More than anything else Organizational Development is about planning, implementing & managing the outgrowth of strategic change. Far too many organizational changes fail or fall short of their intended contribution and, unfortunately, a few leave the workplace in worse shape than before. Kurt Lewin had his own theory about why this statement is true.
It is interesting that he did not develop the foundation of this theory with the business environment in view. He began with a desire to resolve social conflict and he saw this as necessary at several levels. Lewin felt that unless changes are sponsored at the organizational, societal and influential group level, they will not be lasting at an individual level. In this way, his theory are based upon the psychological strengths of interrelationships and interdependence. Furthermore, he saw learning and involvement as the primary way to sculpt such change.
Lewin believed that if you could better understand social groupings, their motivations & power to define the status quo, then you held the key to changing behavior. It is interesting to note that he recognized both the unique and individual complexion of each social grouping, as well as the commonality in identity and function that all groups share.
“It was Lewin’s view that “ . . . one cannot understand an organization without trying to change it . . .”’ This is a wonderful philosophical statement that explains his approach to planned change. I encourage you to ponder the meaning of his statement and compare it with your own experience as a change catalyst. Think of a time when you were a change agent in any venue. How did the experience, which can be very challenging, teach you about the people you were involved with, both individually and corporately?
He believed that the understanding that grows as one progresses through change is more important than the resulting change itself. This speaks to the essence of action research. As you process through change the resistance one always faces surfaces biases, conflicting values, true goals which may be surprisingly different from the "spoken" ones, hidden processes and interrelationships which are not always correlated with an organizational chart (if one exists).
Field theory and group dynamics were developed to help analyze and understand how social groupings were formed, motivated and maintained. It is his attempt to explain how any given group really operates (decision making, leadership, influence, etc.).
A “field” can be both nonhuman environmental factors related to resources, for instance, or the human-sponsored environment where the behavior takes place related to factors such as the pace of the environment. A field encompasses the entirety of all of these factors.
Field theory is the analysis of the current environment in which behavior happens and what stabilizing forces create and maintain the status quo. He believed that the field reveals the equalibrium forces, those forces that sustain the "balance" and make change difficult. Sometimes the forces that work to maintain the status quo sustain a balance that is decidedly "off balance." They are simply the forces that must be destabilized if change is to happen.
He believed that if you saw changes in behavior there had to be changes in the field as well because the two were linked and mutually interdependent—one was influenced by the other.
He believed that each field is in a constant state of adaptation, so if you can determine the strength of each shaping force in the environment, then you would be able to manipulate/diminish the strength of them to sponsor change.
In Group Dynamics he believed that there are always forces operating within any group that shape the behavior of everyone in the group. Think about groups you are part of. Everyone naturally assumes a role or persona within the group—official or not. The overall dynamic, dominants within the group, submissives within the group, those "natural leaders," how pressures are handled, etc., are all part of the dynamic within the interdependent group of people.
So how do you successfully make changes in direction, goals, processes, interaction, reporting relationships if you believe that the field and the dynamic within a group exerts that degree of control?
The focus should be on the norms, roles within the group, leadership and interaction.
Group behavior should be the focus of change initiatives. The focus should be on recognizing what forces work to maintain status quo and changing that equilibrium. Lewin believed that the pressure to conform within the group one identifies with is strong enough to shift the power to the group instead of the individual (even though it may not be recognized by the individuals involved).
In group counseling there is an understanding of this concept. It is the knowledge that the individual's identity within a cohesive group is very influential and can be positive or negative in the movement and success of the counseling, on an individual level.
Some criticisms of the group dynamic portion of the theory:
We are all part of many overlapping groups and that makes behavior a bit more individual. Hard to take a look at just one group in a vacuum. Behavior is less static, less a product of one group and more the sum of all of them.
There were two primary methods Lewin promoted to sponsor change: Action Research and the 3-Step Model or approach to change.
Action Research has its roots in Gestalt Psychology. We are the product of the whole and as the entire situation changes only then do we change as well. Gestalt Theory espouses that change can only come as people gain new insight into their situation.
According to Lewin, "felt need" is important to understand as well. He believed that if people didn't feel the need to make a change at a personal level, the likelihood that change would happen was unlikely. He believe that if the “felt need” is low in a group overall, the probability of permanent change was low.
The 3-step model of change:
According to Lewin’s model, any successful change process involved 3 specific steps.
1.
