Lewin Change Model

What the Lewin change model is

The Lewin change model (نموذج لوين للتغيير), also called the three stage model of unfreeze, change and refreeze, is a framework that describes change in an establishment as three successive stages. The existing situation is unfrozen until people are prepared to leave it. Work then moves to a new way. The new way is then fixed so that work does not slide back to what it was. The model is attributed to the psychologist Kurt Lewin and is associated in the literature with his study “Frontiers in Group Dynamics”, published in Human Relations in 1947.

The model is a management concept about how change in an establishment is viewed. What follows is an explanation of the model and of its limits. It does not claim that passing through the stages guarantees a successful change, or that Lewin devised the model in the form commonly presented today, a point on which researchers disagree.

Where the model comes from

The study attributed to Lewin is recorded in Crossref under the title “Frontiers in Group Dynamics” in Human Relations, volume 1. It appears in two records: one in issue 1, pages 5 to 41, and the other in issue 2, pages 143 to 153. We did not verify the text of either record or of the research works described next, so we attribute no particular wording to Lewin and state nothing about what each part contains beyond what is given here.

Secondary summaries online say that Lewin described social situations as a near equilibrium between forces pushing toward change and forces restraining it, and that the stages in the books that present the model are a later interpretation of that picture.

Two research works recorded in Crossref bear on the question of attribution. One is an article by Burnes, published in 2004 in the Journal of Management Studies, volume 41, issue 6, pages 977 to 1002, titled “Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re appraisal”. The other is a paper by Cummings, Bridgman and Brown titled “Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management”.

The record we found for the second is a version published in advance in 2020. Search results indicate that it was published in Human Relations in 2016 and that it says the model in its circulating form took shape after Lewin’s death and not at his hand. The titles of the two works indicate a review of Lewin’s approach to planned change and of the attribution of the stages to him.

The three stages

The wording below is our own, and the stage names vary between books:

1. Unfreeze. People see why leaving things as they are will not do, and the reasons that hold the present habit in place weaken. It is a preparatory stage, and nobody is yet asked to work in a new way.
2. Change. People try the new way and learn it, so work moves from the old form to the intended one. Questions, mistakes and a temporary fall in performance appear at this stage.
3. Refreeze. The new way settles and becomes the habitual one. Systems, incentives and habits are brought into line with it so that people do not return to the old way under the first pressure.

The image behind the names is that the existing situation is a solid mass that is hard to shape unless it is first softened, then shaped, then left to set in its new form. It is a teaching image that simplifies what happens in an establishment, since people do not all change at the same moment or at the same speed.

Driving and restraining forces

Secondary summaries present an idea that comes before the stages and explains them: every existing situation is held by balanced forces. Driving forces press toward change, such as a demand from management, the strain of present work or a visible opportunity. Restraining forces press toward keeping things as they are, such as habit, fear of error, lack of time to learn and doubt about the benefit. In this picture the situation moves when the balance is upset, by increasing the driving forces, by weakening the restraining forces or by both.

The idea helps a manager because it turns the question “Why are they not carrying it out?” into questions that can be tested. What pushes? What restrains? Which forces can really be changed by a decision? Some restraints are not a personal stance. They can be a tool that does not work, time that was not set aside, or a system that rewards the old way. For this reason restraints are not reduced to the objections of individuals.

How the model relates to nearby concepts

• The human side of a transformation, and how it differs from project management, falls under change management. Lewin’s model is one of several frameworks for organizing attention to that side, and it does not take the place of measuring adoption.
• Resistance to change is the response that delays, distorts or blocks adoption. It overlaps with the restraining forces in the model, but resistance is the response of the workforce, while restraining forces are a wider idea that can include tools and systems.
• Eight steps for leading a major transformation are set out in the Kotter eight step change model. Both are frameworks for organizing attention to change. We do not state that one is built on the other, or that the eight steps correspond one for one to Lewin’s stages.
• A chapter title by Burnes recorded in Crossref, “Kurt Lewin and the origins of OD”, links Lewin to the origin of the field of organization development.
• The stage of fixing the new way connects with organizational culture, because what does not settle into daily habits and unwritten rules returns to what it was.
• Observations close to the event show where people went wrong before the error hardens into habit; for these, see continuous feedback.

