Almost every organizational change model taught in a nursing program today, including the step-by-step frameworks covered elsewhere in this cluster, traces its logic back to one source: Kurt Lewin's three-stage model of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Understanding Lewin's original version first makes every newer model easier to place.
Lewin was a German-American social psychologist whose work on group dynamics and planned change, laid out around 1947 in his writing on social equilibria, became foundational to the entire field of organizational development. His core insight was simple: any established routine, a nursing unit's shift-report habit included, is not a fixed thing but a temporary balance between forces pushing for change and forces holding the status quo in place.
That balance is what Lewin called a quasi-stationary equilibrium. It looks stable from the outside, but it is actually the result of opposing pressures canceling each other out, which means a change effort does not need to invent an entirely new state from scratch. It needs to shift the balance of forces that already exist.
This guide covers where Lewin's model came from, its three stages in detail, force field analysis as the practical tool that goes with it, how the stages map onto a typical capstone or DNP document, a full worked example, and how the model compares to the newer frameworks covered elsewhere in this cluster. For the wider landscape this model sits inside, see our nursing theory and change frameworks hub.
What Is Lewin's Change Theory?
Lewin's model breaks planned change into three sequential stages. Unfreezing destabilizes the current routine and builds motivation to move away from it. Changing, which some textbooks call moving, is the period where the new behavior is actually introduced and practiced. Refreezing stabilizes that new behavior so it becomes the unit's normal way of working rather than a temporary experiment that fades once attention moves elsewhere.
Unlike the more detailed, step-heavy frameworks that came later, Lewin's three stages are deliberately broad. They describe the shape any successful change effort tends to follow, without prescribing the specific tactics a team should use inside each stage. That makes the model easy to apply across very different settings, from a single nursing unit to an entire hospital system, but it also means a capstone write-up needs to supply the specific detail Lewin's original language leaves open.
Lewin paired this three-stage model with a second tool, force field analysis, which gives students and committees a concrete way to visualize what is actually happening inside the unfreezing stage. The two pieces are meant to be read together, and most strong capstone applications of Lewin's model lean heavily on force field analysis to make the unfreezing stage specific rather than abstract.
What makes the model durable enough to still appear in nursing coursework nearly eighty years later is exactly this broadness. A committee reading a change-management section built on Lewin's stages is not looking for a rigid checklist; they are looking for evidence that a student understands why a routine resists change, what has to happen before new behavior will stick, and why skipping the final stage is the single most common reason a promising pilot quietly reverts a few months after the student graduates.
The 3 Stages at a Glance
| Stage | What it involves | Why it matters for a capstone |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Unfreezing | Build motivation for change by surfacing the gap between current and desired practice, and loosening attachment to the old routine | Gives your problem statement and force field analysis their justification |
| 2. Changing (Moving) | Introduce and practice the new behavior, process, or protocol with staff support in place | Becomes the core of your intervention and implementation sections |
| 3. Refreezing | Stabilize the new behavior into policy, workflow, and expectations so it outlasts the project | Becomes the backbone of your sustainability and dissemination section |
Applying Lewin's 3 Stages Step by Step
Unfreezing
Start by making the gap between current and desired practice impossible to ignore, using whatever data your unit already tracks: incident counts, satisfaction scores, or audit results. Lewin's own framing treats the current routine as an equilibrium, so unfreezing means either strengthening the forces pushing toward change or weakening the forces holding the old pattern in place, not simply announcing that change is coming. For a capstone, this is where your problem statement and your force field analysis carry the most weight, grounded in your own unit's numbers rather than a general literature claim alone.
Changing (Moving)
Introduce the new behavior, protocol, or workflow once staff understand why the old pattern needed to shift, and give them structured support while they practice it. Lewin treated this stage as a period of genuine uncertainty, where staff are actively trying out a new pattern without yet trusting that it will stick, which is why coaching, visible leadership support, and quick answers to practical questions matter more here than in either of the other two stages. A capstone's methodology and implementation sections should describe exactly what support staff received during this window, not just what the new protocol was.
Refreezing
Lock the new behavior in place by writing it into policy, order sets, onboarding, or competency checks, so the routine survives staff turnover and the end of active project oversight. Lewin was explicit that a change left unrefrozen tends to drift back toward the old equilibrium once attention moves elsewhere, which is exactly the pattern committees are watching for when they ask a sustainability question. This is the stage students most often shortchange, closing a capstone on a single good week of data instead of naming the specific mechanism that keeps the new pattern in place afterward.
Need Your Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze Section Written and Applied?
Our nursing writers can take your unit's data, your force field analysis, and your chosen intervention, and write a fully applied unfreezing, changing, and refreezing section, mapped directly to your capstone's chapters.
Get nursing capstone project help →Force Field Analysis: Lewin's Practical Companion Tool
Force field analysis is where Lewin's model stops being an abstract description of change and becomes something you can actually chart on a page. It asks you to list the driving forces pushing toward your proposed change on one side, and the restraining forces holding the current routine in place on the other, then weigh each force's relative strength.
