Kurt Lewin's change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee

involvement in organizational change

Visits
13258
Download PDF

Syed Talib Hussain

Corresponding author
talib_14@yahoo.com

Corresponding author.
, Shen Lei, Tayyaba Akram, Muhammad Jamal Haider, Syed Hadi Hussain, Muhammad Ali
Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai, China

This item has received

13258
Visits
(Daily data update)

Under a Creative Commons license

Received 22 June 2016. Accepted 14 July 2016
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography

Download PDF

Statistics

Figures (1)

Abstract

Change is crucial for organizations in growing, highly competitive business environments.

Theories of change describe the effectiveness with which organizations are able to modify their
strategies, processes, and structures. The action research model, the positive model, and Lewin's
change model indicate the stages of organizational change. This study examined the three stages
of Lewin's model: unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. Although this model establishes
general steps, additional information must be considered to adapt these steps to specific
situations. This article presents a critical review of change theories for different stages of
organizational change. In this critical review, change management offers a constructive
framework for managing organizational change throughout different stages of the process. This
review has theoretical and practical implications, which are discussed in this article. Immunity to
change is also discussed.

Keywords:
Organizational change
Unfreezing
Change process
Refreezing
Employee involvement
Knowledge sharing
Leadership style
Change implementation
Full Text
Introduction and research questions

The purpose of the study is to craft the relation between process model and change, this relation
describes the ways of implementing change process by leader's knowledge sharing, and this
sharing identifies the stages of change process, and these stages delineate the functional
significance between organizational change and change implementation. The organizational life
has been made inevitable feature by global, technological and economic pace, and many models
of organizational change have acknowledged the influence of implicit dimensions at one stage or
more stages of organizational change process (Burke, 2008; Wilkins & Dyer, 1988), and these
models imitate different granular levels affecting the process of organizational change, and each
level of them identifies distinctive change implementation stages (By, 2005). A model of
organizational change in Kurt Lewin's three steps change process context was introduced in this
study; which reflects momentous stages in change implementation process. Kurt Lewin's model
is the early fundamental planned change models explaining the striving forces to maintain the
status quo and pushing for change (Lewin, 1947). To change the “quasi-stationary equilibrium”
stage, one may increase the striving forces for change, or decrease the forces maintaining the
status quo, or the combination of both forces for proactive and reactive organizational change
through knowledge sharing of individual willingness with the help of stimulating change
leadership style.

The Lewin's model was used from an ethnographic study assumed for the investigation of the
Lewin's model for change development, mediates implementation and leadership initiatives for
change in complex organizations. The focus of this research on (i) how Lewin's change model
granulates change, (ii) how knowledge sharing affects the change implementation process, (iii)
how employees involve in change and willingness to change, and (iv) how leadership style
affects the organizational change process in organization.

Model of organizational changeProcess model

The organizational change explains the movement of an organization from the known (current
state) state to the unknown (Desired future state) state. This is because the future of this change
is uncertain and may concern the people's worth, coping abilities, and competency, so the people
of the organization do not support change unless they are convinced against the status quo
(Cummings & Worley, 2003). The organization may have invested heavily for status quo;
subsequently resisting change will take place to avoid uncertain future of organization.
Consequently, the necessary actions are to be taken to motivate employees. For this purpose, the
study explores the loop of organizational change process through a series of events, which
focuses on fundamental steps taken for implementation of change. The model has been
categorized into loops of leadership, management and organization. This process is being
initiated through Lewin's (1947) three steps change model denoting the step by step phases of
unfreezing, changing and refreezing, so employees are being involved and instructed by leaders
regarding the issues related to change process (Porras & Robertson, 1992). This subsequence
process of change elaborates the varying outline sequence upon the essential stages of change
(Bate, Khan, & Pye, 2000). The reprisal in the process Burke (2008) and Whelan-Berry, Gordon,
and Hinings (2003) underlined the importance of leadership before launching each phase at each
stage of change. The leader's ethicality may be one of the most important sources for change
from employees as Durand and Calori (2006) stated the ethics of leadership in change process.
Yet, this study does not examine explicitly the role of leadership ethics or importance in
spontaneous undergoing change process (Armenakis & Harris, 2009).