A hypothetical example: moving from a paper attendance register to electronic recording

Suppose a hypothetical establishment of 40 employees wants to replace its paper attendance register with electronic recording. Its human resources team arranged the effort in three stages: four weeks to unfreeze, eight to change and six to refreeze. The total is 4 + 8 + 6 = 18 weeks.

Before unfreezing, the team listed the forces and gave each a score from 1 to 5, as an exercise. The numbering is ours and not Lewin’s. The driving forces were a demand from management (4), fewer calculation errors (3) and faster closing (2), which total 9. The restraining forces were fear of error (3), too little time to learn (3), doubt about the benefit (2) and habit (1), which total 9. The two sides balance, so there is no movement.

The team then set aside one hour of training a week, and the score for lack of time fell from 3 to 1. The restraining forces now total 3 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 7, the driving forces remain 9, and the difference is 9 minus 7 = 2.

At the end of the change stage, in week 12, 36 of the 40 employees were recording electronically without a reminder, which is 36 ÷ 40 = 90%. At the end of the refreezing stage, in week 18, 32 of 40 were recording without a reminder, which is 32 ÷ 40 = 80%. The share fell by 10 percentage points between the end of the change stage and the end of refreezing.

The first reading is that the fixing was not completed, so the team asks why four employees returned to paper: habit, a fault in the tool, or a stance? The example does not show that the model caused the result, since the training alone may account for the result.

The figures are hypothetical and set to illustrate. They do not represent an establishment or a study, and the example does not mean that 18 weeks or 90% is customary. It shows that stages can be turned into durations and indicators, and that the balance between forces can be discussed with rough numbers instead of impressions.

Where the model is limited

• Its attribution is disputed. The research works mentioned above review the attribution of the stages to Lewin.
• It simplifies the process. Change in an establishment does not always run in a line of three stops. Stages can overlap or be repeated, and secondary summaries raise this as a criticism.
• The freezing image. It suggests that the new situation becomes fixed, whereas an establishment that changes often may need to stay prepared for another change.
• No measuring tools. The model does not say how to know that unfreezing is complete or that refreezing has settled.
• The emotional side. Secondary summaries criticize the model for giving little attention to feelings.

How the model is misunderstood

• Reducing unfreezing to an announcement. An email about the change is sent and people are counted as prepared, without being asked what restrains them.
• Assuming that refreezing is a stage that ends. Support is withdrawn in the last week, and the old habit returns.
• Attributing everything said about the stages to Lewin. The attribution of the circulating form to him is disputed.
• Treating all restraints as personal objections. An employee is blamed for a broken tool or for time that was not given.

The role of human resources

Human resources can use the stages as a list of questions before announcing a change. What do we tell people before we ask anything of them? What actually restrains them, and whom do we ask to find out? What period of temporary slowing do we accept? How will we know that the new way has become habitual? What in appraisal, incentives and procedure guides encourages the old way?

Refreezing means reviewing these places, not just announcing the end of the project. The stages are useful when they are checked against what employees say, not when their items are ticked off on paper.

What the evidence allows

We do not state that the Lewin model raises the success rate of change. We did not verify the text of Lewin’s original study, and in the sources we reviewed we found no published figure that we adopt for the effect of following the stages in establishments, while research works dispute the origin of the circulating form.

The model is treated as a framework for organizing questions before, during and after a change, and it is judged by what is observed in the establishment. Did people understand the reason? Did what restrained them actually go away? Did the new way remain after interest in it ended?

The model remains a way of reminding those who lead a change that announcing it is not enough, and that what follows the change is a stage of work, not a closing formality. Any decision after that turns on the size of the change and the nature of the establishment.

This is an explanation of the concept, not legal advice.