Details

Written by Brent A Duncan, PhD

Last Updated: 11 July 2026

The dual nature of change theory for good or control: A Look at Lewin, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nazi Germany, and Beyond

Dive into the dynamics of change with this insightful article comparing Kurt Lewin’s 1948 Force Field Analysis and Unfreeze-Move-Refreeze theory to control tactics from Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nazi Germany, terrorist groups, and Marxist regimes. Learn how Lewin’s model empowers groups for positive change while others exploit crises for dominance, using the same disrupt-shift-stabilize pattern. Explore modern applications—ethical and unethical—by special interest groups, political parties, businesses, and more, revealing how these strategies shape today’s world. From community projects to manipulative agendas, understand the dual nature of change management and how to navigate it. This piece offers practical insights for leading change in your life while spotting manipulation tactics.

Keywords

change management, Lewin’s theory, force field analysis, unfreeze move refreeze, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nazi Germany, terrorist groups, Marxist regimes, ethical change, manipulation tactics, group dynamics, societal control, modern change strategies.

Change for good or control

Change management practices can transform lives, but its success hinges on how it’s managed. Kurt Lewin, a 20th-century psychologist, provided a practical framework with his Force Field Analysis and Unfreeze-Move-Refreeze theory, which balances the forces driving change against those resisting it. Originally designed to empower groups, Lewin’s methods have also been reflected in more sinister ways by figures like Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nazi Germany, terrorist groups, and Marxist regimes. Let’s dive into how these approaches compare and what they reveal to us today. By understanding Lewin’s episodic change strategies and their ties to historical and modern control tactics, you can better navigate and lead positive change in your own life, while also recognizing when unscrupulous actors are using these techniques manipulate or control you.

Kurt Lewin’s change model: A force for good

Lewin (1948) proposed that human behavior is a tug-of-war between forces pushing for change (driving forces) and those holding it back (restraining forces). To make change happen, you first unfreeze the current state by shaking things up, then move to a new way of doing things, and finally refreeze to lock in the new habits. It’s a teamwork-focused approach, often used to improve workplaces or communities by getting everyone on board. Think of it as a group deciding to switch to healthier eating—first, they talk about why it matters (unfreeze), then try new recipes together (move), and keep it going until it’s second nature (refreeze).

Sun Tzu: Winning through deception

Lewin’s approach is an echo of ancient practices. Around 500 BC the Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist behind The Art of War, applied a similar approach for a different purpose. He was all about outsmarting enemies through psychological tricks and timing.

“All warfare is based on deception,” he wrote (Sun Tzu, trans. 2005, Chapter 1). That’s his unfreeze. Create a crisis, like pretending to be weak to lure an enemy into a trap. Then, in the move phase, you strike while they’re off balance, pushing them to surrender. Finally, you refreeze by securing control, often through fear or rewards.

Lewin applied the steps using a teamwork is dreamwork vibe, while Sun Tzu’s approach was cutthroat. Like a general dividing enemy alliance to weaken them, then striking fast and ruling through dominance.

Machiavelli: Power through fear

During the Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli, the Italian thinker behind The Prince, was obsessed with keeping power, even if it meant playing dirty. Machiavelli suggested rulers create or exploit crises to shake up loyalty to old ways—basically, unfreezing a society (Machiavelli, trans. 2003, Chapter 17). He famously said, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both,” using fear to move people toward compliance (Machiavelli, trans. 2003, Chapter 17). Then, he’d refreeze by setting up laws or shows of strength to keep control.

Imagine a ruler stirring panic about an enemy attack to justify martial law, then locking in loyalty with a fear-driven regime. Using a similar process, Lewin proposes change for the group’s good Machiavelli drives change for the ruler’s gain.

Nazi Germany: Control through propaganda

Now let’s look at a grim example: Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. Under Hitler, the Nazis used propaganda and fear to control society. Take the Reichstag Fire in 1933—they hyped it as a communist threat to unfreeze public sentiment, justifying the Enabling Act that suspended freedoms (Shirer, 1960, pp. 192-194). In the move phase, they rolled out policies like the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, enforcing anti-Semitic behavior. To refreeze, they used relentless propaganda, indoctrination through the Hitler Youth, and legal penalties to embed their ideology into everyday life (Shirer, 1960, pp. 230-232).

While Lewin’s proposed the unfreeze-move-refreeze model to empower groups, the Nazi version of crisis-action-stabilization was powerful tool for oppression, forcing compliance through fear and violence.