In this study the organizational change will be referred as planned change. In context of process
model of change, the culture has been recognized by theorists as moderator for organizational
change. As Burke (2008) identified the Burke-Litwin model from different process theorists for
the culture of organizational change.

Organizational change and Lewin's model “unfreezing”

Change management defined by Moran and Brightman (2001) as ‘the process of continually
renewing an organization's direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever changing needs
of external and internal customers’. Changing does not depend on size and age but occurs
thoroughly in all businesses. The world changes very fast, so the organizations must have to be
changed quickly for the development and surviving of the organization (Alvesson &
Sveningsson, 2008). The Models and theories have been proposed for driving changes in
organization for managers and leaders to monitor, evaluate and plan changes using structure for
quick response to the internal or external environment and foresee the pattern of change by
individuals, products, technology and market (Van Ossten, 2006). As stated by Glieck (1987)
that organizational change is a kind of chaos, so number of variables are changing, the
environment changing, frequent change and resistant to change create confluence of change
process at the same time, that not only stimulates difficulties in prediction but also make control
impossible. However, the repeatedly research literature, consistently link different classes of
events in organizations for change. A new model has to be built to describe the causes of
organizational change, exploring how does organization functions (i.e., a leads b), and causation
of model change deliberately. The internal and external environment persuades organizations for
change. Pierce, Gardner, and Dunham (2002) stated two kind of change in organization, reactive
and proactive change. The reactive change takes place when internal or external forces pressurize
the organization for change while proactive change takes place when the organization itself
concludes about change to be desirable and Peters and Waterman (1982) developed cultural
excellence model for change; Pettigrew (1973) developed processual approach as holistic view
for organization and environment, which emphasize that change is heavily influence by power,
culture and politics. Many theories have been propose for change process but here in this study
the Lewin's three steps model for change have to be used for change process. As the organization
is in stage of change, the Kurt Lewin's theory has been applied for change process. According to
the study of Lewin, that successful organizational change may be planned and this requires the
system to be unfreezed. As explained in literature review, there are different reasons for change
of organization and this will divert from its current position or status quo to a new direction. This
stage will increase the group behaviors for change or to increase the leader's pressure for change
at higher level, and Lewin suggests that the forces involving for status quo will create minimum
resistance and tension than the forces applying for change and this strategy will be more
effective strategy for change.

Employee involvement in change and Lewin's model “change process”

Employee involvement (EI) has been defined by Glew, Leary-Kelly, Griffin, and Van Fleet
(1995) as “Employee involvement seeks to increase members’ input into decisions that affect
organization performance and employee well being”. This can be explained in four (power,
information, knowledge and skill, and rewards) elements which promote the worker or employee
involvement. For overcoming the resistance in organizational change, the employee involvement
is the most oldest and effective strategy in formulating the planning and implementing change.
The participation will lead high quality change and prevail over the resistance in implementing
stage (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). By doing this a variety of information and ideas may be
generated, which may contribute the innovations effective and suitable in the situation, raise
likelihood, create member commitment in implementing change, and employee motivating and
leading change effort in work (Cummings & Molloy, 1977). After getting out of the status quo,
the leaders are required to support employee's involvement for accelerating the change in
organization. The study of Pierce et al. (2002) states that; to stimulate process, the employees
must have to be addressed about change. The leaders should educate, communicate, participate,
involve, task support, provide emotional support and incentives, manipulate, co-optate and
coerce the employees about change.

The study of Morgan and Zeffane (2003) states that during change process the leader's
transparency, reaffirms and enhance the trust of employee's involvement in organizational
change process regarding the discussion and meetings whenever discussed in organization, this
allows employees for their opinions and achieve better sense of control (Morgan & Zeffane,
2003). The leaders having encouraging behavior will provide the support or suggestions in the
process of change will reap advantages of task commitment and effectiveness (Higgins, Judge, &
Ferris, 2003). The active role of employees in organizational change tends employees toward
positive feelings (Furst & Cable, 2008). This will enhance the employee acceptance for change
process (Oreg, 2006) and also select changes during change process for encouraging the
organizational support (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). This change process of Lewin second step
will shift the behavior or attitude of department, organization, or individual to the next new level.
The employee's involvement will be more effective if employees are empowered in authority and
responsibility (Mathieu, Gilson, & Rubby, 2006). Here in every step of Lewin, the role of
leadership involves as change agent for behavioral integration in tasks and social dimensions.
The study of Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke (2006) states that, knowledge sharing means in team
is sharing information, task relevant ideas and suggestions between different levels of
management.

