Force Field Analysis

What would happen if you ended up in a giant trash compactor? Imagine the fear that would set in as you realized the walls were closing in around you, getting tighter and tighter. You’d likely start pushing back on the machine, maybe grasping for a tool to shove between the quickly enclosing walls before you become a tightly packed cube. This claustrophobic nightmare is a scenario where opposing forces battle against each other, one that may sound familiar from a Star Wars scene. Some situations involve a carefully crafted equal and opposite force, like the air pressure in planes and submarines, while the force needed to tow a truck, on the other hand, requires the towing force to overpower the traction of the car being towed.

Although the stakes in day-to-day life are likely lower than the risk of being crushed into a tiny block, it may be important to analyze the power of the forces both for and against a given change. For many modern organizations evaluating the likelihood of a successful transition, a force field analysis can be incredibly useful. This type of analysis unpacks the forces pushing both for and against a goal, much like the forces of walls pressing in versus the force of your body pushing out. While the forces may be working in opposite directions, one direction will ultimately be stronger. The question is: which force will win, and how can you strengthen the force getting you out and to safety? 

In a force field analysis, those looking for change will begin by defining the issue at hand, as it’s important to have a clear goal in mind. Although this type of analysis is often done at an organizational level, it can also be done in a personal context. Perhaps you’re looking to start a new fitness routine. Once you’ve taken the first step of defining how often or how long you want to work out, the second step is to identify the driving forces at play. These are the positive influences pushing you towards your exercise success: things like your desire to feel healthier and have more energy, your knowledge of the reduced risk of long-term health problems, or social support from your friends. Step three involves identifying the restraining forces, which are the negative influences that might keep you from reaching your goals: your busy schedule, waning motivation, or the seemingly inevitable soreness that finds you after a workout.

Once all the driving and restraining forces are identified, the next step is to evaluate each of their strengths and weaknesses. Whether considering the forces influencing your proposed exercise plan or a shift in an organizational setting, each of the forces for and against a change will have different weights. It’s then up to you (or the leaders in an organization) to quantify the forces, understand where the weaknesses and strengths lie, and create a game plan. As an individual, you may realize that you could increase the driving “social” force by asking your friends to join you at the gym and decrease the power of the restraining “soreness” force by incorporating a stretching routine into your workouts. Organizations can similarly adjust their strategies or budgets to help drive a successful change toward their goals.

Driving Forces: The positive influences that propel a project, decision, or change process toward its desired outcome. These forces create momentum, motivate stakeholders, and provide resources or opportunities that make achieving the goal more feasible. In force field analysis, identifying these positive forces is a central part of the process. Once identified, efforts can be made to strengthen them.¹ 

Restraining Forces: The negative influences that resist or hinder progress toward achieving a goal. These forces create obstacles, reduce momentum, and may cause delays or failure if not effectively addressed. In force field analysis, contrary to driving forces, it’s important to understand the major restraining forces on a project so that steps can be taken to reduce their impact.¹

Cost-Benefit Analysis: A method used to evaluate the pros and cons of a project or decision by comparing its total expected costs and benefits, often expressed in monetary terms. This approach helps decision-makers determine whether the benefits of a change outweigh the costs, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently. 

Theory of Constraints: A systems-based methodology that identifies and addresses the weakest link—or constraint—in a process or system. A constraint is any factor that limits a system’s ability to achieve its goals, such as a bottleneck, resource shortage, or inefficiency. Much like force field analysis, the theory of constraints enhances overall system performance and productivity by focusing on the forces that hold a project back.

Risk Analysis: A process of identifying, evaluating, and planning for potential negative events or threats that could impact a project, business, or organization. This is accomplished by assessing the likelihood of each event occurring and the potential severity of its consequences, with the goal of taking proactive measures to mitigate or avoid them. 

