Leading a team through change is rarely a linear journey. Whether you are introducing a sophisticated new software system, restructuring a department, or simply trying to shift the team’s daily reporting habits, the challenge remains the same. How do you get people to actually do things differently?

Too often, we treat change as a singular event, such as a “go-live” date or a formal announcement. We share the vision, distribute the new guidelines, and expect the transition to be seamless. Yet, weeks or months later, we often find the “new way” hasn’t quite stuck. Some team members might be enthusiastically on board while others are “dual running”, performing the bare minimum of the new process while secretly clinging to their old, comfortable habits like a life raft.

A different lens: The Lewin formula

What is Kurt Lewin’s formula? This struggle is not a sign of failure; it is a sign of a missing framework. Kurt Lewin’s formula, B = f(P, E), states that Behaviour (B) is a function (f) of the Person (P) and their Environment (E).

This article was inspired by the insights of Przemyslaw Gawronski in his piece, Getting the most from your LDI journey – continuous practice, which explores how leadership development and change are not one-off events but a continuous evolution of habit. To achieve that evolution, we must look at a foundational principle of social psychology: Kurt Lewin’s formula.

In this guide, we will break down how to use this 80-year-old formula to solve the most modern of leadership headaches: getting people to truly embrace change.

The ‘P’ (Person) – Leading internal motivation

In Lewin’s formula, the P represents the internal world of the individual. As a leader, you cannot directly control what happens inside someone’s head, but you can certainly influence it. When change fails, we often assume the “Person” is being difficult. In reality, their internal resistance is usually a rational response to a perceived threat or a lack of mental resources.

The Psychology of the Status Quo

Research into loss aversion suggests that the pain of losing something is twice as powerful as the joy of gaining something. When you ask a team member to adopt a new process, they do not initially see the “efficiency gain”. Instead, they see the loss of their existing expertise.

A high performer who was once the “go-to” person for the old system suddenly feels like a novice. This shift in identity from expert to beginner creates a significant psychological barrier. To lead the P effectively, you must acknowledge this “competence gap” and provide a safe space for them to be imperfect while they learn.

Skill versus Will

To influence the P, a leader must distinguish between two different internal states using the Skill Will Matrix:

  1. The Skill Gap: Does the person actually have the cognitive capacity or technical training to perform the new behaviour? If they do not, no amount of visionary speeches will help. They require structured training and, more importantly, the “Cognitive Load” capacity to process new information.
  2. The Will Gap: Do they want to perform the behaviour? This is where values and the “What is in it for me” (WIIFM) factor come into play. If the new process makes their individual job harder even if it helps the company, their internal motivation will plummet.

Growth mindset and self-efficacy

The work of Carol Dweck on Growth Mindset is essential here. A person with a “fixed mindset” believes their abilities are static and will view a new system as a threat to their reputation. Conversely, a person with a “growth mindset” sees the change as an opportunity to evolve.

As a leader, your role is to build their self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations. You can do this by highlighting their past successes with change or by breaking the new process into “micro wins” that build their confidence.

The Power of beliefs and values

Every person brings a set of past experiences to the table. This is often referred to as their mental model. If previous changes in the company were handled poorly, the P will naturally be cynical. To lead the Person effectively, you must address their internal narrative. This involves active listening to validate their feelings of uncertainty before you attempt to “sell” the benefits of the new way.

By focusing on the P, you ensure that the team member is mentally and technically equipped to make the leap. However, as the formula shows, the Person is only half of the equation. Even the most motivated person will fail if they are placed in a restrictive or confusing environment.

The ‘E’ (Environment) – Sculpting the context

In Lewin’s formula, the E represents everything outside of the individual. As a leader, this is your primary lever. While you cannot “force” a person to change their mind, you can absolutely redesign the world they work in. Many leaders make the mistake of trying to “fix” the person when the environment is actually the problem.

The path of least resistance

In behavioural science, this is often referred to as choice architecture. Human beings are biologically wired to conserve energy, which means we naturally gravitate toward the easiest path. If your new process requires fifteen clicks while the old “unofficial” way requires only two, the environment is actively working against your goal.

To lead the E, you must make the desired behaviour the easiest possible choice. This involves “Nudging”, a concept popularised by Richard Thaler. If the new system is the default option on every computer and the old system is archived or made difficult to access, the environment begins to do the work of change for you.

The power of social context

The environment is not just physical; it is social. This includes the team culture and the “unwritten rules” of the office. If the leadership team continues to use the old reporting format, they are creating an environment where the old behaviour is validated.