Knowledge sharing and Lewin's model “change process”

The employees make sharing of knowledge about task assignments, customer service,
performance outcomes and decisions making, information flow from multilevel, making business
plans, competitive conditions, new technology equipments, work methods, ideas for
organizational improvement, share skill and expertise, share development programs, contribute
in solving problems and business operation (Cummings & Worley, 2003). The study of Wenger,
McDermott, and Snyder (2002) states, that knowledge sharing is crucial among individuals of an
organization. Knowledge sharing in organizational resources is critical for competition,
sustainability and dynamic economy (Hakanson, 1993; Foss & Pedersen, 2002). So the
organizations do not rely on training, staffing and managing system only but also the
knowledgeable individuals share beliefs, experiences, skills, competencies and abilities
(Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001; Brown & Duguid, 1991). One thing should be noted that how to
transfer the knowledge and expertise from the knowledgeable experts to novices who are in need
to know (Hind, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001). Bordia, Irmer, and Abusah (2006) concluded that
knowledge sharing at individual level was studied in organization behavior, psychology (Lin,
2007), information systems (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) and strategic management (Reagans &
McEvily, 2003). Knowledge sharing is done in individual, group and organizational level of the
organization, starting at individual level; simultaneously expand to group level and ends at the
organizational level (Bock & Kim, 2002) and this is explained by Uriarte (2008) as the
framework of knowledge sharing consisting of three levels as enablers, levers and foundation.

In the change process when employees contribute, the knowledge sharing stage identifies the
kind of knowledge that generates the value of organization after that generating the mechanism
for that knowledge. The required knowledge is identified for organizational need which is getting
from two sources of external as renting or consultancy from other companies or share knowledge
by internal source in informal networks among employees who have expertise (Wenger, 1999).
Sharing knowledge is actually the organizational learning process, which concludes, what the
members or employees know about the organizational products, processes, customers, and
competitive environments of organization. This knowledge may be the explicit knowledge which
can be easily transferred in documents, databases and manuals and the tacit knowledge is the
member's internal skills, intuitions and memories (Polanyi, 1995). In the change process of
Lewin's three step model, the knowledge is codified and personalized. In codification phase the
knowledge is stored which would be used by appropriate members but in personalization phase
the knowledge is being focused that how to transfer it from person to person. The codification of
knowledge is called explicit knowledge which can be easily transferred and personalization is
called the tacit knowledge which is not easily transferable. The given below model explains the
whole cycle or process of organizational change by applying the Kurt Lewin's three steps model
(Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.

Model of organizational change shows the Kurt Lewin's three steps model: Note: The arrows
show different stages of Kurt Lewin's three steps model and not the relationship between
variables.

(0.12MB).
Leadership and Lewin's model “change process”

Leadership has been defined by Northouse (2004) as “a process by which an individual

influences a group of individuals to achieve common goals”. The study of Cummings and
Worley (2003) has presented five activities of key leadership in change process. The activities
are of motivating change, creating a vision, developing political support, managing the transition
and sustaining momentum. The motivating change and creating a vision show to the unfreezing
or current state of organization is being considered for change, developing political support and
managing the transition show the moving stage of change and sustaining momentum shows the
implementation and refreezing state of the change. In change process two factors play important
role, the employee's resistance (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005) and the openness to
change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Resistance to change probably effects the change process
which will lead to the negative outcomes (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004)
while the openness of change of employees have to be focused during change process. The
leadership in change context can be defined as “the process of diagnosing where the work group
is now, and where it needs to be in the future, and formulating a strategy for getting there.
Leadership also involves implementing change through developing a base of influence with
followers, motivating them to commit to and work hard in pursuit of change goals, and working
with them to overcome obstacle to change” (Laura & Stephen, 2002).

