Change at DuPont

Organizational development is definitely the main focus at DuPont. Tom wanted and knew how to improve the organizational standards without focusing on the problems that may have been present. Over six months, he conducted interviews with managers and workers, spending time at the workplaces, learning about the everyday life there, which resulted in a thick description of the shared stock of knowledge that organization members used to interpret events and generate behavior (Palmer, Dunford & Akin 2008).  This has led to an explicit widely used, every day, common-sense model of work performance, unique to this scene (Palmer, Dunford & Akin 2008). DuPont focuses on the improved effectiveness of the organization in OD approach. The effectiveness of the organization simultaneously includes successful achievement of the planned quantity and quality of the products (Ndiaye, A., 2007).  At the beginning of the case, plant manager Tom Harris greeted each worker by his name, which is definitely a great way to improve the relations between managers and workers. Leaders go to the production lines, to the workers, know more about the staff, and become closer to them, thus shortening the distance between staff and managers. Boosting up the relations between them makes the staff feel better, which in its turn leads to the improvement. Also, the leader is able to summarize the situation in the sector and find any troubles in order to raise the effectiveness.

Appreciative inquiry.

Mr. Harris, as it is stated previously, interviewed each person within the organization, but changing the whole system was not the objective. Harris wanted to improve productivity by walking around the plant, thinking of what could be changed and of the proper actions to achieve the changes. All this involves several steps:

• Finding the best of what is currently practiced
• Using the knowledge for possible future achievements
• Designing or co-construction of what should be.

In sense making approach people need to be stimulated and it is necessary for them to feel what they are doing and for what purpose, in order to work better. At DuPont, a southern stock-car racing metaphor the nucleus around which the local model of teamwork was organized ; besides being used for explaining teamwork, it was also the motive for accomplishing it  (Palmer, Dunford & Akin 2008).  When the new metaphor was introduced, it completely changed the teamwork in the workplace. Another language was introduced which became an improvement. Knowing the sense of your actions, and good motivation always lead to development and progress.

In my opinion, these three approaches are completely compatible; moreover, I consider the progress and development of organization effectiveness to be unattainable without all of them. It is impossible to fulfill the workers’ will and to make workers feel better and closer to managers without a leader, melting into the grass roots. Once the workers and the leaders shorten the distance between themselves, they will feel better. Leaders will be able to know, what is wrong and what is right, what will help them to develop organization, or solve a problem. If a worker is motivated, if his work has a sense for him and if there is no abyss in the relations between the staff and the managers, if the contact between workers and leaders is used for development, if the company focuses on the things that work well, finds the best methods and uses them for future development and if the work is filled with sense, then the organization, the company and its effectiveness improve.

If I was OD practitioner brought into DuPont at the time of Orion manufacturing operation closure, I would do the same that was done. As it is stated in the case study, DuPont seems to be a permanent fixture, or at least more permanent than any other. In order to save stability and to avoid the change in effectiveness and quality of the products I would prevent any negative effect of manufacturing operation closure. Despite the fact, that the manufacturing of Orlon was significant and despite the magnitude of the changes, caused by its closure, all that was happening should be accepted as any other change at DuPont, no matter whether some new equipment or new production lines are to be added, or the manufacturing process is to be closed. The plant should continue working, so the workers should do their best for that, and managers should provide the motivation.

Problem-solving approach is useful for reaching stability. It asks the questions, such as “What are the problems?”, “How can we fix them?”, “What is wrong?”, and concentrates on current problems. This might be useful for the organization at the present time, but it does not improve the productivity, quality and effectiveness of the production significantly. Problem-solving approach involves interaction with workers at production lines, which affects the atmosphere in the organization positively, thus improving the quality of work. Also, it requires constant analysis of the work, in order to find the problems and explore possible ways of their solving. In future perspective, problem-solving approach does not provide significant development but does bring stability.

On the other hand, appreciative-inquiry approach asks questions, such as “What is working well now?”, “What is good about what is currently being done?” This also requires communication between the leaders and other staff. Managers have to take part in the everyday life on the production lines, interviewing each person in order to find, what is good now, what works best and how to use this knowledge in future projects. Appreciative-inquiry approach does not only provide future improvements, but gives several benefits to the staff, improving relations between the different levels. All this leads to better organization, better productivity, due to the stimulation of growth and absence of pressure and imbalance. Also, the research based on what is good and what is the best now, allows building the basis for the future plans and inventions, providing significant development.

As we can see, the benefits for the staff are presented in both appreciative-inquiry and problem-solving approaches, but the development perspectives of appreciative-inquiry approach are much more valuable and profitable than in problem-solving, where only stability is provided. No doubt, people learn from mistakes, but the combination of new ideas and analysis of both positive achievements and mistakes would bring the best results.