Force field analysis was first developed by the German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. As a social psychologist, Lewin envisioned the force field as a dynamic “life space” that encapsulated a person's motives, values, needs, moods, goals, anxieties, and ideals. The concept of the force field was designed to provide a mathematical explanation to describe the forces both for and against a given change.² 

In the development of the original concept, which he officially published in a conceptual paper in 1951, the analysis method was more often applied to personal dilemmas as opposed to professional ones. Lewin believed that changes to an individual's "life space" depend upon how the individual internalizes the external stimuli from the physical and social world. The psychologist focused on finding a way to quantify the causes and effects of social phenomena like group conflict, hatred, learning, adolescence, morale, and society at large. He ultimately used this approach to develop force field analysis and study human behavior.² 

Over time, force field analysis was brought into the business world as a tool for change management by academics and business professionals like Edgar H. Schein, John Kotter, and Richard Beckhard.^3,4,5 In the modern sphere, the analysis method is commonly used to help organizations identify and assess the factors that are for and against a proposed change initiative.¹ This allows them to strategize how to overcome resistance and successfully implement new ideas by understanding both the driving forces pushing for change and the restraining forces holding it back. Essentially, it helps decision-makers weigh the pros and cons of a change before moving forward.

Kurt Lewin

A German-American psychologist who introduced the force field analysis model in the 1940s as part of his work on organizational and social change. His framework highlights the dynamics of driving and restraining forces that impact change processes. Lewin is often known as the father of modern social psychology, and his broader work on behavior emphasizing the importance of equilibrium in systems has greatly influenced organizational development.²

Edgar H. Schein

A Swiss-American psychologist who built upon Lewin’s concepts, particularly in the area of organizational change and culture. His work has helped integrate force field analysis into practical strategies for diagnosing and managing cultural resistance. In his studies of organizational psychology, Schein expanded the use of force field analysis to address deeply embedded cultural dynamics that influence organizational transformation.³

John Kotter

A business professor who developed a change management model that complements force field analysis by offering a practical, phased approach to managing driving and restraining forces while implementing a change. Though not affiliated with Lewin, Kotter's emphasis on overcoming resistance aligns with the analysis of restraining forces, making his insights widely applicable to those using Lewin’s model.⁴

Richard Beckhard

An American organizational theorist whose work drew heavily from Lewin’s theories. Beckhard’s contributions to understanding resistance to change and facilitating interventions are rooted in Lewin’s framework. As a pioneer in organizational development, Beckhard applied force field analysis to improve team dynamics, strategic planning, and change management in organizations.⁵

Force field analysis has profoundly impacted how we understand and manage change, especially within organizations. It can be applied in contexts ranging from a small-scale office to larger, social-system-wide changes. 

Revolutionizing Change Management

One of the most notable contributions of this analysis method is how it has reshaped the field of change management. It would be an exaggeration to suggest that leaders were relying on pure intuition or subjective insights when managing organizational change before Lewin’s framework. Instead, a number of change management techniques existed or became popular around the time that force field analysis gained traction. Still, it was an important strategy because it provided a structured way to assess and manage the forces at play during major changes.⁶ This shift allowed organizations to see change not as a linear, uncontrollable process, but as a dynamic interaction of competing influences that could ideally be managed.

For example, with the use of force field analysis when trying to implement a new technology or system within an organization, leaders can identify and address the specific forces that either push adoption forward (such as enthusiasm from early adopters) or hold it back (such as employee resistance due to fear of obsolescence). By visually representing these forces, leaders can also more easily identify where interventions are needed to tip the scale in favor of change. This not only makes change more predictable but also helps to minimize the chaos that often accompanies organizational transformations (because change is hard!). By recognizing the weight of both driving and restraining forces, the analysis enables leaders to give a more balanced, less coercive approach to change.⁶ Ultimately, organizations can implement transformations more successfully when they proactively address resistance before it becomes problematic. Force field analysis’ forced reckoning with the negative aspects of change may even encourage more collaboration in an organization, rather than confrontation.

Influence on Decision-Making and Strategic Planning

Force field analysis also serves as a tool to help leaders systematically evaluate the potential success of their options. If you think this sounds a lot like a cost-benefit analysis, you are correct! While force field analysis weighs the positive and negative forces involved in taking a potential action, cost-benefit analyses evaluate the pros and cons of a project’s outcome by comparing its total expected costs and benefits, often expressed in monetary terms. However, a force field analysis can also help inform an organization’s understanding of its costs and benefits. For example, perhaps one of the restraining forces of a change is that employees have threatened to strike if a new policy is instated. Not only is this momentum preventing the change from taking place, but it would certainly be a major cost if the policy were to be implemented.

