As we walked through the manufacturing areas of DuPont, the plant manager, Tom Harris, greeted each...

 

 

Transcribed Image Text:

As we walked through the manufacturing areas of DuPont, the plant manager, Tom Harris, greeted each worker by name. The plant was on a site that stretched over 10 acres beside the South River on the edge of town, and it was the major employer in the community. The plant seemed to be a permanent fixture, or at least more permanent than most things. There had been changes, big ones, but the plant was still the plant. The Orlon manufacturing operation had been shut down, the equipment dismantled and sent to China. As far as I could find out early in my work there, these changes, despite their magnitude, were seen as doing the regular business of the enterprise. No one framed the changes as needing unusual attention, so there was no change management design. The projects-getting rid of one operation and installing another-were planned and executed just like any project. Change management was not a rubric used to either accomplish or explain what was going on. More changes were coming, whether there was any formal practice of change management or not. The plant would soon enough look very different from what I saw on that first tour with Tom. I first met Tom when he came to the University of Virginia secking to make contact with the academic community in order to bring some of the latest thinking in business to his operation. His interest lay in introducing his managers to new ideas and in applying those ideas to improving the plant. He was not, he said, looking for solutions to specific problems, but rather in improving overall organization effectiveness. This was important because he was under increasing pressure to do more with less. I first met Tom when he came to the University of Virginia seeking to make contact with the academic community in order to bring some of the latest thinking in business to his operation. His interest lay in introducing his managers to new ideas and in applying those ideas to improving the plant. He was not, he said, looking for solutions to specific problems, but rather in improving overall organization effectiveness. This was important because he was under increasing pressure to do more with less. In February, this general bulletin was sent to all employees, and I began the fieldwork from which a portrayal of the work culture would be built. Gib Akin, a professor from the University of Virginia, will be spending time at the plant. He has been asked to give us some new perspectives on our work and our organization that we might use to help us develop people and continually improve. Most importantly, he is here to help us appreciate and develop what goes right, assist us in building on our strengths, to make the plant work better for everybody. His presence is not due to any particular problem but is a result of our desire to continuously improve. Over the next six months, I conducted interviews with workers and managers, spending time in the workplace, and learning about everyday life there. This yielded a thick description of the shared stock of knowledge that organizational members used to interpret events and generate behavior. What we made explicit with this process was the local, widely used, every day, common-sense model of work performance, unique to this scene. In a sense, this was the local organization theory that people used for getting along at work. Of course, this theory was more important than any imported academic theory of organization, because it had to work well or the users would not be successful in their work. This was the practical theory in use every day and by everyone. Such culturally embedded theory also tends to create what it is intended to explain, thus making it even more powerful and generative. For example, in this plant, the local model of teamwork was organized around a southern stock-car racing metaphor, which was not only used to explain teamwork but was also the pattern for accomplishing it. And since everyone knew the metaphor, and used it, it became so. Tom and the other managers were surprised to learn of the NASCAR (the premier stock- car racing organization) metaphor but it explained why they had not recognized existing teamwork in the workplace (they had a different metaphor for teamwork) and gave them a language in which to introduce change for improvement. Similarly, illumination of the local meaning of effective supervision, high performance, and what constituted a good day at work gave those with leadership roles constructs to work with for making improvements and the language for introducing change. Managers, and particularly first- line supervisors, were asked to use this new understanding gained from the findings of the study. Their new understanding could be used to interpret the local meaning of effective work to capitalize on strengths to expand and develop existing good practices in order to swamp problems, that is, to render problems less troublesome even if unsolved. The findings of the study also could be used as the basis for experiments. Members of the so-called leadership Core Team were instructed to introduce change as an experiment- something to be tried and watched closely, and after a designated time, if it is not working as hoped, it can be stopped. Framing changes as experiments requires thinking through what is expected and how and when to measure the results. And by interpreting the possible results before they happen, all outcomes can be positive. Even if things don't go as hoped, what does happen can yield learning. All experiments are successes at one level or another. Tom embraced the framing of change as experiment, and it was probably his most pervasive concept regarding change. "A notion I use all the time is that everything is an experiment. If you describe every change as an experiment, the ability of people to digest it goes up an order of magnitude. And that goes for officers as well as people on the shop floor. As a matter of fact, nothing is forever anyway. Questions: 1. To what extent are the following approaches to change embedded in the DuPont story (justify your answer, providing specific examples): A. OD B. Appreciative Inquiry C. Sense-making 2. In your opinion, how compatible are these three approaches? Why? What evidence is there in the DuPont story for your answer? As a change manager, to what extent could you utilize insights from cach approach? 3. Imagine you are an OD practitioner brought into DuPont at the time of the Orlon manufacturing operation closure. Describe the steps you would take to help manage this change based upon action research. 