54 Long Range Planning, Vol 18, No. 6, pp. 54 to 59, 1985 002&6301 /Cc5 $3.00 + .

OO
Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Press Ltd.

Force Field Analysis: A New

Way to Evaluate Your Strategy
Joe Thomas, Middle Tennessee State University

Force field analysis has been widely used by organization force is represented by the length of its respective
development practitioners to plan and implement organ- arrow. Opposed to the forces for change are the
izational changes. This paper extends force field analysis to
forces resisting change, representing forces in favor
strategic management by reviewing the concept of force field
analysis, discussing internal and external forces for changes in
of maintaining the status quo. Again, the length of
strategy, and suggesting guidelines for the use of force field the arrows can be used to represent the relative
analysis in organizational planning. strength of the resisting forces.

An equilibrium point is reached when the sum of

each set of forces is equal. Movement from ‘a’ to ‘b’
requires that forces for the change exceed forces
The concept of force field analysis as a technique for resisting the change. Movement can be achieved by
introducing change was introduced by Kurt Lewin (1) increasing the forces for the change, or (2)
in the early 1950s.’ The concept is widely used in reducing the forces opposing the change. Increasing
organization development as a technique for one set of forces without decreasing the other set of
implementing changes in structure, technology and forces will likely increase tension and the degree of
people.’ Force field analysis is also included in many conflict.5 Thus, reducing forces against change is
organizational behavior texts as a technique for usually seen as preferable to applying greater
evaluating forces affecting change.3,4 Yet, the use of pressure for change.
force field analysis as a means of evaluating
strategies and planning their implementation in the
strategic planning literature has been overlooked. Forces For Change Forces Against Change

The purposes of this paper, then, are to: (1) briefly

review the concept of force field analysis; (2)
identify forces operating within organizations and
their environments that may impact strategic
planning and (3) suggest guidelines for utilizing
force field analysis to successfully implement
changes in strategies.

Force Field Analysis

I

Figure 1 provides a pictorial representation of force b

field analysis. The organization represented is Desired Position After Change
currently at ‘a’ and wants to implement a change to
move it to ‘b’. A number of forces operate within
the organization and environment that make
movement towards ‘b’ desirable. The forces
favoring the proposed change are represented by
a
arrows or vectors. The relative strength of each Current Equilibrium
Point

Dr. Joe Thomas is Associate Professor of Management, Middle

Figure 1. Force field analysis and organizational
Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro. change
 Force Field Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Your Strategy 55

Force field analysis is a concept adapted from the the result of the increasing number of women in the
physical sciences. In physics, for example, the work force. Rising educational levels have also
vectors and their relative strengths can be measured increased employee expectations about the op-
precisely. Measurement of the forces by a scientist portunities that ‘should’ be available on the job.
allows for prediction of direction and speed of
movement. Forces operating in an organization External forces for change may also impact only a
implementing strategic changes are not subject to particular industry segment. Government regulations
such precise measurement, although identification often affect a single industry. Trade barriers
of the salient forces operating in an organization produce pressures that pertain to one industry. For
should allow management to better assess the example, policies protecting the steel industry from
probable direction and speed of movement of the imports allows the steel industry to pursue different
organization in implementing the new strategy. strategies than if such government regulation did
not exist. Similarly, firms planning to import steel
Organizations encounter an almost limitless will probably find that government regulations
number of possible forces with the potential to create pressures for changes in their strategy.
impinge upon the operation of the firm. Organiz-
ations must make their own assessment of the Finally, external pressures may concentrate on a single
relevant forces at play in implementing a strategy. jirm. Competitors often select the industry leader
Firms must also exercise caution in assuring that all and build their strategy around the leader’s
relevant internal and external forces are identified. strategy. One approach to implementing a strategy
A review of all possible forces is beyond the scope of is to confront the competitor directly. For example,
this paper. However, a number of forces that may Meister Brau beer advertises that it tastes as good as
have particular relevance to strategy evaluation and Budweiser, the market leader, but sells for less. An
implementation are depicted in Figure 2 and are alternative approach is to fmd a market niche not
used to illustrate the use of force field analysis. being filled by the leader, and develop a strategy
concentrating on that market niche.6

