Physicists have long sought a universal theory that explains all phenomena, whether relatively small or large. Lewin set the bar no lower for the social sciences. He was determined to establish a universal theory of social science that could be used to understand and effect change at the individual, group, and societal level. While acknowledging that small individual behaviors could not be predicted, such as which pair of pants I might chose tomorrow morning, Lewin believed that the majority of beliefs and behaviors could be reliably understood, influenced, and even predicted in the context of the system they are in. As Lewin put it, “One of the most striking features of this development (the transition from Aristotelian to Galilean concepts) is that the opposition between universal concept and individual event is overcome. Law and single occurrence enter into intimate relationship… Thereby the representation of single cases gains new scientific meaning. It has a direct bearing on the determination of general laws (Lewin, 1936, p21).”

I believe I can and will demonstrate that Lewin achieved his goal of establishing social science theory and methods that can be applied universally to understanding and influencing human behavior. To the extent that he was thwarted in any portion of his quest, it would be in his vision of complementing his theories with a system for representing social phenomena in mathematical and topographical terms. That remains an unfinished task, perhaps unachievable, but that does not detract from the quality of his theories and methods.

His success in establishing a theory that covers both “universal concept and individual event” is a blessing both to my professional career and to humanity. Unfortunately, it also makes the task of organizing his writing into discreet topics more difficult and somewhat arbitrary. For example, some of Lewin’s best planned change writing came in his 1943 essays on the impending cultural reconstruction of Germany. Is it political analysis? Is it about group dynamics? Social change? Organization development (OD)? The answer is all of the above, because as he intended, Lewin’s core theoretical thinking applied to everything related to human behavior, both large and small, general and singular.

I realize that I lived much of my life without reading some of his best writing. This was in part because I never thought to look under some of his article headings. What for example, one might think at first glance, has The Special Case of Germany got to do with my work as an OD practitioner? Much to my pleasant surprise, it turns out, when you start to take in the sub-headings such as 1) General Aspects of Culture Change, and 2) Techniques of Changing Culture, this and most of his writing is relevant to everything OD. This realization was an important part of my motivation to weave his words together in this text.

Along with his belief that a universal theoretical approach could be devised, Lewin believed that advancement in the social sciences is critical to averting the destructive power of technology and securing a better future for humanity.

As he put it in the beginning of one of his last essays, Frontiers in Group Dynamics (Lewin, 1947, 1997, p301):

One of the by-products of the second World War of which society is hardly aware is the new stage of development which the social sciences have reached. This development indeed may prove to be as revolutionary as the atom bomb. Applying cultural anthropology to modern rather than “primitive” cultures, experimentation with groups inside and outside the laboratory, the measurement of socio-psychological aspects of large social bodies, the combination of economic, cultural, and psychological fact-finding—all of these developments started before the war. But, by providing unprecedented facilities and by demanding realistic and workable solutions to scientific problems, the war has accelerated greatly the change of social sciences to a new developmental level.

The scientific aspects of this development center around three objectives:

 

 

1. Integrating social sciences.

2. Moving from the description of social bodies to dynamic problems of changing group life.

3. Developing new instruments and techniques of social research.

 

 

Theoretical progress has hardly kept pace with the development of techniques. It is, however, as true for the social as for the physical and biological sciences that without adequate conceptual development, science cannot proceed beyond a certain stage… The theoretical development will have to proceed rather rapidly if social science is to reach that level of practical usefulness which society needs for winning the race against the destructive capacities set free by man’s use of the natural sciences (as illustrated in Figure 4.1).

fig4_1_B.jpg

Figure 4.1
Mushroom cloud

With a sense of urgency, Lewin brought us a long long way quickly. It may be easy to take systems thinking for granted these days. On the other hand, if you blame most problems on individual abilities, personalities, or groups, you are still stuck in pre-systemic thinking. As Rensis Likert explains, Lewin opened the door to changing that:

“One of the clearest and simplest formulations of Kurt Lewin was his distinction between the scientific concepts of Aristotle and Galileo. In dynamics Aristotle emphasized the ‘nature’ of the object: he held that a stone fell to the ground because it was ‘earth’ and had therefore to go towards the earth. Galileo, on the other hand, made physicists pay more attention to the object’s relation to its environment. According to Aristotelian thought the environment played a part by ‘disturbing’ the processes which followed from the nature of the object concerned; but in Galileian thought it is the concrete whole, which comprises the object and the situation, that determines the dynamics of the event defined: that is to say, an object is always in and part of its environment - an obvious notion, but one with far-reaching implications if taken literally and always applied (Likert, 1947, p3).”

fig4_2_B.jpg

Figure 4.2
Galileo Galilei

This is no small shift in perspective. As Lewin puts it, “… the transition from Aristotelian to Galilean concepts demands that we no longer seek the ‘cause’ of events in the nature of a single object, but in the relationship between an object and its surroundings. It is not thought then that the environment of the individual serves merely to facilitate or inhibit tendencies which are established once for all in the nature of the person. One can hope to understand the forces that govern behavior only if one includes in the representation the whole psychological situation (Lewin, 1936, p26).”

Systems Thinking: The Object and Its Surroundings

Or to put it another way, in systems thinking what is happening in the “object” is a window into “its surroundings” and vice versa. The part reflects the whole, influences the whole, and is influenced by the whole. To change the object (an individual, a group, a location) one must understand, address, and change enough of the system to influence the object and sustain the change. Or, as family systems thinker Edwin Friedman might put it, the object of focus is the symptom bearer or “identified patient” in which the system’s “stress or pathology has surfaced” and if you treat it in isolation “fundamental change is not likely (Friedman, 1985, p19).”

Lewin constantly bridged the gap between theories and disciplines, and my orientation is to do the same. A prime example is how clearly Lewin’s concepts blend with Friedman and his mentor Murray Bowen’s family systems theory. The synergy between Bowen’s theories and Lewin’s is striking. Both took a highly inter-disciplinary approach, both applied biological concepts such as differentiation, physics concepts such as field theory, psychological concepts such as the effect of tension on individuals and groups, and homeostasis (from physics and biology). Bowen (and his protégé Friedman) are the next biggest influences after Lewin on my version of OD (with John Wallen, Daniel Goleman, and Daryl Conner close behind).

I suspect Bowen (1913–1990) was influenced by Lewin, but I have found no evidence yet in the form of citations in Bowen or Friedman’s materials. However, besides the parallels in their theoretical material, Bowen was at the Menninger Foundation in Topeka, Kansas, from 1946 to 1954, where Lewin had been a guest lecturer, and he formulated his major theories during the 1950s when Lewin’s influence in psychology circles was strong. The similarities make it so that Bowen and Friedman, as well as others, can easily be applied to and enrich Lewinian theory. I trust Lewin would agree, especially perhaps about the usefulness of The Interpersonal Gap by John Wallen (Appendix A), which wasn’t formulated until years after Lewin’s death. I will occasionally point out such theoretical synergies throughout this text.

Field Theory: The Life Space

In Lewin’s mind, one could best operationalize systems thinking and better understand the relationship between the object and its surroundings by thinking in terms of fields. The current moment, or “life space” of the individual, includes the field of the real and imagined past as it is relevant in the moment, as well as the field of goals and aspirations towards the future. “According to field theory, behavior depends neither on the past nor on the future but on the present field. (This present field has a certain time-depth. It includes the ‘psychological past,’ ‘psychological present,’ and ‘psychological future’ which constitute one of the dimensions of the life space existing at a given time.) (Lewin, 1945, 1997, p189).”

It also includes the relevant fields of the individual’s primary groupings, which could be as small as a one on one relationship, a family, a work group, and as large as an ethnic group, one’s gender, a nation, or even the human race. Behavior in the moment is related to and a reflection of these social fields, although not everything is relevant at any given time, nor can all behaviors be predicted. As Lewin put it, “Although the whole life situation always has some influence on the behavior, the extent to which one must take it explicitly into account… is very different in different cases. A person who is trying to decide whether or not to get married, whether or not to go into a certain business, whether or not to begin a lawsuit against an influential opponent, will in general act in accord with his whole life situation.

Only happy-go-lucky, superficial, or childish persons act out of a narrow momentary situation in important questions of life. On the other hand whether a man who is taking a walk goes along the right or the left side of the road will be decided by a much less inclusive momentary situation. It is easy to observe how the structured part of the life space becomes wider or narrower under the influence of a new event (Lewin, 1936, p43).”

