Kurt-Lewin’s Field Theory Kurt Lewin – ‘Field Theory Rule’ Field Theory Rule Applying ‘field theory’ for organisational change and consulting requires an acceptance of its central premise. People and their surroundings and conditions depend closely on each other. In Lewin’s words, ‘to understand or to predict behaviour, the person and his environment have to be considered as one constellation of interdependent factors’ (1946:338). Thus, the notion of ‘field’ refers to: (a) all aspects of individuals in relationship with their surroundings and conditions; (b) that apparently influence the particular behaviours and developments of concern; (c) at a particular point in time. Lewin’s field theory rule states that ‘analysis starts with the situation as a whole’. By gaining an overview as early as possible, we intend to broaden the perspective from which we as scholarly practitioners engage with the general characteristics of the challenge or opportunity facing our organisational clients. Lewin highlighted the importance of characterizing the atmosphere (e.g. emotional tone or climate) and the amount of freedom existing in the situation. Such an overall perspective counteracts the pull to repeat the same unsuccessful attempts at change and development. Field theory leads us to conclude that such a pull to repetition comes from forces within the field. As outsiders we may be prone to believe that we won’t succumb. Thus, after starting with the total situation, our analysis needs to focus on more specific variables that might be at play. We aim to represent everything in the field (i.e. people and their environment) that helps or hinders movement towards the goals for change and development. Using the field theory rule often results in a figure or some other sort of data display to represent the psychological field and the inter-relation of its parts. Lewin and his colleagues (including early social scientists at The Tavistock Institute) favoured ‘topological maps’. These egg-shaped diagrams showed crucial inter-related areas, arrows to indicate direction of force toward the goal or away from the goal, and often mathematical equations to indicate possible solutions to problems. Today, additional analytical methods (e.g. visual and qualitative ones) are made possible with information technology. A specific criterion for objectivity when using field theory can improve the quality of organisational change practice. Lewin asserts that we should aim to represent the field ‘correctly as it exists for the individual in question at a particular time’ (1946:338). Even when working with collective phenomenon, this discipline for analysis remains. We need to avoid offering pre-determined solutions or getting caught in the same field of forces as our clients. Instead, scholarly practitioners take the time and effort to study the idiosyncrasies of each total situation and make a representation of the forces being experienced by clients. From that analysis, we discuss working hypotheses with our clients to assist them in changing their field (i.e. their behaviour and related surroundings and conditions). We may also be able to cooperate with them on experiments in moving towards their change goals. Within The Tavistock Institute’s archive, a study conducted by Don Bryant and Jean Neumann exemplifies the field theory rule. They were asked by a UK government department to study the organisational factors in shipping casualties (e.g. accidents to ships, fires, groundings). Based on an overall view of the British merchant navy, they designed a study to maximize information about the people and their environments. They identified individuals in roles implicated in preventing shipping casualties (e.g. captains and other officers, company directors, agencies for foreign workers, employee associations and government agencies). They also identified different types of companies to be represented (e.g. container shipping, gas and oil fleets, ferry companies, suppliers to drilling platforms). From analysis of over 30 interview notes, they identified about 80 variables considered relevant by individuals in various roles and from different types of businesses. A large causal map was made to represent the inter-connected patterns. A notation system indicated the degree to which individuals thought the patterns helped, hindered or were neutral in their efforts to avoid casualties at sea. Working hypotheses about types of organisational factors were identified from this causal map and offered to representatives from government, the merchant navy and their staff groups. A pivotal interface became apparent between commercial departments and captains with their officers. Another example coming from the Third Sector demonstrates the field theory rule. The topic concerned how to increase the rate of UK government mandated innovation within small providers of health and social care services for aging. An analysis of the total situation showed that money was running out as most of it had been spent at the level of partnership committees and governance boards. Involving small providers was the goal. These included ‘mom and pop’ nursing homes, small advocacy groups and individual and small providers of personal services – many of them geographically located in rural and seaside locations. For nearly of year, everyone repeated the experience of being caught by the same forces and not moving toward the goal. Finally, it was possible to increase the pressure for a series of geographically situated workshops, at which small providers came together to offer their experiences in introducing innovations. Adrian Adams, Jean Neumann and Antonio Sama analyzed this knowledge exchange project between a university and a social enterprise in such a way that a handful of inter-connected patterns emerged as influential in small providers’ abilities to innovate. A directly useful insight came from connecting and reframing particular interactions reported by small provider Service Managers. When they met with Care Managers and Assessors from government and regulatory agencies, the atmosphere felt hierarchical and often challenging. Nonetheless, these incidents of cross-boundary interface demonstrated key points for customization of services for individual users. Thus, Kurt Lewin’s field theory rule helps scholarly practitioners of organisational development and change to ‘start the analysis with the situation as a whole’. Doing so provides an overview to counteract the possibility of repetitive solutions that don’t work. A thoughtful analysis represents the field of people and their environment as one constellation of mutually interdependent factors. Patterns of forces helping or hindering a goal illustrate promising points of intervention. Thus, clients’ perspectives can be broadened and their freedom of movement increased.Kurt Lewin: Field theory, Group dynamics and Democracy in groups Field theory Here we will note only the key elements of Kurt Lewin’s field theory. To begin it is important to recognize its roots in Gestalt