Forces for Change Internal Forces for Change

Forces for change in strategy can come from sources Forces for change may also stem from within the
outside of the organization or from sources within organization. Internal forces for change may be the
the firm. External pressures for change may affect result of changing environmental conditions.
many businesses (perhaps the entire economy), a However, the impetus for changing strategies
particular industry, or a single firm. Internal comes from within the organization. Declining
pressures for change occur when the organization, market share or rates of return falling below
or a portion of it, is not performing as desired. expectations may all serve as internal forces causing
an organization to consider changing strategies.
External Forces for Change
External pressures causing organizations to con- Similarly, rising production costs or outdated
sider changing strategies may be general types of production facilities may provide pressure from
forces affecting many jirms in multiple industries. within the organization to change corporate
Sociocultural changes, such as the changing role of strategies. Whatever the source of the pressures
women, rising educational levels and changing pushing for change, the organization must feel the
attitudes toward social responsibility, may create need for the change before it will be undertaken.
pressures for organizations to change strategies. Development of a ‘felt’ need for change may enable
The rise in consumption of convenience goods such an organization to ‘unfreeze’ or reduce forces
as frozen foods and microwave ovens are partially resisting change.’

Forces For Change Forces Resisting Change

External External
Forces Resisting Change
------_,-
Sociocultural Changes Prior Commitments Resistance to change comes from a variety of
-t sources and for a number of reasons. Much has been
Government Regulation Obligations to Consumers
b 4 written about why individuals and groups resist
Competitive Pressures Government Regulations change. While individuals and groups are impor-
tant forces limiting the ability of organizations to
Internal Internal
* l implement changes, opposition to changes in
Changes in Market Share
ä c
Limited Resources
strategy may also result from forces external to the
Changing Rates of Return Employee/Labour Relations organization.
__, 4
Production Economics Organization Culture
External Forces Resisting Change
Forces opposing change can take a number of
Figure 2. Sample forces operating in changing forms. Some of the most common pressures to
strategies maintain the status quo are prior commitments to
 56 Long Range Planning Vol. 18 December 1985

other businesses, obligations to consumers, and why a strategy cannot be changed is limited
government regulations. organizational resources.This opposing force may
take the shape of limited financial resources,
A frequently encountered force to maintain the incompatability with existing equipment or
current strategy stems from prior commitments to buildings, or inadequate skills and interests among
other businesses, often in the form of contractual personnel. Such limitations of resources may be
arrangements. Avoiding price increases, taking valid and may restrict the range of alternatives that
advantage of price reductions and obtaining can be realistically considered. However, such
quantity discounts often require firms to place limitations should not automatically eliminate a
orders with suppliers well in advance of delivery. good strategy from consideration. A listing of
Similarly, the production of customer-specific parts internal forces opposing change may be the first
may necessitate a relatively long period of time step in finding ways to reduce or eliminate the
between order and delivery dates. problems.

