Field Theory - Kurt Lewin

Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) was a famous, charismatic psychologist who is now

viewed as the father of social psychology. Born in Germany, Lewin emigrated
to the USA as a result of World War II.

Lewin viewed the social environment as a dynamic field which impacted in an

interactive way with human consciousness. Adjust elements of the social
environment and particular types of psychological experience predictably
ensue. In turn, the person's psychological state influences the social field or
milieu.

Lewin was well known for his terms "life space" and "field theory". He was
perhaps even better known for practical use of his theories in studying group
dynamics, solving social problems related to prejudice, and group therapy (t-
groups). Lewin sought to not only describe group life, but to investigate the
conditions and forces which bring about change or resist change in groups.

In the field (or 'matrix') approach, Lewin believed that for change to take place,
the total situation has to be taken into account. If only part of the situation is
considered, a misrepresented picture is likely to develop.

Later on, yoda in Star Wars brought field theory back into vogue, with his kind
wish for Luke Skywalker, "may the force [field] be with you." But likewise,
Luke had to influence the force.

The following two passages offer a more detailed summary of Lewin's field
theory.

From Smith (2001):

For Kurt Lewin behaviour was determined by totality of an individual�s

situation. In his field theory, a �field� is defined as �the totality of
coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent�
(Lewin 1951: 240). Individuals were seen to behave differently
according to the way in which tensions between perceptions of the self
and of the environment were worked through. The whole psychological
field, or �lifespace�, within which people acted had to be viewed, in
order to understand behaviour. Within this individuals and groups could
be seen in topological terms (using map-like representations).
Individuals participate in a series of life spaces (such as the family,
work, school and church), and these were constructed under the
influence of various force vectors (Lewin 1952).

Hall and Lindzey (1978: 386) summarize the central features of Kurt
Lewin�s field theory as follows:

Behaviour is a function of the field that exists

at the time the behaviour occurs,

Analysis begins with the situation as a whole

from which are differentiated the component
parts, and
 The concrete person in a concrete situation can represented
mathematically.

Kurt Lewin also looked to the power of underlying forces (needs) to

determine behaviour and, hence, expressed �a preference for
psychological as opposed to physical or physiological descriptions of the
field� (op. cit.).

In this we can see how Kurt Lewin drew together insights from topology
(e.g. lifespace), psychology (need, aspiration etc.), and sociology (e.g.
force fields � motives clearly being dependent on group pressures). As
Allport in his foreword to Resolving Social Conflict (Lewin 1948: ix) put
it, these three aspects of his thought were not separable. �All of his
concepts, whatever root-metaphor they employ, comprise a single well-
integrated system�. It was this, in significant part, which gave his work
its peculiar power.

From Jones (n.d.):

Lewin is most renown for his development of

the field theory. The field theory is the
"proposition that human behavior is the
function of both the person and the
environment: expressed in symbolic terms, B
= f (P, E)." (Deaux 9) This means that one�s
behavior is related both to one�s personal
characteristics and to the social situation in
which one finds oneself.

The field theory may seem obvious to us now,

but most early psychologist did not believe in behaviorism. Many
psychologists at the time believed in the psychoanalytic theory that
held human motives to be blind pushes from within. Lewin thought of
motives as goal- directed forces. He believed "that our behavior is
purposeful; we live in a psychological reality or life space that includes
not only those parts of our physical and social environment that are
important to us but also imagined states that do not currently exist"
(Tesser 340).

Lewin�s field theory lead to the development of actual field research on

human behavior. With boldness, Lewin manipulated complex situational
variables in natural settings. His approach has guided experiments in
the field of social cognition, social motivation, and group processes.
Most importantly Lewin helped develop action research. Action research
uses empirical social research, social action, and controlled evaluation.

Quotes by Kurt Lewin

"A successful individual typically sets his next goal somewhat but not too much
above his last achievement. In this way he steadily raises his level of
aspiration."

"Learning is more effective when it is an active rather than a passive process."

"If you want to truly understand something, try to change it."

Discussion about Kurt Lewin and this quote... (theoretical, interesting)

References

Accel-team.coml (n.d.). Change management technique: Kurt Lewin's force

field analysis.

Greathouse, J. (n.d.). Kurt Lewin. Psychology History.

Jones, M. J. (n.d.). Class bios of Kurt Lewin.

Schein, E. H. (n.d.). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the
classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. SoL online

Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action

research. the encyclopedia of informal education.

+++++++++++++++++++

Kurt Lewin – ‘Field Theory Rule’

Presented here is part-two of Dr Jean Neumann’s (TIHR Sr Fellow in Scholarly

Practice) series of articles summarising selected Lewinian principles.

Each article demonstrates Kurt Lewin’s continuing relevance today by using

examples from both the archive and from more recent projects. This second
instalment in the series addresses Lewin’s ‘field theory rule’.

