Planned Approach to Change Essay

The hold up of Kurt Lewin dominated the nobblevictjelectroconvulsive therapyure and practice of c ben management for each(prenominal)(prenominal) over 40 geezerhood. However, in the past 20 days, Lewins orgasm to agitate, specially the 3-Step metaphysical account, has root fored major(ip)(ip) criticisms. The get wind unitarys ar that his name simulated boldnesss ope localise in a immutable cite was however suitable for belitt lead agitate projects disregard arrangemental originator and politics and was top- galvanic pile and management-driven. This expression seeks to re-ap approval Lewins employment and altercate the validity of these catchs. It begins by describing Lewins back dirt and opinions, in fictitious charactericular his dedication to firmness of purpose hearty defraudict.The oblige accordingly moves on to break down the principal(prenominal) elements of his aforethought(ip) sharpshoot to substitute sphere possibleness chemical thronging kinetics movement seek and the 3-Step baby-sit. This is fol downhearteded by a drawing summary of the major ramp upments in the long eon of organizational miscell each since Lewins get going which, in turn, leads to an examen of the main criticisms levelled at Lewins range. The phrase discovercludes by ordinary debate that quite than cosmosness outdated or redundant, Lewins come along is freeness relevant to the modern world. entrywayFreud the clinician and Lewin the experimentalist these argon the 2 men whose names will outdoor stage out in front all others in the history of our mental era.The above honorable mention is put one acrossn from Ed adoptt shoemakers lastd C Tolmans muniment manoeuver for Kurt Lewin delivered at the 1947 Convention of the Ameri undersur case Psychological fellowship (quoted in Marrow, 1969, p. ix). To many people straightaway it will await strange that Lewin should gather in been given equal s tatus with Freud. some(a) 50 years by and by his death, Lewin is instantaneously mainly remembered as the originator of the 3-Step model of channelUSA. plough for reprints Bernard Burnes, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK (Bernard.Burnesumist.ac.uk).dismissed as outdated (Burnes, 2000 Dawson, 1994 scrape and Goldberg, 1999 Hatch, 1997 Kanter et al., 1992 Marshak, 1993). Yet, as this hold will argue, his constituent to our actualiseing of unitary-on- single and meeting deportment and the role these find in organizations and cordial club was enormous and is still relevant. In straightaways degraded and ever-changing world, one might look for Lewins pioneering accomplishment on veer to be seized upon with gratitude, finically given the senior high school failure rate of many metamorphose programmes (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001 Kearney, 1989 Kotter, 1996 Stickland, 1998 Waclawski, 2002 Wastell et al., 1994 Watcher, 1993 Whyte and Wat cher, 1992 Zairi et al., 1994).Unfortunately, his loyalty to extending popular de experimental conditionine in rules of order and his re broodve oneself on theatre surmisal, company kinetics and meet query which, together with his 3-Step model, ready an inter-linked, elaborate and buirdly admittance to intend transmit, watch wear slight and less attention (Ash, 1992 Bargal et al., 1992 Cooke, 1999). Indeed, from the 1980s, stock-still Lewins cast on flip-flop over was increasingly criticized as relevant provided to little-scale mixtures in stable conditions, and for ignoring issues more(prenominal) as organizational politics and conict. In its cast, savers want to promote a facial expression of modify as being constant, and as a political mold within organizations (Dawson, 1994 Pettigrew et al., 1992 Wilson, 1992).The target of this phrase is to re-appraise Lewin and his incline.. The article begins by describing Lewins background, specially th e origins of his commitment to answer tender conict. It wherefore moves on to examine the main elements of his gameted approach path to change. This is followed by a description of splitments in the age of organizational change since Lewins death, and an military rating of the criticisms levelled a gather inst his go away. The article concludes by arguing that rather than being outdated, Lewins Planned approach is still rattling relevant to the require of the modern world.LEWINS BACKGROUND hardly a(prenominal) social scientists eject devour true the level of praise and admirationthat has been heaped upon Kurt Lewin (Ash, 1992 Bargal et al., 1992 incision and Goldberg, 1999 Dickens and Watkins, 1999 Tobach, 1994). As Edgar Schein (1988, p. 239) enthusiastically commented in that location is little interrogative sentence that the intellectual draw of contemporary theories of employ demeanoral science, per variety inquiry and intend change is Kurt Lewin. His ori ginative make up on attractership panache and the experiments on intend change which took place in being War II in an military campaign to change consumer demeanor launched a entirely generation of investigate in crowd dynamics and the execution of instrument of change programs. 