Introduction This report is an extension of theories and understanding demonstrated in the presentation in relation to Kenworth Motor’s case. The case is regarding an OD consultant visiting Kenworth Motor Seattle truck manufacturing plant, in which the consultant provided advices to Robert Denton, the plant manager of Kenworth Motor. The manager has some managing issues with his two new managers and wants to seek advices from an OD consultant. Nevertheless, the OD consultant related in the case was not well prepared with the meeting and has few understanding regarding the company and relationships between Kenworth managers. This in turn, leads to unsatisfactory results of consultation. The action research model employed in the presentation incorporates six phases, namely problem identification, consultation with behaviour science experts, data gathering, feedback to clients, and diagnosis of problems and joint action. The analysis of the Kenworth case follows the steps of the action research model and problems lie in each phases will be discussed. After the analysis, an implementation plan that provides insights into how to realise recommendations in the presentation is available. This report follows the steps of the action research model, starts with problem identification in the case. Then the consultation and feedback in the case will be discussed. Subsequently, solutions and an action plan as well as personal reflection on the theories regarding managing people at individual and organisational levels will be illustrated. Problem identification The scenario in the Kenworth case is that the plant manager Robert Denton, has issues with his new fellow managers and he feels that team work spirits are not entirely shown in his team. His two managers, one who is in charge of purchasing and inventory while the other coping with personnel’s, try to follow the style of Denton but Denton still holds that they are not bounding together. As a result, Denton invites an OD consultant to discuss the issue and try to come up with solutions for the issue. Yet, the consultation just lasts for one hour and there are not realistic resolutions for the issue. Hereby it is demonstrated in the presentation that there are three main problems lie in the case. Firstly, the OD consultant did not well prepare for the consultation. This is can be shown in the fact that the OD consultant has little understanding regarding Denton’s duty, job condition, working hours and relationship with his managers. The consultant did not conduct research regarding the Kenworth Motor’s background, corporate culture and leadership styles. Secondly, the OD consultant had unsuccessful communication with Robert Denton. It can be shown that the consultant has vague comprehension of Denton’s ideas and did not trace the root causes of his issue. Wiersema and Bantel (1992) aruge that sound communication facilitates the top management and fulfills the needs of corporate strategic change. It is demonstrated in the presentation that the OD consultant did not figure out that the problem existing in Denton’s case is in relation to communication. On one hand, Denton’s managers hold that they have endeavored to meet the requirement of their boss. On the other, Denton believes that there are still team issues. The gap and misunderstanding mainly result from poor communication among the team. Consequently, as an OD consultant, what he needs to focus is on how to resolve communication issues. Kellogg (1984) states that successful OD consultation needs to focus on the client-consultant relationship. Firstly, he needs to have a clear idea on the Kenworth Motor’s corporate culture, company structure, and other background information. Secondly, a thorough communication with Denton as well as his managers can be carried out separately to grape their respective understanding and the gap between the two sides. Consequently, the OD consultant can convey the ideas of Denton’s managers to Denton in the meeting and even invites the two managers to join the meeting and communicate their thoughts to Denton directly. This solution is regarding more with changing management on individual levels and it is direct and effective. Aladwani (2001) believe that changing management on corporate level means that top management should proactively deal with problems instead of reactively confronting it. Whereas Kavanagh and Ashkanasy (2006) claim that change management practice on individual can affect individual directly and exert impacts’ on individuals’ perception. Consultation and feedback In the OD consultation with Denton, the OD consultant managed to build trust with Denton and encouraged him to disclose company’s issue and condition for the tracing of the problem. Preliminarily, the consultant endeavored to identify the root of the problem by questioning Denton, however, the answer given by Denton made him realise that the questioning approach is ineffective. Worren, Ruddle, and Moore (1999) argue that the feedback from clients and top management team is crucial to the OD consultation. This can be either on individual level or on organisational level. The individual level management is just what shown in the case, which concerns a section of a company rather than the entire organization. It is less associated with strategic targets or development goals of an organisation. Changing the management on the organisational level necessitates the feedback and opinions from the top management since this change may affect company’s strategies and development orientation. Burke and Litwin (1992) concludes that organisational change management tends to be transformational changes, which occurs as a response to the external environment and directly affects organizational missions and strategies. Another problem in the Kenworth case is that the consultation given in the action research model should be consultation with a behaviour export. Since the case is more regarding managing people on individual level, the individual