This is linked to social proof, the psychological phenomenon in which people mirror others’ actions to reflect correct behaviour. If the “high status” individuals in the group embrace the change, the social environment shifts to make adoption the “safe” and “correct” thing to do.

Removing the friction (restraining forces)

Lewin’s wider work on force field analysis is crucial for understanding the environment. He argued that in any situation, there are driving forces (reasons to change) and restraining forces (obstacles to change).

Most leaders try to increase the “Driving Forces” by giving more speeches, offering bonuses, or issuing threats. Lewin discovered that this often creates more tension and resistance. A far more effective strategy is to remove the Restraining Forces in the environment.

  • Is the software too slow?
  • Is the login process too cumbersome?
  • Does the team lack the quiet time needed to learn the new system?

By removing these environmental “frictions”, you allow the natural motivation of the P (the Person) to flow forward without being blocked.

Physical and Digital Infrastructure

Finally, the environment includes the literal tools at hand. If you are asking for a more collaborative culture but people are sitting in high-walled cubicles or working in “siloed” digital folders, the physical and digital environment is shouting “stay separate”. To change the behaviour, you must align the infrastructure with the intent.

When the E is designed correctly, change feels less like an uphill struggle and more like a natural slide into a new way of working.

Driving the ‘B’ (behaviour) – Integrating P and E

In Lewin’s formula, Behaviour (B) is the output. It is the result of the interaction between the Person and the Environment. As a leader, your job is to ensure these two variables are not working against each other.

High performance and successful change occur only when P and E are in alignment. If they are mismatched, the behaviour you desire will either be unsustainable or will never appear in the first place.

The risk of the “mismatched” change

  • High P + Poor E (The frustrated hero): You have a highly motivated, skilled team member who wants to use the new system. However, the software is buggy, the login process takes ten minutes, and their colleagues are still sending them data in the old format. The result? Burnout and frustration. The “Person” eventually gives up because the “Environment” makes the correct behaviour too time- and effort-consuming.
  • Low P + High E (The reluctant passenger): You have built a perfect environment. The new system is seamless, the old one is deleted, and the “path of least resistance” is clear. However, the “Person” does not understand why the change is happening or feels their status is threatened. The result? Malicious compliance or “quiet resistance”. They do the bare minimum to get by without ever truly adopting the spirit of the change.

Finding the equilibrium

Driving the Behaviour requires a leader to act as an orchestrator. You must look for the “Equilibrium”, the point where the internal motivations of the person meet an environment that facilitates those motivations.

This integration is best managed through what Lewin called the Three Step Model of Change:

  1. Unfreezing: This is where you address both P and E. You challenge the existing “mental models” of the Person while simultaneously highlighting the “Frictions” in the current Environment. You create the readiness for change.
  2. Changing: You provide the new tools and social support in the Environment while coaching the Person to develop their new identity and skills. This is the period of transition where the B is most volatile.
  3. Refreezing: Once the new behaviour is achieved, you lock it in by making the Environment permanent and reinforcing the Person’s new habits through recognition and reward.

The compound effect of small adjustments

You do not always need a massive overhaul to change the B. Sometimes, a small tweak to the Environment combined with a small shift in the Person can lead to a disproportionate improvement in the Behaviour.

By viewing your team through the lens of B = f(P, E), you move away from being a “manager of tasks” and become a “designer of success”. You stop asking “Why won’t they change?” and start asking “What combination of Person and Environment will make this change inevitable?”

A leader’s health warning: The map is not the territory

It is important to acknowledge a fundamental truth: human behaviour is infinitely complex, and no three-letter formula can ever fully capture the nuances of a person’s internal life or the intricate web of a modern workplace. Formulas like Lewin’s are, by necessity, gross simplifications of reality.

However, their value lies in their ability to act as a “mental scaffold”. They provide a structured starting point for reflection, helping us move past our initial frustrations and biases. By using these models, we aren’t trying to reduce people to variables; we are trying to ensure that as leaders, we have looked at the problem from every possible angle before we take action.

The Leader’s coaching guide for change

To move from theory to practice, you must engage in a dialogue with your team. Change is not a monologue delivered from a boardroom; it is a collaborative design process. The following 28 questions are designed to help you diagnose the Person (P) and the Environment (E) to ensure the Behaviour (B) follows the Vision.

The strategic audit: 7 questions for the leader (The vision)

Before you speak to the team, you must ensure the “Goal” is actually supported by the “Variables”.

