Lewin's Change Theory

1. One of the seminal studies and theories related to change management is Kurt Lewin's Change Theory. Components of his work are identified in many other theories, so understanding this theory offers insight into the change management process.
2. In this assignment, provide a brief overview of Lewin's Change Theory, including his rationale for creating this theory and the intended role this model addresses in change management.
3. Then discuss the three stages of change implementation and explain the importance of each stage. Be sure to use the terminology for each stage of Lewin's Change Theory as outlined in the text.
4. Finally, Lewin's Change Theory was created in the 1940s. Is the theory still applicable in today's global economy? How would you modify/alter his theory to ensure that it remains relevant and applicable in Saudi Arabia? Discuss any changes to be made to his theory to reflect today's business environment, both globally and in Saudi Arabia.

from text :

Our first model is a basic step model. Sixty years ago, Kurt Lewin7 wrote about the problem

of how to bring about change. He described a three-stage model of change:

Unfreeze Change Refreeze

Lewin stated that we need to understand the situation and system as a whole as well as the component parts that make up the system. Before change can occur, an unfreezing process must happen within that system. Unfreezing focuses on the need to dislodge the beliefs and assumptions of those who need to engage in systemic alterations to the status quo. The unfreezing process might occur because of some crisis. For example, new competitive products that are attacking the major profit centers of a private enterprise might be a sufficient shock to the organization to "unfreeze" patterns. In this example, the balance in the system must be disrupted or broken in order to permit conditions for change to develop. Some top managers even talk about "creating a crisis" in order to develop the sense of urgency around the need for change.

When this unfreezing occurs, the people who are embedded in the systems become susceptible to change. Systems and structures, beliefs, and habits become fluid and thus can shift more easily. Once the change has been completed, these systems, structures, beliefs, and habits can refreeze in their new form.

Unfreeze

Will this letter of complaint be sufficient to "unfreeze" the general manager and move him to action? If this is a single letter, it is highly unlikely that change will occur. If complaints are common for this hotel, this might be seen as just one more letter in a pilebackground noise in running the hotel. The letter suggests that this might be an airport hotel in London, England. The location of the hotel might be such that customer service shortfalls might not make a difference to occupancy rates, whereas minimizing costs would be crucial to the hotel's profitability. In all the above scenarios, no unfreezing would take place.

However, this letter may represent an initiative that captures managerial attention and promotes action. The general manager might be facing declining occupancy and view this letter as a signal of where problems may lie. A comparison with other hotels on measures of profitability and customer satisfaction might demonstrate a dramatic need for change that the letter foreshadowed. In this situation, the general manager's views on the existing system are more likely to be unfrozen, and he would be ready for change.

Note that the unfreezing must take place at many levels. The general manager might be ready for change, but the persons at the reception desk might think things are just fine. Their perceptions need unfreezing as well! The integration and interdependence of systems and people require us to think about the unfreezing of the organizational system as a whole.

Change

Assume that the general manager accepts the need to improve the system that indicates that rooms are ready. He or she must now decide what else needs to be changed to bring about the needed improvements. This could begin by hiring a quality-control person who is charged with inspecting and certifying all rooms before they are entered into the system as "ready to use." Some computer programming may need to be done so that rooms are flagged when they are ready, and the quality-control person might be given responsibility for managing that flag subsystem. The quality-control person will have to be recruited, hired, and trained if management cannot promote an appropriate person from within. Once the room-quality system has been designed and procedures are in place, all receptionists will have to be trained. This change could be a participatory process with the involvement of staff, or the general manager could have it designed and order its implementation. The change process would be reasonably complex, involving a number of people and systems.

During this phase, there would be considerable uncertainty. The new system could well be ready before the quality-control person is hired and trained. Or the reversethe person may be hired and trained but the room-quality system is not ready. Employees might see opportunities to improve what is being proposed and make suggestions regarding those improvements. Regardless of the specifics, the system would be in flux.

In addition to a quality-control person alternative, many other possible solutions existsome may be much more participative and job enriching than the above. The questions the general manager must answer are which alternatives he will select, why, and how they will be implemented (who will do what, when, where, why, and how).

Refreeze

Once the changes are designed and implemented, employees will need to adapt to those changes and develop new patterns and habits. The new flag system will alter how those at reception and in housekeeping do their work. They may informally ask the quality-control person to check certain rooms first as these are in higher demand. The general manager will follow up to see how the system is working and what people are doing. New reporting patterns would be established, and the quality-control person might begin passing on valuable information to hotel maintenance and housekeeping regarding the condition of particular rooms. At this point, the system settles into a new set of balances and relative stability. With this stability comes refreezing, as the new processes, procedures, and behaviors become the new "normal" practices of the organization.

The image of a spider's web can help to depict the phenomenon. That is, view the organization as a complex web of systems, relationships, structures, assumptions, habits, and processes that are interconnected and interdependent over time. Altering one strand of the web is not likely to alter the pattern or overall configuration significantly. To do that requires a breaking of many interconnected itemsthe "unfreezing" in Lewin's terms.

This simple model has stood the test of time. Change agents find it useful both because of its simplicity and because it reminds us forcefully that you can't expect change unless the system is unfrozen first! We may need other, more complex models of the organization to be able to think through what must be unfrozen and changed, but Lewin forces us to recognize the rigidity that comes with stability and interconnectedness within existing systems, relationships, and beliefs.

What do we mean by this notion of relative stability and predictability that comes with refreezing? It stems from the observation that organizational systems, composed of tasks, formal systems, informal systems, and individuals, develop an interdependent state of balance over time called homeostasis. Perturbations or shifts in one part of the system are resisted, or swings away from balance are countered and balance is regained. As suggested earlier, managers may introduce change initiatives only to have those initiatives fail because of existing systems, processes, or relationships that work against the change. Planned changes in structures and roles may be seen as decreasing the power and influence of informal groups, and these groups may react in complex ways to resist change. For permanent change, new structures and roles are needed and new points of balance or homeostasis developed.

However, several concerns prevent us from wholeheartedly embracing this model. First, the model oversimplifies the process of change and suggests that change is linear. The reality is that change tends to be complex, interactive, and emergent. Second, the creation of the need for change deserves more attention. It is not merely a matter of moving individuals away from their assumptions about the current state. Rather, they need to have a vision of a future desirable state. Finally, the model implies that refreezing is acceptable as a frame of mind. This seems problematic because it implies that change is a discrete event, rather than a continuous process. In today's rapidly changing world, organizations find that pressures to adapt mean they are never "refrozen"and if they are, they are in trouble.

Organizations that freeze too firmly may fail to thaw when new markets and customers appear. They may refuse to incorporate feedback in making useful changes. Continuous improvement programs may appear faddish, but they reflect a realistic view of what is needed in a dynamic environment because they enhance an organization's adaptive capacity. Thus, there is concern with the image created by the word refreeze, as this is likely too static a condition for long-term organizational health. In discussions with managers, we find the phrase "re-gelling" to have appeal as a state between total fluidity of a liquid and the excess rigidity of a solid. Since Lewin articulated his framework of organizational change in the early 1950s, it is likely that he, too, would have modified his framework for change.

Lewin's Model of Change: Unfreeze Change Refreeze

Unfreezingthe process that awakens a system to the need for changein other words, the realization that the existing equilibrium or the status quo is no longer tenable

Changethe period in the process in which participants in the system recognize and enact new approaches and responses that they believe will be more effective in the future

Refreeze (or re-gel)the change is assimilated and the system reenters a period of relative equilibrium