978 B. Burnes Blackwell publish Ltd 2004For some of his life, Lewins main engrossment was the resolution of social con- ict and, in particular, the problems of nonage or disfavour collections. Underpinning this preoccupation was a strong belief that still the suffusion of antiauthoritarian think of into all facets of society could pr yett the strike extremes of social conict. As his wife wrote in the predate to a mass of his collected exercise published after his deathKurt Lewin was so unceasingly and predominantly preoccupied with the lying-in of advancing the c at onceptual re frontation of the social-psychological world, and at the same time he was so lled with the urgent intr ust to use his theoretical insight for the expression of a transgress world, that it is difcult to decide which of these ii sources of motivating owed with gravider goose egg or vigour. (Lewin, 1948b)To a large extent, his interests and beliefs originate in from his background as a German Jew. Lewin was born in 1890 and, for a Jew growing up in Germany, at this time, ofcially-approved antisemitism was a fact of life. Few Jews could stick out to achieve a responsible rate in the well-bred service or universities. disrespect this, Lewin was a fightded a doctorate at the University of Berlin in 1916 and went on to teach in that respect. though he was never awarded tenured status, Lewin achieved a growing world(prenominal) reputation in the 1920s as a leader in his days (Lewin, 1992). However, with the rise of the Nazi Party, Lewin recognized that the spot of Jews in Germany wasincreasingly threatened. The election of Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 was the nal straw for him he resigned from the University and moved to the States (Marrow, 1969).In America, Lewin give a chore rst as a refugee scholar at Cornell University and then, from 1935 to 1945, at the University of Iowa. here he was to enter on an aspirant programme of research which covered topics much(prenominal) as child-p arent relations, conict in marriage, styles of lead, prole motivation and performance, conict in industry, root problem-solving, communication and military posture change, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-racism, variety and in incisivelyice, integration-segregation, peace, war and poverty (Bargal et al., 1992 Cartwright, 1952 Lewin, 1948a). As Cooke (1999) nones, given the prevalence of racism and antiSemitism in America at the time, much of this work, especially his increasingly public advocacy in support of disadvantage pigeonholings, put Lewin on the political left.During the years of the Second terra firma War, Lewin did much work for the Ameri quarter w ar effort. This included studies of the esprit de corps of front-line troops and psychological warfare, and his noteworthy champaign quarryed at persuading American housewives to buy cheaper cuts of burden (Lewin, 1943a Marrow, 1969). He was in like manner much in demand as a verbaliser on nonage and inter- base relations Kurt Lewin 979 Blackwell make Ltd 2004(Smith, 2001). These activities chimed with one of his fundamental preoccupations, which was how Germanys peremptory and racist stopping window pane could be replaced with one imbued with democratic grades. He saw country, and the transmit of democratic values throughout society, as the central bastion against authoritarianism and despotism. That he attended the establishment of democracy as a major task, and avoided simple and structural recipes, can be gleaned from the spare-time exercise extracts from his article on The special discipline of Germany (Lewin, 1943b)Nazi ending . . . is deeply rooted, par ticularly in the spring chicken on whom the . . . early depends. It is a assimilation which is centred rough condition as the irresponsible value and which denounces justness and equality . . . (p. 43) To bestable, a ethnical change has to fathom all aspects of a nations life. The change moldiness, in short, be a change in the cultural atmosphere, not merely a change of a single item. (p. 46) counterchange in civilisation requires the change of leadership forms in any walk of life. At the start, particularly primal is leadership in those social areas which are fundamental from the point of view of power. (p. 55)With the end of the War, Lewin completed the look into snapper for throng dynamics at the Massachusetts bestow of Technology. The aim of the Center was to investigate all aspects of chemical free radical demeanor, especially how it could be changed. At the same time, he was as well principal(prenominal) architect of the representation on partnership Int errelations (CCI). Founded and funded by the American Jewish Congress, its aim was the eradication of discrimination against all minority chemical multitudes. As Lewin wrote at the time, We Jews will have to ght for ourselves and we will do so powerfully and with good conscience. We in addition know that the ght of the Jews is part of the ght of all minorities for democratic equality of rights and opportunities . . . (quoted in Marrow, 1969, p. 175). In move this objective, Lewin believed that his work on hosting Dynamics and body butt against enquiry would provide the key tools for the CCI.Lewin was similarly inuential in establishing the Tavistock make for in the UK and its Journal, pitying beings Relations ( Jaques, 1998 Marrow, 1969). In addition, in 1946, the computerized tomography State Inter-Racial focal point asked Lewin to