Refusal to accept delivery of ordered merchandise Lubor relations for unionized firms represents
because of changes in strategy will result in poor another potentially powerful force resisting
supplier relations and possible legal action to force changes in strategies. Changing jobs without
payment for the merchandise. Many firms have also obtaining agreement from the apppropriate
made prior commitments to employees, creditors union(s) may create serious problems for the
and stockholders. Pressures exist to maintain the organization. Concessions may be necessary to gain
current strategy because of such prior com- union acceptance of the proposed change. Whether
mitments, or not a firm is unionized, good employee relations
indicates that the affected workers should be
Firms may also receive pressures from customers to considered in selecting a strategy. Unions serve to
continue a strategy. Maintaining good customer increase the visibility of employee concerns.
relutions often requires continuing to provide parts
and service for a product even though the product is Organization culture may also limit the ability of a
not performing satisfactorily for the company. firm to change strategies. Organizational culture
RCA’s recent decision to stop production of its consists of the leadership style of top management
videodisk players, but to continue production and and the values, beliefs and norms of the
distribution of the videodisks is an example of such organization’s members. Changing values, norms
a decision. RCA stated that it felt an obligation to and beliefs may be a Herculean task, even when a
customers who had already purchased its videodisk change in strategy is essential.” The divestiture of
player to continue production of the disks.’ Such a AT&T required that the firm adapt a new strategy
strategy represents a compromise between the for meeting its competition. While AT&T
strategies of retaining and totally eliminating the recognized the need for change and had attempted
product. In effect, the resulting strategy would to promote aggressive marketing, James
appear to have committed the company to a McCreary, telecommunications manager for
continuance of a strategy that was never profitable. Travellers Corporation summarized the new sales
Yet external forces, maintaining good consumer approach as ‘They are still marketing under the old
relations, seems to have dictated a strategy of concept, which is, “we’re the only one on the
gradual withdrawal and limited returns. market, and you’ve got to do business with us”.‘l’
Changing corporate culture, management attitudes
A third source of external pressures resisting change toward employees and corporate attitudes toward
may be government regulations. Consideration of customers, may well be one of the toughest changes
changes in government reports may represent costs facing organizations implementing new strategies.
that can be avoided by continuing the present
strategy.’ Changes in strategy may also result in
increased government regulation, again potentially
increasing costs. Finally, conflicting regulations and
guidelines from various government agencies may Force Field Analysis and Strategic
limit a firm’s willingness to change strategies. The
firm may have found a means to satisfy all Change
regulatory agencies and so by-pass conflicting Force field analysis does not in and of itself reduce
regulations. Changing strategies may open the firm resistance to changing strategies. However, force
to new problems with the regulatory agencies. Such field analysis does provide a mechanism for
problems can be avoided by maintaining the identifying and assessing the various forces
current strategy. working for and against strategic changes. Accurate
evaluation of the various forces should improve the
Internal Forces Against Change speed at which strategies can be evaluated and
Reasons why change ‘cannot’ be implemented are eliminated from consideration or implemented.
usually abundant when a new strategy is proposed. Force field analysis can improve strategy evaluation
One of the most likely internal reasons given for and implementation in a number of ways.
 Force Field Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Your Strategy 57

Reduces Insuficient Spekjication of Variables Forces For Change Forces Resisting Change
Strategic planners often rely on evaluations based External External
largely on intuitive and subjective diagnoses. Force
b
field analysis requires a listing of the various forces
Rising Birth Rates Name Associated With Mass Markets
influencing strategic decisions. A thorough listing
b
of forces will also facilitate a more objective Public interest in Entry of Firm With Larger
evaluation of those forces. Physical Fitness Resource Bases
b 4.

Identi_fication of Pressure Sources Pressure From Imports

A listing of the pro’s and con’s of a strategy is a
Internal Internal
simplified form of force field analysis. An
b 4
organization can utilize force field analysis to move Modern Production Limited Management Experience
beyond a simple listing of strengths and weaknesses Facilities with Excess
Capacity
to identify the individuals and groups represented.
+ 4
Strengths and weaknesses are relative terms, Strong R & D Efforts Distribution Channels Limited
dependent upon one’s frame of reference. Once to Mass Retailers
frames of reference have been identified it is
possible to reduce the resistance, or to strengthen
Figure 3. Forces impacting Huffy’s
the support for proposed changes. A further benefit
diversification strategy
of identifying obscure sources of pressure is the
identification of possible hidden agendas, vested
interests, that are being threatened by the proposed forces relevant to the evaluation of strategic
changes. alternatives are shown in Figure 3.