4. As a class, decide on a fictional large-scale change that could affect DuPont. Divide the class into three groups (and role-play the situation in two acts). In Act 1, one group will take a problem- solving approach and introduce the change with the second group (DuPont staff affected by the change). In Act 2, a third group (the Appreciative Inquiry group) will introduce the change with the second group (DuPont staff affected by the change). After the exercise, compare and contrast the steps taken in each approach. From the point of view of group two (DuPont staff), which approach seemed to work better? Why? From the point of view of groups one and two, how easy or difficult was it adopting this approach? What broad conclusions can be drawn? As we walked through the manufacturing areas of DuPont, the plant manager, Tom Harris, greeted each worker by name. The plant was on a site that stretched over 10 acres beside the South River on the edge of town, and it was the major employer in the community. The plant seemed to be a permanent fixture, or at least more permanent than most things. There had been changes, big ones, but the plant was still the plant. The Orlon manufacturing operation had been shut down, the equipment dismantled and sent to China. As far as I could find out early in my work there, these changes, despite their magnitude, were seen as doing the regular business of the enterprise. No one framed the changes as needing unusual attention, so there was no change management design. The projects-getting rid of one operation and installing another-were planned and executed just like any project. Change management was not a rubric used to either accomplish or explain what was going on. More changes were coming, whether there was any formal practice of change management or not. The plant would soon enough look very different from what I saw on that first tour with Tom. I first met Tom when he came to the University of Virginia secking to make contact with the academic community in order to bring some of the latest thinking in business to his operation. His interest lay in introducing his managers to new ideas and in applying those ideas to improving the plant. He was not, he said, looking for solutions to specific problems, but rather in improving overall organization effectiveness. This was important because he was under increasing pressure to do more with less. I first met Tom when he came to the University of Virginia seeking to make contact with the academic community in order to bring some of the latest thinking in business to his operation. His interest lay in introducing his managers to new ideas and in applying those ideas to improving the plant. He was not, he said, looking for solutions to specific problems, but rather in improving overall organization effectiveness. This was important because he was under increasing pressure to do more with less. In February, this general bulletin was sent to all employees, and I began the fieldwork from which a portrayal of the work culture would be built. Gib Akin, a professor from the University of Virginia, will be spending time at the plant. He has been asked to give us some new perspectives on our work and our organization that we might use to help us develop people and continually improve. Most importantly, he is here to help us appreciate and develop what goes right, assist us in building on our strengths, to make the plant work better for everybody. His presence is not due to any particular problem but is a result of our desire to continuously improve. Over the next six months, I conducted interviews with workers and managers, spending time in the workplace, and learning about everyday life there. This yielded a thick description of the shared stock of knowledge that organizational members used to interpret events and generate behavior. What we made explicit with this process was the local, widely used, every day, common-sense model of work performance, unique to this scene. In a sense, this was the local organization theory that people used for getting along at work. Of course, this theory was more important than any imported academic theory of organization, because it had to work well or the users would not be successful in their work. This was the practical theory in use every day and by everyone. Such culturally embedded theory also tends to create what it is intended to explain, thus making it even more powerful and generative. For example, in this plant, the local model of teamwork was organized around a southern stock-car racing metaphor, which was not only used to explain teamwork but was also the pattern for accomplishing it. And since everyone knew the metaphor, and used it, it became so. Tom and the other managers were surprised to learn of the NASCAR (the premier stock- car racing organization) metaphor but it explained why they had not recognized existing teamwork in the workplace (they had a different metaphor for teamwork) and gave them a language in which to introduce change for improvement. Similarly, illumination of the local meaning of effective supervision, high performance, and what constituted a good day at work gave those with leadership roles constructs to work with for making improvements and the language for introducing change. Managers, and particularly first- line supervisors, were asked to use this new understanding gained from the findings of the study. Their new understanding could be used to interpret the local meaning of effective work to capitalize on strengths to expand and develop existing good practices in order to swamp problems, that is, to render problems less troublesome even if unsolved. The findings of the study also could be used as the basis for experiments. Members of the so-called leadership Core Team were instructed to introduce change as an experiment- something to be tried and watched closely, and after a designated time, if it is not working as hoped, it can be stopped. Framing changes as experiments requires thinking through what is expected and how and when to measure the results. And by interpreting the possible results before they happen, all outcomes can be positive. Even if things don't go as hoped, what does happen can yield learning. All experiments are successes at one level or another. Tom embraced the framing of change as experiment, and it was probably his most pervasive concept regarding change. "A notion I use all the time is that everything is an experiment. If you describe every change as an experiment, the ability of people to digest it goes up an order of magnitude. And that goes for officers as well as people on the shop floor. As a matter of fact, nothing is forever anyway. Questions: 1. To what extent are the following approaches to change embedded in the DuPont story (justify your answer, providing specific examples): A. OD B. Appreciative Inquiry C. Sense-making 2. In your opinion, how compatible are these three approaches? Why? What evidence is there in the DuPont story for your answer? As a change manager, to what extent could you utilize insights from cach approach? 3. Imagine you are an OD practitioner brought into DuPont at the time of the Orlon manufacturing operation closure. Describe the steps you would take to help manage this change based upon action research. 4. As a class, decide on a fictional large-scale change that could affect DuPont. Divide the class into three groups (and role-play the situation in two acts). In Act 1, one group will take a problem- solving approach and introduce the change with the second group (DuPont staff affected by the change). In Act 2, a third group (the Appreciative Inquiry group) will introduce the change with the second group (DuPont staff affected by the change). After the exercise, compare and contrast the steps taken in each approach. From the point of view of group two (DuPont staff), which approach seemed to work better? Why? From the point of view of groups one and two, how easy or difficult was it adopting this approach? What broad conclusions can be drawn?