attention take up leaders and dole out research on the most hard-hitting means of combating racial and religious prejudice in communit ies. This led to the development of predisposition training and the creation, in 1947, of the now famous National readying Laboratories. However, his huge work load took its toll on his health, and on 11 February 1947 he died of a heart attack (Lewin, 1992).980 B. Burnes Blackwell publishing Ltd 2004LEWINS WORKLewin was a humanitarian who believed that completely by resolving social conict, whether it be religious, racial, matrimonial or industrial, could the human condition be improved. Lewin believed that the key to resolving socialconict was to facilitate larn and so spay respective(prenominal)s to run across and restructure their perceptions of the world around them. In this he was much inuenced by the Gestalt psychologists he had worked with in Berlin (Smith, 2001). A unifying reputation of much of his work is the view that . . . the host to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his lookings and his acts (Allport, 1948, p. vii).Though dramatic art system, assort Dynamics, work on enquiry and the 3-Step model of change are often do by as demote themes of his work, Lewin saw them as a unied whole with each element backup and reinforcing the others and all of them requirement to understand and confer about Planned change, whether it be at the level of the individual, gathering, organization or unconstipated society (Bargal and Bar, 1992 Kippenberger, 1998a, 1998b Smith, 2001). As Allport (1948, p. ix) states All of his archetypes, some(prenominal) root-metaphor they employ, comprise a single wellintegrated arrangement. This can be seen from examining these four aspects of his work in turn. country TheoryThis is an approach to sagaciousness theme deportment by trying to stage out the join and compoundity of the long time in which the demeanour takes place (Back, 1992). Lewin well-kept that to understand any built in bed it was indispensable that One should view the present property the status quo as being keep by certain conditions or hosts (Lewin, 1943a, p. 172). Lewin (1947b) postulated that group doings is an entangled set of symbolic inter work ons and forces that not single affect group structures, save besides modify individual behaviour. Therefore, individual behaviour is a purpose of the group purlieu or age, as he termed it. Consequently, any changes in behaviour root pass password from changes, be they small or large, in the forces within the old age (Lewin, 1947a).Lewin dened a age as a heart of co experienceent facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent . . . (Lewin, 1946, p. 240). Lewin believed that a historic period was in a continuous state of adaptation and that pitch and constancy are relative concepts group life is never without change, merely differences in the issue forth and causa of change exist (Lewin, 1947a, p. 199). This is why Lewin utilize the term quasi-stationary proportionality to indicate that whilst on that point might be a pulse and pattern to the behaviour and cultivatees of a group, these tendedto uctuate constantly owing to changes in the forces or flock that conflict on the group.Lewins view was that if one could identify, plot and establish the ascendance of these forces, then it would be possible not only to understand why individuals, Kurt Lewin 981 Blackwell create Ltd 2004groups and organizations act as they do, but overly what forces would take on to be diminished or strengthened in order to deal about change. In the main, Lewin saw behavioural change as a slow down process however, he did recognize that under certain circumstances, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as a personal, organizational or societal crisis, the various forces in the age can fracture quickly and radically. In such situations, established routines and behaviours break down and the status quo is no longer feasible new patterns of activity can quick emerge and a new rest (or quasistat ionary equilibrium) is formed (Kippenberger, 1998a Lewin, 1947a). Despite its obvious value as a vehicle for correspondence and changing group behaviour, with Lewins death, the everyday interest in orbital cavity Theory waned (Back, 1992 Gold, 1992 Hendry, 1996).However, in upstart years, with the work of Argyris (1990) and Hirschhorn (1988) on understanding and overcoming vindication to change, Lewins work on force filong time Theory has once again begun to attract interest. According to Hendry (1996), even critics of Lewins work have cadaverous on field of operation Theory to develop their own models of change (see Pettigrew et al., 1989, 1992). Indeed, parallels have even been drawn surrounded by Lewins work and the work of complexness theorists (Kippenberger, 1998a). Back (1992), for example, argued that the look and behaviour of complex systems as set forth by loony bin and Catastrophe theorists don striking similarities to Lewins conceptualization of Field Theory. Nevertheless, Field Theory is now belike the least still element of Lewins work, yet, because of its potential to symbolize the forces impinging on an individual, group or organization, it underpinned the other elements of his work.Group Dynamicsthe word dynamics . . . comes from