Force Field Analysis: Guide, Practical Example and Template Based on Kurt Lewin

Force Field Analysis is a diagnostic tool for analyzing change situations. It identifies two categories of forces: driving forces (that push toward change) and restraining forces (that block change). It was developed by Kurt Lewin, the founder of modern social psychology, as part of his field theory in the 1940s [1].

What sets Force Field Analysis apart from other change tools: it does not answer the question “How do we implement the change?” (that is what Kotter does) and not “Where is the individual stuck?” (that is what ADKAR does). It answers the question “Why is nothing moving?” — and thus provides the diagnosis that should precede any intervention.

Lewin’s central insight — and the most counterintuitive one: It is more effective to reduce restraining forces than to increase driving forces. More pressure creates more counter-pressure. But when you release the brakes, the system moves on its own [1][2].

Search for “Force Field Analysis” and you will find a uniform presentation: two columns, arrows left and right, done. None of the results explains Lewin’s theoretical background — field theory and the concept of quasi-stationary equilibrium. None shows how to weight the forces (not just list them). And none discusses where the method reaches its limits — in complex systems with feedback loops.

This guide closes these gaps. For a compact comparison of all change frameworks, see the overview article on change management models.

Origin: Kurt Lewin and Field Theory

Kurt Lewin (1890-1947), born in Mogilno (then Prussia, now Poland), emigrated to the USA in 1933 and became the founder of modern social psychology. His field theory, which he developed from the 1930s and published posthumously in 1951 in Field Theory in Social Science, describes human behavior as a function of the person and their environment — B = f(P, E) [1].

Quasi-Stationary Equilibrium

Lewin’s core idea: social systems exist in a quasi-stationary equilibrium. That sounds abstract — concretely it means: the current state of a team, a process, or an organization is not accidental. It is the result of a force equilibrium. Driving forces (for change) and restraining forces (against change) balance each other.

Change occurs when this equilibrium is disrupted — either by strengthening driving forces or by weakening restraining forces [1].

Lewin’s Counterintuitive Principle

Here it becomes counterintuitive: Lewin argued that weakening restraining forces is superior to strengthening driving forces [2]. Why?

• More pressure creates counter-pressure. When you strengthen driving forces (e.g., more urgency, more incentives, more top-down pressure), you increase tension in the system. Restraining forces respond with intensification: resistance gets louder, sabotage more subtle, work-to-rule more intense.

• Less resistance creates movement. When you reduce restraining forces (e.g., address fears, remove barriers, build capabilities), the system moves toward change with less tension. Driving forces do not need to be strengthened — they take effect on their own once the brakes are released.

Example: An insurer wants to introduce self-service technology. Driving force: cost savings (30% less processing effort). Restraining force: 200 claims processors fear job loss. The classic management response: more pressure (deadlines, management speeches, threat scenarios). Lewin’s recommendation: address the restraining force (job guarantee, reskilling, new role profiles). Cost savings as a driving force already exist — they do not need to be strengthened. What they need is the removal of the obstacle.

Connection to the 3-Phase Model

Force Field Analysis is inseparable from Lewin’s 3-Phase Model — Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze [1]:

• Unfreeze = destabilize the existing equilibrium (reduce restraining forces)
• Change = move the system to a new state (let driving forces take effect)
• Refreeze = stabilize the new equilibrium (establish new restraining and driving forces)

Force Field Analysis is the diagnostic tool that shows you which forces to address — in each of the three phases.

Step by Step: Conducting a Force Field Analysis

Step 1: Define the Change Object

Define precisely what is to change. Not “We want to become more digital” (too vague), but “We want to fully digitize initial claims filing by Q3 2027.”

Clearly name two states:

• Current state: 70% of claims are filed via paper forms. Average processing time: 12 working days.
• Target state: 100% digital claims filing via app. Processing time for routine cases: 48 hours.

The Force Field Analysis maps the forces operating between these two states.

Step 2: Identify Driving Forces

Guiding question: “What speaks for the change? What drives it forward?”