The object and its surroundings, the general law and the specific instance, the past and future; all important elements of Lewin’s universal social science. All elements of the life space of individuals and groups at any given point in time. “… the psychological field which exists at a given time contains also the views of that individual about his future and past. The individual sees not only his present situation; he has certain expectations, wishes, fears, daydreams for his future. His views about his own past and that of the rest of the physical and social world are often incorrect but nevertheless constitute, in his life space, the ‘reality-level’ of the past. In addition, a wish-level in regard to the past can frequently be observed. The discrepancy between the structure of this wish—or irreality —level of the psychological past and the reality—level plays an important role in the phenomenon of guilt. The structure of the psychological future is closely related, for instance, to hope and planning (Lewin, 1943, 1997, p207).”

Socially Constructed Reality

The subjective and socially constructed nature of personal reality (or irreality) is also a vital concept in Lewin’s methods. Boldly reaching across disciplines, anthropology provided much of the research that grounded Lewin’s belief that culture and values were social constructs and as such could be altered and were best altered through social (group) process. We are products of the cultural field that we are born into. “Cultural anthropology has emphasized recently that any constancy of culture is based on the fact that children are growing into that culture. They are indoctrinated and habituated in childhood in a way that keeps their habits strong enough for the rest of their lives (Lewin, 1943, 1997, p290).” As he put it later in Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of New Values, “… what exists as reality for the individual is, to a high degree, determined by what is socially accepted as reality. This holds even in the field of physical fact: to the South Sea Islander the world may be flat; to the European it is round. 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 (my bolding) (Lewin, 1945, 1997, p49).” I believe that Lewin’s methods for changing beliefs, which we will explore in detail, still set the standard today.

Intention, Tension, and Aspiration

The tension inherent in future orientation, intention, goal orientation and/or aspiration plays a vital role in Lewinian theory. Overseeing and drawing on the research of his students, as he often did, Lewin put it this way (1940, 1997, p174): “The critical experiments about association and ‘the measurement of will power’ mentioned above had suggested the theory that the effect of an intention was equivalent to the creation of an inner personal tension. The purpose of Zeigarnik’s experiment was to provide a first experimental test of this theory. The theory contains two basic assumptions.

(A1) Assumption 1: The intention to reach a certain goal G (to carry out an action leading to G) corresponds to a tension (t) in a certain system (SG) within the person so that t(SG) >0. This assumption coordinates a dynamic construct (system in tension) with the observable syndrome popularly called ‘intention.’

(A2) Assumption 2: The tension t(SG) is released if the goal G is reached.”

In Lewin’s mind, Assumption 2 is represented by the following formula:

fig4_3_B.tif

Figure 4.3
Assumption 2 (Lewin, 1940, 1997, p175)

Tension in the field of the life space is subsequently the foundation for Lewin’s understanding of conflict, as he explains in The Background of Conflict in Marriage (Lewin 1940, 1997, p71):

The General Conditions of Conflict

Experimental studies on individuals and groups show that one of the most important factors in the frequency of conflict and in the building up of an emotional outbreak is the general level of tension at which the person or group lives (see Figure 4.4, facing page). Whether or not a particular event will lead to a conflict depends largely on the tension level or on the social atmosphere in the group. Among the causes for tension the following may be listed as outstanding:

1. The degree to which the needs of a person are in a state of hunger or satisfaction. A need in the state of hunger means not only that a particular region within the person is under tension but also that the person as a whole is on a higher tension level. This holds particularly for basic needs, such as sex or security.

2. The amount of space of free movement of the person. Too small a space of free movement generally leads to a high state of tension. This has been shown in experiments with anger and with democratic and autocratic group atmosphere. In an autocratic atmosphere the tension is much higher, resulting in apathy or aggression.

3. Outer barrier. Tension or conflict lead frequently to a tendency to leave the unpleasant situation. If this is possible, no high tension will develop. Lack of freedom to leave the situation as a result of either an “outer barrier” or an inner bond greatly favors the development of high tension and conflict.