By identifying the forces that support or oppose a given strategy, people can assess how to leverage those forces to their advantage or mitigate potential resistance. Consider the application of force field analysis when launching a new product or entering a new market. It could help identify not only external market conditions like competitive pressure or regulatory challenges but also internal factors like employee enthusiasm or resource constraints. By understanding how these forces interact, those doing the planning can adjust their approach—either by strengthening the driving forces (such as building more internal support or investing in customer education) or reducing the impact of the restraining forces (like adjusting pricing strategies or addressing team concerns).

This structured approach to decision-making also enables organizations to consider alternative strategies more thoroughly.^1,6 Rather than simply making an impulsive choice or relying on intuition, leaders can engage in a more informed, comprehensive analysis of which strategies stand the best chance of success. Over time, force field analysis has become an important tool in the strategic planning process in a world filled with complex social and political dynamics.

Bringing a Psychological Perspective to Organizational Development

Another major impact of force field analysis is how it has helped integrate psychological insights into organizational development. Lewin’s work bridged the gap between traditional management theories and the psychology of human behavior. By focusing not just on external factors but also on internal psychological forces, Lewin’s framework introduced a deeper understanding of how individuals’ conscious or unconscious motivations influence change. Force field analysis inherently assumes that organizational dynamics are influenced by human drives, emotions, and social influences.⁷

For example, when implementing change in an organization, it’s not enough to simply push for action through top-down mandates. Employees’ fears (whether legitimate or misguided) may make them resistant to new ways of working. These beliefs must be addressed, otherwise the change effort will face friction. Force field analysis offers a method to recognize these psychological dynamics, allowing leaders to anticipate and manage the emotional responses to change, which can be some of the most difficult aspects to control. By understanding the underlying psychological forces—such as certain cultural norms or social pressures—leaders become more attuned to the human element of change, making them more effective in guiding employees through the transition process.⁶ This focus on the psychological aspects of change has helped shape the development of the field of organizational behavior and human resources, which is a win for those looking for improved emotional intelligence and collaboration in the workplace. 

The integration of psychology into organizational theory, which is partly due to force field analysis, has helped users appreciate the human element of change. When leaders focus not just on logistical challenges but are also aware of the cognitive and emotional dynamics of people in an organization, they can have more empathetic leadership approaches, which create stronger organizational bonds.⁸ Thus, not only is it important to understand the "why" behind resistance in order to build kinder connections, but having a solid foundation can result in better solutions and stronger, more sustainable change efforts. Over time, this psychological perspective has become fundamental in understanding why people behave the way they do, giving rise to more nuanced approaches to organizational development and interpersonal dynamics in the workplace.

While force field analysis has had a transformative impact on organizational change and strategic planning, it has not been without its critics. Over the years, several controversies have emerged regarding its application, theoretical underpinnings, and perceived limitations.

Oversimplification of Complex Systems

One of the most understandable criticisms of force field analysis is that it oversimplifies the complexity of organizational and social systems. By reducing a situation to a set of driving and restraining forces, the model fails to capture the nuanced, interdependent nature of real-world dynamics. Critics argue that the framework’s binary approach, while visually appealing and easy to use, may overlook critical subtleties, including feedback loops that help systems adjust over time, changing social dynamics, or the way multiple forces can ebb and flow in their level of impact across timeframes.⁹ 

As an example, imagine a large-scale organizational change effort, perhaps on the level of a country overthrowing its current leader. The forces behind such a change are rarely isolated or static. A driving force, such as excitement about new leadership, might initially accelerate momentum for change, but it could also inadvertently create additional restraining forces, like political opposition or resource reallocation challenges. Force field analysis doesn’t inherently account for these dynamic interactions, potentially leading users to underestimate the complexity of their situations. This has led some experts to question its utility in more complex environments, where the reductionist approach might oversimplify and mislead decision-makers.

It’s also important to consider that, as the analysis focuses on identifying and balancing opposing forces, those using the method might unintentionally steer people toward a zero-sum perspective, where they see forces as competing rather than potentially synergistic.⁹ Instead of the good and bad momentum canceling each other out, a more helpful perspective may be to ask how the interconnected forces involved in any modern organization or social structure can be understood within a more holistic framework. 

