1

TABLE OF CONTENT
Question 1...........................................................................................................................3
Introduction.....................................................................................................................3
Analysis...........................................................................................................................3
Criticism 1..................................................................................................................3
Criticism 2..................................................................................................................4
An example of organizational change........................................................................4
Conclusion......................................................................................................................5
Question 2...........................................................................................................................6
References...........................................................................................................................7

2
 Question 1
Introduction
In today's tumultuous and changing environment, one might expect Lewin's
pioneering work on change to be lauded, especially given the high failure rate of many
change efforts (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Kearney, 1989; Kotter, 1996; Stickland,
1998; Waclawski, 2002; Wastell et al., 1994; Watcher, 1993; Whyte and Watcher, 1992;
Zairi et al., 1994). Unfortunately, his work on Field Theory, Group Dynamics, and Action
Research, which, when combined with his 3-Step model, created an integrated, complex, and
resilient approach to planned change, has gotten less and less attention (Ash, 1992; Bargal et
al., 1992; Cooke, 1999). The research concludes that, far from being outdated, Lewin's
Planned method is still very relevant to the challenges of today's society.
Analysis
The 3-Step Model is widely regarded as Lewin's most significant contribution to
organizational transformation. It's crucial to remember, though, that when Lewin devised his
3-Step model, he wasn't simply thinking about organizational issues. He didn't intend for it to
stand alone from the other three components of his Change Planned strategy (i.e. Field

3
Theory, Group Dynamics, and Action Research). Instead, Lewin saw the four concepts as
part of an integrated approach for evaluating, comprehending, and enacting change at the
group, organizational, and societal levels. Unfreezing, modifying, and refreezing are the three
processes of an effective change project, according to Lewin (1947).
Lewin's 3-Step transformation paradigm, like other aspects of his work, has gone out
of popularity in the last two decades (Dawson, 1994; Hatch, 1997; Kanter et al., 1992).
Despite this, as Hendry (1996, p.624) pointed out, "scratch any account of making and
managing change, and the concept that change is a three-stage process that must begin with a
process of unfreezing will not be far below the surface." Since the 1980s, as different
viewpoints on organizational life and growth have emerged, Lewin's Planned approach has
been widely questioned. The most prevalent objections are listed below, along with
responses.
● Criticism 1
Many people believe that Lewin's planned technique is too straightforward and
mechanical for a world where organizational growth is an ongoing and open-ended process.
These ideas appear to be founded on a misinterpretation of Lewin's perspective on change
and stability. He saw change as a complex and iterative learning process in which the journey
was more important than the destination, where stability was at best quasi-stationary and
always fluid, and where outcomes could not be predicted but had to be discovered through
trial and error due to the complex forces at play (Kippenberger, 1998a; Lewin, 1947a).
As a result, rather than being prescriptive, Lewin acknowledged the unexpected (non-
linear) character of growth, and, as Hendry (1996) points out, he embraced the same
'contextualist' and learning approach preferred by many of his detractors. As previously
noted, many complexity theorists feel Lewin's notion of stability and change is quite similar
to their own (Back, 1992; Elrod and Tippett, 2002; Kippenberger, 1998a; MacIntosh and
MacLean, 2001; Tschacher and Brunner, 1995).
● Criticism 2
Lewin's method is only useful for small-scale, limited change; it is incapable of
accommodating the deep and revolutionary change. Since gradual change may lead to big
shifts over time, as Quinn (1980, 1982) indicated, this criticism appears to be about the speed
of change rather than the degree of change. It's also worth remembering that Lewin was
interested in behavioral change at the individual, group, organizational, and societal levels
(Dickens and Watkins, 1999), whereas fast transformational change is usually linked with
conditions that necessitate significant structural change (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984; Beer and
Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2000; Cummings and Worley, 1997).
Nonetheless, as Kanter et al. (1992) point out, these "Bold Strokes" are often followed
by a series of gradual changes (a "Long March") to align an organization's culture and habits
with the new structure. Lewin understood that considerable behavioral or cultural change
might occur swiftly in times of crisis (Kippenberger, 1998a; Lewin, 1947a). Such crises may
entail directive change; while this may be beneficial in terms of structural change, research

4
by Lewin and others has shown that it seldom works when behavioral change is required
(Lewin, 1947b; Kanter et al., 1992; Schein, 1996; Stace and Dunphy, 2001).
● An example of organizational change
Netflix is one of the most visible examples of organizational transformation. It's a
practical application of Lewin's change management approach. Netflix began as a standard
firm, but it has developed a competitive advantage by adjusting its business model to match
consumer demand. The company's authority changed its features to deal with new
technology. It had two altercations between 1999 and 2007. The video streaming business, on
the other hand, has brought the company a lot of attention and income since its launch in
2007. The author has outlined a few key takeaways that can assist every company. To begin,
changing the company's characteristics is necessary in order to match client expectations.
Furthermore, both employees and consumers should gain from digital adaption and
adoption. Additional features and technologies, such as Netflix's online video streaming
functionality, which was debuted in 2007, must be brought to the company in order for it to
perform correctly. Netflix employed the blue ocean technique to gain a competitive edge. The
phrase "blue ocean strategy" relates to the process of creating a new commercial market,
whereas "red ocean strategy" refers to battling against existing market rivals. The blue ocean
strategy presented a novel feature to attract customers, resulting in a one-of-a-kind and
uncontested market. Finally, Netflix has adopted the blue ocean approach and has become
one of the most successful corporations in the world.
Conclusion
Without a doubt, Lewin had a significant effect on the transformation sector. When
examining Lewin's contribution to change theory and practice, there are three important
factors to examine. The first is that Lewin's work was inspired by a desire to provide a
realistic strategy for resolving social conflict through group behavior modification. The
second point is to recognize that Lewin argued for an ethical and humanist approach to
change, emphasizing learning and involvement as critical components in behavioral change.
The third point to consider is Lewin's work's nature.
When examined separately, the 3-Step approach looks to be straightforward. It
becomes a significantly more strong change strategy when evaluated in conjunction with the
other parts of Lewin's Planned approach. To summarize, while Lewin's contribution to
organizational change has been progressively questioned since the 1980s, the majority of this
criticism appears to be unwarranted or based on a narrow interpretation of his work. Over the
last decade, however, there has been a renewed interest in understanding and implementing
his approach to transformation.

