1. Scientific Methods

As Lewin put it, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory (Lewin, 1943, 1999, p336).” Lewin rigorously applied scientific method to planned change. Because of this his methods can be clearly described and applied to any organizational or social change.

2. Training—Action—Research

The basic elements of planned change included: “…action, research, and training as a triangle (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p149).”

Such training—action—research (as Lewin’s student and colleague Dr. Ronald Lippitt more correctly put it in his 1949 book), more commonly referred to as “action research,” is to be conducted at multiple levels. Most important to addressing the immediate situation is participant action research; action research by the people facing the problem_ “The laws (of social science) don’t do the job of diagnosis which has to be done locally. Neither do laws prescribe the strategy for change (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p150).”

A corresponding “law of social science” is that solutions are much more likely to be implemented by the people who come up with them. Imposed solutions are likely to flounder. By engaging the people facing the problem, the social scientist is already shifting a potential restraining force (trying to hand off or impose the solution) into a driving force: “It can be surmised that the extent to which social research is translated into social action depends on the degree to which those who carry out this action are made a part of the fact-finding on which the action is to be based (Lewin, 1945, 1997, p55).”

Also important is research by the social scientist so as to continuously test, improve, and add to the body of knowledge on planned change. As Lewin put it, there are: “Two Types of Research Objectives—It is important to understand clearly that social research concerns itself with two rather different types of questions, namely the study of general laws of group life and the diagnosis of a specific situation (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p145).”

3. Group Dynamics

Lewin’s research clearly documents that group versus individual interventions prove to be far more effective as a method of planned change: “…it is easier to change ideology or cultural habits by dealing with groups than with individuals (Lewin, 1944, 1999, p289).”

Group dynamics are critical to planned change because individuals are heavily influenced by their primary social environments: “B = f(P,E)–Behavior is a function of the person AND the environment (Lewin, 1940, 1997, p188).”

Group dynamics are the practical doorway into application of all of these principles, and all of these principles are present in group dynamics.

4. Democratic Principles and Leadership

Planned change doesn’t happen in a power vacuum. Lewin was clear that understanding, influencing, and working with authority relationships is critical to planned change. He is quoted as saying, “We have to realize that power itself is an essential aspect of any and every group (Marrow, 1969, p172).”

The type of authority that yields the best results is clear: “Democratic Leadership—a group atmosphere can be changed radically in a relatively short time by introducing new leadership techniques…(Lewin, 1944, 1999, p289).”

Democratic leadership involves allowing freedom and influence while still clearly being in charge: “The experiments show that this shift in roles cannot be accomplished by a ‘hands off’ policy. To apply the principle of ‘individualistic freedom’ merely leads to chaos…to be able to change a group atmosphere toward democracy the democratic leader has to be in power and has to use his power for active re-education (Lewin, 1943, 1997, p43-45).”

Leadership and followership based on democratic principles takes skills that can’t be relied on to come naturally:

“Autocracy is imposed on the individual. Democracy he has to learn (Lewin, 1939, 1997, p66).” “Autocratic and democratic leadership consists of playing a certain role. These roles of the leader cannot be carried through without the followers playing certain complementary roles, namely, those of an autocratic or a democratic follower…The democratic follower has to learn to play a role which implies, among other points, a fair share of responsibility toward the group and a sensitivity to other people’s feelings.” (Lewin, 1944, 1999, p289)

One of Lewin’s most creative inventions was a learning process called the “T-group,” in which participants learn democratic principles by applying scientific objectivity to their immediate interactions. We will explore T-groups in depth in Chapters 10 and 12.

5. Group Decision

Effective group involvement in diagnosis and decision shifts group dynamics from being a restraining force to a driving force for change: “The procedure of group decision in this experiment follows a step-by-step method designed (a) to secure high involvement and (b) not to impede freedom of decision (Lewin, 1947, 1999, p271).”

“…complete acceptance of previously rejected facts can be achieved best through the discovery of these facts by the group members themselves (Lewin, 1945, 1997, p55).”