  1. Vision alignment: How does this specific change in behaviour (B) directly serve our long-term mission, and have I communicated that link clearly?
  2. The “Why” Test: If the team ignores this change, what is the specific, tangible risk to our ultimate goal?
  3. Incentive integrity: Is our current reward structure actually penalising people for trying the new way?
  4. Psychological safety: Have I provided the safety for people to be “novices” while they learn, or does the environment punish a temporary dip in performance?
  5. Resource sufficiency: Does the team have the actual physical or digital “tools” required to reach the goal, or are they being set up to fail?
  6. The empathy gap: If I were in their shoes, what would be my biggest logical reason for resisting this change?
  7. The feedback loop: How am I capturing the “small wins” to prove to the team that the new behaviour is working?

The engagement phase: 7 Questions for the Person (P)

  1. Confidence check: On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident do you feel in your technical ability to help us reach this goal?
  2. Value mapping: How does this new way of working align or conflict with what you personally value most in your job?
  3. Loss identification: What is the biggest “loss” you feel this change brings to your daily routine or sense of expertise?
  4. Skill gap: What specific training or “micro-skill” do you feel you are currently missing to be successful?
  5. Identity risk: How do you think this change will affect your reputation as the “expert” in your current role?
  6. Capacity: Do you feel you have the mental “bandwidth” to adopt this new habit alongside your current pressures?
  7. Support style: How can I best support your individual learning style as we move toward this new standard?

The environmental audit: 7 Questions for the Context (E)

  1. Friction points: If you tried to fully adopt the new process right now, what is the very first hurdle that would slow you down?
  2. Ghost systems: Is there anything in our current digital setup that makes it easier to use the “old way” than the “new way”?
  3. Social proof: Who on the team do you feel is currently making the most of this change, and what can we learn from them?
  4. Time Allocation: Do you have “protected time” in your diary to practice this new habit, or is the environment too busy to allow for learning?
  5. System logic: What part of the new system feels like it was designed without understanding how you actually do your job?
  6. Workarounds: What “shortcuts” have emerged to avoid the new process, and what do they tell us about the flaws in our setup?
  7. Leader feedback: What is one thing I could change about the work environment tomorrow that would make this transition 20% easier for you?

The Reality Check: 7 Questions for the Behaviour (B)

  1. The fly on the wall: If I watched your workflow today, what percentage of the time would I see you using the new process versus the old?
  2. The trigger point: What is the specific moment in your day or a particular task that usually makes you revert to the old habit?
  3. The “new normal”: How would you describe the “new behaviour” to a new starter in just three simple, actionable steps?
  4. The success anchor: In the last week, what was the one specific moment where using the new system felt genuinely successful or easy?
  5. The habit gap: When you find yourself “dual running” (using both systems), what is the specific reason you feel you cannot let go of the old one yet?
  6. The metric of change: If we were to measure “success” in this change by your actions alone, what is the one metric we should be looking at?
  7. The micro-action: What is the very first thing you did differently today compared to how you worked a month ago?

Summary: Becoming the architect of behaviour

Kurt Lewin’s formula, B = f(P, E), reminds us that leadership is not about “fixing” people. It is about understanding the delicate interplay between the individual and the world they inhabit.

When you encounter resistance, stop pushing. Instead, start observing. Is the Person feeling a loss of competence? Is the Environment cluttered with invisible barriers? Is the Behaviour clearly defined and tracked? By shifting your focus from “mandating change” to “designing the conditions for success”, you create a culture where evolution is not a threat but a natural progression.

As Przemyslaw Gawronski noted in the article that inspired this exploration, the journey of development is about continuous practice. Your role as a leader is to ensure that the P and the E are perfectly calibrated to make that practice possible every single day.

Your variable audit: A quick reference

To help you apply this framework to your next team meeting or one-to-one coaching session, use the table below as a diagnostic tool:

Variable Focus Area Leader’s Action
B (Behaviour) The visible, measurable output Define the “new normal” and track micro-actions
f (Function) The relationship between P and E Balance internal readiness with external ease
P (Person) Internal motivation, skill, and identity Coach for confidence and address loss aversion
E (Environment) External context, tools, and social proof Remove friction and nudge the default choice

Recommended follow-on reading

To delve deeper into the themes of behavioural design, internal resistance, and team dynamics, explore these additional resources:

References

Dweck, C.S. (2017) Mindset: changing the way you can fulfil your potential. 6th edn. London: Robinson.

Gawronski, P. (2024) ‘Getting the most from your LDI journey – continuous practice’, LinkedIn, 17 October. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/getting-most-your-ldi-journey-continuous-practice-gawronski-e6sff/ (Accessed: 4 March 2026).

Lewin, K. (1936) Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. Edited by D. Cartwright. New York: Harper & Row.

Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2009) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Revised edn. London: Penguin Books.