4. Within the group life conflicts depend upon the degree to which the goals of the members contradict each other, and upon the readiness to consider the other person’s point of view.

fig4_4_B.jpg

Figure 4.4
Tension in situation of frustration and narrow space of free movement (Lewin, 1940, 1997, p72)

This leads us back in the direction of one of Lewin’s most famous theoretical formulas:

What is accomplished in regard to representing psychological relations by means of topological and vector concepts, and what should be the next objectives? If I may express my own feeling about this question, which will be answered properly, of course, only by the future development of psychology, I would stress the following points:

The possibilities of a field theory in the realm of action, emotion, and personality are firmly established. The basic statements of a field theory are that a) behavior has to be derived from a totality of coexisting facts, and 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. The proposition (a) includes the statement that we have to deal in psychology, too, with a manifold, the interrelations of which cannot be represented without the concept of space. In fact all psychological schools implicitly agree with this statement by using concepts like approach or withdrawal, social position, and so forth in their descriptions. It is more and more recognized, although there are still some exceptions, that the spatial relations of psychological data cannot be adequately represented by means of the physical space, but have to be treated, at least for the time being, as a psychological space. It is everywhere accepted that this “life space” includes the person and the psychological environment.

In regard to proposition (b) the situation is similar. Even theories originally based on a coordination of isolated stimuli to isolated reactions have developed in a direction which brings them at least very close to (b). A good example for this is the theory of Hull, which does not correlate a reaction to a single stimulus such as an optical one, but to a “pattern of stimuli” which includes goal and drive stimuli. In principle it is everywhere accepted that behavior (B) is a function of the person (P) and the environment (E), B=F(P,E), and that P and E in this formula are interdependent variables (my bolding) (Lewin, 1940, 1997, p187).

The individual must be understood in relationship to its surroundings. Change the beliefs and behaviors of one’s primary groups, and you almost certainly change the individual. Change the individual alone and put it back in the same field, and the change will almost certainly regress. Personally, I think the formula should be skewed towards the power of the social/group influences. I think Lewin’s research and methods reflect the same. We all as individuals influence the systems we are in, but if we differentiate too much from the system we will be rejected. The influence of the social field we were born into is powerful and subtle. It is easy to have blind spots to our own version of the socially constructed reality, and to think we are simply seeing things as they are.

With Lewin’s help, we will kick these ideas around throughout this text. Keep in mind as we explore these ideas that Lewin was constantly doing the same. He would expect us to clarify theory and continually develop and refine it through real world application. As he famously said,

 

There is nothing as practical as a good theory (Lewin, 1943, 1999, p336).”

 

The importance of applied theory is indeed another foundation of his theoretical approach. Here we make the subtle shift from theory to method, supported by theories about methods. Indeed, Lewin saw some theories inherently as methods: “Field theory is probably best characterized as a method: namely, a method of analyzing causal relations and of building scientific constructs (Lewin, 1943, 1997, p201).”

Lewin was dogmatic in his belief that theory helps us understand and simplify complex phenomena and situations, so that we can have an organized approach. It also allows us to test and adjust our beliefs in a continuous learning cycle. By applying theory to real-world problems, we both test the theory and take action on the problems simultaneously. Lewin highly valued the blending of research and action, as is evident in yet another of his most famous quotes:

 

“No research without action, no action without research (Marrow, 1969, p193).”

 

Lewin adhered to this principle and advanced our knowledge considerably. Looking at his statistical assessments, which are sprinkled throughout this section, is both eye opening, and for me at least, a treat. In his 1946 paper, Action Research and Minority Problems, Lewin, ever passionate about application of social science to solve real-world problems, explains: “The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p144).”

Lewin and the terms “action research” came to be synonymous, even though as you shall see his own use of the term was relatively fluid.

According to Alfred Marrow, when Lewin founded the Commission on Community Interrelations (C.C.I.) for the American Jewish Congress in 1944, Lewin oversaw the identification by members of the advisory board (which included chairperson Marrow, Gordon Allpart, Rensis Likert, Douglass McGregor, Margaret Mead, and other all-stars of the social sciences) of following four “varieties of action research: 1) diagnostic, 2) participant, 3) empirical, and 4) experimental (Marrow, 1969, p198).”

