Compare and Contrast
The Lewin’s Three-Step Theory and Social Cognitive Theory are some of the theories that have been conceptualized to respond to the question of whether successful change can be achieved. The Lewin’s Three-Step Change Theory views behavior as an active poise of forces that work in different directions. The theory claims that there are driving forces, which facilitate change since they drive employees in the right direction, while there are negative forces that do not promote change since they turn employees in the opposite direction. The three steps suggest that there has to be unfreezing of the current situation by encouraging and motivating subjects for change. The second phase is movement where the target system has to be moved to a new target level. The last step involves refreezing whereby the change achieved has to be modeled into employees. Otherwise, they risk reverting to the former status quo (Mitchel, 2013).
The Social Cognitive Theory encourages change through experience, observation, and good interaction. It proposes that personal features, environmental factors, and qualities of the behavior in question influence behavior change. The theory suggests that for change to occur, the person involved has to be willing to adopt the new system. It claims that one has to have positive expectations if they expect to attain the goal (Mitchel, 2013). The two theories outline ways of achieving change with Lewin’s Three-Step Theory emphasizing on a plan that has to be followed to the latter to achieve set objectives. However, the Social Cognitive Theory makes the perfect choice as it puts into perspective an important aspect of change, which is personal factors and self-motivation towards the new goal, which means that one has to be willing to change to achieve any set goals.
1. Mitchell, G. (2013). Selecting the best theory to implement planned change: Improving the workplace requires staff to be involved and innovations to be maintained. Gary Mitchell discusses the theories that can help achieve this. Nursing Management, 20 (1), 32-37.