5
 Question 2
The capacity of a firm to adapt is determined by a number of factors, including its
culture. The quality of a company's organizational culture will ultimately decide its success.
For many firms, changing culture requires modifying long-standing practices, especially
those that have been in place for decades. Organizational culture has a significant impact on
employee motivation. In both strong and weak corporate cultures, employees can be
motivated by both inner and extrinsic motivational factors.
Weak organizational cultures are regarded to be less successful in achieving
organizational goals than strong ones because of the perceived relationship between culture
and motivation. Employees in firms with strong organizational cultures are more unified
because they share similar perspectives and beliefs. Employees that share similar values and
ideas develop strong bonds with one another and with the company, and as a consequence,
they have a strong sense of belonging, are focused, and motivate one another. Sorenson
(2002) investigated the link between the robustness of a company's culture and its financial
success. Strong cultures were shown to be the most capable of delivering a successful
strategy under relatively steady operational conditions, according to the research.
● Example
There are four types of business cultures to consider. Cultivating, Exploring,
Producing, and Stabilizing are the Competing Values-based activities. Collaboration, team
cohesion, and individual development are all encouraged through cultivating culture and
Salesforce are one of its actual examples.
It's hard to find a "best places to work" list that doesn't contain Salesforce. The cloud
software behemoth has created a strong employer brand as a result of its exceptional culture.
Salesforce strives to provide a new type of employee experience, one that is centered on
family and service. On Salesforce's culture page, the word "Ohana," which is Hawaiian
meaning "family," appears. This sense of camaraderie pervades all aspects of employment.
To ensure that everyone feels like they are a part of the family, Salesforce stresses four
values: trust, customer success, innovation, and equality. That last value is more vital than
ever, and Salesforce is committed to closing the wage gap between men and women, as well
as races and ethnicities.
The company is also known for its unique customer service philosophy. Salesforce's
"1-1-1" strategy involves donating 1% of its product, stock, and time to various charities. The
following are examples of this:
● Providing seven days of paid volunteer time off each year
● Employee contributions are matched dollar for dollar up to $5,000 each year
Salesforce's Cultivating culture instills a positive mindset in each of its team members by
donating $10,000 on behalf of the company's top 100 employees to aid the community.
REFERENCES

6
 Burnes, B. (2000).Managing Change, 3rd edition. Harlow: FT/Pearson Educational.
Dawson, P. (1994).Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Dent, E. B. and Goldberg, S. G. (1999).‘Challenging resistance to change’. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 1, 25–41.
Hatch, M. J. (1997).Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern
Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A. and Jick, T. D. (1992).The Challenge of Organizational
Change. New York: Free Press.
Marshak, R. J. (1993).‘Lewin meets Confucius: a re-view of the OD model of change’.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29, 4, 393–415.
Ash, M. G. (1992).‘Cultural contexts and scientific change in psychology – Lewin, Kurt
in Iowa’. American Psychologist, 47, 2, 198–207.
Bargal, D., Gold, M. and Lewin, M. (1992).‘The heritage of Kurt Lewin – Introduction’.
Journal of Social Issues, 48, 2, 3–13.
Cooke, B. (1999).‘Writing the left out of management theory: the historiography of the
management of change’. Organization, 6, 1, 81–105.
Lewin, K. (1947a).‘Frontiers in group dynamics’. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory in
Social Science. London: Social Science Paperbacks.
Lewin, K. (1947b).‘Group decisions and social change’. In Newcomb, T. M. and Hartley,
E. L. (Eds), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Kippenberger, T. (1998a).‘Planned change: Kurt Lewin's legacy’. The Antidote, 14, 10–
12.
Hendry, C. (1996).‘Understanding and creating whole organizational change through
learning theory’. Human Relations, 48, 5, 621–41.
Back, K. W. (1992).‘This business of topology’. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 2, 51–66.
Elrod, P. D. II and Tippett, D. D. (2002).‘The “Death Valley” of change’. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 15, 3, 273–91.
MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. (2001).‘Conditioned emergence: researching change and
changing research’. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21, 10,
1343–57.
Tschacher, W. and Brunner, E. J. (1995).‘Empirical-studies of group-dynamics from the
point-of-view of self-organization theory’. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 26, 2, 78–91.
Quinn, J. B. (1980).Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Homewood, IL:
Irwin.

7
 Quinn, J. B. (1982).‘Managing strategies incrementally’. Omega, 10, 6, 613–27.
Dickens, L. and Watkins, K. (1999).‘Action research: rethinking Lewin’. Management
Learning, 30, 2, 127–40.
Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M. E. (1984).‘Theories of organizational culture’. Organization
Studies, 5, 3, 193–226.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000).‘Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review,
May–June, 133–41.
Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (1997).Organization Development and Change, 6th
edition. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Schein, E. H. (1996).‘Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes
towards a model of management learning’. Systems Practice, 9, 1, 27–47.
Stace, D. and Dunphy, D. (2001).Beyond the Boundaries: Leading and Re-creating the
Successful Enterprise, 2nd edition. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Sorensen, J.B. (2002) The Strength of Corporate Culture and the Reliability of Firm
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 70-91.