Lewinian Limits: A Foucauldian Analysis of Kurt Lewin’s Representation in Change Management Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington Kenneth G. Brown, University of Iowa Presentation to Paper Session ‘The Theories and Histories of Critique’, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Orlando, 13 August 2013

Change as Three Steps (CATS) unfreeze move refreeze

Method: Foucault’s Critical Historical Approaches Our question: ‘why do management texts present Lewin as they do? Early works Progressive histories may conceal the truth Archaeology Every strata promotes its own particular truths Genealogy The truth is developed and maintained by an expedient network of relations

Early works: How retrospective views conceal the truth about Lewin Lewin was not a management and organization theorist Lewin’s supposedly seminal work makes almost no mention of CATS CATS was not a significant part of Lewin’s work. Lewin did not use the term ‘refreezing’ so often attributed to him Lewin’s thinking was not simplistic, episodic or linear

Archaeology The problem of the decline of American industry and McKinsey & Co. The problem of relevance The problem with Organizational Development The problem of the academic rigor and origins of Change Management

Genealogy Mention of CATS in Organization Development (French & Bell) Ist edition (1973): No mention 2nd edition (1978): No mention 3rd edition (1983): No mention 4th edition (1990): Brief mention 5th edition (1995): “Kurt Lewin introduced two ideas about change that have been very influential since the 1940s” (p.81)

Conclusion The history of Change Management is both questionable and malleable, so the future need not be bound by unquestioned historical foundations Change Management could be different if it was based on what Lewin actually researched