Driving forces can be:

Category	Examples
Market pressure	Competitors have digital claims filing, customers expect self-service
Customer needs	NPS declining, complaints about processing time accumulating
Regulation	New compliance requirements favor digital documentation
Technology	Cloud infrastructure is available, API-capable backend exists
Economics	30% cost reduction possible with full digitization
Leadership	Board has defined digital transformation as strategic priority

Practical tip: Do not gather driving forces only from a management perspective. Also ask those affected: “What speaks for the change from your perspective?” You will discover forces that management has not on its radar — e.g., employees who want to free themselves from repetitive work.

Step 3: Identify Restraining Forces

Guiding question: “What speaks against the change? What blocks it?”

Restraining forces can be:

Category	Examples
Fear	Claims processors fear job loss through automation
Skills gap	Many employees have little IT experience
Systems	Legacy systems are not API-capable, integration is expensive
Culture	”We have always done it this way” — strong identification with the existing process
Resources	Budget for IT modernization is limited
Political	Department head sees digitization as threat to his budget size

Critical: Restraining forces are often invisible. Nobody says in a workshop “I am blocking the change because I fear for my power.” Restraining forces manifest as factual arguments: “The technology is not ready,” “Customers do not want this,” “We have no capacity.” Behind every factual argument can lurk an emotional or political force. The art of Force Field Analysis lies in uncovering these hidden forces.

Methodology tip: Use anonymous methods (card query, digital survey). Supplement workshop results with one-on-one conversations and observation (Gemba Walk). Ask explicitly: “Are there forces not on these cards?”

Step 4: Weight the Forces

Most guides stop here: two columns, done. That is not enough. Forces are not equally strong. A force “Board wants it” is stronger than “One team lead thinks it is good.” A force “200 people fear for their jobs” is stronger than “The new system has an unfamiliar user interface.”

Weighting method:

Rate each force on a scale of 1-5:

• 1 = weak force (present but barely influential)
• 3 = moderate force (noticeable but not decisive)
• 5 = strong force (dominant, determines the outcome)

Example (insurance digitization):

Driving Forces	Strength		Restraining Forces	Strength
Cost pressure (30% savings)	5		Fear of job loss (200 employees)	5
Customer complaints (NPS -12)	4		Legacy system not API-capable	4
Competitors digital	4		Cultural habit	3
Board priority	3		Budget restriction	3
Employees want less routine	2		IT skills gap	2
Sum	18		Sum	17

Interpretation: The equilibrium is nearly balanced — driving forces only marginally outweigh. This explains why little moves: it is not enough to emphasize driving forces. Lewin recommends: address the strongest restraining force (fear of job loss, strength 5). When it is reduced from 5 to 2 (e.g., through job guarantee and reskilling), the equilibrium shifts significantly — without strengthening a single driving force.

Step 5: Plan Interventions

Based on the weighting: Prioritize interventions that reduce restraining forces.

Restraining Force	Strength	Intervention	New Strength
Fear of job loss	5	18-month job guarantee + reskilling program	2
Legacy system	4	API middleware as bridge solution (not complete replacement)	2
Cultural habit	3	Pilot group as internal ambassadors	2
Budget restriction	3	Phased introduction (MVP first)	2
IT skills gap	2	Peer learning + accompanying coaching	1

After interventions: Driving forces = 18. Restraining forces = 9 (instead of 17). The system moves — not through more pressure but through less resistance.

Step 6: Visualize and Communicate

Force Field Analysis is a visual tool. Its communicative strength lies in the diagram:

              Current State → → → → → → → → → → Target State

Driving Forces (→)                    Restraining Forces (←)
═══════════════════ Cost pressure (5)  Fear job loss (5) ═══════════════════
════════════════ Customer complaints (4) Legacy system (4) ════════════════
════════════════ Competitors (4)       Cultural habit (3) ════════════
══════════ Board priority (3)          Budget (3) ══════════
══════ Less routine (2)                Skills gap (2) ══════

Communication value: This diagram shows at a glance why nothing is moving — and which levers have the greatest effect. It is more valuable than any PowerPoint slide because it makes the dynamics of the situation visible.

Practical Example: Self-Service Introduction at an Insurer

Context: A large DACH insurance company wants to introduce self-service technology for claims filing. Current state: 70% paper forms, 12-day processing time, declining customer satisfaction. 200 claims processors at three locations are affected.

Force Field Analysis Workshop (Day 1)

Participants: 15 people — board member (sponsor), IT director, 3 claims processing team leaders, 5 claims processors (deliberately diverse: experienced and young, digitally savvy and skeptical), 2 customer service employees, 2 project managers.

Format: 4-hour workshop. First individual card query (5 driving and 5 restraining forces each on moderation cards), then clustering and weighting in plenary.

Result:

Driving Forces	Strength	Restraining Forces	Strength
Customers demand self-service (NPS data)	5	Fear of job cuts	5
30% cost reduction possible	4	Legacy claims system (no API)	4
3 competitors already digital	4	”We are an advisory service, not an app” (identity)	4
New regulatory requirements for digital documentation	3	Budget only approved for phase 1	3
Claims processors want less routine work	3	Customer segment 60+ is not digital	3
Sum	19	Sum	19

Diagnosis: Perfect equilibrium — maximum standstill. No driving force is strong enough to move the system alone. And: the two strongest restraining forces are emotional and identity-based (fear + professional identity), not technical. Whoever only modernizes the legacy system addresses the fourth-strongest force, not the strongest.

Intervention Planning (Day 2)

Based on Lewin’s principle (reduce restraining forces, do not strengthen driving forces):

Intervention 1: Fear of job cuts (5 to 2) Board member gives public commitment: no redundancies for 24 months. Reskilling program for new roles (quality control of automated processes, complex claims assessment, customer advisory for special cases). Three claims processors are included in developing the new system.

Intervention 2: Identity force (4 to 2) The message is reframed: “Self-service for routine cases gives you more time for the cases that truly need your expertise.” The new role is elevated, not diminished. Experienced claims processors become “claims experts” — a role that did not exist in the old system.

Intervention 3: Legacy system (4 to 2) Instead of complete replacement: API middleware as bridge. The old system remains for complex cases. The new system handles routine cases. Coexistence instead of revolution.

Intervention 4: Non-digital customer segment (3 to 1) Hybrid solution: customers 60+ can continue filing by phone — the processor digitizes the entry. No segment is excluded.

Projection after interventions: Driving forces = 19. Restraining forces = 10 (instead of 19). The system moves.

Note: This example is illustratively constructed to demonstrate Force Field Analysis in a service context.

Comparison: Force Field Analysis vs. SWOT vs. Stakeholder Analysis

Dimension	Force Field Analysis	SWOT Analysis	Stakeholder Analysis
Focus	Forces for and against a specific change	Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats of an organization	Interests and influence of stakeholders
Perspective	Dynamic (equilibrium between forces)	Static (snapshot)	Relational (relationships and interests)
When to use	Before a concrete change decision	Strategic positioning	Project planning, change communication
Strength	Shows WHY nothing is moving — and which levers work	Broad overview of internal and external factors	Identifies WHO influences the change
Weakness	Binary (only two force directions), simplifies complexity	No action derivation, merely lists	Says nothing about force dynamics
Origin	Lewin (1940s)	Albert Humphrey / Stanford (1960s)	R. Edward Freeman (1984)

Our recommendation: Use Force Field Analysis when you want to diagnose a specific change — not as an alternative to SWOT analysis, but as a complement. SWOT shows you the strategic situation. Force Field Analysis shows you the change dynamics. And Stakeholder Analysis shows you who represents which forces.

Combination in practice: Begin with SWOT for positioning. Derive the need for change from it. Then Force Field Analysis for the specific change. Then Stakeholder Analysis to assign restraining and driving forces to specific people and groups.

