The Kurt Lewin of Change Management

International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764)
Volume 02 – Issue 04, July 2013

Comparative Study: The Kurt Lewin of Change
Management
Bashar Hussein Sarayreh

Hassan Khudair

Amman Arab University
Amman Jordan

University of Wollongong
Dubai-UAE

Abstract— It can be to persuade that the prosperous of change management is crucial to any organization or firm in order to survive and succeed in the present highly competitive and continuously to draw out business environment. However, theories and approaches to change management currently available to academics and practitioners are often contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and supported by unchallenged hypotheses concerning the nature of contemporary organizational change management. The purpose of this article is, therefore, to provide a critical review of some of the main theories and approaches to organizational change management as an important first step towards constructing a new framework for managing change.

Keywords Change Management, Kurt Lewin-3 stage model)

I. INTRODUCTION
Successful change implementation combines decisions that are centered on what are often called “hard” and “soft” areas. The so-called hard areas include project planning, implementing software, and installing new computer networks. The soft side– the people side - involves the decisions and actions designed to help employees embrace new methodology, technology and ways of working. The effects of hard-side decisions are easily observed, measured and adjusted. Because is calmer to measure assess the hard side, it is common for it to get more attention. Soft-side effects tend to be subtler and harder to observe – making them more difficult to measure and evaluate. [9]
The term Change is defined as The Information Technology
Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is the process of moving from one defined state to another. Change management is the process of planning, controlling, coordinating,

References: [1]Allport, 1948; Bargal and Bar, 1992; Kippenberger, 1998a,b; Smith, 2001). [2]Allport. G.W. (1948) Foreword, in G.W. Lewin (eds) Resolving Social Conflict, Harper & Row [3]Back, K.W. (1992) 'This business of topology '. Journal of Social Issues, Vol [4]Bargal, D. and Bar, H. (1992). ‘A Lewinian approach to intergroup workshops for Arab-Palestinianand Jewish Youth’ [5]Bechtold, B.L. (1997) 'Chaos theory as a model for strategy development ' [6]Brodbeck, P.W. (2002) 'Implications for organization design: teams as pockets of excellence ' [8]Bumes, B. (2004a) 'Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal ' [9]Burdus,E, Management schimbrii organizational e, Bucuresti, Editura Caprarescu, Gh., Economica, 2008 Androniceanu, A. [10]Cartwright, D. (Ed.) (1952). Field Theory in Social Science. London: Social Science Paperbacks. [11]Cooke, B. (1999). ‘Writing the left out of management theory: the historiography of the management of change’.Organization, 6,1,81–105. [12]Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2001) Organization 628 International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (ISSN: 2279 – 0764) Volume 02 – Issue 04, July 2013 [13]Dawson, P. (1994) Organizational Change: A Processual Approach, Paul Chapman Publishing, London. [15]Dickens, L. and Watkins, K. (1999). ‘Action research: rethinking Lewin’ [16]Eccles, T. (1993) 'The deceptive allure of empowerment ', Long Range Planning, Vol [17]EduTech Wiki, 2010, Change Management,http://edutechwiki.unige. [18]Elrod II, P.D. and Tippett, D.D. (2002) The 'Death Valley ' of change. [19]Garvin, D.A. (1993) 'Building a learning organization '. Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp [20]Hatch, M.J. (1997) Organization Theory: Modem, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford University Press, [21]Hendry, C (1996) 'Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning theory ' [26]Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T.D. (1992) The Challenge of Organizational Change, Free Press, New York. [27]Kiel, L.D. (1994) Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA [28]Kippenberger, T. (1998a) 'Planned change: kurt lewin 's legacy ',77M? Antidote, Vol [29]Kotter, J.P. Leading Change, Hovard Business School Press, 1996 [30]Kotter,J.P., The Heart Of Change, Bucuresti,Ed [31]Lee, M. (1999) 'The lie of power: empowerment as impotence '. [32]Lewin, 1946; Bargal and Bar, 1992) [33]Lewin, G [34]Lewin, K. (1943a) 'Psychological ecology ', in: D. Cartwright (Ed.) (1952) Field Theory in Social Science, SocialScience Paperbacks, London. [35]Lewin, K. (1943b) The Special Case of Germany, in: G.W. Lewin (Ed.) (1948) Resolving Social Conflict,Harper & Row, London. [36]Lewin, K. (1946) 'Action research and minority problems ', in: G.W. Lewin (Ed) (1948) Resolving Social conflict. Harper & Row, London. [37]Lewin, K. (1947a) 'Frontiers in group dynamics ', in: D. Cartwright (Ed.) (1952): Field Theory in social Science ,Social Science Paperbacks: Newcomb and E.L. Hartley (eds) (1959). Reading in Social Psychology, Henry Holt, New York. [39]Lewin, M. (1992) 'The impact of kurt lewin 's life on the place of social issues in his work ', Joumal of Social Issues, Vol [40]Macintosh, R. and MacLean, D. (2001) 'Conditioned emergence: researching change and changing research’. [41] Marrow, A. J. (1969). The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin [42] Marrow, A.J. (1969) The Practical theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin, Teachers College Press, New York. [43]Nonaka, I. (1988) 'Creating organizational order out of chaos: selfrenewal in Japanese flrms '. Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember, pp. 96-104. [44]Pettigrew, A.M. (1990a) 'Longitudinal fleld research on change: theory and practice ' [45]Pettigrew, A.M., Hendry, C. and Sparrow, P. (1989) Training in Britain: Employers, Perspectives on HumanResources, HMSO,