DuPont Organizational Change: OD, AI, and Sense-Making
This paper examines organizational change at DuPont through three distinct theoretical lenses: organizational development (OD), appreciative inquiry (AI), and sense-making. Drawing on a DuPont case study, the paper explores how each approach manifests in practice — from the NASCAR metaphor used in OD-driven restructuring, to Gib Akin's observational learning as an expression of appreciative inquiry, to collaborative context-building as sense-making. The paper argues that these three methods, while conceptually distinct, are compatible and can be deployed simultaneously. It then applies action research principles to the closure of the Orlon manufacturing operation and evaluates both problem-solving and appreciative inquiry responses to a hypothetical foreign buyout of DuPont.
- Approaches to Change: OD, appreciative inquiry, and sense-making in DuPont
- Compatibility of the Three Methods: How the three change approaches can coexist
- Action Research and the Orlon Closure: OD-based action research applied to plant shutdown
- Managing a Foreign Buyout: Comparing change responses to a hypothetical buyout
- Conclusion: Authoritative vs. empowering change leadership trade-offs
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically applies three distinct theoretical frameworks to one real-world case, showing analytical range without losing focus.
- Transitions between abstract theory and concrete case evidence are smooth — each method is illustrated with a specific example from the DuPont study before moving to the next.
- The hypothetical buyout scenario is handled rigorously, comparing two approaches side-by-side on dimensions of control, empowerment, and leadership cost.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative framework analysis: it defines each theoretical approach, locates it in the case, then evaluates all three together for compatibility. This structure allows the author to argue for a synthetic, multi-method approach to change management without overstating any single framework's superiority.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with three parallel descriptions of OD, appreciative inquiry, and sense-making as seen in the DuPont case. A compatibility section then synthesizes the three, arguing they can coexist. An action research section applies OD principles to the Orlon closure step by step. A final section introduces a buyout scenario and contrasts top-down problem-solving with a more collaborative appreciative inquiry response, ending with a generalizable conclusion about authoritative versus empowering change leadership.
Approaches to Change
The organizational development (OD) method of change is most visible in this case study in the NASCAR metaphor that was used to reorganize and re-theorize each individual's role within the organization. This type of explicit and purposeful change — with clear goals from the outset ultimately achieved through direct and specific action — is the hallmark of the OD approach. Specific issues in the company were addressed with equally specific actions and redefinitions, with change occurring in a planned and projected manner.
Appreciative inquiry, on the other hand, does not seek to identify and rectify problems. Instead, it examines situations and individuals with an eye toward the benefits and assets they offer to the organization, then works to maximize those benefits. In the case study at hand, this can be seen in Gib Akin's attempts to learn more about the organization through interviews and observation. This type of change is characterized by learning and enhancement rather than planned changes applied top-down, as in organizational development.
The sharing of information and the interpretation of events by organizational members described in the study is the clearest example of sense-making provided. In this method of change, experiences and concepts are framed from a certain perspective through collaborative definition, and change occurs as the newly developed context suggests what information and values are important. This is an ongoing process, with the organization's context shifting as new situations are considered.
Compatibility of the Three Methods
Though these three approaches to change are all considerably different, they are not necessarily incompatible. There is actually a high degree of crossover between some of the tenets of each method, even if this is not always made explicit in their definitions. The construction of contexts and perspectives through sense-making can easily take place as a result of appreciative inquiry, for example, and if organizational development plans are built on the contexts and perspectives so constructed, there is no reason all three methods cannot be present simultaneously within a single organization. Planning change based on identified, collectively determined positive aspects already present in an organization can yield major benefits.
As described above, all three elements of change can be seen at work in DuPont according to the case study, though they were not used in tandem. The rather disparate and somewhat haphazard uses of these methods appear to have occurred organically, contributing to organizational success in different ways. Still, the success of the organizational change documented in the case study makes it evident that all three methods can be effectively used in an organization at the same time. As a change manager, the ideal approach would be to utilize all three methods together — leading to truly effective organizational change that is planned in nature but derives from the organization's already-present strengths and collectively created contexts.
Action Research and the Orlon Closure
In order to manage the changes brought to the organization by the closure of the Orlon manufacturing operation from an organizational development perspective, the first step would be a thorough review of research related to the closure and its effects on the organization and on individuals within it. This research would include company-specific and individual-specific information and figures, as well as academic research related to operations shutdowns more generally. The first direct action taken would be a meeting of relevant operations and organizational leadership, describing the necessary changes and the reasons behind them, and presenting the information obtained through research to ensure that expectations align. Current organizational needs, values, and methods for achieving those needs would also be stressed at the meeting, establishing a clear rationale and plan for the upcoming changes.
After the necessary leadership members have been informed of the plan for change, other members of the organization would also be notified of the coming changes and their rationale in as efficient and comprehensive a manner as possible. The explanation would be made as thorough as possible to mitigate the negative reactions that will inevitably accompany an operations closure. Once all explanations have been made, actual implementation of change would begin according to the guidelines and principles established in the earlier phases. This reflects the explicitly planned change characteristic of the OD mindset.
Conclusion
A conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that the less authoritative an approach to change is, the more work is created for leadership in the short term — but the more deeply entrenched and rewarding the change ultimately becomes. Effective change management at DuPont, whether in response to an operational closure or a corporate acquisition, benefits from integrating OD planning, appreciative inquiry, and sense-making into a coherent, adaptive strategy.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.