Subjectivity and Bias in Force Identification

At TDL, we are particularly aware of the role cognitive bias can play in our lives, especially when its impact is unaccounted for during large-scale change implementation. During force field analysis, there is inherent subjectivity woven into the process of identifying and evaluating forces because the process relies heavily on the perspectives of those conducting the analysis, which can introduce biases that skew the results. Those conducting the analysis may inadvertently overlook certain forces, overemphasize others, or misjudge the strength of particular influences, leading to flawed conclusions and ineffective strategies.

For instance, in an organizational context, senior leaders conducting the analysis may unintentionally prioritize forces that align with their own goals. This would mean that the resistance expressed by lower-level employees (who often make up a larger portion of organizations) is minimized. Similarly, cultural and cognitive biases can affect how forces are interpreted; a leader from a risk-averse culture might perceive potential resistance as more significant than it actually is, while someone more optimistic might underestimate restraining forces altogether. This is why mechanisms or safeguards designed to ensure objectivity are so important. This could mean encouraging more diverse stakeholder input, rigorous data validation, or some other way to reduce the likelihood that the force field analysis reinforces existing biases rather than uncovering a balanced, accurate picture of the situation.

Lastly, critics could argue that the visual simplicity of force field diagrams can create a false sense of certainty. How well-designed a graphic is can have a big impact on our understanding of a topic, and it’s easy to see how an attempt to create a straightforward graphic may oversimplify a complex analysis. Assigning numerical values to forces, while helpful in theory, can be arbitrary in practice, especially when forces are intangible or difficult to measure. How do you assign a definite value to something like employee morale or cultural resistance in the first place? This lack of rigor and objectivity, while not inherently an issue, can become a barrier when people try to quantify and directly compare forces.

Limited Consideration of Power Dynamics and Ethical Implications

Force field analysis has also been criticized for its limited attention to power dynamics and the ethical dimensions of organizational change. By framing forces as either “driving” or “restraining,” the model risks oversimplifying the underlying power structures and conflicts that often shape resistance to change. This can result in an overly mechanistic approach to managing resistance, where opposition is treated as a problem to be overcome rather than as a signal of deeper, systemic issues.

For example, employee resistance to change might stem from legitimate concerns about job security or inadequate communication from leadership. However, if those conducting the analysis focused solely on reducing restraining forces, they might overlook these valid grievances and instead adopt strategies that silence dissent rather than address its root causes. This raises ethical questions about the use of force field analysis as a tool for enforcing change without fully considering the human and social impact of such efforts.

Moreover, there is an issue with the model’s method of assigning value to the impacts of driving and restraining forces. A driving force, like cost-cutting, might be celebrated in the analysis for its ability to push change forward, even if it leads to widespread layoffs or reduced employee well-being. Conversely, restraining forces like union opposition or employee protests might be seen as obstacles to overcome rather than indicators of broader issues that warrant attention. This lack of an ethical framework has led some to argue that force field analysis, while methodologically neutral, can be misused in ways that perpetuate inequality or exploit vulnerable stakeholders. A more nuanced analysis, which might emphasize a wider lens or systemic view, might be less prone to these kinds of ethical dilemmas, but there will always be the issue of deciding who will ultimately interpret the ethical impact of the situation at hand. 

Change Implementation: Switching to Electronic Tools

The transition from paper-based to electronic systems has historically been a tough one, whether because of a lack of trust in the new technology, high expenses, or a lack of education. In one organized case study, researchers analyzed the transitions of the American Department of Defense (DOD) and their Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) organizations to a digitized maintenance environment.¹⁰ Particularly for many government organizations, inefficient or complex change processes can be slow, fragmented, and unsustainable. What’s more, any resources that are wasted in the changeover process come directly from the pocket of taxpayers. Thus, while the researchers supported the department’s transition to computers, they also understood the importance of a smooth implementation process. 

The DOD team’s upgrade involved switching from the traditional paper documentation approach to conducting their work almost entirely on computers. Before the switch, a force field analysis—using interviews, observations, and questionnaires—identified the driving forces of the switch, which included a need for modernization. Like many organizations in need of security, the department would benefit from increased encryption and password-protection options offered by software. The analysis also looked at the restraining forces, including limited technical skills among personnel, as many people were unfamiliar with computers at that point and required additional training. Those conducting the analysis also identified employees’ fear of poor communication from management. Some felt that they already lacked a voice for important issues, which may have been a restraining force in the transition to digitized systems, as the lack of involvement from employees made the issue seem less urgent.