theory. (A gestalt is a coherent whole. It has its own laws, and is a construct of the individual mind rather than ‘reality’). For Kurt Lewin behaviour was determined by totality of an individual’s situation. In his field theory, a ‘field’ is defined as ‘the totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent’ (Lewin 1951: 240). Individuals were seen to behave differently according to the way in which tensions between perceptions of the self and of the environment were worked through. The whole psychological field, or ‘lifespace’, within which people acted had to be viewed, in order to understand behaviour. Within this individuals and groups could be seen in topological terms (using map-like representations). Individuals participate in a series of life spaces (such as the family, work, school and church), and these were constructed under the influence of various force vectors (Lewin 1952). Hall and Lindzey (1978: 386) summarize the central features of Kurt Lewin’s field theory as follows: Behaviour is a function of the field that exists at the time the behaviour occurs, Analysis begins with the situation as a whole from which are differentiated the component parts, and The concrete person in a concrete situation can represented mathematically. Kurt Lewin also looked to the power of underlying forces (needs) to determine behaviour and, hence, expressed ‘a preference for psychological as opposed to physical or physiological descriptions of the field’ (op. cit.). In this we can see how Kurt Lewin drew together insights from topology (e.g. lifespace), psychology (need, aspiration etc.), and sociology (e.g. force fields – motives clearly being dependent on group pressures). As Allport in his foreword to Resolving Social Conflict (Lewin 1948: ix) put it, these three aspects of his thought were not separable. ‘All of his concepts, whatever root-metaphor they employ, comprise a single well-integrated system’. It was this, in significant part, which gave his work its peculiar power. Group dynamics It is not an exaggeration to say that Kurt Lewin had a profound impact on a generation of researchers and thinkers concerned with group dynamics. Brown (1988: 28-32) argues that two key ideas emerged out of field theory that are crucial to an appreciation of group process: interdependence of fate, and task interdependence. Interdependence of fate. Here the basic line of argument is that groups come into being in a psychological sense ‘not because their members necessarily are similar to one another (although they may be); rather, a group exists when people in it realize their fate depends on the fate of the group as a whole’ (Brown 1988: 28). This is how Lewin (1946: 165-6) put it when discussing the position of Jews in 1939: [I]t is not similarity or dissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group, but rather interdependence of fate. Any normal group, and certainly any developed and organized one contains and should contain individuals of very different character…. It is easy enough to see that the common fate of all Jews makes them a group in reality. One who has grasped this simple idea will not feel that he has to break away from Judaism altogether whenever he changes his attitude toward a fundamental Jewish issue, and he will become more tolerant of differences of opinion among Jews. What is more, a person who has learned to see how much his own fate depends upon the fate of his entire group will ready and even eager to take over a fair share of responsibility for its welfare. It could be argued that the position of Jews in 1939 constitutes a special case. That the particular dangers they faced in many countries makes arguing a general case difficult. However, Lewin’s insight does seem to be applicable to many different group settings. Subsequently, there has been some experimental support for the need for some elementary sense of interdependence (Brown 1989). Task interdependence. Interdependence of fate can be a fairly weak form of interdependence in many groups, argued Lewin. A more significant factor is where there is interdependence in the goals of group members. In other words, if the group’s task is such that members of the group are dependent on each other for achievement, then a powerful dynamic is created. These implications can be positive or negative. In the former case one person’s success either directly facilitates others’ success of, in the strongest case, is actually necessary for those others to succeed also… In negative interdependence – known more usually as competition – one person’s success is another’s failure. (Brown (1989: 30) Kurt Lewin had looked to the nature of group task in an attempt to understand the uniformity of some groups’ behaviour. He remained unconvinced of the explanatory power of individual motivational concepts such as those provided by psychoanalytical theory or frustration-aggression theory (op. cit.). He was able to argue that people may come to a group with very different dispositions, but if they share a common objective, they are likely to act together to achieve it. This links back to what is usually described as Lewin’s field theory. An intrinsic state of tension within group members stimulates or motivates movement toward the achievement of desired common goals (Johnson and Johnson 1995: 175). Interdependence (of fate and task) also results in the group being a ‘dynamic whole’. This means that a change in one member or subgroups impacts upon others. These two elements combined together to provide the basis for Deutch’s (1949) deeply influential exploration of the relationship of task to process (and his finding that groups under conditions of positive interdependence were generally more co-operative. Members tended to participate and communicate more in discussion; were less aggressive; liked each other more; and tended to be productive as compared to those working under negative task interdependence) (Brown 1989: 32; Johnson and Johnson 1995). Democracy and groups Gordon W. Allport, in his introduction to Resolving Social Conflicts (Lewin 1948: xi) argues that there is striking kinship between the work of Kurt Lewin and that of John Dewey. Both agree that democracy must be learned anew in each generation, and that it is a far more difficult form of social structure to attain and to maintain than is autocracy. Both see the intimate dependence of democracy upon social science. Without knowledge of, and obedience to, the laws of human nature in group settings, democracy cannot succeed. And without freedom for research and theory as provided only in a democratic environment, social science will surely fail. Dewey, we might say, is the outstanding philosophical exponent of democracy, Lewin is its outstanding psychological exponent. More clearly than anyone else has he shown us in concrete, operational terms what it means to be a democratic leader, and to create democratic group structure.
Posted on: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 17:48:49 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015