Lewin's Model Essay

According to Spector (2013) Lewin's field theory has three steps: 1) unfreezing; 2) Moving and; 3) refreezing. Unfreezing and refreezing serve as bookends to the process. Unfreezing requires members of the group to be unsatisfied with the status quo (Spector, 2013). In the case of Children's Hospital, the financial crisis and employee moral/satisfaction were at all-time lows which created the dissatisfaction with the status quo (Spector, 2013). Once a new status quo and new patterns of behavior have been implemented refreezing can occur (Spector, 2013). However, in order to get to refreezing, moving needs to occur which encourages members of the group to alter their behavior (Spector, 2013).

Most of us like to be valued as an employee and a person. This plan did not allow the employees to feel this way. As the morale dropped, so did production and from there, the bonuses dwindled. Instead of looking at themselves for the lack of bonuses, they blamed management. Their lack of understanding on the rate changes did not help the process. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy, the employees’ needs were not met and frustration created tension, which created low to no production. The company faced major decisions and needed this situation to be resolved quickly. The managers faced a crisis and needed a solution before the plant was forced to close its doors and have to lay off the employees.

No matter how easy is may seem on the surface, the unfreezing, moving and refreezing stages of Lewin’s 3-Step model must be taken (Lewin, 1946). These stages are difficult and persistence by the organization in sticking to its objectives for growth and improvement must remain a top priority. In reality no matter how many positives a new idea is there will always be resistance when it is introduced. Change management is therefore central to the process of making the transition from the old system to the new and change management practices should be employed throughout the transition (ITIL,

The intent of the proposal is to address the case brought forward to our organization concerning “The Young Change Agents,” at Price Waterhouse (PW) who later merged with Coopers & Lybrand. It is my understanding that the platform to address the need for change in the organization plummeted with three young pioneers (Shaw, Middleburg and Sgaralgli) recognized a need for change. Prior to Shaw and Middleburg arrival to PWC, they had an opportunity to work in a well-known student organization AIESEC. In their tenure at AIESEC life was different, as Shaw recalled while operating as the president of the national organization in New Zealand division; he recognized that AIESEC focused on developing his leadership skills by focusing on such programs as skills, attitudes, values and cultural understanding. Furthermore, he noted that his transition to PwC led to a lower echelon, and it was difficult to transition from the president to a staff member. PwC also had a high spending budget for stationery compared to New Zealand AIESEC. Moreover, the technology was not up to par for such a large cooperation. (Jick & Peiperl, p. 463) Shaw and Middleburg later partnered with Sgaralgi to fight the deficiencies that they saw in PwC. They created a force that focused on overhauling the existing values at PwC. They approached each situation, manager and employee one step at a time. Expecting nothing in return, but only to share their message on the new

1. Unfreeze - This was so interesting to read about. The “unfreeze” phase took a lot of courage especially since this was not a company in crisis. Although concerns were mentioned, nothing really stood out as a motivating factor to induce fundamental change. So - the consultant Bob Janson, helped to coagulate the feeling of guilt through finding the “Positive Dissatisfaction” within the organization at AAL. I was engrossed reading about the snapshot in time they created by performing structured interview through a diagonal cross section of the company. Through the interviews, the gap between where the company wanted to be and where it really was became clear. They used this as a tool to work on the employees and get them on board with the planned organizational transformation. Through the process of change at the corporate level, the inclination for restructuring at IPS grew. It was fully supported by the new management team. IPS had several concerns around which to formulate the reason for change. They set some broad parameters, which they then designed into a detailed plan. Communication became the most important thing at this point, which they struggled with for a while, due to the sheer size of the department in terms of head count. During this communication effort, the rationale for change, minor

Lewin 's model is very rational, goal and plan oriented. The change looks good on

The traditional change model consists of three steps: unfreezing, that is, recognizing the need for change because of some event or threat, the actual change actions and refreezing, that is, incorporating new ways of operating, and thinking into the everyday operations of the organization. Apply this model to the situation at the Coca-Cola Company at the point when the lawsuit was served in 1999.

Therefore, Lewin’s model illustrates the effects of forces that either promote or inhibit change. Specifically, driving forces promote change while restraining forces oppose change. Hence, change will occur when the combined strength of one force is greater than the combined strength of the opposing set of forces (Robbins 564-65).

On the other hand, Lewin’s change model or action research model is not suitable for David Jones case because of focusing on more problems in the organisation than concentrating on retail environmental changes. The result of implementation of Lewin’s change model or action research model would be led to the strategic failure. The possibility of positive model of planned change for David Jones makes it necessary for the company to use positive model.

The aim of this report is to provide a critical analysis of the concept of change in the business industry. The concept of change can be tracked back to Lewin’s Model of Change therefore the intitial introduction of this report focuses on the relevance of the Model of Change and its importance to giving precedence to other relevant change management theories and how Kurt Lewin’s work on heavioral science and planned change during World War II gave rrise to prominence of experimental leadership and planned change processes which also in turn launched a new generation of research that lead to group dynamics and how change programs are implemented into an organisation (Burnes, 2004). This is important because today’s basic elements or factors

Over 60 years have passed since Kurt Lewin introduced his Unfreezing-Changing-Refreezing Model. His model is often considered invalid due to the specific beginning, middle, and end of his model. Today, change is continuous and fluid which critics have argued is not recognized by Lewin’s model. However, the following paragraphs will examine how Lewin’s Model is still applicable in today’s change management world.

John Kotter, the author of the well known book “Our Iceberg is Melting: Changing and Succeeding under Any Conditions “, taught for more than thirty years at Harvard Business School. Kotter could be considered an expert in the field of business with his many years of experience. After retiring from teaching, he then founded Kotter International and has spent his time assisting others in the area of implementing changes. He, like many others before him, observed the challenges that many businesses, organizations, and other institutions faced when trying to make changes. Over the years he observed that changes are not easily implemented or accepted because people in

In the 3-step model for successful organizational change, Kurt Lewin argues that successful change in organizations follows 3 steps:

Lewin called the final stage of his change model freezing, but many refer to it as refreezing to symbolize the act of reinforcing, stabilizing and solidifying the new state after the change. The changes made to organizational processes, goals, structures, offerings or people are accepted and refrozen as the new norm or status quo.

2. How can we use Kurt Lewin’s change model, to explain and analyse the differences we perceive between Hem & Haw, and Sniff & Scurry.