Because a unit's current routine is treated as a balance between these two sets of forces, there are really only two ways to shift it: strengthen the driving forces, or weaken the restraining forces. Lewin's own research found that weakening restraining forces tends to produce calmer, more lasting change than simply piling on more pressure to push forward, since increased pushing often provokes equal and opposite resistance rather than genuine buy-in.
| Driving forces (example) | Restraining forces (example) |
|---|---|
| Rising infection or readmission rates the unit already tracks | Staff comfort with a long-standing routine |
| Leadership and charge-nurse support for the change | Workload pressure that leaves little time to learn something new |
| A clear evidence base supporting the new approach | Skepticism from staff who recall a past change effort that failed |
| Early, visible wins once the pilot begins | Equipment, documentation fields, or workflows still built for the old process |
Notice that the restraining-forces column above is really a short list of barriers, and the driving-forces column doubles as a list of facilitators. If your program's capstone template asks for a separate barriers and facilitators analysis, force field analysis is usually the fastest way to produce one that is well organized rather than a loose bulleted list; see our nursing capstone barriers and facilitators guide for the fuller breakdown of how committees expect that section written and scored.
A force field diagram also gives a committee something concrete to react to in a proposal defense. Rather than asserting that a change will be hard, you can point to a specific restraining force, say, a workaround baked into the current documentation flowsheet, and explain exactly what your implementation plan does to weaken it before go-live.
Mapping Lewin's 3 Stages to Your Capstone Chapters
Lewin's model does not arrive pre-organized into capstone chapters, so translating the three stages onto your program's document structure early saves you from reorganizing later. The table below is a starting map; adjust the exact chapter names to whatever headings your own program template uses.
| Capstone chapter / section | Lewin stage it corresponds to | What to write there |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction / Background | Unfreezing | The data-driven gap between current and desired practice, framed around your specific unit |
| Problem Statement | Unfreezing | A precise statement of the equilibrium you are trying to shift, quantified wherever your data allows |
| Theoretical / Conceptual Framework | All three stages | A full explanation of Lewin's model, its origin, and why it was chosen as your change lens |
| Barriers and Facilitators / Force Field Analysis | Unfreezing | A named list of driving and restraining forces specific to your unit, not generic examples |
| Methodology | Changing | Exactly what new behavior or process was introduced and what support staff received while adopting it |
| Implementation | Changing | A timeline of the rollout, including how staff uncertainty during the moving stage was addressed |
| Results / Evaluation | Changing and early Refreezing | Outcome data showing the new behavior took hold, not just that it was attempted |
| Sustainability / Dissemination | Refreezing | The specific mechanism, policy update, order set, or competency check, that keeps the new behavior in place after your project ends |
Treat the Theoretical/Conceptual Framework chapter as the place to explain Lewin's three stages and force field analysis in full, once, so every later chapter can reference "the unfreezing stage" or "a restraining force identified earlier" by name instead of re-explaining the model each time it comes up.
Why Choose Lewin's Model for Your Capstone
Reach for Lewin's model when you want a change-management lens that is broad enough to apply cleanly without forcing your project into someone else's detailed operational sequence, or when your committee specifically wants to see the foundational model cited before a more granular one is layered on top of it. Its plain, three-part structure is also easy to explain to a mixed committee, since none of the three stages require specialized clinical vocabulary.
It is a particularly strong fit for a project where the central deliverable is a single, well-defined practice change on one unit, rather than a sprawling, multi-department rollout that benefits from a more detailed sequence like Kotter's. Pairing Lewin's stages with force field analysis also gives you a built-in barriers-and-facilitators section, which many capstone templates require as a standalone deliverable anyway.
Where Lewin's model is a weaker fit on its own is in projects that need a highly granular communication or stakeholder-engagement plan, since the three stages describe the shape of change without prescribing those specific tactics. Many strong capstones use Lewin's model as the foundational citation establishing why a three-part change structure applies, then borrow operational detail from a newer model, most often Kotter's 8-Step Change Model, to fill in exactly how each stage was carried out on the unit.
A Worked Example: Moving From Hallway Report to Standardized Bedside Shift Report
To make the model concrete, here is how the three stages play out on a realistic capstone-style topic: transitioning a medical-surgical unit from an informal hallway or nursing-station handoff to a standardized bedside shift-report process.
Unfreezing. A review of incident reports and patient-satisfaction comments shows a pattern of missed information at shift change and patients reporting they rarely saw both nurses together during handoff. A force field analysis names rising missed-care incidents and a hospital-wide patient-experience initiative as driving forces, against staff habit and concern over added time per handoff as restraining forces. Sharing this balance directly with charge nurses, rather than only citing outside literature, establishes that the current routine is genuinely under strain.
Changing. The unit pilots a structured bedside-report script covering a short, fixed set of items: current status, overnight changes, pending orders, and any safety concerns, delivered at the patient's bedside with both nurses present. Charge nurses model the new script during the first week, and a quick-reference card is posted at each workstation so nurses do not have to memorize the sequence from day one.
Refreezing. The bedside-report script is written into the unit's shift-change policy, added as a line item on the new-hire orientation checklist, and folded into the quarterly competency validation that already exists for other handoff-adjacent skills. A brief audit two months after go-live, rather than a single week, confirms the new format is still being used consistently before the capstone reports it as adopted.
