Kurt Lewin's Change Model -- Does It Benefit Businesses?

In July of this year, Gilmore Crosby published a new book titled Leadership and the Frontline Workforce: Lessons from the Targets of Change. The book explores methods of organizational change through the real-life experiences of frontline workers. While leadership and management theory have traditionally been written from the top down, Crosby highlights a notable exception: Kurt Lewin, whose action-research demonstrated that those on the frontlines are often best positioned to initiate and sustain meaningful change.

Through a series of interviews, the book captures the voices of workers who lived through Lewin-style transformations -- before, during, and after the change process. Their stories reveal the full spectrum of experience: the good, the bad, and the often-overlooked challenges of being the targets of change within complex systems.

When I spoke with Gilmore in August, I asked him, “What is Kurt Lewin-style change and how does it benefit a business?" Here is his complete answer:

As noted in the book, Kurt Lewin’s change model is in many ways simple and often misunderstood. It begins with the simple premise that everyone wants to influence the systems they are in, at work and outside of work.

Lewin conducted simple research to test his theories. With group after group, he demonstrated that when people were told what to do without any chance to influence, they were less likely to do it, or if they did it, less likely to do it well.”

The book goes on to give examples of Lewin’s work, including when the government wanted farmers to irrigate differently during the Dust Bowl years.

The farmers who were simply lectured at did almost none of what was suggested. The farmers who engaged in group dialogue, who were genuinely allowed to influence, and who thought about their own solutions, implemented a high percentage of what they came up with. The same results occurred in all of Lewin’s studies, including with workers in an industrial setting.

The results of his studies were and continue to be groundbreaking. When people come up with their own solutions, they are far more likely to be committed to them.

The consistent result is higher morale and productivity. The book illustrates how, through interviews with executives and with hourly workers who went through change efforts led by me, my father, and my colleagues. The interviews bring to life conditions before, during, and after such a change. The methods can be applied to any organization and to society. 

In a nutshell, most leaders and consultants try to do most of the thinking. They fail to tap the knowledge and pride of the people who are actually doing the hands-on work. Furthermore, because they over-function in terms of thinking, leadership is further handicapped by the dilemma of handing off, imposing, or selling their solutions to the organization. The entire approach is a huge mistake, resulting in crappy implementation of potentially effective solutions, tension, blame, and low morale. This book teaches a better way.

What are your thoughts on Gilmore’s perspective? Are the leaders and managers in your organization familiar with Kurt Lewin’s change management methods? Do frontline employees have meaningful channels to share their insights and suggestions for process improvement?

Your Workplace Culture -- Is It "Sick"?

This month, I had a very enlightening conversation with Robert B. Camp about his most recent book, Workplace Culture Matters: Developing Leaders Who Respect People and Deliver Robust Results. Written in a novel format, this book addresses the challenge of changing  "sick" cultures that exist in many organizations -- That is, it is directed at those organizations that wake up one day and realize they have become something they never intended. Their employees run scared. There is no innovation, only blind obedience. There are warlords within the ranks of management, and they fight over turf without considering the best interests of customers, their employees, or their organization as a whole.

During my conversation with Robert, I asked him specifically: "What are the most common causes of ‘sick’ workplace culture? Here is his full response:

Cultures become sick when leaders no longer care about their people, when they put products, clients, or profit ahead of the vehicle through which they achieve those things: employees (people).

Factories don’t make anything.  They’re just buildings. Machines, including computers, don’t make anything.  Without proper guidance, they are just inanimate objects. 

It is no coincidence that Toyota lists Respect for People among the two factors critical to its success (Toyota-global.com; Toyota Way 2001).   

In Workplace Culture Matters, there is a dialog that takes place that elucidates this concept.  Jim, the VP of Operations for Friedman Electronics, explains the following to Jack, the Branch VP of a troubled organization.

“At Friedman, we believe our future starts with hiring the right people,” Jim explained.  “While there are exceptions, we tend to hire for attitude and train skills."

“Wait,” Jack interrupted, “how do you know you’re getting people who can actually do the job   you’re hiring them for?”

“Good point, Jack,” Jim conceded.  “First, we try to grow talent within, so most of our openings are entry-level.”  

“Also, we have created step-by-step instructions — what is called Standard Work — for all our   jobs, so even if someone had come in already having done that job somewhere else, we’d have to retrain them to do it our way.  We’ve learned that, if we hire self-disciplined people with the right attitude, we can challenge and grow them for the rest of their careers.”

As Workplace Culture Matters makes clear, a healthy culture starts with healthy leaders, leaders who agree to common objectives and hold themselves accountable to them, before they hold anyone else accountable.  They then tailor and cascade those objectives down through the organization as a way of aligning everyone and giving them a way of independently knowing how they are doing.  

Finally, leaders of healthy cultures get out of their offices and go to where work takes place, both as a way of knowing what problems their people face and of engaging in dialogs that build bonds of trust and bi-directional loyalty.

What do think of Robert's view on how workplace culture becomes "sick"? How does the leadership in your organization function? Does it encourage or hinder a healthy culture?