The analysis of the situation allowed the team to develop solid action steps for the transition, not just despite the restraining forces but in response to them. Not only did the DOD team ensure appropriate and comprehensive training on how to use the new electronic tools, but they also established new communication processes for employees. As the new tools rolled out, the department also introduced more frequent announcements from management, organizational reports, and opportunities for feedback. All of these additional communication avenues allowed employees to feel more comfortable with the transition and get the support they needed during what was ultimately a successful adjustment.¹⁰

Apple Staying on Top

Apple has been thriving in the technology market for many years, and its known application of force field analysis has likely been a factor in its long-term success.¹¹ For Apple, some of the main driving forces are:

1. Market Demand: Due to its loyal customer base, Apple is often referred to as having a “cult following.” Their ability to anticipate and understand consumer needs has helped them maintain their lead in the market.
2. Market Research Investment: Apple invests a huge amount into its research on market trends, competitor products, and consumer preferences. 
3. Strong Brand Presence: Apple’s recognizability is a huge asset, and its consistent messaging, premium product design, and (often) high-quality customer service have helped shape the company into a leader in innovation. The success of their marketing campaigns has been huge for their long-term growth.

Some of the biggest restraining forces Apple faces include the regulatory environment—which encompasses the legal landscape and issues related to privacy, antitrust, and environmental compliance—and supply chain inefficiencies, which can become an issue when they’re unable to deliver products to market on time, at the right cost, or with the desired quality.¹¹

However, with the help of force field analysis, Apple’s strategies to maintain its position as a leader in innovation, customer satisfaction, and corporate responsibility have been largely successful. By focusing on their existing positive forces and proactively addressing their restraining forces, they’ve been able to stay ahead of the curve and maintain their success.

What is a Cost-Benefit Analysis?

Similar to a force field analysis, a cost-benefit analysis is a strategic planning tool used by businesses to help them analyze potential future actions. Explore this reference guide to learn more about the background, impacts, and potential shortcomings of a cost-benefit analysis. 

Real Options Analysis

Another analysis method is real options analysis (ROA), an investment evaluation method that values flexibility and strategic decision-making in uncertain environments. This article unpacks the approach and explains how ROA can provide a more dynamic and comprehensive assessment of an investment's true economic potential.

1. Shafaghat, T., Zarchi, M. K. R., Nasab, M. H. I., Kavosi, Z., Bahrami, M. A., & Bastani, P. (2021). Force field analysis of driving and restraining factors affecting the evidence-based decision-making in health systems; comparing two approaches. Journal of education and health promotion, 10, 419. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_1142_20 
2. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). Harper & Row.  
3. Schein, E. H. (1995). Kurt Lewin in the classroom, in the field, and in change theory: Notes toward a model of managed learning (Working Paper No. 3821-95). Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
4. Pollack, J., & Pollack, R. (2015). Using Kotter's eight stage process to manage an organisational change program: Presentation and practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(1), 51–66.
5. Fry, R. (2017). Richard Beckhard: The Formulator of Organizational Change. In: Szabla, D.B., Pasmore, W.A., Barnes, M.A., Gipson, A.N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Organizational Change Thinkers. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52878-6_1 
6. Baulcomb, J. S. (2003). Management of change through force field analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 11(4), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2834.2003.00401.x
7. Shrivastava, S., Shrivastava, P. S., & Ramasamy, J. (2017). Force field analysis: An effective tool in qualitative research. Journal of Current Research in Scientific Medicine, 3(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrsm.jcrsm_55_17 
8. Kock, N., Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., Sexton, S., & De La Garza, L. M. (2019). Empathetic Leadership: How Leader Emotional Support and Understanding Influences Follower Performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818806290 
9. Hustedde, R., & Score, M. (1995). Force-field analysis: Incorporating critical thinking in goal setting. Community Development Society. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED384712 
10. Toves, P. R., Graf, L. M., & Gould, D. A. (2016). Innovative use of force field analysis: Factors influencing technology-enabled change. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 17(2), 101–115. https://jbam.scholasticahq.com/article/1183-innovative-use-of-force-field-analysis-factors-influencing-technology-enabled-change 
11. Zervas, Spyros. (2021). Change in Leadership of Apple Inc. From Steve Jobs to Tim Cook.