One of the most critical success factors for change is whether people can be motivated to support it. Lewin’s field theory helps explain under what circumstances individuals initiate, support, or resist change.
Whether it’s small organizational shifts like implementing new software, larger initiatives such as mergers or restructurings, or the global sustainability transformation—one of the key questions in change processes is: How will people react? Who will support or even lead the change, and who will resist it (and why)? While many psychological theories focus on individual factors (e.g., personality traits, expected consequences of change), Lewin’s field theory (Lewin, 1951) considers the entire constellation of influencing factors—what he calls “field forces.” Much like a sailboat’s course and speed depend on various factors (wind, sail position, etc.), field theory posits that all human behavior results from these field forces. Even though Lewin’s theory is over 70 years old, it provides valuable insights into how people respond to change (see also Kump, 2023).
Basic Assumptions of Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory
Lewin’s field theory assumes that individuals act within a “psychological field”—the totality of subjectively perceived “facts” at a given moment. This field includes both individual characteristics (e.g., personality, knowledge) and environmental factors as perceived by the individual (e.g., the physical environment, relevant social context).
Within this psychological field, various forces—motivators or drivers linked to specific behavioral options—are always at play. These forces can be internal (intrinsic) or external (extrinsic). Intrinsic forces include personal values (e.g., environmental values, a desire for social justice), needs (e.g., food, security), or desires (e.g., the need for acceptance or rewards). Extrinsic forces include expected external rewards (e.g., salary, promotions) or punishments (e.g., fines, social exclusion), as well as perceived social expectations. Each force is tied to specific behavioral options that help achieve desired outcomes. Notably, individuals do not need to be consciously aware of these forces for them to influence behavior, and the strength of these forces can change over time due to situational changes.
Conflicts Between Forces
A psychological field typically contains multiple, sometimes opposing, forces. When forces of similar strength act in opposite directions, they create conflicts; the stronger these opposing forces, the more intense the conflict (a phenomenon known as “cognitive dissonance”). Lewin identified different types of conflicts. To illustrate these, let’s consider the example of a restaurant manager facing the trend toward more sustainable food practices.
- Conflicts Between Multiple Driving Forces
Suppose the manager believes some current practices are “wrong” or outdated (e.g., over-reliance on meat, lack of focus on local and seasonal products) but has continued to offer a meat-heavy menu because external forces (e.g., high customer demand, lower costs compared to organic food) outweighed her internal motivations. She now faces a conflict between “acting according to her values” and “acting in line with cultural norms and external pressures.” - Conflicts Between Positive and Negative Valence
Another common type of conflict arises when an unpleasant behavior leads to a desirable reward or when a pleasant behavior results in punishment. Imagine the manager is satisfied with her current menu, but more and more customers choose other restaurants that offer more vegetarian dishes or emphasize sustainability. She now faces a conflict between “wanting to act according to her norms” and “risking a loss of customers.”
Additionally, conflicts can arise between driving and inhibiting forces (i.e., barriers). Examples of such barriers include a lack of knowledge or skills (e.g., cooking vegetarian meals), high costs, technological constraints, or legal regulations. These barriers may prevent individuals from pursuing a goal, even when strong forces are pushing them toward it.
Understanding Responses to Change
Following Lewin’s assumptions, knowing the underlying field forces can help predict how individuals will respond to change. Returning to the first example, where the restaurant manager adhered to conventional meat-heavy cuisine mainly due to external forces (e.g., cultural norms, cost considerations) but personally valued sustainability, a broader shift toward sustainable practices (e.g., due to regulatory changes or shifting customer demand) would reduce the conflicts in her field forces. This would allow her to act more in line with her values, making her more likely to support and embrace the change.
In contrast, consider the second case, where the manager’s values and norms have so far aligned with traditional demand. A shift toward sustainable practices in the hospitality industry would create new conflicts in her field, increasing resistance. Depending on the intensity of these conflicts, she might actively oppose the change to reduce the discomfort and maintain the status quo.
These examples illustrate how focusing on conflicts between forces can help explain why people react differently to change.
Conclusion
In summary, individuals’ responses to change depend on how the change affects the balance of forces in their psychological field:
- If the change reduces existing conflicts, people are likely to react positively and may even become pioneers (as in Case 1).
- If the change increases conflicts between forces (as in Case 2), individuals are more likely to resist and attempt to maintain their interests or the status quo.
References
Kump, B. (2023). Lewin’s field theory as a lens for understanding incumbent actors’ agency in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 46, 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.11.008nd Societal Transitions, 46, 100683, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.11.008
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. Harper & Row.
Dr. Barbara Kump 