“We have seen that a planned social change may be thought of as composed of unfreezing, change of level, and freezing on the new level. In all three respects group decision has the general advantage of the group procedure (Lewin, 1947, 1997, p331).”

Specifically, group decision regarding goals and standards is a powerful driving force:

“That the problem of individual morale is to a large extent a social psychological problem of group goals and group standards is thus clear, even in those fields where the person seems to follow individual rather than group goals (Lewin, 1942, 1997, p87).”

“Such a shift would involve…a shift from imposed goals to goals which the group has set for itself…

Experiments in industry under controlled conditions show a substantial permanent increase of production created in a short time by certain methods of ‘team decision,’ an increase in production that was not accomplished by many months of the usual factory pressure (Lewin, 1944, 1999, p287).”

“For high morale, the objective to be reached will represent a great step forward from the present state of affairs…Morale demands both a goal sufficiently above the present state of affairs, and an effort to reach the distant goal through actions planned with sufficient realism to promise an actual step forward (Lewin, 1942, 1997, p90).”

6. Change as Three Steps

Lewin’s approach to planned change is complex yet practical. The unfreeze, move, freeze model, referred to by many (but notably not by Lewin) as Change as Three Steps (CATS), intentionally simplifies the phenomenon it is describing, as any good theory will. CATS is woven throughout his thinking and writing, not just with those exact words but with field theory concepts such as homeostasis. Lewin’s action research is full of references to unfreezing the current homeostasis (by preferably weakening restraining forces), moving the field (again by changing the configuration of forces that make up the field), and freezing in place a new configuration of forces. To only focus on CATS as some have done, to critique it as too simple, and to miss how it is woven into his universal model of social science and planned change is a mistake.

7. Field Theory

Field theory—a form of systems thinking borrowed from the physical sciences—emerged as one of Lewin’s most consistently applied models:

“The basic statements of a field theory are that (a) behavior has to be derived from a totality of coexisting facts, (b) these coexisting facts have the character of a ‘dynamic field’ in so far as the state of any part of this field depends on every other part of the field (Lewin, 1940, 1997, p187).”

“The constellation of the social field as a whole has to be studied and so reorganized that social events flow differently (Lewin, 1947, 1997, p327).”

“The Field Approach: Culture and Group Life as Quasi-Stationary Processes—Food habits of a group, as well as such phenomena as the speed of production in a factory, are the result of a multitude of forces. Some forces support each other, some oppose each other. Some are driving forces, others restraining forces. Like the velocity of a river, the actual conduct of a group depends upon the level (for instance, the speed of production) at which these conflicting forces reach a state of equilibrium (Lewin, 1943, 1997, p290).”

Lewin’s application of field theory to industrial production and morale consistently yielded significant and lasting change:

“Production in a Factory—The output of a factory as a whole or of a work-team frequently shows a relatively constant level of output through an extended period of time. It can be viewed as a quasi-stationary equilibrium. An analysis of the relevant forces is of prime importance for understanding and planning changes (Lewin, 1947, 1997, p319).”

Instead of simply applying pressure/forcing a change, Lewin’s research supports identifying and addressing restraining forces as a foundation for successful planned change: “…In the first case, the process…would be accomplished by a state of relatively high tension, in the second case, by a state of relatively low tension. Since increase of tension above a certain degree is likely to be paralleled by higher aggressiveness, higher emotionality, and lower constructiveness, it is clear that as a rule, the second method will be preferable to the high pressure method (Lewin, 1948, 1999, p280).”

Lewin developed methods that reliably decreased the restraining forces, achieved the desired results, were sustainable, and could be replicated by others. His methods not only provide a reliable method for planned change, but also lie at, or at least mirror, the roots of all forms of process improvement: “Rational social management, therefore, proceeds in a spiral of steps each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p146).”

Never did Lewin claim that planned change didn’t run into unplanned challenges. On the contrary, he was clear that it is predictable that unpredictable challenges will emerge which must be addressed through a combination of sound methods and will power: “To my mind the differences between success and defeat in such undertakings depends mainly upon the willingness and the guts to pull through such periods (Morrow, 1969, p176).”