Terrorist groups: Chaos to control

Terrorist groups, like Hamas or the Japanese Red Army, also use the unfreeze-move-refreeze approach, but with destructive intent. To unfreeze, they create chaos—Hamas, for instance, launched attacks on October 7, 2023, killing over 1,200 people in Israel, to destabilize public sentiment and provoke fear (Hoffman, 2024, p. 45). In the move phase, they exploit the resulting panic to push their agenda, such as demanding political concessions or rallying support by framing themselves as defenders against oppression. To refreeze, they cement their influence through propaganda, recruitment, and establishing control in areas like Gaza, often using fear to maintain loyalty (Hoffman, 2024, p. 47).

Unlike Lewin’s collaborative application of the steps, the terrorist application thrives on violence and division, aiming to impose ideology by force.

Marxist regimes: Revolution through ideology

Marxist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Lenin or Peru’s Shining Path, have historically applied an unfreeze-move-refreeze approach to drive revolutionary change.

They unfreeze by amplifying class struggles. For example, Lenin used the Red Terror post-1917, with estimates of 10,000 to 15,000 executions, to break down existing societal norms and create a sense of crisis among the populace (Pipes, 1990, p. 792).

In the move phase, they implement radical changes, like nationalizing industries or launching guerilla wars with massacres. For example, the 1983 Lucanamarca event, where 69 villagers were killed to enforce the Shining Path vision (Gorriti, 1999, p. 134).

To refreeze, they institutionalize their ideology through state mechanisms—Lenin’s Cheka secret police used terror to enforce compliance, while Shining Path relied on fear and indoctrination to sustain control (Pipes, 1990, p. 794; Gorriti, 1999, p. 136).

This contrasts sharply with Lewin’s focus on group empowerment, as Marxist regimes prioritize ideological conformity over individual agency.

How these tactics play out today

Lewin’s ideas, along with the control techniques of Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nazi Germany, and others, aren’t just history lessons—they’re alive and well in today’s world. Special interest groups, political parties, psychiatrists, businesses, marketers, and even con artists use these approaches, sometimes for good, sometimes for manipulation. Let’s see how:

Special Interest Groups

Ethically, a special group might unfreeze by sharing research to highlight an environmental issue, move by promoting community-driven solutions like waste reduction, and refreeze by advocating for policies that support sustainable habits. Unethically, a special interest group could exploit a natural disaster to amplify fears, pushing their pre-set agenda without considering the community’s broader needs, such as economic or social impacts.

Political Parties

Ethically, a party might unfreeze by hosting open forums to discuss community needs, like education or healthcare, move by working with citizens to draft fair policies, and refreeze by gaining widespread support to make those policies a lasting part of society. Unethically, a party could exploit or exaggerate a national crisis—like a pandemic, natural disaster, or public safety issue—to push a pre-determined outcome by using the emotional turmoil to rush laws through without proper debate, prioritizing their goals over the public’s input.

Psychiatrists

Ethically, a psychiatrist might unfreeze a patient’s harmful habits by exploring their root causes, move by introducing coping strategies, and refreeze with ongoing therapy to solidify healthier behaviors. Unethically, some have historically overprescribed medications during mental health “crises,” like the opioid epidemic, moving patients toward dependency for profit, then refreezing through systemic reliance on drugs (Meier, 2018).

Businesses

Ethically, a company might unfreeze by showing employees the need for digital upgrades, move by involving them in choosing new tools, and refreeze with training to ensure adoption. Unethically, tech firms have used data breach fears to unfreeze users, moved by rushing new policies that increase data collection, and refroze with automatic updates that limit user choice (Zuboff, 2019).

Marketers

Ethically, a marketer might unfreeze by showing how a product solves a real problem, move with a transparent campaign, and refreeze by building customer loyalty through quality. Unethically, during the 2020 COVID-19 panic, some brands exaggerated health risks to sell unproven supplements, moving consumers to buy out of fear, and refreezing with subscription models that lock in purchases.

Con Artists

Ethically—well, con artists don’t really do “ethical.” Unethically, they might unfreeze by creating a fake crisis (e.g., “Your account’s been hacked!”), move by pressuring you to share personal info to “fix” it, and refreeze by locking you into a scam, like recurring payments, before you can think twice.

What This Means for Us

Lewin’s Force Field Analysis and Unfreeze-Move-Refreeze theory show how change can be a force for good, but his approach shares a blueprint with some of history’s shadiest control tactics throughout history, including today. The difference lies in the purpose. It’s not the tool that’s evil but how it’s used. Lewin’s proposed a model to build collaboration. Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nazi Germany, terrorist groups, and Marxist regimes used similar steps to dominate, often at the expense of freedom, well-being, and life.