Unfreezing involves:
Unfreezing involves:
- Disconfirmation of the status quo; (proving the old ways won’t work now)
- Induction of guilt or survival anxiety; (“An emotional stir-up”). Internal talk that says, "It isn’t best for me to stay where I am (theoretically)."
- Creating psychological safety. If people don’t feel secure, the case for disconfirmation of the status quo will be denied or in other ways defended against. There is always a degree of fear in leaving a comfort zone. Anytime we leave one of our comfort zones and create a new one, we are redefined to a degree.
Important to note that unfreezing isn’t a destination. Action Research begins at this point.
2 Moving involves:
- Moving defines the direction. This is not static but is a constantly evolving process of individual factors emerging to influence the direction and pace of the change.
3 Refreezing involves:
- Stabilizing a group at a new level for however long is necessary to make the change successful. Refreezing as he describes it refers to progression in the right direction; not allowing people to regress back to old behaviors. Isn’t this the essence of change period? If people regress and don’t apply new approaches to new result, change hasn’t happened in the first place. For refreezing to reinforce change, the culture, norms, policies, practices within an organization must be conducive to it.
Elements of Lewin’s theory continue to be highly criticized and usually the substance of their criticisms mirror their own conflicting theory or approach to change.
How did the culture-excellence supporters think about change differently than Lewin did? The culture-excellence pundants placed a considerable weight on developing a culture of innovation and synergy. For those who chose this approach, there was simply too much ambiguity in the world to allow a “planned approach to change” to ever work.
For them Lewin’s talk of freezing, moving, and refreezing, was inappropriately static. They focus on the abstract quality and constancy of less controllable change. They say “Organizations are never frozen, much less refrozen. They are fluid and organic entities with many “personalities.” They didn’t like his focus on structure and bureaucracy. They felt “stages” don’t exist the way Lewin felt they did. They merged together independently.
Advocates of the Processual Approach felt that change is what happened naturally in organizations every day. It is ongoing . . . with no beginning and no end, very abstract and ill-defined.
They believed that change is unpredictable and therefore there is an inherent need to accommodate and adapt to the unexpected, the unforeseen twists and turns, the omissions and revisions that are all part of managing the process of change over time. Lewin is too static they say.
General Criticisms of Lewin’s approach to change by many others:
1. Too simplistic and mechanistic—unrealistic approach in a world that is constantly changing.
Response:
Lewin didn’t see stability as a fact of life. On the contrary, he believed that forces in the environment are constantly changing, and that nothing within the influence of those forces is static for long. Sometimes moving faster, sometimes slower but always in a state of constant inconstancy! (pages 150-151)
He believed that in such an environment, outcomes cannot be predicted but emerge on a trial and error basis. (page 151) Which aspect of his theory does this relate to? Action Research
2. Lewin’s theory is only relevant to change projects—it does not apply to radical or transformational change (bottom page 151).
The response to this criticism relates more to timing/speed than to degree. Enough incremental steps in the right direction bring radical/transformational change. No doubt, he was more invested in the social side of change, in which steps are naturally more incremental.
In general, people respond better to the need to change in smaller degrees because it decreases their natural discomfort with it. Radical change is more related to organizational structural changes. (Top of page 152)
What happens when an organization implements a radical structural change? What needs to take place within the human resources in the organization in response?
The structural change may be implementable quickly but the behavior, relationships & habits which contribute heavily to the culture don’t respond so quickly. You can change the organizational chart, but the behaviors & relationships are more difficult to come around. Where people’s habits, comfort zones, motivation are involved, small steps are usually to be expected.
3. He ignores the role of power and politics in organizations--the conflict that is naturally part of such a social environment. (bottom, page 152)
Where did this criticism come from? From a misunderstanding of his theory—relates to the claim that it is “mechanistic” and prescriptive and doesn’t take enough consideration of politics. This is ridiculous considering his work on group dynamics & field theory.
4. He advocates a top-down, management-driven approach to change and ignores situations where a bottom-up change is not only necessary but desirable. (bottom page 153)
Response:
He recognized that the impetus for change can come from any quadrant where the need was felt FIRST, but that there had to be some “felt-need” by all those involved eventually before change could happen. Everyone must play their part or change will not happen as it should.
I believe that no theory is perfect. There are pros and cons to each but Lewin makes some strong points that jive with what I know about the psychology of human behavior, regardless of where it takes place. There is some degree of predictability about the way groups interact. There are varying field conditions and the dynamics of each group takes on the shape of the individual influences within the group but there is still some degree of predictability related to what is required for change (which Lewin calls "movement") to happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment