Content uploaded by Andrew Creed
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Creed on Feb 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library]
On: 08 February 2015, At: 15:19
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Journal of Change Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field
Analysis
Donald James Swansona & Andrew Shawn Creedb
a Educational Consultant and Principal of Practical Teaching
Solutions, Victoria, Australia
b Deakin University, Faculty of Business & Law, Victoria, Australia
Published online: 03 Jul 2013.
To cite this article: Donald James Swanson & Andrew Shawn Creed (2014) Sharpening
the Focus of Force Field Analysis, Journal of Change Management, 14:1, 28-47, DOI:
10.1080/14697017.2013.788052
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.788052
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field
Analysis
DONALD JAMES SWANSON∗& ANDREW SHAWN CREED∗∗
∗Educational Consultant and Principal of Practical Teaching Solutions, Victoria, Australia, ∗∗
Deakin
University, Faculty of Business & Law, Victoria, Australia
ABSTRACT The purpose is to explore the inherent complexity of Kurt Lewin’s force field theory
through applied analysis of organizational case examples and related methods. The methodology
applies a range of tools from the consultancy research domain, including force field analysis of
complex organizational scenarios, and applies bricolage and corroboration to emerging
discoveries from semi-structured interviews, author experience, critical reflection and literature
survey. Findings are that linear representation of internal and external forces in organizational
applications of field theory does not fully explain the paradox of inverse vectors in the forces of
change. The force field is not an impermeable thing; instead, it morphs. Examples of the inverse
principle and its effects are detailed and extended in this analysis. The implications of the
research are that force field analysis and related change processes promoted in organizational
change literature run the risk of missing key complexities. The inclusion of the inverse principle
can provide enhanced, holistic understanding of the prevailing forces for change. The
augmentation of the early work of Kurt Lewin, and extension of previous analyses of his legacy in
the Journal of Change Management and elsewhere, provide, in this article, change analysis
insights that align well with current organizational environments.
KEY WORDS: Lewin, change, complexity, vector, management
Introduction
Embracing the complexities of change and not oversimplifying it as a simple
linear process can be rewarding (if not realistic), and yet challenging in practice.
Two aspects of change – the facts of a situation, and the perceptions of the people
involved – are crucial issues. Shakespeare captures this principle in Hamlet
(Act 2, scene 2):
Journal of Change Management, 2014
Vol. 14, No. 1, 28–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.788052
Correspondence Address: Andrew Shawn Creed, Deakin University, Faculty of Business & Law, P.O. Box 423,
Warrnambool, Victoria 3280, Australia. Email: andrew.creed@deakin.edu.au
#2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
Hamlet: Denmark’s a prison.
Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.
Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons,
Denmark being one o’ th’ worst.
Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.
Hamlet: Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but think-
ing makes it so. To me it is a prison.
The uneasy alliance between status quo and innovative change has frequently been
a source of management challenge. The perception of when change is needed
varies, thus creating the dilemma. This has not prevented great minds from gen-
erating useful ideas about change. For instance, some comprehensive reviews of
planned versus emergent theories of change were published in the previous
decade by Burnes (2004a, 2004b, 2005), generally concluding that the contempor-
ary organizational environment continues to demand complexity theory expla-
nations and approaches. There are continuing references to the shift back and
forth with ideas of planned as opposed to emergent change (Nasim and Sushil,
2011); and the management tensions between focusing on human resources,
which adds to complexity, detracting from an efficiency or profit maximization
orientation (By et al., 2011). Change is perennially difficult to plan for, yet
remains fundamentally necessary for survival. This is why change management
continues to be a topic in many management-related university studies. There
are whole units devoted to its study; and elements of it permeate most other
units, so that students get some strategies for managing change when they
embark on their career as managers.
One theorist in particular is mentioned frequently: Kurt Lewin, whose concept
of planned change provides a full suite of useful tools for understanding and
driving change. Like most things, however, time manages to erode the fine
points, dull the shine, and blunt the edge. Burnes (2004a, 2009), acknowledging
the vast and high-quality body of work contributed by Lewin, correctly notes
some disparities between what Lewin intended to say about planned change and
what has actually transpired in change management since his death. As Graetz
and Smith (2010) point out, Lewin’s foundations in applied social psychology
hardly enable him to be accused of being simplistic or linear in his approaches.
There are, in fact, four separate ideas entwined in Lewin’s original concept of
planned change; field theory, group dynamics, action research, and the three-
step model of change. Change management consultancy draws often upon sets
of tools founded in these theories. A primary objective of this paper is to take
the point first made by Burnes (2004a, 2004b) about modern misinterpretations
of Lewin’s planned change and look deeper into field theory, in particular, as it
is this construct that appears to promise most for a contemporary understanding
of the factors of change as Lewin first intended.
First let’s consider why a detailed study of field theory may be beneficial today.
A 2012 lecture slide in an undergraduate class in human resource development has
little to say about Lewin’s force field analysis (Figure 1). Also, Alan Fine’s recent
popular publication in the area of self-help uses a similarly, simplistic model of
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 29
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
Lewin’s field theory to lend authority to his discussion of ‘interferences’ (Fine and
Merrill, 2010, p. 10) that inhibit personal success.
Revisiting the original published descriptions of field theory (Lewin, 1933,
1943a), one can see that Lewin himself would despair to think that today in
popular culture and undergraduate management education, his sophisticated,
complex, responsive model is reduced to a mere three-step process with limited
associated analysis. It seems as though this three-step model has been widely
adopted among academics and practitioners in lieu of a full analysis of forces in
the field of change (Paton and McCalman, 2008; Boohene and Williams, 2012).
It is the opinion of these authors that such a blunt approach may contribute to pro-
blems, rather than help solve them; entrench resistance, rather than overcome it; or
alienate people, rather than invigorate them. The metaphor has become the com-
plete picture when it is apparent that Lewin did not centralize it. He simply used
the metaphor to help illustrate a broader point about the complexity of the forces in
the field. The simplicity of unfreeze – change –refreeze could be attractive to prac-
titioners because it may work in some highly controlled situations. It does not,
however, embrace the subtleties of Lewin’s original model. As Harford (2011,
p. 3) says in his recent publication, Adapt, ‘The world is mind-bogglingly compli-
cated...this complex economy produces vast material wealth... The process that
produces this wealth is near miraculous, and the job is far harder than we tend to
acknowledge’.
Our aim in this paper, then, is to revitalize force field analysis by showing how
its value is enhanced when applied with richness and depth in the context of
today’s management discipline. Case examples are applied from semi-structured
interview research in bricolage with experience, critical reflection and literature
survey for further insight into the dynamics involved. There are unresolved con-
flicts and intersections in the variables of Lewin’s model. Rich and qualitative
Figure 1. Lewin’s three-stage model of the change process.
30 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
exploration of case examples in the paper provide moments of emergence that add
to theoretical understanding.
Acknowledging the general human yearning for a sense of stability in the organ-
izations for which people work, the authors build on this understanding and apply
organizational examples to analyse clues in relation to efficient processes, opti-
mized resources, motivated staff, and well-managed intellectual capital. For
example, less than a generation ago, few householders would have imagined
themselves sorting through three types of household waste, washing out bottles
and cans, separating food scraps from true rubbish. No patient would have felt
comfortable being diagnosed by their doctor from 1,000 miles away on a high-
definition TV screen or getting their prescription from a vending machine.
Today, such activities are increasingly possible and common; but many
people’s resistance to these changes is becoming acrimonious while others are
appreciating, embracing and even driving the innovations. Lewin’s force field
analysis is revisited with detailed organizational scenarios via a bricolage method-
ology and adapted to explain the resulting concepts.
Forces in the Field: From Plato to Lewin
What is meant by well managed? Is the implied control in the practice of manage-
ment a form of stasis – perhaps a resistance that has a relevant place in the organ-
izational script? Without resistance, change moves ahead without fully canvassing
or exploring the implications of a managed change event (Salem, 2013). Conven-
tional wisdom requires that there is an understanding of the reasons, assumptions,
or perceptions that drive resistance (Ago
´cs, 1997; Jas, 2013). As long ago as 180
AD, Marcus Aurelius advised, ‘At every action, no matter by whom preferred,
make it a practice to ask yourself, “What is his object in doing this?”’ This is
equally true of those who would advance change and those who would resist it.
On the other hand, is this what Plato was thinking when he had Socrates tell
Glaucon, ‘Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of
the light or from going into the light...’ (Plato and Jowett, 1991, pp. 253– 261)?
Plato and Marcus Aurelius are describing the same tension between resistance and
change, between those who have ‘seen the light’ and those who prefer the ‘dark’.
The challenge for today’s managers and change agents is to move forward and
maintain the advantages of both past practices and policies while innovating to
adapt to a rapidly changing environment. ‘It is striking to note that Sears received
its accolades at exactly the time – in the mid 1960s – when it was ignoring the rise
of discount retailing and home centers’ (Christensen, 1997, p. xii).
Similar in essence to Marcus Aurelius and Plato, force field analysis (Lewin,
1951) provides a model for change that shows the relationship between the
driving forces for positive change and the constraining forces against change.
It is these authors’ observation that the variation in the perception of the forces
between those who would embrace change and those who would resist it is a
pivotal consideration when planning, recognizing, controlling, and directing
change. Similar observations have been made historically and contemporarily
(Garrett, 1939; Argyris, 1997; Burnes, 2004a; Burnes and Cooke, 2012), but a
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 31
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
greater weight of interpretation in applied change management has tended toward
a simplistic pragmatism in the field, rather than a full and realistic embrace of
complexity in organizational change initiatives, particularly in relation to practice.
The explanation for this could be, as Burnes and Cooke (2012, p. 2) point out,
‘[Lewin’s] yardstick for relevance was that his approach to change should
enable individuals and groups to understand and restructure their perceptions of
the world around them’. In this light, it makes sense to condense complex ideas
into a few stages and develop a simple set of steps so that practice (via percep-
tions) and theory can intersect. Consultants and educators as the practitioners of
change management have subsequently embraced unfreeze– change –refreeze as
shorthand for Lewin’s opus on the field. He was at once successful in making
his work accessible en masse, but entrapped by that same success into more sim-
plistic perceptions than he had likely intended. The more complex field theory
ideas of Lewin were left largely alone by others after his death, while the three-
step model attributed to him became more popularized (Lewin, 1992;
Neumann, 2005).
The Force Field: Features and Adaptations
Lewin (1947, 1951) proposed a highly sophisticated conception of the emergent
and dynamic nature of various forces in a situational field, largely in consideration
of individual psychological factors as part of group dynamics. His work is built
upon a desire to free Gestalt psychology from perceived entrenchment in out-
moded positivist frames of thought (Lewin, 1943b; Burnes and By, 2012).
At the same time, his approach is reflective of field theory in physics (Lewin,
1943a) and influenced by Cassirer’s evidence-based, empirical philosophy of
science (Adelman, 1993), especially seen in Lewin’s attempt to ‘mathematize’
field theory (Lewin, 1936; Bargal, 2006; Burnes and Cooke, 2012). Combining
all of these influences, Lewin offers a photographic representation of change
rather than a direction or a particular solution. Lewin is about understanding
change. Modernist researchers and change management practitioners may have
appropriated his terminology for their ends without taking full advantage of the
rich level of understanding offered through his insights. Ultimately, Lewin’s
force field diagrams appear to represent movement from an original psychological
construct through a series of added complexities in which new ideas and social
interactions occur; then, a reconstruction of a clearer, distilled version of the orig-
inal emerges. The field is not a straight line with barriers, constraints and enablers,
as indicated in far too many articles, lectures slides and textbooks. Change does
not occur unless the right combination of forces running in the right directions
emerges in the individuals of a group in complex space –time configurations.
In practice, force field analysis has become primarily a practitioner tool. It is
referred to by academics (Hughes, 2007; Gable et al., 2010; Boohene and
Williams, 2012), usually applying survey methodology but rarely, though some-
times (see Burnes, 2007), used in its full capacity in organizational action
research. Force field analysis based upon survey data may be undertaken by differ-
ent practitioner groups in the same organization to surface different perceptions
and aid communication. Where academic research into the field has been
32 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
conducted, organizational and educational theorists often adapt field theory into
something more linear than Lewin appears to have first intended. The notion of
forces with vectors from the original field theory is applied to a full range of organ-
izational dynamics beyond the individual (Grundy, 1994). Vector maps, such as in
Figure 2, have been applied by change managers in the analysis of organizational
context.
While the image in Figure 2 makes practical sense for a manager auditing the
variables in a decision about a change initiative, it is not as rich and realistic as
Lewin’s original ideas about field theory. Traversing over 20 years of his writings
on the subject (Lewin, 1933, 1936, 1943a, 1947, 1951), it becomes clear that the
author’s intention was never to condense field theory into a modernistic map of
external and internal organizational factors. For example, the first drawings of
the field are mosaics of interrelating forces and nothing like the skeletal sketch
of Figure 2. Complexity, dynamism, and a sheer organic representation of
vectors which can flow one way and just as quickly reverse to flow another, are
the real hallmarks of field theory. In fact, Lewin (1943a, p. 294) comments that
‘Field Theory, therefore, can hardly be called correct or incorrect in the same
way as a theory in the usual sense of the term. Field Theory is probably best
characterized as a method: namely, a method of analyzing causal relations and
of building scientific constructs’. This is far removed from the contemporary man-
agement view of the theory, which charts internal and external organizational vari-
ables primarily to try to find the ‘correct’ way to move forward on a change
initiative. Despite this, the practicalities of implementing force field analysis
sometimes conspire to show glimpses of the true complexity of interacting
forces (Heward et al., 2007). In charting an analysis, change practitioners some-
times represent a force as both a driver and a constraint, depicting one as a
smaller arrow and one as a larger arrow with their size changing over time.
Clarity of
change
objective
Leadership
Skills
Enabling forces
Constraining forces
External
pressure
Management
style
Weak
system
Number
of staff
Communication
of change
Figure 2. Example of enablers and constraints in the force field.
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 33
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
In revisiting the earlier tenets of field theory, the authors propose an inverse
principle drawn from observation of the perceptual differences that individuals
and groups can express due to attitudinal bias. This aligns with the possibilities
of reverse polarities raised by Lewin himself when describing a ‘paradoxical
effect’ that, sometimes, to reach a goal one has to start off in an opposite direction
(Lewin, 1933, p. 331). Further, that which is originally denoted as an objective
enabling force can have the inverse effect of impeding the change. Likewise,
objective constraining forces can, inversely, lead to individuals and group
members building a higher level of motivation to overcome what is perceived
to be a constraint.
The adaptation of force field vectors in Figure 3 is an acknowledgement of the
symbolic interpretive influences that can pervade change processes (Hatch and
Cunliffe, 2006; Morgan, 2006). Lewin is among the earliest of theorists associated
with the sociological epistemology of action research; and these authors consider
it a conundrum that field theory, one of the underlying tenets of action research,
has in a sense been subsumed by modernistic impulsion to objectify and deliver
planned outcomes. The interpretive ontology of field theory must be acknowl-
edged to ensure a more appropriately aligned perspective on change management,
especially given that Lewin is about understanding change and the field is not a
straight line with barriers constraints and enablers.
In order to explore the contentions of the adaptation of field theory represented
in Figure 3, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted and corrobo-
rated with additional experiences and observations. From the method, a selection
of cases emerged to illustrate the dynamics embedded in Figure 2. The next sec-
tions outline the method of research, explain the cases, generate relevant force
field diagrams in a style reminiscent of Lewin, and tie the explorations and emer-
gent findings to analysis of the change management theory that generates the focus
of this paper.
Enabling
forces
Inverse principle:
Enabler perceived as a
supplement? Or as a
replacement for performance?
Inverse principle:
Constraint perceived as barrier?
Or as a motivator for chan
g
e?
Constraining
forces
+
-
-
+
Figure 3. The inverse principle in field theory.
34 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
The Method
The method drew on a wide range of tools from the consultancy research domain
including force field analysis of complex organizational scenarios, and applied
bricolage and corroboration to emerging discoveries from semi-structured inter-
views, author experience, critical reflection and literature survey. Bricolage has
been defined as ‘making do with current resources, and creating new forms and
order from tools and materials at hand’ (Baker et al., 2003, p. 264). It draws
from anthropological and improvisation theory (Levi-Strauss, 1966; Chao,
1999; Innes and Booher, 1999). In essence, ‘the bricoleur speaks through
things, as well as with them’ (Dezeuze, 2008). Corroboration is the collation
and comparison of qualitative data as a form of triangulation. In an additive
sense, corroboration involves building upon an existing base of knowledge with
more knowledge of similar semantic content (Gottlob, 2000). With semi-
structured interviews playing a core feeding role, the other rich sources of data,
analysis, and theory projection and development were aligned by bricolage and
corroboration systematically throughout the research.
Here, Lewin’s force field analysis is examined through organic, adaptably
scripted interactions in cases embedded in the natural complexities of forces
that Lewin represented in his original studies. The analysis was augmented with
semi-structured explorations of themes. Epistemologically (Mohrman and
Lawler, 2011), a symbolic interpretive method of research is most appropriate
for studying the interactionist basis of Lewin’s field theory; therefore purposive
sampling was used to capture cases for analysis with sufficient access to data,
so that the original detail of Lewin’s model could be explored in all its facets.
While six extended and rich semi-structured interviews were carried out by the
authors in a funded project with research ethics clearance, Conversations with
Industry (Creed and Swanson, 2011), for this paper a brace of cases from the
public domain was also selected for detailed analysis and to articulate with the
ideas from other examples of direct experience. Case analysis methodology was
noted to be supported in the literature (Yin, 1994; Sarantakos, 1998; Stake,
2000; Appelbaum, 2003; Thomas, 2004). A bricolage of data from diverse obser-
vations and interviews is an accepted part of case study methodology (Tharenou
et al., 2007). In planning the semi-structured interviews for the project, it was
recognized that the method generally provides flexibility for the interviewer and
interviewee, higher response rate, direct attention of the respondent, and opportu-
nities to observe non-verbal communication (Reddy, 1987; Burns, 1998; May,
1993; Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Sandelowski and Barroso, 2007). Potential
weaknesses of interviews were linked with higher time and dollar costs than
other methods, possible lack of direction and loss of content where the interviewee
is inexperienced (McNiff, 1988; May, 1993; Burns, 1998; Denzin and Lincoln,
2005; Sandelowski and Barroso, 2007). These issues were considered and
balanced in our selection of cases in the next section for detailed analysis and
extension of concepts in relation to force field theory.
Each case study was chosen to reveal a unique problem associated with over-
simplifying Lewin’s force field analysis. The first case was selected from the Con-
versations with Industry interview series due to the richness of available data for
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 35
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
the level of interpretive analysis this method required. The respondent, Dr Lyle
Berkowitz, provided wide-ranging dialogue about factors and processes. The tran-
scripts were organized and mined for indicators of the vector forces that would
enable emergence of a richer view of the field. The second case was selected as
a contemporary industry example with sufficient source documentation to corro-
borate (or potentially refute) the contentions made about force field analysis. The
next sections present the facts and findings of the case and subsequently explain
additional case analysis from contemporary industry to corroborate the findings.
The Berkowitz Transcripts
Lyle Berkowitz, MD, FHIMSS, is a practising internal medicine physician and
healthcare informatics expert with a passion for continuous improvement. Dr Ber-
kowitz serves as Medical Director of Clinical Information Systems for the largest
primary care group in the city of Chicago, as Program Director for the Szollosi
Healthcare Innovation Program (SHIP), and as president of an independent health-
care IT strategy consulting firm. He is a prolific writer and awarded in his field
(Berkowitz, 2011). The following questions and responses, from a 2010 interview
with Dr Berkowitz in Conversations with Industry (Creed and Swanson, 2011),
serve as a platform for exposition. In the first example, the foundational aspects
of initiating change in the face of anticipated resistance in a healthcare setting
are being explored.
Q: You see this balancing of change and the need for change in your industry or
business against the need to find some structure and stability?
Dr Berkowiitz: I have a couple of different hats so in my hat as a physician, there’s
not a lot of momentum for change. Doctors and patients are very used to the same
type of relationship and quite honestly that’s how we get paid. So the only way
change will occur will be if financial reimbursements are altered to reimburse a
different type of care. Right now I get paid and physicians get paid in general
based on the volume of patients we see, not based on the quality of our care or
our efficiency, only the amount of patients that we see. Therefore the system is
set up to make me want to see as many patients as possible and how we do that is
we see the patient in the exam room, we document it, we submit a bill to the insur-
ance company.
A number of constraints to change in the consultation process are evident in this
statement. The age-old familiarity of a face-to-face meeting with a health prac-
titioner is a strong tradition, and as Dr. Berkowitz states, reimbursement from
insurance companies is tied to face-to-face time on task.
This reality is further confirmed by Farooqi (2010, p. 7), who warns of the poten-
tial for an obsession with technology at the expense of the traditional patient-phys-
ician relationship: modern doctors are essentially expert technologists, but ‘the
sense of the growing gap between what patients want and what general practitioners
perceive as important has resulted in increased dissatisfaction of patients with the
health care system’. In this context, health care is at a ‘Lewin crossroad’: it must
take advantage of the new tools for understanding the patient and the diagnosis,
36 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
but is constrained from doing so by the traditional expectation of a face-to-face
encounter with the physician where face-to-face discourse and the ‘laying of
hands’ is a diagnostic expectation to the point where it seems to be part of the
cure. Lewin (1943a, p. 303) recognizes expectations as powerful forces that influ-
ence the outcomes of change. ‘The individual sees not only his present situation;
he has certain expectations, wishes, fears, and daydreams for his future’. Expec-
tations, therefore, can function as constraints or enablers. What seems to be lost
in modern interpretations of Lewin’s discourse about ‘the field’, especially in a sim-
plified fishbone diagram in the style if Figure 2, is the psychological nature that
defines the field thus intersecting with multifaceted elements. In this instance,
there are insights into the complexity of perceptions that render unfreeze–
change– refreeze an impractical panacea for the situation.
Dr Berkowitz: I proposed an idea where we start managing more of the care of the
patient without requiring them to come and see a doctor and face-to-face. We do it
by telephone and on the web. We actually have a system [...] which allows us to do a
web visit where they answer [...] a structured questionnaire. [The patients] answer
that and [...] we get a message and all the answers are there and we can either say,
OK, based on that I have an answer or I need to ask a few more questions. We can do
it online or we can do it on the phone. And right now the only way we can get reim-
bursed is if we charge the patient themselves and quite honestly a lot of patients are
fine with that, for 35 or 40 dollars, it’s well worth it for them to not have to come to a
doctor’s office and leave whatever job they are at. So it’s a convenience for them and
they are willing to pay for that.
Here, Dr Berkowitz clearly identifies a segment of the population for whom the
traditional face-to-face encounter has become a constraint and the changing
environment is altering people’s perceptions of what constitutes a constraint or
an enabler in an encounter with a medical practitioner. This is an example of a
‘disruptive innovation’ (Christensen, 1997) – one that has benefits, but also
some disadvantages, depending on one’s position and perception of the service
relationship. The physician and the patient can make more efficient use of their
time; but the physical, visceral nature of the healing relationship is transformed.
Technology, of course, is used in many different ways in primary health care.
As doctors go, Dr Berkowitz could be considered a fairly new entrant to the field,
entering medicine in 1995 and having under two full decades of experience to date.
While a potential constraint for some, this is an obvious enabler for Dr Berkowitz.
The research of Christensen (1997, p. 26) would indicate that ‘leading firms were
held captive by their customers, enabling attacking entrant firms to tacklethe incum-
bent industry leaders each time a disruptive technology emerged’.
Additional insight is offered by Berkowitz showing how he was not ‘held
captive’ by his ‘customer’, but rather changed the patient’s perception of inno-
vation in his practice from one of constraint to a pattern of enabling:
Dr Berkowitz: I still remember one of my early visits by an older lady who was upset
because I was typing away on the computer, focused on that, while she was talking and
we really, it was set up in a triangle so that you were never looking completely away
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 37
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
from the patient and she said ‘Stop looking at that computer and pay attention to me’.
And I said ‘Mrs C I understand but I’m using this computer to help you. All those drugs
that you’re on, I’m putting them in the computer and all those problems that you have,
I’m making sure it’s all legible here in the computer so if you ever go to the emergency
room or see one of my partners, they’ll be able to quickly see what’s going on’. And she
thought about it and she said ‘OK, go back to the computer’.
Therefore, the inverse principle from Figure 3 is evident in this example. The loss
of some eye contact with the doctor is among the constraining factors when trying
to implement a new file recording technology into the practice. By thinking
through the implications, however, and clearly communicating the goals and out-
comes, the same situation becomes perceived as an enabler of better, safer prac-
tice. This may not work in every case, but many types of operations, and
customers, in similarly structured service processes – from health and transport,
to education, banking and more – have strongly moved toward this changed per-
ception as the design and usability of technology has improved. Regardless, health
care remains a much contextualized service example.
Dr Berkowitz: As a working physician, health care is very local, very, very, very local
and it is the taking care of a patient, you know, is very face-to-face, very personal,
using local resources and local doctors. [...] What’s happening on the bigger scale
though is [...] there are a significant amount of people who are in the rural areas
[...] Their doctor doesn’t have the access to specialists. [...] So a doctor who’s in a
rural area could have their patient send all their information and get an opinion
from a doctor, a specialist, who hopefully will be partly paid for by insurance.
This is another example of the constraints in the total healthcare transaction, such
as geographical distance from specialists and the ongoing resistance to moving
health care online, which inversely becomes a motivator for implementation of
new technological processes. Such moments require more sophisticated analysis
tools than linear steps and staged diagrams alone convey. Change situations
more often than not are pulsating, morphing collections of people and events
that need a reflexive and intuitive set of field-based responses. Other examples
emerge in the interview:
Dr Berkowitz: If a patient comes in and says, you know, ‘I don’t want that, I don’t
want my record viewable by anyone else’. They have the right to ask that. [...]We
have a strong audit system, it’s an audit trail. So you know if a patient in particular
says ‘I’d like to know everyone who saw my record’, we can provide that for them;
and we have a strong policy that says you will be fired and possibly brought up on
criminal charges if you’ve done that. It’s not like a lot of people care about other
people’s records, most of the time, but there are those issues and concerns and it
could happen in a paper based system as well.
This reveals another set of constraints in the perception of customer concerns
about privacy and confidentiality which, inversely, become enablers through the
legal benefits of being able to track data. Process management, legal enforcement,
38 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
and personal tracking of data are all benefits of some applications of digital tech-
nology. Privacy remains relevant, but it is the overall perception of the greater
benefit that appears to make the strongest difference in the adoption and long-
term acceptance of technological changes. The inverse principle in the force
field can emerge in a variety of settings and also occurs in the changes linked
to globalization of business operations.
Dr Berkowitz: Normally, could a call centre like that can be in another country? The
answer is yes; and it is trying to be done. [Some companies can] set you up with the
administrative software for registrations, scheduling, billing and they also offer a
clinical option but the focus is on the administrative stuff [...]; their goal is to
take everything that doesn’t have to be done in the office and take it out and they
have call centres, etc., in various places in the US and supposedly outside.
In other words, the same range of constraints and enablers apply and the inverse
principle continues to work in outsourced organizational operations. Outsourced
procedures in medicine are about as far removed from the traditional, local, per-
sonalized, face-to-face medical practice of the past. Though it is beyond the scope
of this paper, it might also have been interesting to explore the use of remote
virtual surgical technologies through broadband connections. Constraining
forces have obviously worked against the medical paradigm change, and yet
somehow the constraints have been converted to enablers. There are two polarities
to the forces in every force field which are being exemplified in this example.
Now consider the many levels and vectors of forces in this example through a
Lewinesque representation in Figure 4.
This is a partial representation, and not as complex as Lewin’s own graphics
which aim to quantify vectors. The vertical parallel lines are space – time par-
ameters for the actors in the case, and the sectional interactions are the constructs
of the case as they exist at two distilled points in the space– time continuum. The
dimensions in the field are illustrated in connection with each other in rich con-
verse and inverse relationships. This is a more realistic diagram than the fishbone
type (Figure 2) that has become common usage. For Berkowitz, while some things
stay the same (patients require care and doctors need payment), the doctor–patient
relationship is being fundamentally altered by the capabilities of new technology.
The patients’ perspective is also shifting. On the one hand, new technology can be
a great aid to improved health care; on the other, there is a chance that great harm
can come from misapplication of the new approach. Likewise, people in the field
may embrace increasing technologization of health care, and others may resist it.
This kind of force field analysis provides for practitioners a conceptual map as a
foundation for thinking through and making recommendations that can help to
minimize the risk of logical fallacies emerging from the commonly more linear
representation of Lewin’s work. For instance, managing change as a healthcare
professional, where the perception of constraints and enablers are personal and
immediate, may be easier than attempting to manage change at a community or
organizational level. In a different context, local government is also coping
with many changes to processes and policies. Their task involves a different
level of complexity. Warrnambool Council wants to initiate changes to improve
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 39
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
the health of the climate and local area through more efficient recycling and waste
disposal practices. The following example is a study in how the perception of con-
straints on a grander scale can become barriers.
A Local Council Example
Many ‘enablers’ for any activity that reduces human impact on the natural
environment are published in all the media on a daily basis. We frequently get
enabling messages to ‘walk to work’, ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’, and ‘consider the
environment before printing’. Rising energy and fuel costs are manifestations of
Lewin’s external forces. Advertisements with famous people exhorting audiences
to care for the environment provide Lewin’s leadership forces. The change objec-
tive is abundantly clear, and it does not take a lot of skill to bin or recycle some-
thing. In the light of this overwhelming aggregation of enabling forces, let us
consider the recent attempt to implement change to waste collection in the city
of Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia. Any such local town initiative might be
studied; but the details of this case are convenient and informative. As stated,
the environmental impact of having to dispose of recyclable or compostable
material is increasingly clear and alarming. According to Clean Up Australia,
‘Australians are the second highest producers of waste, per person, in the world
with each of us sending almost 800 kg of waste to landfill each year’ (Clean Up
Australia, household leaflet).
These enablers were enough to motivate the Warrnambool City Council (WCC)
to attempt to change the way householders deal with their unwanted items put out
for the city’s collection service. The city collects recyclables fortnightly and
household trash weekly. In spite of having clear, published guidelines to recycling
and waste services, many householders are not sorting items correctly.
In November 2008, 500 household bins were randomly audited across a one-
week collection. The audit revealed that only 55% of what was collected was
Doctors need payment
Care occurs in a space-time field
Definition of doctor-
patient care changes
between points 1 and
2 in space-time
Increased patient volume
Desire for tailored health care
New technology enables change
People resist change
Patients require care
Figure 4. The Berkowitz case as a full field diagram.
40 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
supposed to be sorted out from the general waste (Warrnambool City Council,
2011). Obviously, a change in householder behaviour was required. This led the
WCC to survey residents about the introduction of new waste services. The
three new services under consideration were weekly organics kerbside collection
at an estimated additional cost of $100 per household per year, annual hard waste
collection at an estimated additional cost of $20–30 per household per year, and
professional bin cleaning services at an estimated additional cost of $72 – 144 per
household per year.
The survey came during a state-wide push to reduce the amount of waste going
to landfill, with recycling and composting the key priorities, which should have
functioned as a potent enabler, but Warrnambool residents voted overwhelmingly
against the introduction of these three waste services. People were certainly con-
cerned about the issue with a total of 6,225 people – nearly half of the city’s rate-
payers – offering their views to the survey, providing the council with its biggest
response ever to an issue (Warrnambool City Council, 2011).
A report to the WCC therefore had to recommend that no changes be introduced
in the new waste contract, due to begin in July 2012. However, the WCC’s disap-
pointment at the rejection of the three proposals was noted. ‘It is disappointing that
none of the options was supported by the community’, the report reads. ‘It is evident
that much work must now occur, educating the community about diverting organics
from garbage and the benefits to the environment and the long-term economic
benefits’. A total of 78% of respondents voted down the option of a weekly organics
collection. The hard waste collection idea was knocked back by 65% of people.
So now, with the idea rejected, the WCC began the work of developing percep-
tions of enablers and diminishing perceptions of constraints. This should have
occurred before the changes were mooted. In The Framing of Decisions and the
Psychology of Choice, Tversky and Kahneman (1981, p. 457) point out how
‘framing outcomes in terms of overall wealth or welfare rather than in terms of
specific gains and losses may attenuate one’s emotional response to an occasional
loss. Similarly, the experience of a change for the worse may vary if the change is
framed as an uncompensated loss or as a cost incurred to achieve some benefit’.
It is within the framing of statements that perception of enablers can so often
become constraining. This waste management example indicates the strong
enablers about the need for change, and yet the vote turned out negative. A per-
ceptual disconnect occurred as the issues became intertwined with a range of
other factors, among which voting to add to one’s rates bill looms large.
A similar challenge is being confronted by governments in developed nations
that propose any new tax; for instance, Australia’s carbon tax (Dwyer et al.,
2012), on the premise of better managing the environment. Post-Global Financial
Crisis (GFC), people are suspicious that governments of any kind can effectively
invest the revenues from taxation. The force field continues to hold many inverse
results that should not surprise change managers. It is through awareness of the
inverse principle in Figure 3, with a Lewinesque factoring of the full field of vari-
ables, that more effective change programs can be developed.
The WCC survey put its focus on constraining forces, almost guaranteeing a
negative response. For example:
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 41
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
Do you support the introduction of a weekly organics collection at an estimated
additional cost of $100 per household per year?
The results are:
YES to Organics Collection – 1,344
NO to Organics Collection – 4,866
Total – 6,209
The authors believe that the elevation of the $100 annual cost in this first question
leads the respondents to focus on the constraint of the cost. In these days when
burning is no longer permitted, a simple cost – benefit analysis of having organics
removed by council on a weekly basis would reveal the following for a typical
suburban householder based on them having a 4 ×6 trailer, take at least four
loads a year to the recycling station and keep a composter on their property:
†Approximate cost of a 4 ×6 trailer ¼$600
†Four trips to the recycling station @ $10/load ¼$40
†Automobile running costs for a 20-km return trip to the recycling station @
$2/km ¼$40
†Cost of compost bin ¼$60
†Annual cost of rodent protection ¼$50
The real costs then are approximately $800 for the first year, with on-costs of
around $90/year after that. This means that after eight years, the ratepayer who
rejected WCC’s idea of having green waste collected weekly for $100/a year
will be saving $10 per year if no new trailer or bin is required within eight years.
If the question were framed in a way that described the present costs, if the dis-
course had allowed the facts of the matter to emerge, the result, inevitably, would
have been different. While not all householders fit this exact profile, the example
might have led people to understand their own constraints of ‘do-it-yourself’ waste
removal and appreciate the enabling details of having the WCC take care of it.
Given the limitations of the survey, with its short, simple questions, these
authors believe there were better ways of managing the change than by starting
with a survey. Knowing that household waste must be managed better, leaders
must engage in planned change and implement change without the distraction
of a survey that not only rejects initiatives but sets up a negative attitude
toward the change. By discussing the status quo, one is preparing for change.
This seems an object lesson in the lack of application Lewin’s ‘paradoxical
effect’ where, sometimes, to reach a goal one has to start off in an opposite direc-
tion (Lewin, 1933, p. 331).
Many similar examples can be run through a Lewinian analysis of forces,
vectors, constraints and enablers. For this paper, analyses of the Berkowitz experi-
ence and the WCC recycling programme have demonstrated the complexities of
change management. Contemporary connections are drawn with force field
theory, which has otherwise been overlooked except for a few voices encouraging
otherwise in the change management literature (Argyris, 1997; Burnes and Cooke,
2012). Lewin’s planned change is not as locked and linear as some would have it
when it is viewed as vectors with inverse effects.
42 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
Now consider the many levels and vectors of forces in this example through a
Lewinesque representation in Figure 5.
In this example, the vertical parallel lines are space–time parameters for the
actors in the case and the sectional interactions are the constructs of the case as
they exist at two distilled points in the space – time continuum. The dimensions
in the field are illustrated in connection with each other in rich converse and
inverse relationships. For the WCC, while some things stay the same (waste
must be redistributed and costs must be covered), the economic relationship is
being fundamentally altered by the emerging exigency of environmental protec-
tion. Ratepayers also have a perspective that is undergoing change. On the one
hand, the desire for environmental protection is gaining moral and political
momentum; on the other, there are the personal costs related to waste redistribu-
tion. Likewise, people in the field may embrace environmental protection, and
others may deny or resist it.
In both of the case examples analysed in this section, it was seen that the partici-
pants’ linear approach to change created the difficulties they encountered. Lewin’s
force field ‘hodology’ (Burnes and Cooke, 2012, p. 7) highlights a dynamic rather
than static manifestation. However, within the force field, and during analysis of any
event involving organizational change, both stasis and dynamism must be acknowl-
edged. The Lewinesque diagrams are determined to illustrate the interplay between
the elements of change. In addition, the inverse principle moderated the forces in the
field of analysis in each of the cases, thus providing the analysis with a pragmatic
edge. For instance, the inverse expressions of technology and tradition in the
doctor– patient relationship, being both enablers and constraints for Berkowitz in
different contexts, revealed the complex reality of the field. Likewise, the WCC
experience of framing statements about waste recycling in ways that inadvertently
created constraints in behaviour, where one may have expected mainly enablers,
illustrated the inverse principle once again. The simple representation of Figure
3, combined with the more complex representation of forces in Figures 4 and 5,
Waste must be redistributed
Increased ‘green’ sentiments
Perception of acceptable
waste management
changes between points
1 and 2 in space-time
Adherence to political process
Design of survey instrument
People resist costly change
Waste mana
g
ement occurs in a space-time field
Costs have to be covered
Figure 5. The WCC case as a full field diagram.
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 43
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
offers, in each new case of change analysis, a ready tool for more comprehensive
scoping of the forces of change management.
It seems appropriate when discussing Lewinian change management to refer to
the ancient argument between Zeno and Parmenides (Plato and Warrington, 1961;
Thornley, 2012) about whether anything really changes at all. The Shakespeare
passage at the beginning of this article drives at a similar theme. It is a paradox
to note that every situation has elements that remain constant and yet, when
seen from another perspective, it appears that everything continually changes.
People tend to focus on one point or the other at the expense of clarity, oversim-
plifying the healthy complexity of the parallel nature of stability and change.
Conclusion: The Quintessential Change Manager
Force field analysis, as first described by Kurt Lewin, is a sophisticated model. In
organizational analysis, a creeping simplification of the force field concept has
been noted since his death. Oversimplifications of complex situations in the field
run the risk of ineffective decisions being made. This paper has demonstrated
that, through understanding of the inverse principle and acknowledgement of
growing complexity of forces in different contexts, a more pragmatic and meaning-
ful analysis is possible. Complexity and dynamism can be better integrated into
understanding change processes and vectors. Although more development work is
needed, there are indications that field theory – in its more sophisticated form,
demonstrated in this article – can be used as a dynamic change management tool
rather than just a tool for plotting static situations. The mere fact of knowing that
such a tool exists will allow people to accept the healthy complexity of the parallel
nature of stability and change. It will give credibility to more appropriate expec-
tations for organizational change. Rather than expect the quick, neat, and tidy
unfreeze–change–refreeze that others have attributed to Lewin, it is clear that
‘What works in reality is a far more unsightly, chaotic, and rebellious organisation
all together’ (Harford, 2011, p. 42). Once these expectations are established, man-
agers can plan and manage change using more sophisticated knowledge of vectors
and inverse forces, such as those described in the Berkowitz and WCC examples.
The Berkowitz interviews reveal intersecting forces moderated through space –
time connections that cannot be simply charted as a fishbone diagram. Some
factors are consistent within the field, and can be represented as lines flowing
through time; but some key drivers of change such as technology innovation,
increased patient numbers, and the variable desires and expectations of both
patients and doctors – must also be considered in a full analysis. In a similar
vein, the WCC case presents a field replete with consistent as well as variable
factors. We can observe the interplay between waste redistribution and cost
control and how these tensions are moderated in space – time by the types of ques-
tions asked, the perceptions of sustainability of people and politicians, and the
understanding of household budgeting. While the methodology in this research
demonstrates how bricolage of data can illuminate force field analysis, more
detailed vector investigations could be conducted. Additional focus group and
survey research is therefore recommended in future projects to monitor awareness
and relevance of this visitation and adaptation of force field analysis.
44 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
There is little doubt that the management of change continues to be a crucial
discipline. As Creed (2011, p. 258) reminds us, ‘People like to feel stable and
yet survival demands change, thus the manager is faced with a paradox that is dif-
ficult to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction’.This sentiment runs to the heart of the
inverse principle that has been illustrated in the examples surveyed in this paper.
The opposing atoms of change and stability can alter their own polarities, depend-
ing upon the context of the change. People can perceive a single factor as an
enabler in one instance and as a constraint in another. The force field is not
impermeable or concrete; instead, it is fluid and dynamic. Resistances still
emerge with strength, and enablers still materialize with gusto; but the reasons
why the forces manifest as they do are not as clear, as once thought, and can
change midstream due to the complex undercurrents of certain situations. This
lack of clarity makes implementation of change vulnerable to undesirable
outcomes.
People in positions to influence change must do so with utmost care, informed
by best practice in the ways of change management; and educators also must
prepare students of management studies for the true complexity of change –
avoiding modern misinterpretations of Lewin’s planned change by looking
deeper into field theory, in particular, as it is this construct that appears to
promise most for a contemporary understanding of the factors of change as
Lewin first intended, and as change itself probably demands.
References
Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research,1(1), 7– 24.
Ago
´cs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and repression. Journal
of Business Ethics,16(9), 917– 931.
Appelbaum, S. (2003). Organisational citizenship: A case study of MedLink Ltd. Team Performance Manage-
ment,9(5/6), 136– 154.
Argyris, C. (1997). Kurt Lewin award lecture: Field Theory as a basis for scholarly consulting. Journal of Social
Issues,53(4), 811– 827.
Baker, T., Miner, A., & Eesley, D. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational
competencies in the founding process. Research Policy,32(2), 255–276.
Bargal, D. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm of action research. Action
Research,4(4), 367– 388.
Berkowitz, L. (2011). Introduction, Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://www.drlyle.com/.
Boohene, R., & Williams, A. (2012). Resistance to organisational change: A case study of Oti Yeboah Complex
Limited. International Business and Management,4(1), 135– 145.
Burnes, B. (2004a). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management
Studies,41(6), 972–1002.
Burnes, B. (2004b). Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: Back to the future? Journal of Change Management,
4(4), 309–325.
Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organisational change. International Journal of Management
Reviews,7(2), 73– 90.
Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood Studies: The foundations of OD. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science,43(2), 213– 231.
Burnes, B. (2009). Reflections: Ethics and organisational change – Time for a return to Lewinian values. Journal
of Change Management,9(4), 359–381.
Burnes, B., & By, R. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business
Ethics,108(2), 239– 252.
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 45
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2012). Kurt Lewin’s field theory: A review and re-evaluation. International Journal of
Management Reviews, published online: 5 Sept. 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00348.x.
Burns, R. (1998). Introduction to research methods. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.
By, R., Burnes, B., & Oswick, C. (2011). Change management: The road ahead. Journal of Change Management,
11(1), 1–6.
Chao, E. (1999). The Maoist shaman and the madman: Ritual bricolage, failed ritual, and failed ritual theory.
Cultural Anthropology,14(4), 505– 534.
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. New York: HarperBusiness.
Creed, A. (2011). Organisational behaviour. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Creed, A., & Swanson, D. (2011). They practice what we preach: Conversations with industry. Retrieved March
17, 2013, from http://www-development.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/visy/index.php.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dezeuze, A. (2008). Assemblage, bricolage, and the practice of everyday life. Art Journal,67(1), 31 – 37.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2012). Economic impacts of a carbon tax on the Australian
tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research,52(2), 143–155.
Farooqi, M. (2010). Patient expectation of general practitioner care. Middle East Journal of Family Medicine,
3(3), 1–5.
Fine, A., & Merrill, R. R. (2010). You already know how to be great: A simple way to remove interference and
unlock your greatest potential. New York: Portfolio Penguin.
Gable, S., Chyung, S., Marker, A., & Winiecki, D. (2010). How should organisational leaders use employee
engagement survey data? Performance Improvement,49(4), 17–25.
Garrett, H. E. (1939). Lewin’s ‘topological’ psychology: An evaluation. Psychological Review,46(6), 517–524.
Gottlob, R. (2000). New aspects of the probabilistic evaluation of hypotheses and experience. International
Studies in the Philosophy of Science,14(2), 147– 163.
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2010). Managing organisational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of
Change Management,10(2), 135– 154.
Grundy, A. (1994). Strategic learning in action. London: McGraw Hill.
Harford, T. (2011). Adapt: Why success always starts with failure. New York: Picador.
Hatch,M.,&Cunliffe,A.(2006).Organisation theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives
(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heward, S., Hutchens, C., & Keleher, H. (2007). Organisational change: Key to capacity building and effective
health promotion. Health Promotion International,22(2), 170– 178.
Hughes, M. (2007). The tools and techniques of change management. Journal of C hange Management,7(1), 37– 49.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of
collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association,65(1), 9– 26.
Jas, P. (2013). The role of interim managers in performance improvement: evidence from English local auth-
orities. Public Money & Management,33(1), 15–22.
Le
´vi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, K. (1933). Vectors, cognitive processes, and Mr. Tolman’s criticism. The Journal of General Psychology,
8(2), 318–345.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1943a). Defining the ‘field’ at a given time. Psychological Review,50(3), 292 – 310.
Lewin, K. (1943b). Psychology and the process of group living. The Journal of Social Psychology,17(1),
113–131.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field Theory in social science
(pp. 188–237). London: Social Science Paperbacks.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, M. (1992). The impact of Kurt Lewin’s life on the place of social issues in his work. Journal of Social
Issues,48(2), 15– 29.
May, T. (1993). Social research: Issues, methods and process. Buckingham: Open University Press.
McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Hong Kong: MacMillan Education.
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organisation. London: SAGE.
Nasim, S., & Sushil, S. (2011). Revisiting organisational change: Exploring the paradox of managing continuity
and change. Journal of Change Management,11(2), 185–206.
46 D.J. Swanson & A.S. Creed
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
Neumann, J. (2005). Kurt Lewin at the Tavistock Institute. Educational Action Research,13(1), 119–136.
Paton, R., & McCalman, J. (2008). Change management: A guide to effective implementation. Los Angeles:
SAGE.
Plato. (1991). The Republic.The complete and unabridged Jowett translation. New York: Vintage Books.
Plato, ed. Warrington, J. (1961). Parmenides and other dialogues. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
Reddy, C. (1987). Research methodology in social sciences. Delhi: Daya.
Salem, P. (2013). The complexity of organizational change: Describing communication during organizational tur-
bulence. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences,17(1), 49–65.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer.
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research (2nd ed.). South Yarra: Macmillan Education.
Stake, R. (2000). The case study method in social inquiry. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case
study method: Key issues, key texts (pp. 20 –26). London: SAGE.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thomas, A. (2004). Research skills for management studies. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Thornley, C. (2012). Information retrieval (IR) and the paradox of change: An analysis using the philosophy of
Parmenides. Journal of Documentation,683(3), 402– 422.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,
211(4481), 453– 458.
Warrnambool City Council (2011). Community votes NO on waste changes. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from
http://www.warrnambool.vic.gov.au/index.php?q=node/494.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sharpening the Focus of Force Field Analysis 47
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:19 08 February 2015