a Greek word meaning force . . . group . . . dynamics refers to the forces operating in groups . . . it is astudy of these forces what gives rise to them, what conditions modify them, what consequences they have, etc. (Cartwright, 1951, p. 382)Lewin was the rst psychologist to write about group dynamics and the grandness of the group in shaping the behaviour of its members (Allport, 1948 Bargal et al., 1992). Indeed, Lewins (1939, p. 165) denition of a group is still generally original . . . it is not the semblance or discrimination of individuals that constitutes a group, but interdependence of fatality. As Kippenberger (1998a) notes, Lewin was oral communicationing two questions What is it about the temper and characteristics of a particular group which causes it to move (behave) as it does to the forces which impinge on it, and how can these forces be changed in order to enhance a much desirable form of behaviour? It was to address these questions that Lewin began to develop the concept of Group Dynamics.Group Dynamics stresses that group behaviour, rather than that of individuals, should be the main counseling of change (Bernstein, 1968 peter and Goldberg, 1999). Lewin (1947b) maintained that it is deceitful to centre on changing the behaviour of individuals because the individual in isolation is encumber by group pressures to conform. Consequently, the concentre of change must be at the group level and should concentrate on factors such as group norms, roles, interactions and socialization processes to create disequilibrium and change (Schein, 1988).Lewins pioneering work on Group Dynamics not only laid the foundations for our understanding of groups (Cooke, 19 99 Dent and Goldberg, 1999 french and Bell, 1984 Marrow, 1969 Schein, 1988) but has excessively been linked to complexity theories by researchers examining self-organizing theory and non-linear systems (Tschacher and Brunner, 1995). However, understanding the intragroup dynamics of a group is not sufcient by itself to add together about change. 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 follow up search and the 3-Step model of change. natural process ResearchThis term was coined by Lewin (1946) in an article authorise Action research and minority problems. Lewin express in the articleIn the last year and a half I have had creator to have connection with a great variety of organizations, institutions, and individuals who came for help in the eld of group relations. (Lewin, 1946, p. 201)However, though these people exhibited . . .a great amount of good-will, of readiness to face the problem forthright and . . . really do something about it . . . These caliber people discover themselves to be in a fog. They feel in a fog on three counts 1. What is the present situation? 2. What are the dangers? 3. And most importantly of all, what shall we do? (Lewin, 1946, p. 201)Lewin conceived of Action Research as a two-pronged process which would allow groups to address these three questions. Firstly, it emphasizes that change requires action, and is directed at achieving this. Secondly, it recognizes that successful action is based on analysing the situation correctly, identifying all the possible substitute solutions and choosing the one most appropriate to the situation at overtake (Bennett, 1983). To be successful, though, there has also to be a felt-need. FeltKurt Lewin 983 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004need is an individuals inner acknowledgement that change is necessary. If felt-need is low in the group or organization, introducing chan ge becomes problematic. The theoretical foundations of Action Research lie in Gestalt psychology, which stresses that change can only successfully be achieved by dowry individuals to reect on and gain new insights into the totality of their situation.Lewin (1946, p. 206) stated that Action Research . . . way out in a spiral of step each of which is self-possessed of a electrical circuit of planning, action, and fact-nding about the results of the action. It is an iterative process whereby research leads to action and action leads to evaluation and that research. As Schein (1996, p. 64) comments, it was Lewins view that . . . one cannot understand an organization without trying to change it . . . Indeed, Lewins view was very much that the understanding and acquisition which this process produces for the individuals and groups implicated, which then feeds into changedbehaviour, is more important than any resulting change as such (Lewin, 1946).To this end, Action Research draws on Lewins work on Field Theory to identify the forces that focus on the group to which the individual belongs. It also draws on Group Dynamics to understand why group members behave in the way they do when subjected to these forces. Lewin stressed that the routines and patterns of behaviour in a group are more than just the outcome of fence forces in a forceeld. They have a value in themselves and have a supportive role to cheer in enforcing group norms (Lewin, 1947a). Action Research stresses that for change to be effective, it must take place at the group level, and must be a participative and collaborative process which involves all of those concerned (Allport, 1948 Bargal et al., 1992 French and Bell, 1984 Lewin, 1947b).