The Physics of Management

Chapter 1: Resistance and Resonance

Unlike management and consulting, physics is a subject bound by postulates, theorems, and laws. It isn’t as contextual as consulting is and neither does it have as many exceptions as management does. To put it simply, physics operates on the premise that there are four fundamental forces (that we surely know of right now) and everything in this universe gets affected by these forces. Based on the universe’s interactions with these fundamental forces, come unchanging repeated observations which become laws. Some interactions with these laws are specific and become theorems, while some are offshoots of these interactions which become postulates. The universe is built on these rules and no interaction is excluded from their power.

One law that is as famous as physics itself is Newton’s law(s) of motion –?I, II,?and?III. And more often than not, we hear some beautiful analogies between the laws of motion and management, like

1. inertia and the need for an external push –?any object in motion or rest will continue to be the same way unless forces act on it
2. size of a company and the amount of change management required –?the heavier the object, the more force it takes to move it
3. and the famous –?every action has an equal and opposite reaction

But there are some other amazing concepts in physics that can lend a great deal of insight into the nature of the universe. The series of these papers will talk about those physics concepts and try to create a new ‘physical’ framework for management and consulting.

“Everything changes and nothing stands still.” When Heraclitus (535 BC – 475 BC) quoted this, he wouldn’t have known that he was defining a thumb rule of life. A rule of such grave importance that it would form the bedrock of limitless research and philosophy. Heraclitus’ quote was complemented centuries later when Kurt Lewin devised his wildly famous force-field analysis of change. The force-field analysis has in its roots Heraclitus’ nature of change and Newton’s laws of motion. And it is here that the relatively less talked about concepts of resistance and resonance make an entry. But to discuss them further requires a little dive into the force-field analysis.

Let us assume that a company wants to change its way of working to gain a competitive advantage (refer to figure above). Kurt Lewin’s technique to analyse this situation and diagnosing a course of action requires the consultant to plot all the forces that drive this change and the forces which oppose/restrain it. Three alternative situations could arise in this condition.

1. The driving forces are stronger than the restraining forces – the change is brought about smoothly
2. The driving forces are weaker than the restraining forces – the change is pushed back
3. The driving forces are equal in strength to the restraining forces – nothing happens – we call this the equilibrium state

The concept of the restraining force is what makes up ‘resistance’. In the above example, it could be the employees’ habit of working in a certain way that presents the restraining force. The older the habit, the stronger will be the restraining force and stronger the resistance. When Newton’s Laws and Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Model are used in this case, ‘pushing’ the employee towards the change with greater force (manipulation, coercion, etc.) will lead to stronger driving forces and thus lead to successful adoption of change. But does this approach necessarily bring success? This paper argues otherwise while referring to the concept of resonance.

It was the 16th?century when a man named Galileo stood atop the leaning tower of Pisa. He was to drop two balls of similar dimensions down the tower – one weighing 10 kg* and the other weighing 1 kg*. When he dropped them, it was a surprise to everyone that both balls touched the ground at the same time (almost).?Wouldn’t the heavier object obviously touch the ground faster??The answer is no.

Let’s put Kurt Lewin’s model to this example to understand what happened. The driving force for the balls to touch the ground is gravity. The opposing force is the viscous drag aka air resistance. The peculiar thing about air resistance is that it acts on the exposed area of the body and not its weight. Since both balls had similar dimensions, both faced equal drag and hence both came down at the same time. If instead of the ball for one of the objects, Galileo would have chosen a sheet with its face exposed, it would have dropped slower than the ball irrespective of its weights. And if the same sheet would have been dropped with its edge exposed, it would have touched the ground faster! Remember those movies where people sky-jump from planes? Now, do you realise why they spread their arms out to slow themselves? To increase drag. The same weight, the same environment and only changing the orientation changes the motion.

The takeaway from the above analogy is that the mass of the object isn’t as much a factor for resistance, as its orientation is. When an organization takes its first step towards change, a lot of equations are stirred. Inertia, power equations, resource allocations, group dynamics, structural incumbency, habits, fear, insecurity and so much more comes into play. All of this forms the resisting force in Kurt Lewin’s model. If change has to be driven, rather than increasing the driving force by pushing the change harder, it is much easier and sustainable to reduce the resisting force – which is as simple as reorienting the employees. More consensus building, information sharing, group meetings, transparent communications can go a long way in changing employee orientation. From pushing a change to making the change adaptable, the switch in a change practitioner’s mindset can result in a far smoother and more successful change project.

The resisting force can be reduced by reorienting employees. But is there a way to reorient them quicker and use the same resistance to ‘increase’ driving force? The Tacoma Narrows bridge answers this question.

When you look at the media above, it is not photoshopped. This is the real Tacoma Narrows bridge which collapsed in 1940 – four months after its inauguration. Winds close to the speed of 68 km/hr caused the bridge to vibrate at its natural frequency resulting in the otherwise impossible movement of a metal and mortar bridge. The impact was devastating but brought knowledge along with it which can be used across sciences.

The natural frequency of an object is the frequency at which it vibrates when struck. Like a guitar string – when struck at a particular frequency, vibrates and makes the loudest sound. Every object in the universe has one or multiple natural frequencies. The Tacoma Narrows bridge moved like it was made of jelly when it reached its natural frequency even though the winds weren’t as strong. And that’s the secret of resonance. The smallest excitation force at the correct natural frequency of an object can lead to large vibrations in that object. This is called resonance.

When initiating change in an organization, driving the force at the organization’s resonant state can be very beneficial. At the resonant state, even the smallest driving forces will lead to huge impacts in the organization thus magnifying the change intervention. The resonant state of an organization can be defined as the most harmonious state the organization is in – internally. An organization is made up of people. If most of them share a collective vision, some common traits, and a common goal, they can be driven to the idea of change. As they become the ‘critical mass’ of this change and start resonating with the change, it won’t take much time for the other employees to get absorbed in the change too. A key factor here is the power centres in the organization. They hold the power to disproportionately affect the driving force and the adoption of change intervention.?In order to bring the organization to its resonant state, getting their buy-in becomes highly important.

In conclusion, an organization is made up of people. No change is ever possible unless the people side is considered and proactively looked into. But when such is the case, it is also true that any organization is forever in a state of flux. People keep joining in and leaving out. As employees keep changing, so do the resisting forces and the resonant states of the organization. For a change practitioner, it is important to remember the word ‘critical mass’. As long as the threshold number of employees have bought into the change vision, the change will be driven and it will stick. But if the organization hasn’t reached the resonant state and is unable to do so, realigning the goals of the change intervention and relooking at the resistances a change practitioner might have missed maybe a good idea. The physics of management is a science-based on observation and action. As the system evolves, so do the rules and so should our strategy. And just like physics, isn’t this a rule of life itself?

Works Cited

Depanfilis, D., 1996. Implementing child mistreatment risk assessment systems: lessons from theory.?Administration in Social Work,?20(41).

gfycat.com, 2021.?gfycat-https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DearAdventurousAustraliancurlew-max-1mb.gif

H.P.Lee, 2010. Newton’s Laws and a Dynamic Force-Field Analogy for Analyzing Organizational Changes.?International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,?38(4), pp. 277-285.

Jacobson, W. B., 2001. Beyond therapy: bringing social work back to human services reform.?Social Work,?Volume 46, p. 51–61.

triple a LEARNING, n.d.?Business organisation and environment. https://www.sanandres.esc.edu.ar/secondary/Business_organisation/page_135.htm

GIFs downloaded from gfycat and edited in ezgif