behaviour and cognitive theories are necessary in dealing with problems. Callan (1993) demonstrates that major disciplines such as psychology and sociology are widely applied in the study of organizational behaviour that is regarded as a subfield of change management. Nevertheless, the OD consultant in this case is rather incapable of providing constructive ideas of behaviours. The consultation in the case has incorrect orientation and it is recommended that a consulation with a behaviour export should be arranged for Denton’s issue. Additionally, it is also required in the action research model that managers should have detailed data for the correct identification of problems. In the Kenworth case, these data can be working hours, results of peer and superior evaluation, and performance of each manager. These actual figures can show how each manager performs his position and his achievements. The results from peer evaluation provides index for their individual characteristics and capacity such as teamwork spirits, problem solving, interpersonal skills, managing and leadership. This helps Denton to identify the strengths and weakness of his two new managers based on actual data rather than subjective views. Solutions The solution is the case is that a contract is proposed to guarantee the communication between Denton and his managers and the rights of managers. The contract is done in a quite short period and entails a retreat weekend. The date, venue, predicted budgets, and related consultation service of the retreat weekend is included in the contract. The initial idea of a retreat weekend is constructive and provides an opportunity for Denton and his managers to communicate. Nevertheless, the failure of the contracting process exists in the lack of clarity regarding responsibility and duties. The OD consultant did not consider his role in the retreat event. Similarly, he did not have clear idea on how to implement this retreat weekend plan. Based on the analysis of problems existing in OD consultation in the Kenworth case, the solution of problems of Denton is concluded as follows., On one hand, the action research model should be fully applied in the problem addressing process. This means, for the first step-problem identification, Denton needs to consider deeply on the problem of his team. His consideration should be based on the collection of his subjective views and opinions of other staffs as well as advices from experts. The subjective experience tends to be less incapable in dealing with organisational change management (Spender, 1996). After identifying the problem, Denton needs to have consultation with a behaviour expert to ensure that the problem identified is correct and try to trace the root causes of the problem in accordance with behaviour theories. The behaviour expert is also capable of giving advices on how to address the problem identified. Denton can also have consultation with an OD consultant to obtain objective opinions of the problem of his team. Then, a data collection can be made after the consultation or even before the consultation since the data is used for correct problem identification, which serves virtually the same duty of the behaviour expert consultation. As mentioned above, the data collection can be figures regarding working hours, results of peer evaluation of the two managers and performance figures. With the feedback from the consultation and data collection, the top management and Denton can be aware of if the problem identified is correct and an insight on how to address the problem. Once the problem is correctly diagnosed, a joint discussion and action plan should be proposed and then implemented. After implementation of the proposed plan, feedback should be sent to clients and management team to evaluate the plan and revise the plan if it is necessary. On the other hand, the problem identified in our presentation is that Denton, and his two managers have communication issues and Denton, to some extent, fails to consider the needs and ideas of his fellow managers. He also has the issue of over-subjectivity. Ford and Ford (1995) holds that conversation that serves as a tool of communication is essential in producing internal change in organisations. It can be seen that the problem he discern in his team is based on his subjective view rather than consultation with experts or discussion with other colleagues. Apart from Denton and his team issues, the OD consultant did not perform satisfactorily to prepare and communicate in the consultation. The contract proposed in the case will be revised in our following action plan. Action plans Based on the analysis of problem identification, consultation, feedback, and solutions, an action plan is proposed as follows. Firstly, Denton needs an external agent to investigate his team issue, which is also effectively discussed by the OD consultant in the case. This external agent can be the behaviour expert who should be in consultation with Denton or an OD consultant who are competent with preparation and successful communication. This approach seems to be changing management on organisational levels since the higher and lower level of management may also be involved in the investigation process. A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal affects employees’ commitment to change (Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007). Secondly, a contracting process that conducted in the case should also be included in the action plan. The idea of having a retreat weekend for the sound communication of both sides is necessary but the duty of external agent (which is either the behaviour expert or the OD consultant) should be clearly defined. Thirdly, the OD consultant, Denton and his managers should have a dinner beforehand to be familiar with each other. The dinner creates a leisure atmosphere that is conducive for the communication. After the dinner, either retreat weekend or formal meeting can be held to discuss the issue of Denton’s team.