An Overview of Kurt Lewin and the Harwood Studies

LDRS802: Organizational Systems, Change, and Leadership

16 February, 2020

Heather Gennette
Introduction

This article by Professor Bernard Burnes examines the first phase of the Harwood studies

and how the experiments laid the foundation for organizational development (OD) and

participative management. Burnes mentions that there are several other studies commonly used

in research on OD, and this particular study is rarely cited, but the results have been instrumental

in OD. Lewin took his research on group behavior from the laboratory and implementing his

work in a real-life setting. The article is a step-by-step process of how Lewin and his colleagues

implemented concepts such as group decision-making, self-management, and leadership

development at Harwood Manufacturing Corporation (Burnes, 2007).

Thesis

It seems as though Professor Burnes is upset at the lack of exposure the Harwood study

has received in research. He states, “even leading writers in the field either do not mention the

Harwood studies or provide only a passing reference to them” (Burnes, 2007). Burnes feels as

though it had a more significant impact on the OD than other well-known studies and proves its

worth to OD in this article. Burnes wrote a very similar article in 2019 on Alfred J. Marrow and

his contribution to OD in the Harwood studies. He again mentions how this particular

contribution to OD has been "largely forgotten." It is evident that he has a bone to pick with

those who write about Lewin and fail to mention his work at Harwood.

Main Points

The research conducted and concepts implemented at Harwood Manufacturing

Corporation was a hands-on experiment by Lewin and his colleagues over a 30-year time frame.

The Lewin years took place from 1939 to 1947, and they are known to Burnes as some of the
most influential years in OD history (Burnes, 2007). He listed four reasons as to why he wanted

to write and defend his stance on the importance and relevance of the Harwood studies. These

reasons were:

1. They played a central role in the development of Lewin’s work on change.

2. They played a key role in moving research on group behavior and group change from

the laboratory into the real world.

3. They provided the test bed for and laid the foundations of the philosophy and

approach to change adopted by the OD movement.

4. The studies ran for more than 30 years in one organization and are one of the rare

examples of a genuinely longitudinal study. As such, they provide significant support

for the efficacy of participative management.

Before his time at Harwood, Lewin spent his time studying and trying to understand how

to bring about change in group behavior. The corporation allowed him to apply his theories and

concepts in a real-world setting (Burnes, 2007). He initially visited the plant by the President,

Alfred J. Marrow, to help with employee retention. However, there were many other issues that

needed to be addressed, and the company allowed him to try his theories. The fundamental

studies that took place were group decision-making, self-management, leadership training,

changing stereotypes, and overcoming resistance to change. The experiments that took place

gave birth to the concept of participative management and where the tools used in today’s OD

movement were created (Burnes, 2019).

In the article, Burnes makes his case as to why the Harwood studies laid the foundations

for OD and contributed to several milestones in the development of organizational change

(Burnes, 2007). Many of the issues that Harwood faced are very similar to those faced by
organizations today, and the theories and concepts put into place are still used by OD consultants

and researchers to help those companies change their way of doing things.

Burnes largely contributed the reason for the Harwood studies not being mentioned in

scholarly writings was due to Lewin’s death in 1947. Marrow continued the organizational

changes Lewin implemented while alive, but experimentation was minimal. There were change

initiatives and participative management studies done by Dr. Gilbert David and John French that

brought the company great success (Burnes, 2019). Without Lewin's ideas, Harwood was not

newsworthy and was documented by Alfred Marrow in his biography on Lewin (Burnes, 2007).

Critical Assessment

The article is relevant to this course on organizational development. Lewin is known for

his work in group decision making, self-management, participative management, and various

other concepts that are still being used today. Burnes's passion for wanting to make it known

that these theories were first implemented at Harwood is admirable. Many others have written

about Lewin’s innovative work in OD, but little has been mentioned where these concepts were

created and tested. Burnes proved that Lewin's work done at Harwood has stood the test of time

and is still relevant today.

When I looked for additional research on the Harwood studies, I found that Burnes was

right. Most of the work that I found was his (Burnes) and one other by Desmond and Wilson

(2018) on the union perspective of the studies. In this article, they call the studies "a cautionary

tale against the assumption of a monolithic view that equates the interest of management with

that of the organization" (Desmond et al., 2018). The authors spoke about a unitarist and

utilitarian perspective that had a completely different tone than Burnes. They spoke mostly
about the Harwood studies the impact participative management had on unions, calling it a

"Trojan Horse." The article states, "the perspective adopted by Kurt Lewin and his associates

that is arguably among the most benign expressions of this tendency thus laid them open to the

accusation that they acted as servants of power (Baritz, 1960) who used democracy as a means to

engineer consent” (Graebener, 1986, 1987; Desmond et al., 2018). They make it seem as though

participative management is a way to trick employees into thinking they have a say, but all

management cares about is productivity and profits.

Reflection

I find it very interesting that Lewin and his associates were able to accomplish so much in

only eight years. Burnes seems very passionate about the Harwood studies and the vast

contributions to OD that happened there. From all that I have read on Lewin in Weisbord (2012)

and the articles mentioned above, it seems as though he is the father of OD. His ideas and

theories that he put to work at Harwood seemed to yield amazing results. Although Desmond et

al., (2018) seems to find the work of participative management in the Harwood studies as a

hidden agenda by management, I still think that these concepts are relevant and useful for

organizations.

The Harwood studies gave birth to participative management, and that is something that I

try to implement in my life. Although I am most typically the leader in my office and at home, I

only get things done with the help of my team (co-workers and family). We all take part in the

decisions that are made (group decision-making), and then I also give those around me to take on

tasks and responsibilities and allow them to manage themselves (self-management). There were

several concepts that I wish my entire organization would implement, but for right now, I will

continue to practice these in my own office and evaluate our productivity.

Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt lewin and the harwood studies: The foundations of OD. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213-224,227-231. Retrieved from https://search-

proquest-com.ezproxy.fhsu.edu/docview/236352406?accountid=27424  

Burnes, B. (2019). The role of alfred J. marrow and the harwood manufacturing corporation in

the advancement of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(4), 397-427.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.fhsu.edu:2048/10.1177/0021886319865270

Desmond, J., & Wilson, F. (2019). Democracy and worker representation in the management of

change: Lessons from kurt lewin and the harwood studies.Human Relations, 72(11),

1805-1830. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.fhsu.edu:2048/10.1177/0018726718812168

Weisbord, M. (2012). Productive Workplaces: Dignity, meaning, and community in the 21st

century (3rd ed.). San Francisico, CA: Jossey-Bass