Introduction to Series

A single orientation to organisational change and consulting limits leaders, managers

and consultants as they respond to contemporary pressures on real life
organisations. The Tavistock Institute stands for matching the unique, practical
issues of a particular sector or organisation with approaches that apply an integration
of the social sciences. We emphasize principles that can guide action as the
specifics evolve and the actors change.

Some notions central to the Institute’s ‘house style’ can be traced back to our early
decades when founding staff members were influenced significantly by the work of
Kurt Lewin [See ‘Kurt Lewin at the Tavistock Institute’ at the bottom of the
page here]. This series of articles summarises four such principles and illustrates
them with an example from the archives and from a more recent project. The four,
inter-related principles are:

1. Dynamic approach

2. Field theory
3. Contemporaneity

4. Constructive method

Field Theory Rule

Applying ‘field theory’ for organisational change and consulting requires an

acceptance of its central premise. People and their surroundings and conditions
depend closely on each other. In Lewin’s words, ‘to understand or to predict
behaviour, the person and his environment have to be considered
as one constellation of interdependent factors’ (1946:338). Thus, the notion of ‘field’
refers to: (a) all aspects of individuals in relationship with their surroundings and
conditions; (b) that apparently influence the particular behaviours and developments
of concern; (c) at a particular point in time.

Lewin’s field theory rule states that ‘analysis starts with the situation as a whole’. By
gaining an overview as early as possible, we intend to broaden the perspective from
which we as scholarly practitioners engage with the general characteristics of the
challenge or opportunity facing our organisational clients. Lewin highlighted the
importance of characterizing the atmosphere (e.g. emotional tone or climate) and the
amount of freedom existing in the situation.

Such an overall perspective counteracts the pull to repeat the same unsuccessful
attempts at change and development. Field theory leads us to conclude that such a
pull to repetition comes from forces within the field. As outsiders we may be prone to
believe that we won’t succumb. Thus, after starting with the total situation, our
analysis needs to focus on more specific variables that might be at play. We aim to
represent everything in the field (i.e. people and their environment) that helps or
hinders movement towards the goals for change and development.

Using the field theory rule often results in a figure or some other sort of data display
to represent the psychological field and the inter-relation of its parts. Lewin and his
colleagues (including early social scientists at The Tavistock Institute) favoured
‘topological maps’. These egg-shaped diagrams showed crucial inter-related areas,
arrows to indicate direction of force toward the goal or away from the goal, and often
mathematical equations to indicate possible solutions to problems. Today, additional
analytical methods (e.g. visual and qualitative ones) are made possible with
information technology.

A specific criterion for objectivity when using field theory can improve the quality of
organisational change practice. Lewin asserts that we should aim to represent the
field ‘correctly as it exists for the individual in question at a particular time’
(1946:338). Even when working with collective phenomenon, this discipline for
analysis remains. We need to avoid offering pre-determined solutions or getting
caught in the same field of forces as our clients. Instead, scholarly practitioners take
the time and effort to study the idiosyncrasies of each total situation and make a
representation of the forces being experienced by clients. From that analysis, we
discuss working hypotheses with our clients to assist them in changing their field (i.e.
their behaviour and related surroundings and conditions). We may also be able to
cooperate with them on experiments in moving towards their change goals.

Within The Tavistock Institute’s archive, a study conducted by Don Bryant and Jean
Neumann exemplifies the field theory rule. They were asked by a UK government
department to study the organisational factors in shipping casualties (e.g. accidents
to ships, fires, groundings). Based on an overall view of the British merchant navy,
they designed a study to maximize information about the people and their
environments. They identified individuals in roles implicated in preventing shipping
casualties (e.g. captains and other officers, company directors, agencies for foreign
workers, employee associations and government agencies). They also identified
different types of companies to be represented (e.g. container shipping, gas and oil
fleets, ferry companies, suppliers to drilling platforms). From analysis of over 30
interview notes, they identified about 80 variables considered relevant by individuals
in various roles and from different types of businesses. A large causal map was
made to represent the inter-connected patterns. A notation system indicated the
degree to which individuals thought the patterns helped, hindered or were neutral in
their efforts to avoid casualties at sea. Working hypotheses about types of
organisational factors were identified from this causal map and offered to
representatives from government, the merchant navy and their staff groups. A pivotal
interface became apparent between commercial departments and captains with their
officers.