He was also clear that while unfreeze and freeze were useful concepts, that nothing is really frozen. Systems exist before and after the change in a quasi-stationary homeostasis: “Change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in the amount and type of change exist (Lewin, 1947, 1997, p308).”

8. Social Construction of Reality

Lewin’s leveraging of group dynamics opens a doorway for influencing individuals at the level of values and beliefs. “Social

Construction of Reality…what exists as reality for the individual is, to a high degree, determined by what is socially accepted as reality… Reality therefore is not an absolute. It differs with the group to which the individual belongs…the general acceptance of a fact or a belief might be the very cause preventing this belief or fact from ever being questioned (Lewin, 1945, 1997, p49).”

Lewin demonstrates in the following example (where the presenting problem was a conflict) that to shift the social construction of reality the social scientist must be mindful not to alienate the people involved (a more detailed exploration of this industrial intervention is in Chapter 11):

“The procedure of the psychologist is based on the hypothesis that the permanent conflict is at least partly the result of some faulty organization of production…

To gain their wholehearted co-operation later on it seems best to start the detailed fact-finding here, and it is also necessary to have the first suggestions for the new rules of production worked out by this group.

…if those operators who usually did not make trouble were to initiate a solution, the trouble-makers would probably resist, feeling that they had been first left out and later pushed into something.

…the preliminary interviews have set the stage for this perception (Lewin, 1944, 1997, p97).”

That Lewin did not try to address this conflict by taking on the parental role of enforcing “good behavior” is a subtle yet critical element of planned change. He targeted the technical/ production more overtly than the social elements of the system, a focus the group could join with dignity: “The realistic demands of production have to be satisfied in a way which conforms with the nature of group dynamics. To bring about a permanent solution it does not suffice to create amicable relations (Lewin, 1944, 1997, p102).”

Similarly, Lewin viewed passive behavior as a likely restraining force, and active behavior as a driver. Even when training, Lewin applied methods of active participation: “Lecturing is a procedure by which the audience is chiefly passive. The discussion, if conducted correctly, is likely to lead to a much higher degree of involvement (Lewin, 1948, 1999, p271).”

For Lewin the social scientist had to join the system, rather than keep it at arm’s length, and certainly must not hold themselves separate from or as better than the people they are assisting: “…in spite of whatever status differences there might be between them, the teacher and the student have to feel as members of one group in matters involving their sense of values.

The chances for re-education seem to increase whenever a strong we-feeling is created (Lewin, 1945, 1997, p55).”

That includes allowing people to speak freely and to think for themselves: “Yet a feeling of complete freedom and a heightened group identification are frequently more important at a particular stage of re-education than learning not to break specific rules (Lewin, 1945, 1997, p55).”

That freedom begins from the first contact, and allows the social scientist to build trust while they begin to influence the social construction of reality: “This attempt to change perception by an ‘action interview’ (as distinguished from a mere ‘fact-finding interview’) is one of the basic elements of treatment. By reorienting…perception from the field of personal emotional relationship to the same field of ‘objective’ facts, the life-spaces which guide the action of these persons have become more similar although the persons themselves are not yet aware of this similarity (Lewin, 1944, 1997 p97).”

9. Everlasting Change for the Betterment of Humanity

Finally, Lewin and his methods were highly experimental, emergent, and agile: “That’s what science is all about. Science means progress, and progress means change. True science doesn’t admit to stagnation. Everlasting change—that’s the essence of science (Marrow, 1969, p23).”

The end goal was planned change for the betterment of humanity: “I am persuaded that scientific sociology and social psychology based on an intimate combination of experiments and empirical theory can do as much, or more, for human betterment as the natural sciences have done (Lewin, 1939, 1997, p67).”

Now we turn to a brief biography of Lewin, which helps introduce you to his methods and theories. True to his formula that behavior is a function of the person and the environment, Lewin’s social science embodies his personality mixed with lessons learned from the dramatic social and historical context in which he lived.