Force Field Analysis Template: Checklist for the Next Workshop

Preparation

• Change object precisely defined (current state + target state)
• Workshop participants selected (diverse perspectives: leadership + affected + customers)
• Anonymous card query prepared (5 driving and 5 restraining forces per person)
• Weighting scale established (1-5)

Execution

• Individual card query (10 min, anonymous)
• Cluster cards (driving left, restraining right)
• Consolidate duplicates, name forces
• Weighting in plenary (1-5 per force, consensus or median)
• Calculate sums: Driving vs. Restraining
• Analyze equilibrium: Why is nothing moving?

Intervention Planning

• Prioritize strongest restraining forces (Lewin: reduce rather than strengthen driving forces)
• Per restraining force: define intervention, estimate expected new strength
• Projection: How do the interventions shift the equilibrium?
• Assign responsibilities and timeline

Follow-Up

• Visualize force field diagram and distribute to all participants
• Integrate interventions into the transformation plan
• Plan follow-up review: Has the equilibrium shifted as projected?

4 Common Mistakes in Force Field Analysis

1. Listing forces without weighting

Symptom: The result is a list with 8 driving and 8 restraining forces. All look equally important.

Why this hurts: Without weighting, you do not know where to start. A restraining force “unfamiliar user interface” (strength 1) requires a completely different intervention than “fear of job loss” (strength 5). Without weighting, you treat both equally — and waste resources.

Solution: Weight each force on a 1-5 scale. Let participants rate individually and take the median.

2. Capturing only visible forces

Symptom: Restraining forces on the flipchart are exclusively factual: “legacy system,” “budget,” “timeline.” Emotional and political forces are absent.

Why this hurts: The strongest restraining forces are often invisible: fear, loss of power, identity threat. If you do not surface them, you plan around the actual blockages.

Solution: Use anonymous methods (card query, digital survey). Supplement workshop results with one-on-one conversations and observation. Ask explicitly: “Are there forces not on these cards?“

3. Strengthening driving forces instead of reducing restraining forces

Symptom: Management responds to standstill with more pressure: more deadline pressure, more management attention, more incentives. Resistance grows proportionally.

Why this hurts: Lewin explicitly warned: strengthened driving forces create strengthened counter-pressure [2]. The result is higher tension at the same equilibrium.

Solution: Direct 70% of intervention energy toward reducing restraining forces. Driving forces often only need to be released, not strengthened.

4. Treating the analysis as a snapshot

Symptom: The Force Field Analysis is conducted once and never updated. Six months later, forces have shifted, but the intervention plan is still based on the old analysis.

Why this hurts: Forces are dynamic. What was a strong restraining force six months ago (e.g., budget restriction) may have disappeared through a new funding round. Simultaneously, new restraining forces may have emerged that the original analysis did not capture.

Solution: Repeat the Force Field Analysis at regular intervals — at least quarterly during ongoing transformations. Compare force field diagrams over time: Which forces have changed? Which interventions have worked?

When Force Field Analysis Does NOT Work

1. Complex adaptive systems: Force Field Analysis assumes linear causality — Force A drives, Force B restrains. In complex systems with feedback loops (e.g., organizational culture, market dynamics), forces can mutually amplify, weaken, or reverse direction. Here, systems dynamics or the Cynefin Framework are more appropriate.

2. When the change object is unclear: Force Field Analysis requires a defined current and target state. When both are still unclear (“We need to somehow become more innovative”), it provides no usable diagnosis. Clarify the change object first.

3. When the result is politically predetermined: In some organizations, Force Field Analysis is an alibi workshop: the result is fixed, the analysis serves legitimization. In this case, the method is facade — it produces cynicism, not insight.

4. As a standalone change tool: Force Field Analysis diagnoses; it does not steer. For implementation, you need Kotter (organizational governance), ADKAR (individual support), or another intervention framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Force Field Analysis?

Force Field Analysis is a diagnostic tool by Kurt Lewin that maps driving forces (for change) and restraining forces (against change) as opposing forces. It shows why a system remains in standstill — and which levers enable change. Lewin’s central insight: it is more effective to reduce restraining forces than to strengthen driving forces.

