Case Study: Change at Dupont
Case Study: Change at DuPont
To what extent are the following approaches to change embedded in the Dupont story (justify your answer, providing specific examples):
OD – Organizational Development is clearly the main focus here at DuPont. Tom had a vision to improve the organizational standards at DuPont not focusing on any problems that may have been present. The projected outcome for DuPont’s organizational structure was improving for the better of the company and the employees. Tom wanted to development to increase productivity for the company and its employees which would allow to company to be in a better stable place in the near future. Tom was building a strong foundation for the company which would benefit everyone involved. Tom seemed to show all the necessary skills needed to push his desired change.
Appreciative inquiry – This approach points to the assumptions underlying the appreciative inquiry approach to change, which seeks to identify what is currently working best and to build on this knowledge to help develop and design what might be achieved in the future. Apparently, the southern stock-car racing metaphor was predominately used to explain teamwork, but was also the pattern for accomplishing it as well (p. 211). Once a particular system is introduced to employees, it’s usually hard to introduce a new system.
Sense-making – There has been arguments that sense-making activities across the organization are indicative of the importance of understanding change as the accomplishment of ongoing processes for making framework to show how they impacted on understandings of organizational changes in the company (p.206). A great example of this approach is revealed when Tom and the other managers introduced a different metaphor for teamwork. They introduced another language in which to introduce change for improvement.
In your opinion, how compatible are these three approaches? Why? What evidence is there in the DuPont story for your answer? As a
To what extent are the following approaches to change embedded in the Dupont story (justify your answer, providing specific examples):
OD – Organizational Development is clearly the main focus here at DuPont. Tom had a vision to improve the organizational standards at DuPont not focusing on any problems that may have been present. The projected outcome for DuPont’s organizational structure was improving for the better of the company and the employees. Tom wanted to development to increase productivity for the company and its employees which would allow to company to be in a better stable place in the near future. Tom was building a strong foundation for the company which would benefit everyone involved. Tom seemed to show all the necessary skills needed to push his desired change.
Appreciative inquiry – This approach points to the assumptions underlying the appreciative inquiry approach to change, which seeks to identify what is currently working best and to build on this knowledge to help develop and design what might be achieved in the future. Apparently, the southern stock-car racing metaphor was predominately used to explain teamwork, but was also the pattern for accomplishing it as well (p. 211). Once a particular system is introduced to employees, it’s usually hard to introduce a new system.
Sense-making – There has been arguments that sense-making activities across the organization are indicative of the importance of understanding change as the accomplishment of ongoing processes for making framework to show how they impacted on understandings of organizational changes in the company (p.206). A great example of this approach is revealed when Tom and the other managers introduced a different metaphor for teamwork. They introduced another language in which to introduce change for improvement.
In your opinion, how compatible are these three approaches? Why? What evidence is there in the DuPont story for your answer? As a
References: Palmer. I, Dunford, R, & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 978-0-07-340499-8.