Today, we see this dual nature in action—whether it’s a business empowering its team or a terrorist group implementing and exploiting chaos to disrupt society for its objectives. Knowing these parallels reminds us to stay sharp. Change management can empower or manipulate, depending on who’s steering the ship. So, next time you’re part of a big change, ask: Is this about us, or someone else’s agenda?

References

Farm Progress. (2017, February 15). Oroville Dam crisis: Environmentalists push anti-dam agenda. Farm Progress. https://www.farmprogress.com/water/oroville-dam-crisis-environmentalists-push-anti-dam-agenda 

Gorriti, G. (1999). The Shining Path: A history of the millenarian war in Peru. University of North Carolina Press. 

Hoffman, B. (2024). Inside terrorism (4th ed.). Columbia University Press. 

Lewin, K. (1948). Group decision and social change. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 330–341). Henry Holt. 

Machiavelli, N. (2003). The Prince (G. Bull, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1532) 

Meier, B. (2018). Pain killer: An empire of deceit and the origin of America’s opioid epidemic. Random House. 

Pipes, R. (1990). The Russian Revolution. Knopf. 

Shirer, W. L. (1960). The rise and fall of the Third Reich: A history of Nazi Germany. Simon & Schuster. 

Sun Tzu. (2005). The Art of War (T. Cleary, Trans.). Shambhala. (Original work published ca. 5th century BCE) 

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power

Addendum

Table: Disrupt, Shift, Stabilize: How Change Strategies Compare

The table, titled "Disrupt, Shift, Stabilize: How Change Strategies Compare," examines how Kurt Lewin’s 1948 Force Field Analysis and Unfreeze-Move-Refreeze model align with control techniques from Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nazi Germany, terrorist groups, and Marxist regimes. The table focuses on intent, unfreeze, move, refreeze, and scale. It also explores how these integrated approaches are applied today by various groups, highlighting both ethical and unethical uses in modern contexts like politics, business, and marketing.

 

Here’s a side-by-side look at how these approaches stack up, including how their ideas are used today:

Aspect	Lewin (1948)	Sun Tzu (~5th Century BCE)	Machiavelli (1532)	Nazi Germany (1933–1945)	Terrorist Groups	Marxist Regimes	Modern Application (Today)
Intent	Empower groups for positive change, like improving a community.	Control through manipulation and strategic victory.	Control through power retention, often via fear.	Control through ideological dominance, using coercion.	Impose ideology through violence and fear.	Drive revolution and ideological conformity.	Empower community action; control political agendas.
Unfreeze	Uses group discussions to spark awareness and readiness for change.	Deceives to create a crisis, like feigning weakness to provoke an attack.	Scares with fabricated or exploited crises to justify control.	Fabricated threats, like the Reichstag Fire, to destabilize.	Creates chaos with attacks, like Hamas’s 2023 assault on Israel.	Amplifies class struggles, like Lenin’s Red Terror post-1917.	Marketers exaggerate product needs (e.g., health scares for supplements); politicians amplify crises (e.g., COVID-19 fears for mandates).
Move	Focuses on teamwork and collaborative decisions everyone agrees on.	Forces change with strategic maneuvers to exploit the enemy’s disarray.	Enforces compliance through fear and coercion.	Imposes change with laws and violence, like the Nuremberg Laws.	Exploits panic to push agendas, like rallying support through propaganda.	Implements radical changes, like Shining Path’s guerrilla wars and massacres.	Businesses involve teams in change (ethical) or suppress dissent (unethical); political parties use crisis to push policies with limited debate.
Refreeze	Aims for lasting, agreed-upon habits through group consensus.	Secures victory through dominance, often using fear or rewards.	Uses fear and laws to maintain power and loyalty.	Enforces conformity with propaganda and legal penalties.	Cements influence with recruitment and fear, like Hamas in Gaza.	Institutionalizes ideology, like the Soviet Cheka’s terror tactics.	Tech firms lock in policies with auto-updates; governments use laws to cement change (e.g., post-crisis regulations).
Scale	Works best in smaller settings, like teams or towns.	Applied on battlefields, targeting enemy forces.	Used in kingdoms or states to control populations.	Implemented across a nation, with catastrophic results.	Varies—local (e.g., regional control) to global (e.g., international terror networks).	Often national, like the Soviet Union, or regional, like Shining Path in Peru.	Ranges from small teams (e.g., coaching) to global campaigns (e.g., climate initiatives).