This research would include company- and individual-specific information and figures as well as academic research related to operations shutdowns and cessations generally. The first step of direct action that would be taken is a meeting of relevant and available operations and organizational leadership, describing the necessary changes and the reasons behind them, and presenting the information obtained through research to ensure that expectations are all in line with each other. Current organizational needs, values, and methods for obtaining these would also be stressed at the meeting, setting a clear rationale and plan for the upcoming changes and adjustments.
After the necessary leadership members have been apprised of the plan for change, other members of the organization would also be informed of the coming changes and their rationales in a more efficient manner. Explanation will be made as comprehensive as possible so as to mitigate and reduce the level of negative feelings that will necessarily result as a part of the operations closure. After all explanations have been made, the actual implementation of change would begin, taking place according to the guidelines and principles outlined in the earlier phases. This reflects the explicitly planned change of the OD mindset.
Major Change at DuPont
If DuPont were suddenly bought out by a foreign competitor, there would be a great deal of explanation of the coming changes needed for employees. From the problem solving perspective, it would be explained that new values and new ways of doing business would be coming, and that it was the responsibility of each employee to ensure that they fully understood any new standards and procedures that became a part of the organization.
New methods can be learned and adhered to, and after a period of adjustment it would be expected that productivity would return at least to the level it was at prior to the change. An appreciative inquiry approach would encourage the examination of new values and methodologies as well as any new leadership that was brought in as part of the buyout, seeking positive elements that would serve as encouragement for accepting and accelerating the change taking place.
The first approach is more top-down and more direct, as well as more personally constraining; the second approach is more personally empowering though less direct and less controllable. This second approach would almost certainly work better form the point-of-view of the staff, as it encourages them to find intrinsic reasons to accept the change rather than simply forcing it upon them. The difficulty of this approach from a leadership perspective is higher, however, as it requires greater collaboration and is also more time consuming. A conclusion that can be drawn from this is the less authoritative a n approach to change is, the more work is created for leadership in the short-term but he more deeply entrenched and rewarding the change becomes..