ContentServer
bs_bs_banner
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15, 408–425 (2013)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00348.x
Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A Review and Re-evaluation
Bernard Burnes and Bill Cooke1
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, UK, and 1Lancaster University
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK
Corresponding author email: bernard.burnes@mbs.ac.uk
Field theory was central to Kurt Lewin’s work yet, after his death, interest in it declined significantly until the 1990s when a variant, force field analysis, became widely used.
This paper examines the origins, purpose and continuing relevance of field theory. It especially looks at the influences of gestalt psychology, topology and Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of science on its development. It argues that Lewin’s attempt to replace conventional topology with his own Lewinian mathematics-based topology in pursuit of scientific rigour resulted in the undermining of its relevance. The paper also compares force field analysis with Lewin’s original conception of field theory and shows that it has significant weaknesses in terms of rigour. It concludes that a return to Lewin’s original conception of field theory, based on gestalt psychology and conventional topology, can provide academics and practitioners with a valuable and much-needed approach to managing change.
Introduction
Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) was one of the leading psychologists of his generation (Marrow 1969; Tolman
1948). His work provided the foundations of Organization Development (OD) and is still considered by many as central to it (Boje et al. 2011; Burnes
2004a, 2007; Burnes and Cooke 2012; Cooke 2007;
Cummings and Worley 2005; French and Bell 1990;
Kleiner 1996; Wheeler 2008). As Edgar Schein commented: There is little question that the intellectual father of contemporary theories of applied behavioural science, action research and planned change is Kurt
Lewin. His seminal work on
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15, 408–425 (2013)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00348.x
Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A Review and Re-evaluation
Bernard Burnes and Bill Cooke1
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, UK, and 1Lancaster University
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK
Corresponding author email: bernard.burnes@mbs.ac.uk
Field theory was central to Kurt Lewin’s work yet, after his death, interest in it declined significantly until the 1990s when a variant, force field analysis, became widely used.
This paper examines the origins, purpose and continuing relevance of field theory. It especially looks at the influences of gestalt psychology, topology and Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of science on its development. It argues that Lewin’s attempt to replace conventional topology with his own Lewinian mathematics-based topology in pursuit of scientific rigour resulted in the undermining of its relevance. The paper also compares force field analysis with Lewin’s original conception of field theory and shows that it has significant weaknesses in terms of rigour. It concludes that a return to Lewin’s original conception of field theory, based on gestalt psychology and conventional topology, can provide academics and practitioners with a valuable and much-needed approach to managing change.
Introduction
Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) was one of the leading psychologists of his generation (Marrow 1969; Tolman
1948). His work provided the foundations of Organization Development (OD) and is still considered by many as central to it (Boje et al. 2011; Burnes
2004a, 2007; Burnes and Cooke 2012; Cooke 2007;
Cummings and Worley 2005; French and Bell 1990;
Kleiner 1996; Wheeler 2008). As Edgar Schein commented: There is little question that the intellectual father of contemporary theories of applied behavioural science, action research and planned change is Kurt
Lewin. His seminal work on
References: Allport, G.W. (1948). Foreword. In Lewin, G.W. (ed.), Resolving Social Conflict – Selected Papers on Group Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning Argyris, C. (1997). Kurt Lewin award lecture: field theory as a basis for scholarly consulting Arnheim, R. (1986). The two faces of Gestalt psychology. Back, K.W. (1992). This business of topology. Journal of Social Issues, 48, pp Bargal, D. (1998). Kurt Lewin and the first attempts to establish a department of psychology at the Hebrew University Bargal, D., Gold, M. and Lewin, M. (1992). Introduction: the heritage of Kurt Lewin Bartunek, J. (2007). Academic–practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research Management Journal, 50, pp. 1323–1333. Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (eds) (2000). Breaking the Code of Change Block, J., Buss, D.M., Block, J.H. and Gjerde, P.F. (1981). Boje, D. and Rosile, G.A. (2010). Lewin’s Action Research Meets Aristotle on the Storytelling Field: Maybe It’s a Bozan, M.G. (2003). Using Lewin’s force field analysis in implementing a nursing information system Brager, G. and Holloway, S. (1993). Assessing prospects for organizational change Burnes, B. (2004a). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal Burnes, B. (2004b). Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future? Journal of Change Management, 4, pp. Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: the foundations of OD Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change. Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall. Burnes, B. and By, R.T. (2012). Leadership and change: the case for greater ethical clarity Burnes, B. and Cooke, B. (2012). The past, present and future of organization development: taking the long view. Bushe, G. (2001). Five theories of change embedded in appreciative inquiry Bushe, G. (2011). Appreciative inquiry: theory and critique. Cartwright, D. (ed.) (1952a). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin Cartwright, D. (1952b). Foreword. In Cartwright, D. (ed.), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Cartwright, D. and Festinger, L. (1943). A quantitative theory of decision Cassell, C. and Johnson, P. (2006). Action research: explaining diversity. Human Relations, 59, pp. 783–814. Coghlan, D. and Jacobs, C. (2005). Kurt Lewin on re-education; foundations for action research Cooke, B. (2006). The Cold War origins of action research as managerialist cooptation Cooke, B. (2007). The Kurt Lewin/Goodwin Watson FBI files: a 60th anniversary ‘there and then’ of the ‘here and Cronshaw, S.F. and McCulloch, A.N.A. (2008). Reinstating the Lewinian vision: from force field analysis to organization field assessment Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (1989). Organization Development and Change, 4th edn. St Paul, MN: West. Danziger, K. (1992). The project of an experimental social