Another example coming from the Third Sector demonstrates the field theory rule.
The topic concerned how to increase the rate of UK government mandated
innovation within small providers of health and social care services for aging. An
analysis of the total situation showed that money was running out as most of it had
been spent at the level of partnership committees and governance boards. Involving
small providers was the goal. These included ‘mom and pop’ nursing homes, small
advocacy groups and individual and small providers of personal services – many of
them geographically located in rural and seaside locations. For nearly of year,
everyone repeated the experience of being caught by the same forces and not
moving toward the goal. Finally, it was possible to increase the pressure for a series
of geographically situated workshops, at which small providers came together to
offer their experiences in introducing innovations. Adrian Adams, Jean Neumann and
Antonio Sama analyzed this knowledge exchange project between a university and a
social enterprise in such a way that a handful of inter-connected patterns emerged
as influential in small providers’ abilities to innovate. A directly useful insight came
from connecting and reframing particular interactions reported by small provider
Service Managers. When they met with Care Managers and Assessors from
government and regulatory agencies, the atmosphere felt hierarchical and often
challenging. Nonetheless, these incidents of cross-boundary interface demonstrated
key points for customization of services for individual users.

Thus, Kurt Lewin’s field theory rule helps scholarly practitioners of organisational
development and change to ‘start the analysis with the situation as a whole’. Doing
so provides an overview to counteract the possibility of repetitive solutions that don’t
work. A thoughtful analysis represents the field of people and their environment as
one constellation of mutually interdependent factors. Patterns of forces helping or
hindering a goal illustrate promising points of intervention. Thus, clients’ perspectives
can be broadened and their freedom of movement increased.

——————————————-

Lewin, K. (2008) [1946]. Resolving social conflicts & Field theory in social science.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Remember that:

 Change is the result of dissatisfaction with present strategies (performance,

failure to meet objectives etc)

 Change doesn't happen by itself - it is essential to develop a vision for a

better alternative

 Management have to develop strategies to implement change

 There will be resistance to change - it is inevitable, but not impossible to

overcome

Many factors drive change in a business. In his model Lewin identified four forces
which are described below.
Lewin's Force Field Analysis Model

In Lewin's model there are forces driving change and forces restraining it. Where
there is equilibrium between the two sets of forces there will be no change. In order
for change to occur the driving force must exceed the restraining force.

Lewin's analysis can be used to:

 Investigate the balance of power involved in an issue

 Identify the key stakeholders on the issue

 Identify opponents and allies

 Identify how to influence the target groups

Forces for change include:

Internal forces for change (from within the business or organisation)

 A general sense that the business could "do better"

  Desire to increase profitability and other performance measures

 The need to reorganise to increase efficiency and competitiveness

 Natural ageing and decline in a business (e.g. machinery, products)

 Conflict between departments

 The need for greater flexibility in organisational structures

 Concerns about ineffective communication, de-motivation or poor business

relationships

External forces for change (outside the control of the business / organisation)

There are many of these, including

 Increased demands for higher quality and levels of customer service

 Uncertain economic conditions

 Greater competition

 Higher cost of inputs

 Legislation & taxes

 Political interests

 Ethics & social values

 Technological change

 Globalisation

 Scarcity of natural resources

 Changing nature and composition of the workforce

You might conclude from the list of internal and external factors above that the main
pressure for change in a business is usually external. A business has to be
prepared to face the demands of a changing external environment.

Restraining forces (making change harder)

 Despite the potential positive outcomes, change is nearly always resisted. A

degree of resistance is normal since change is:

 Disruptive, and Stressful

 Some common reasons why change is resisted include:

Parochial self interest

 Individuals are concerned with the implications for themselves; their view is
often biased by their perception of a particular situation

Habit

 Habit provides both comfort and security

 Habits are often well-established and difficult to change

Misunderstanding of the need for or purpose of change

 Communications problems

 Inadequate information

Low tolerance of change

 Sense of insecurity

Different assessment of the situation

 Disagreement over the need for change

 Disagreement over the advantages and disadvantages

Economic implications

 Employees are likely to resist change which is perceived as affecting their pay
or other rewards

 Established patterns of working and reward create a vested interest in

maintaining the status quo

Fear of the unknown

 Proposed changes which confront people tend to generate fear and anxiety

 Introducing new technology or working practices creates uncertainty

Many of the potential restraining forces listed above are personal to an organisation's
employees.

There may also be overall organisational barriers to change, including:

 Structural inertia

 Existing power structures

 Resistance from work groups

  Failure of previous change initiatives

Change can also resisted because of the poor way in which change is managed!

For example, a failure by management responsible for the change to:

 Explain the need for change

 Provide information

 Consult, negotiate and offer support and training

 Involve people in the process

 Build trust and sense of security

 Build employee relations

As a result of change resistance and poorly managed change projects, many of them
ultimately fail to achieve their objectives. Amongst the reasons commonly associated
with failed change programmes are:

Employees do not understand the purpose or even the need for change

Lack of planning and preparation

Poor communication

Employees lack the necessary skills and/ or there is insufficient training and
development offered

Lack of necessary resources

Inadequate/inappropriate rewards