Leadership type is vital in change process of organizational change. Transactional leaders are
involved in rewards and punishments with workers to encourage the performance of organization
(Bass, 1985) and transformational leaders are charismatic, inspirational, intellectual and
individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). This kind of leadership identifies the stakeholders for
change process. The stakeholders (departmental managers, staff groups, and top level executives)
can support change and make broad based support to maximize the risk of success and minimize
the risk of resistance in change process by asking “who stands to gain or to lose from the
change?” and this will build a relationship for creating the useful influence (Cummings &
Worley, 2003). The stakeholders use three methods for motivation in change process, playing it
straight, going around the formal system and using social networks (Greiner & Schein, 1988).
The “playing it straight” explains the need of changes by giving information and how these
changes can make benefit the particular stakeholders. The second part “social network” forms
alliances and coalitions with key decision makers, powerful individuals, groups, and with
informal and formal contacts for gaining information. The third part “going around the formal
system” is probably least used method involving circumventing organizational procedures and
structures.

Implementation phase and “refreezing” of Lewin's model

The Kurt Lewin's model (unfreezing, changing and refreezing) is widely accepted in psychology
for implementing change. The implementation of change involves the current state of
organization have to be changed into a desired state, but this will not occur quickly but
simultaneously. Beckhard and Harris (1987) identified three activities for implementing the
change; activity planning, commitment planning and change management structures. The activity
planning makes a road map or path for organizational change, events and specific activities must
be occurred for successful change. The specific activities involve the integrated change tasks,
temporal orient and explicitly tie the tasks according to the organization's change priorities and
goals. The commitment planning identifies the persons and groups whose commitment is
required or needed for organizational change for the purpose to formulate and gain their support.
The people or groups are, political support, the stakeholder's plans and their commitment for
change in process of change. The change management structure identifies the ambiguous,
direction, and structure for managing change process. Which includes resources to promote
change, the current leadership structure, change consultants, interpersonal and political skills to
initiate the change process (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). The study of Kanter (1983) describes the
three stages as information (expertise, technical knowledge, and political support); resources
(personnel, materials and funds), and support (legal issues, backing of support, and
endorsement).

Conclusion

Many theories have been given by different researchers, like action research model (French,
1969); the positive model by Cameron, Dutton, and Quinn (2003) and Lewin's change model
(Lewin, 1947). The Lewin's change model was used in this study for organizational change
process. As Burnes (2004) identified the organizational change as a feature of organizational life
for strategic and operational level, so there is no doubt about the importance of change in
organization, and it to be executed because, organization needs change. The study of Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, and Bommer (1996) explores the active role of leadership style in organizational
outcomes, employee satisfaction, and performance. In every step of the study; the leadership
plays a role of a change agent in the Kurt Lewin's model to unfreeze the organization. The
transformational leadership style affects the organizational change process. In this type of
leadership style, the leader coordinate with employees, share their knowledge, give opportunity
in making decisions in organizational level.

Theoretical implications

The findings of this study show that leadership style and employee involvement in change is
encouraging step for change process of organization. However, the effect of Kurt Lewin's model
is indirect through separate phases in the process. The transformational leadership style has been
studies as the most important factor for change process in prior studies (Gong, Huang, & Farh,
2009). This paper associates positive impact of leadership style on change process. This study
illustrates the effect of leadership style in terms of employee involvement in change, motivating
employee for change, share the knowledge at individual and organizational level to make the
loop of the change process. At each phase of the process model, the leaders and employees are
considered to be one unit, and each phase will be shifted to the next step of the Kurt model.
Managerial implications

Different organizations use different organizational change model for stay in competition in the
market. Like positive model, action research model, Lewin's model, Kanter, Stein, and Jick
(1992), Kotter's model (1996) and Luecke model (2003) for organizational change. All of these
studies showed that leadership is the key factor for change process. The study indicates the
dominant role of leadership, employee involvement and sharing knowledge in change process of
Lewin's model. The study recommends for organization to elevate the awareness of change and
phases for organization. As we see the knowledge sharing is an important catalyst for unfreezing
stage and moving stage for the process. On the same time employee involvement is the main
factor for shifting of organization from one phase to another, so all these factor are interrelated
for the current change process.