 

Marrow explains the four varieties like this:

1. Diagnostic was designed to produce a needed plan of action. Here C.C.I. would step into an already existing situation (for example a race riot or anti-semitic vandalism), diagnose the problem, and recommend remedial measures… however, this design of action was often wasted.

2. Participant action research assumed that the residents of the affected community who were to help effect a cure must be involved in the research process from the beginning.

3. Empirical action research was primarily a matter of record keeping and accumulating experiences.

4. Experimental action research called for a controlled study of the relative effectiveness of various techniques in nearly identical social situations.

 

It’s no surprise to me that #1, diagnostic, an expert model, proved to be “often wasted.” More on that to come. Participant action research was the model that Lewin conducted the most, and it led to reliable results for Lewin, my father, and many other OD professionals. I’ve never set out to do variety 3, but I have done it over time with comparative data, and Lewin clearly did the same. Finally, Lewin was master of experimental action research, usually, but not always, combining it with the participant model so that there was both immediate results and contribution to the knowledge base of the social sciences.

Turning again to Action Research and Minority Problems, we find Lewin elaborating further on those two objectives (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p145):

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.

Problems of general laws deal with the relation between possible conditions and possible results. They are expressed in “if so” propositions. The knowledge of laws can serve as guidance for the achievement of certain objectives under certain conditions. To act correctly, it does not suffice, however, if the engineer or the surgeon knows the general laws of physics or physiology. He has to know too the specific character of the situation at hand. This character is determined by a scientific fact-finding called diagnosis. For any field of action both types of scientific research are needed.

Until recently, fact-finding on inter-group relations has been largely dominated by surveys. We have become somewhat critical of these surveys of inter-group relations. Although they are potentially important, they have, as a rule, used rather superficial methods of poll taking and not the deeper searching of the interview type used by Likert which gives us some insight into the motivations behind the sentiments expressed.

The second cause of dissatisfaction is the growing realization that mere diagnosis—and surveys are a type of diagnosis—does not suffice. In inter-group relations as in other fields of social management the diagnosis has to be complemented by experimental comparative studies of the effectiveness of various techniques of change (my bolding).

He goes on in the same paper to use the war effort to further describe action research:

In highly developed fields of social management, such as modern factory management or the execution of a war, this second step is followed by certain fact-findings. For example, in the bombing of Germany a certain factory may have been chosen as the first target after careful consideration of various priorities and of the best means and ways of dealing with this target. The attack is pressed home and immediately a reconnaissance plane follows with the one objective of determining as accurately and objectively as possible the new situation.

This reconnaissance or fact-finding has four functions. First, it should evaluate the action. It shows whether what has been achieved is above or below expectation. Secondly, it gives the planners a chance to learn, that is, to gather new general insight, for instance, regarding the strength and weakness of certain weapons or techniques of action.

Thirdly, this fact-finding should serve as a basis for correctly planning the next step. Finally, it serves as a basis for modifying the “overall plan.”

The next step again is composed of a circle of planning, executing, and reconnaissance or fact-finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, for preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the overall plan.

 

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 (my bolding) (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p146).

 

You may recognize this spiral of steps. It is the foundation for the application of science to incident investigation, process improvement, lean manufacturing, quality management, etc. While Lewin was not the only innovator to apply scientific methods to understanding and improving processes (Taylor came before Lewin, for example), you are no doubt already using Lewinian methodology or something like it in your life, without realizing the source.

And who should do the fact-finding in this circle of experimentation? The expert? Lewin’s research pointed away from the purely diagnostic model and pointed to the participant model. For change to stick, the people facing the problem must do their own diagnosis and generate and implement their own solutions. “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 (my bolding) (Lewin, 1946, 1997, p150).”

The following is a partial list (all of which are explored in the pages ahead) of Lewin’s extensive body of research, which was always done to both achieve immediate results and to advance social science:

Experiments on Autocratic and Democratic Atmospheres (Lewin, 1938)

Food Habits Study (Marrow, 1969, p129)

Time Perspective and Morale (Harwood Manufacturing) (Lewin, 1942, 1997, p80)

Integrated Housing (Marrow, 1969, p208)

Prejudice in Seaside (Changing Gang Behavior)(Marrow, 1969, p203).

 

Let us turn now to a deeper exploration of Lewin’s methods of planned change.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
44.222.128.90