Notice that the refreezing step again is not a closing sentence. It is a specific policy line, a specific orientation item, and a specific audit interval, exactly the kind of concrete mechanism that keeps the new routine from drifting back once the project ends.
Lewin's Model vs. Other Change and EBP Frameworks
| Model | How it differs from Lewin's model |
|---|---|
| Kotter's 8-Step Change Model | An explicit, more granular elaboration of Lewin's three stages: Kotter's first four steps map to unfreezing, steps five through seven to changing, and step eight to refreezing. See our full Kotter's 8-Step Change Model guide. |
| Iowa Model | Focuses on moving a clinical trigger through evidence appraisal to adoption, rather than describing the general shape of organizational change. See our full Iowa Model guide. |
| PARIHS / i-PARIHS | Frames successful implementation as a function of evidence, context, and facilitation together; closer to Lewin in its attention to context, but built specifically around EBP facilitation. See our full PARIHS and i-PARIHS guide. |
| Rosswurm and Larrabee's Model | Front-loads formally establishing that a problem exists using internal and external data; Lewin's unfreezing stage covers similar ground but in broader, less procedural terms. See our full Rosswurm and Larrabee guide. |
| ARCC Model | Shares Lewin's concern with making a change stick, but builds that sustainability specifically around a trained EBP mentor role rather than a general refreezing stage. See our full ARCC Model guide. |
If a committee member asks why you chose Lewin's model over a newer framework, a grounded answer usually points to this exact lineage: Lewin supplies the foundational three-stage logic nearly every later change model builds on, while a newer model like Kotter's supplies more granular operational detail inside that same structure. Citing Lewin as the theoretical foundation and a newer model for implementation detail is a common, defensible pairing, not a redundancy.
Common Mistakes When Applying This Model
- Treating "unfreezing" as a single announcement rather than a genuine shift in the balance of driving and restraining forces
- Skipping force field analysis entirely and describing barriers in vague, unorganized prose instead
- Rushing through the changing stage without describing the coaching or support staff received while the new behavior was unfamiliar
- Ending the write-up at a successful pilot week, without naming a specific refreezing mechanism that keeps the behavior in place
- Citing Lewin's three stages without mentioning force field analysis, when the two tools were designed to be used together
- Assuming the three stages happen cleanly in sequence with no overlap, when in practice unfreezing often continues quietly into the early part of the changing stage
Need Your Change-Management Section Written and Applied?
Our nursing writers can take your unit's data, your force field analysis, and your chosen intervention, and write a fully applied unfreezing, changing, and refreezing section, mapped directly to your capstone's chapters.
Get nursing writing helpExplore nursing servicesRelated Guides
Frequently Asked Questions
Lewin's Change Theory is a three-stage model of organizational and behavioral change: unfreezing, changing (also called moving), and refreezing. It was developed by Kurt Lewin, a German-American social psychologist often credited as a founder of modern social psychology and organizational development, and the model was laid out in his work on group dynamics published around 1947. It remains one of the most widely cited change frameworks in nursing and healthcare leadership coursework.
Unfreezing means building the case for change and loosening a unit's attachment to its current routine. Changing, sometimes called moving, is the stage where the new behavior or process is actually introduced and practiced. Refreezing is stabilizing that new behavior so it becomes the normal way of working rather than a temporary project.
Force field analysis is a companion tool Lewin developed alongside his change model. It maps the driving forces pushing toward a change against the restraining forces holding the current state in place, treating any stable routine as a balance between the two. For a capstone, it gives you a structured, visual way to present the barriers and facilitators your project identified, directly supporting the unfreezing stage.
Yes, and committees still expect to see it cited correctly when a project calls for a change-management lens. Lewin's three stages are broad enough to still describe how units actually move through a practice change, and most newer change models, including Kotter's 8-Step Change Model, are explicit elaborations of Lewin's original three stages rather than replacements for them. Citing Lewin as the foundational model and a newer model for operational detail is a common, defensible pairing.
Kotter's eight steps can be mapped directly onto Lewin's three stages: Kotter's first four steps correspond to unfreezing, steps five through seven correspond to changing, and step eight corresponds to refreezing. Lewin's model gives you the underlying logic in broad strokes, while Kotter's model gives you a more granular, step-by-step operational sequence within that same three-part structure. See our Kotter's 8-Step Change Model guide for the fuller breakdown.
It works at any program level. A BSN or MSN capstone can apply the three stages to a single-unit practice change with a short timeline, while a DNP project is generally expected to extend the refreezing stage further, building a more formal, system-level mechanism that keeps the change in place after the student leaves.
Skipping the refreezing stage, or treating it as a single closing sentence rather than a specific mechanism. A capstone that stops at a successful implementation week, without naming how the new behavior is built into policy, orientation, or competency checks, leaves the most commonly graded part of this model unanswered.
Yes. Our nursing writers can take your unit's data, your identified driving and restraining forces, and your chosen intervention, and write a fully applied unfreezing, changing, and refreezing section mapped directly to your capstone's chapters.