Social implications

This study has significant social implications. The key factors that can encourage change in
organization with swap of rewards and recognitions bring significant social implications for
enhancing the organizational change process. This study has examined (1) the dominant role of
leadership and employee involvement in change process necessary for bringing effective change
in management, (2) the study explored a significant connection of knowledge sharing in change
process with employees and leaders in implementing the change process, (3) the management
should focus on the leadership style in change process, and finally (4) the review shows a
framework of links among leadership to employees involvement, sharing knowledge and
provides an insight to practitioners that how leader behavior relates to involvement and sharing
knowledge in Lewin's change model context.

References
[Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2008]
M. Alvesson, S. Sveningsson.
Changing organizational culture: Culture change. Work in progress.
Routledge, (2008),
[Ambrosini and Bowman, 2001]
V. Ambrosini, C. Bowman.
Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization.
Journal of Management Studies, 38 (2001), pp. 811-829
[Armenakis and Harris, 2009]
A.A. Armenakis, S.G. Harris.
Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice.
Journal of Change Management, 9 (2009), pp. 127-142
[Bass, 1985]
B.M. Bass.
Leadership and performance beyond expectation.
Free Press, (1985),
[Bate et al., 2000]
P. Bate, R. Khan, A. Pye.
Towards a culturally sensitive approach to organization structuring.
Organization Science, 11 (2000), pp. 197-211
[Beckhard and Harris, 1987]
R. Beckhard, R. Harris.
Organizational transitions: Managing complex change.
Addison Wesley Publishing Company, (1987),
[Bock and Kim, 2002]
G.W. Bock, Y.G. Kim.
Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing.
Information Resource Management Journal, 15 (2002), pp. 14-21
[Bordia et al., 2004]
P. Bordia, E. Hunt, N. Paulsen, D. Tourish, N. DiFonzo.
Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control?.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13 (2004), pp. 345-365
[Bordia et al., 2006]
P. Bordia, B.E. Irmer, D. Abusah.
Differences in sharing knowledge interpersonally and via databases: The role of evaluation
apprehension and perceived benefits.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15 (2006), pp. 262-280
[Brown and Duguid, 1991]
J.S. Brown, P. Duguid.
Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working,
learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2 (1991), pp. 40-57
[Burke, 2008]
W.W. Burke.
Organization change: Theory and practice.
Sage, (2008),
[Burnes, 2004]
B. Burnes.
Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics.
4th ed., Prentice Hall, (2004),
[By, 2005]
R.T. By.
Organizational change management: A critical review.
Journal of Change Management, 5 (2005), pp. 369-380
[Cameron et al., 2003]
K. Cameron, J. Dutton, R. Quinn.
Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.
Berrett Kohier, (2003),
[Cummings and Molloy, 1977]
T. Cummings, E. Molloy.
Improving productivity and the quality of work life.
Praeger, (1977),
[Cummings and Worley, 2003]
T.G. Cummings, C.G. Worley.
Organization development and change.
8th ed., Melissa S. Acuna, (2003), pp. 1-694
[Durand and Calori, 2006]
R. Durand, R. Calori.
Sameness, otherness? Enriching organizational change theories with philosophical
considerations on the same and the other.
Academy of Management Review, 31 (2006), pp. 93-114
[Foss and Pedersen, 2002]
N.J. Foss, T. Pedersen.
Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and
organizational.
Journal of International Management, 8 (2002), pp. 49-67
[French, 1969]
W. French.
Organization development: Objectives, assumptions, and strategies.
California Management Review, 12 (1969), pp. 23-34
[Furst and Cable, 2008]
S.A. Furst, D.M. Cable.
Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader member
exchange.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (2008), pp. 453-463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453 | Medline
[Glew et al., 1995]
D. Glew, A. Leary-Kelly, R. Griffin, D. Van Fleet.
Participation in organizations: A preview of the issues and proposed framework for future
analysis.
Journal of Management, 21 (1995), pp. 395-421
[Glieck, 1987]
J. Glieck.
Chaos: Making a new science.
Viking, (1987),