How do you conduct a Force Field Analysis?

In six steps: (1) Define the change object (current + target state). (2) Identify driving forces. (3) Identify restraining forces (including hidden ones). (4) Weight forces (1-5). (5) Plan interventions (focus on reducing restraining forces). (6) Visualize and communicate.

What is the difference between Force Field Analysis and SWOT?

Force Field Analysis focuses on forces for and against a specific change (dynamic). SWOT Analysis focuses on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of an organization (static). Both complement each other: SWOT for positioning, Force Field Analysis for change diagnosis.

Why is reducing restraining forces more effective than strengthening driving forces?

Because strengthened driving forces create strengthened counter-pressure (Newton’s third law, transferred to social systems). More top-down pressure creates more bottom-up resistance. But: when you release the brakes (address fears, remove barriers), the system moves with the already existing driving force — at lower tension.

How often should you repeat a Force Field Analysis?

At least quarterly during ongoing transformations. Forces are dynamic — what was the strongest restraining force three months ago may have been neutralized by an intervention. Simultaneously, new forces may have emerged.

Related Methods

• SWOT Analysis: The strategic positioning that precedes Force Field Analysis — SWOT shows where you stand, Force Field Analysis shows what blocks the change
• Kotter’s 8-Step Model: The implementation structure after diagnosis — Kotter orchestrates what Force Field Analysis diagnosed (particularly Step 5: remove barriers)
• ADKAR Model: Individual support — when Force Field Analysis identifies emotional restraining forces, ADKAR diagnoses where the individual is stuck
• Change Curve: The emotional companion — when Force Field Analysis identifies resistance as a restraining force, the curve explains what those affected are feeling
• Change Management Models Compared: For the integration architecture — Force Field Analysis as Layer 1 (diagnosis) before Kotter (Layer 2) and ADKAR (Layer 3)

---

Research Methodology

This article synthesizes findings from Lewin’s original works (1943, 1947, 1951), Burnes’ historical assessment of Lewin’s change models (2004), Thomas’ analysis of Force Field Analysis in the organizational context (1985), and the analysis of 10 German-language publications on Force Field Analysis.

Limitations: The academic literature on Force Field Analysis as a standalone tool is surprisingly thin — most publications treat it as part of Lewin’s broader field theory, not as a practical method. The practical example (insurer self-service) is illustratively constructed, not a documented case study.

Disclosure

SI Labs accompanies organizations through transformation processes and uses Force Field Analysis as a diagnostic tool in the pre-phase of service transformations. This practical experience informs the assessment of the method in this article. Readers should be aware of potential perspective bias.

References

[1] Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. Ed. Dorwin Cartwright. New York: Harper & Row, 1951. [Foundational Work | Posthumous | Citations: 10,000+ | Quality: 92/100]

[2] Lewin, Kurt. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics.” Human Relations 1, no. 1 (1947): 5-41. DOI: 10.1177/001872674700100103 [Journal Article | Foundational Work | Citations: 8,000+ | Quality: 90/100]

[3] Burnes, Bernard. “Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal.” Journal of Management Studies 41, no. 6 (2004): 977-1002. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00463.x [Journal Article | Historical Assessment | Citations: 2,500+ | Quality: 85/100]

[4] Thomas, Joe. “Force Field Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Your Strategy.” Long Range Planning 18, no. 6 (1985): 54-59. DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(85)90064-0 [Journal Article | Practical Application | Citations: 200+ | Quality: 70/100]

[5] Cummings, Stephen, Todd Bridgman, and Kenneth G. Brown. “A Reimagining of Lewin’s Three-Step Model of Change.” Human Relations 69, no. 1 (2016): 33-60. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715577707 [Journal Article | Critical Source Analysis | Citations: 400+ | Quality: 82/100]

[6] Snowden, David J., and Mary E. Boone. “A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making.” Harvard Business Review 85, no. 11 (2007): 68-76. [HBR Article | Cynefin Framework | Citations: 3,500+ | Quality: 82/100]