Recognize Relation to Larger System External Forces

Analysis of the forces affecting a decision may be One of the general changes in society impacting
improved by focusing attention on the interaction many businesses in the U.S. is the increasing birth
of system components. Too often strategies for a rate. Where there were slightly over three-million
single business unit are assessed relative to the children born in 1975, the U.S. Department of
impact on that business unit. A carefully developed Health and Human Services estimates the birth rate
force field analysis will recognize the behaviors and to increase to 4.5 million children per year for 1985
attitudes of individuals or groups who may not be to 1990. This ‘baby boom echo’ is in large part the
members of the subsystem being analysed. Kotter result ofchildren from the post World-War II ‘baby
and Schlesinger note that managers who initiate boom’ starting families. The delay in starting
change often assume that they have all relevant families by this group has created an increased
information needed to make decisions and that those disposable income per child, making investments in
who will be affected by the change have the same infant’s and children’s products potentially attrac-
facts, when neither assumption is correct.12 tive. Yet with their emphasis on bicycles it would
Differences in information and its interpretation be a number of years before the new births represent
lead to different assessments of strategies. Force potential customers for Huffy. Being able to
field analysis helps to identify other potential market products for infants and toddlers thus is a
information sources and individuals/groups that pressure encouraging Huffy to undertake a
will need information to understand the strategy different strategy than was used in the past.
and to aid its implementation.
Another pressure to change strategies was the
increased interest in physical fitness. The physical
Applying Force Field Analysis: The fitness interest is relevant to Huffy as a producer of
bicycles, but it is also of interest to all firms
Case of Huffy interested in producing physical fitness related
The 1982 sales of bicycles in the United States equipment and supplies. Given Huffy’s contacts
dropped approximately 40 per cent. Sales were at with mass retailers, diversification into other
the lowest level in 15 years. Huffy Corporation,the products related to sporting goods and physical
United States’ largest manufacturer of bicycles, fitness has potential strategic fit.
received 90 per cent of its revenues from bicycle
sales. Given the decline in sales and the pessimistic A significant force for many smaller firms
projections for the short-term future, Huffy was (including Huffy) considering diversifying into
forced to evaluate its current strategy. It was physical fitness products is the entry of firms with
necessary for Huffy to decide whether to remain large resource bases into the market. West Bend
with its current strategy of selling bicycles (its Company and Campbell Soup have both ag-
major product) through mass retailers (its major gressively entered the market. West Bend expects
outlet) or to consider a diversification strategy. sporting goods to account for 20 per cent of its sales
Force field analysis provides a means for assessing within one year of entry. Campbell Soup increased
forces influencing Huffy’s strategic decision. Major the number of outlets selling its sporting goods
58 Long Range Planning Vol. 18 December 1985

products from 60 to 1500 outlets in five months. The ability of existing management to successfully
Campbell’s sees the diversification as a part of its market a more diversified product line through
‘health and well-being’ theme. The entry of large other retail outlets (e.g. specialty shops) was a major
firms into the market for sporting goods and fitness consideration in diversifying from its basic bicycle
products may serve as a significant force against business.
movement into the market by Huffy.

Another force against some diversification Guidelines for Using Force-Field

strategies is Huffy’s strong association with mass
retailers. The association of the Huffy name with
Analysis
mass markets and discount sales may prove a barrier Force-field analysis is a concept that has been widely
to producing or marketing premium quality discussed and frequently used by practitioners in the
products through speciality shops. While such field of organizational change and development.
markets may not represent the potential sales While its use in strategy implementation seems
volume of mass markets, higher profit margins may worthwhile, the experience of strategic planners in
make such diversification strategies attractive. using the concept is limited. The following
guidelines are derived from the organization
A final external force favoring Huffy’s diversifi- development literature and should be helpful in
cation from its concentration on bicycles is applying force field analysis to strategy selection
competition from imports. The Bicycle and implementation:
Manufacturers’ Association projected a 30 per cent
increase in bicycle sales in the U.S. for 1984. (1) Forcejeld analysis is more useful ifperformed by a
However, nearly all of the increase was expected to group. Individual biases and limited infor-
result from imported cycles. The increased mation may prevent a single person from
competition from imports is an especially salient accurately evaluating the forces impacting a
force for a single product company such as Huffy strategy. Group discussion of forces also
where 90 per cent of sales were from bicycles. The enhances understanding of how the forces will
threat of imports is one force causing Huffy’s impact a proposed strategy.
management to undertake a diversification strategy
designed to reduce bicycle sales to less than 50 per (2) Change is not seen as threatening if the affected
parties perceive the change as help&l. However,
cent of corporate sales.
individuals frequently see a change as having
actual or potential threat. What appears to the
Internal Forces
strategic planner to be a ‘beautiful strategy’ that
There were also a number of forces within Huffy will benefit the total organization may not be
that were relevant to the selection and implemen-
viewed the same way by everyone. Again, not
tation ofdiversification strategies. One ofthe major everyone has access to the same information.
internal pressures for change was Huffy’s strong Interpretations of the need for change may also
research and development department, the Huffy differ.
Tech Center. Using the Tech Center’s new
technology, U.S. cyclists won two gold, two silver (3) Any change will usually be opposed unless it was
and a bronze medal in the 1984 Olympics on specifically requested by the affected individual or
bicycles produced by Huffy. These were the first group. Experience with the Japanese approach
Olympic medals won by U.S. cyclists since 1912. to decision making suggests that open and
Huffy Tech Center has also allowed the firm to frequent discussion of problems may convince
introduce innovative new products in sporting affected parties that the change would be
goods, in tricycles and in other youth-oriented beneficial and so encourages the party to
products. request the change.13

