I think if you want to understand Lewin better, then you shouldn't start with his original works, but with the now classic article "Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management", by Cummings/Bridgman/Brown: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0018726715577707
Building on what Lewin called laissez-faire, Etienne Wenger found that what enables communities of practice to function successfully is clear purpose and invitation -- a choice to participate. Purpose grounds us in the reason for coming together - consequence in Lewin's language. And invitation is humanism in action. Offering the choice of whether we wish to contribute to the purpose.
You are clearly confusing Laissez-faire and Democratic. Etienne Wenger's work is grounded in the "democratic style": Invitation is a hallmark of the democratic (collaborative) style, not one of laissez-faire. In laissez-faire, you would not invite!
Nope. I was not confusing laisser-faire with democratic. I did, however misread your post. I thought you had made a case for laissez-faire. That's what I get for not giving full attention to what I was reading! Apologies for that.
My intent, however awkwardly, was pivoting from Lewin's research because of another issue I find with most social science research of the era. The leadership study was done with boys clubs. In other words, no girls or women were included in the study. While acceptable at the time and often providing important insights, in some cases, it led to incomplete or inaccurate conclusions.
Very interesting, thanks. What sources on or by Lewis to read about his original thinking would you recommend?
Hi Hartger. Thank you for asking.
I think if you want to understand Lewin better, then you shouldn't start with his original works, but with the now classic article "Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management", by Cummings/Bridgman/Brown: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0018726715577707
I always use it in my MasterClasses!
Thanks Niels!
Building on what Lewin called laissez-faire, Etienne Wenger found that what enables communities of practice to function successfully is clear purpose and invitation -- a choice to participate. Purpose grounds us in the reason for coming together - consequence in Lewin's language. And invitation is humanism in action. Offering the choice of whether we wish to contribute to the purpose.
Thank you for commenting.
You are clearly confusing Laissez-faire and Democratic. Etienne Wenger's work is grounded in the "democratic style": Invitation is a hallmark of the democratic (collaborative) style, not one of laissez-faire. In laissez-faire, you would not invite!
Nope. I was not confusing laisser-faire with democratic. I did, however misread your post. I thought you had made a case for laissez-faire. That's what I get for not giving full attention to what I was reading! Apologies for that.
My intent, however awkwardly, was pivoting from Lewin's research because of another issue I find with most social science research of the era. The leadership study was done with boys clubs. In other words, no girls or women were included in the study. While acceptable at the time and often providing important insights, in some cases, it led to incomplete or inaccurate conclusions.