for rigour was that his approach to change should be based on a sound theoretical–methodological foundation. His yardstick for relevance was that his approach to change should enable individuals and groups to understand and restructure their perceptions of the world around them (Burnes 2007; Lewin 1942). Therefore, it may seem strange that he is accused of misjudging the rigour–relevance balance. However, as this paper will show, in his development of field theory, even the ‘practical theorist’ could take a step too far and end up sacrificing relevance in his search for rigour.
This paper examines the origins and purpose of field theory, particularly its foundation in gestalt psy- chology and topology, and its connection to Lewin’s philosophy of science. Then it explores the reasons for its decline after Lewin’s death and argues that this was primarily brought about by Lewin’s pursuit of inappropriate mathematical rigour. It goes on to examine the resurgence of interest in field theory in the 1990s and, in particular, the variant known as force field analysis. It also examines the relevance of field theory to current, social-constructionist- influenced OD practices, such as dialogic OD and appreciative inquiry (AI), and argues that they are compatible with and would benefit from field theory. The paper concludes that a return to Lewin’s original conception of field theory, based on gestalt psychol- ogy and conventional topology, can restore the rigour–relevance balance in Lewin’s work and provide academics and practitioners with a valuable and much-needed approach to managing change.
The paper begins by describing gestalt psychology.