(4) Generally, tile greater the change, the greater the

Huffy’s response to the decreased sales of 1982
resistance that can be expected. Large changes in
provided a strong internal base from which to
operations are likely to impact more stake-
diversify. In response to the sales decline, Huffy
holders from within the organization and its
closed two production facilities and modernized environment. This does not mean, however,
other facilities to produce the same number of that small changes will not encounter resist-
bicycles with fewer personnel and at a lower per
ance. Changes in strategy which seem relatively
unit cost. This move provided the firm a
small and unimportant to top management
strengthened profit margin and existing facilities
(closing a plant, transferrring employees) may
in which to produce new products. be very important to the affected parties
(employees and their families).
The major internal force opposing diversification
efforts is the limited experience of Huffy (5) Pressures for changes in strategies can be established
management. The firm’s management team has a or increased by providing specific information
proven record of successfully marketing bicycles needed by the group itself and its performance.
through mass retailers. Employees may believe that their performance
 Force Field Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Your Strategy 59

(or that of the company) is satisfactory. evaluation offorces favoring and opposing strategic
Objective information specifically comparing changes may provide new insight for strategic
the unit or company’s performance to the managers in evaluating and implementing new
performance of others may help employees see strategies.
the need for a different strategy and so reduce
forces opposing a new strategy.

(6) When those people affected and those who are

pushing for the change feel that they are members of
the samegroup opposition to change is generally
reduced. Participation and co-optation are
References
commonly used techniques to make employees
feel that they are part of the group proposing (1) K. Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New
York (1951).
the change. l4
(2) E. Huse, Organization Development and Change, West, St. Paul
(7) Coercion may also be used to bring about change. As (1980).
was discussed earlier, overpowering resistance D. Hellriegel, J. Slocum and R. Woodman, Organizational
(3)
tends to increase resisting forces and may result Behavior, West, St. Paul (1983).
in conflict and tension. However, sometimes R. M. Steers, Introduction to OrganizationalBehavior, Goodyear,
(4)
changes must be implemented quickly to avoid Santa Monica, CA (1981).
highly undesirable events. Mintzberg suggests Huse, op cit.
(5)
that sometimes when strategies are ‘pushed’
(8) M. Porter, Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York (1980).
organizational inertia will perpetuate the
changed situation. l5 While force sometimes (7) Huse, op cit., p. 65.

works in this manner and a crisis may dictate (8) RCA posts rise of 73% in profit for 1st quarter, Wall Street
the use of force to overpower the resistance, Journal, 5 April (1984).

such crises must not occur too frequently. (9) Many businesses blame governmental policies for productivity
Frequent crises may be seen as the result ofpoor lags, WaNStreet Journal, 28 October, p. 1 (1980).

planning rather than dynamic forces pushing (IO) J. P. Kotter and L. A. Schlesinger, Choosing strategies for
for change. change, Harvard Business Review, March/April, pp. 106-I 14
(1979).

In summary, changes in strategy are an integral part (11) Changing phone habits, Business Week, 5 September, p. 68
(1983).
of strategic planning. Force field analysis is a
technique commonly used by organization de- (12) Kotter and Schlesinger, op cit.

velopment practitioners to assess forces favoring (13) W. Ouchi, Theory Z-How American Business Can Meet the
and opposing changes in working relationships Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley, reading, MA (1981).

within an organization. The forces evaluated by (14) Kotter and Schlesinger, op cit.
OD practitioners are generally different than the H. Mintzberg, Research on strategy making, Proceedings,
(15)
forces encountered by strategic planners. However, Academy of Management (1972).