This is Kurt Lewin. He is recognised by many as the father of social psychology. His family moved from a town in modern Poland to Berlin. He studied in Freiberg and was wounded fighting in the German Army in WWI. In 1933 he left Germany and settled in the USA. He developed psychological models still used today. These include his ‘unfreezing – change – refreeze’ model, Action Research, Group Dynamics (a term he coined) and the focus of this note, Force Field Analysis.
He also generated some thought-provoking quotes:
- If you want to truly understand something, try to change it.
- Learning is more effective when it is an active rather than a passive process.
- Experience alone does not create knowledge.
- There is nothing so practical as a good theory.
I wonder about that last one. I wonder if this was his exasperation with the common statement of resistance. “We are interested but you must make it practical!” Implementing Quality Processes in one of South Africa’s largest financial services organisations, we got a LOT of “Maak dit Prakties!” One day after hearing this again I said, “as Kurt Lewin said, there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. After a long pause the response was, “Yes, you are very clever…” then the resistance continued. Quotes do not always (or perhaps usually) lead to change.
Force Field Analysis recently came up in a coaching conversation. We were talking about the indicators and drivers for staff engagement and the following picture emerged:
- We want results from our staff.
- Therefore we define process.
- We list lead activities to make the process happen.
- We have weekly accountability meetings.
- We monitor outcomes.
When the results flag we ply our staff with incentives and negative consequences. These are all driving forces. The forces for change.
Defining and applying these forces is effective for delivery and results. But sometimes this is not enough. There are always factors working against performance. Pushing against this resistance leads to frustration and resentment. This grows in proportion to the pressure. Pushing harder on people, who lack the necessary skill or experience, simply builds confusion, even despair. The person being pushed may react in unpredictable, alarming or dangerous ways. If this is where you find yourself consider the Hersey and Blanchard delegation model.
Resistance to change may not come from the workplace. There may be issues at home. There may also be issues unconscious to the person resisting. This may require deep work. How can we make this work explicit?
Kurt Lewin suggested we draw up a Force Field Analysis Diagram
Force Field Analysis: What is driving change?
It may be easiest to list your drivers first. Your diagram can be sticky notes on a flipchart, or a rough scribble on the back of the report you are discussing. In the example the team listed the management processes driving performance. They listed the most obvious resisting factors:
Force Field Analysis: Where is the resistance?
Skills and motivation were the most obvious inhibitors to delivery. But as you think about your team you will probably list more. As you talk with staff you will form an idea of the key obstacles to delivery. You may well end up with something like this:
What is really going on?
With this view you can develop your understanding further:
- You can then talk through the actions through which you can address the resisting factors.
- You can take a hard look at the drivers you currently use. Some of your drivers may actually cause more resistance (like punishment).
- You may list more specific and effective drivers.
Actually this is how the Force Field Analysis is usually shown:
The idea in the diagram is that you can move the status quo to the right. And you can do this by applying drivers and removing resistance. In the example, the leader established all of the drivers listed,including a comprehensive set of indicators for success’s unique story. He then spent significant time engaging with his leadership team. He listened to each person’s challenges and gave attention to the solutions they were implementing. He discovered more vehicles for resistance such as the vestiges of dis-empowerment from the corporate culture. As his team opened up in their relationship with him, he heard vital information about how is behaviour inhibited their autonomy. He also coached members of his team to resolve difficult relationships, providing wisdom and a neutral, external perspective. He also engaged with the staff in his stores. He did not break the managerial relationship but listened to their unique stories.
But isn’t this all just common sense? No doubt some people do this naturally. For the rest of us, the explicit model guides our thinking and our dialogue on what we will do. Presenting this view back to the team is a really good way to initiate dialogue leading to change. This is what the leader in the example is doing. This is the essence of Action Research, another great, Kurt Lewin thinking model.
