Uncertainty during Organizational Change - Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies - Literature review Example

Running Head: Organizational Change Student’s Name: Instructor: Course Code and Name: Institution: Date Assignment is due: Organizational Change Organizational change as a concept means the convergence of different trends that result in a paradigm shift within a given organization where the new order replaces the old order. It is as simple as changes happening in the respective operations of particular organizations. Management theorists explain organizational change in different perspectives and derive arguments depending on the type of change (William et al., 1995). The assertion that organizational change experiences irreconcilable differences in the western and eastern persecution is patently not true. I disagree within this assertion asserted by theorists in management and beg to differ in this paper. The paper details how the western and eastern perceptions of organization change merge and explain things similarly with one voice other than the contention that they are different. The paper looks into some of the similarities and correlations that exist between the two areas of concerns regarding their perceptions on change. Giuseppe et al. (2000) defines the concept of Organizational change as a concept in the management and Organizational studies field. The description of the concept includes changes in experiences, beliefs, psychology, attitudes, and values of a particular organization. Another dimension defining the concept is, “the changes in specific value collection and norm application that people and groups share in an organization setting and that are subject to controlling the way interactions happen between the members of the organization and the stakeholders of the organization” (William et al., 1995). The concept may also apply as changes in ideas and beliefs about the description of goals that organization members should pursue and other respective changes in ideas about the appropriate standards of behavior in an organization setting in achieving the respective goals. In explaining organization change for both western and eastern concepts, there is no doubt that the two do not have any considerable differences in the context of need driven change. In this view, it is apparent that the two conceptions are reconcilable as opposed to the theorists of their difference. Need driven change means that the organizational change features because of a particular pressing need that both region experience in their respective organizations (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). Technology is apparently developing in both the western and eastern regions. Though there is a contention that eastern regions advance in technology from borrowing from the western industrialized regions, the issue is that even the western region also advance in the technological field. The advances are bringing about the changes within the organization. These changes incorporate changes in the working processes as well as the efficiency of the organization. Technological changes are evident in organizational changes conceptions in both the eastern and the western, this fact cannot change, and it is overwhelming the structures of the given organizations (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). In reconciling western and eastern perspectives regarding change, analyzing the types of changes in an organization setting is ideal. Both eastern and western organizational changes experience strategic changes. Strategic changes are thriving in both eastern and western regions. This therefore, brings out the reconciliation of changes as they happen in both regions meaning that they do not have any notable difference (Elizabeth et al., 2004). Globalization has come in, and organizations have to change their strategies in their respective operations whether in eastern or western regions. Though it is deemed that westerners are the founders of changes and disseminate them to the eastern, both changes relatively have a similar ground that is, change of strategies to conform to globalization. Taking the eastern or western conceptions of change, it is apparent that they experience similar pressures and their explanation of changes has similarities. Organizational change in both the western and eastern conceptions can be reconciled with the explanation of globalization. This factor co-joins the varying explanation of changes in both eastern and western conception since it does not discriminate any region but affects all fields globally (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). Due to the exceeding rise of globalization, the western and eastern economy is experiencing changes following the global competition. This forces the organizations whether in western or eastern to undergo some transformation. With globalization in place, there is continued existence of organization’s diverse culture. Equally, the management of organizations in both western and eastern region is becoming easier by day bringing in a positive contribution to the respective duties of management in these organizations. Nancy et al. (2002) argues that to endure the pressures of the 21st century organizations whether in eastern or western regions must become accustomed to a global mindset as well as transform leadership to be competitive globally whether in the eastern or western region. In other words, the organizations including their leaders must learn the approaches of managing transformations in culture diversity within and outside the organization. Giuseppe et al. (2000) adds that if organizations do not conform to such changes, they risk losing their competitive edge. It is equally beneficial for organizations to learn principles or motivation and changes implementation in the training programs to effect critical culture changes that improve conditions in the work force. This reconciliation highlights the events of organizational change in both the eastern and western regions. A substantial impact felt by globalization within a changing cultural environment is restructuring. Restructuring has faced eastern and western conceptions of organizational changes but in different ways (Nancy et al., 2002). This has had distinguished implication to the human resource activities in reference to the expansion of assignments, jobs loss, new roles, corporate culture, overseas posting, and changes in rewards among others (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005). The systems theory of management explains the eastern and western conceptions of change as correlating. The theory has had an enormous effect on management as well as in providing a clear understanding of organizational change. A system is generally a collection of unified parts in accomplishing an overall goal within the organization (Nancy et al., 2002). If a part of the entire system changes, the nature of the whole system changes as well. A system in this case for both eastern and western organizations can termed as having inputs for instance resources including money, technologies, raw materials, people and processes including organizing, motivating, planning, and controlling; outputs including services or products and outcomes including enhanced quality of productivity or life for customers (Giuseppe et al., 2000). This is a fact, reconcilable for all organizational changes no matter the location. It gives a relative similarity into the explanation of organization change in uniformity. Organizational change can be explained under the conception of structural changes within a given organization. Structure in this case is the entire organization as a whole and its framework that supports its operations. Theorists and scholars in management can explain western and eastern conceptions of change as different and irreconcilable, but the fact is that they reconcile in terms of explaining changes structurally (Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003). Structural changes are uniform and affect both eastern and western organization management. This is because the management of organizations in the respective region has to conform to the changes as they come by. In this context, conceptions in both the western and eastern regarding organizational change reconcile under the explanation of structural changes (Nancy et al., 2002). Both western and eastern organizations are beginning to take up the concept of teams in their operations. This is a structural change vital for the organization in the new era for the 21st century operations. The organizations now realize that teams are the only way to develop magnitude production and organization operations (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). Organizational change is therefore, felt in the limelight of taking up teams and the route to organization optimal operations. A team is an entity comprising of a group of people linked in a particular common purpose. Teams are always appropriate when conducting tasks especially the ones with high complexity and interdependent subtasks (Giuseppe et al., 2000). The team’s concept evolves and in both western and eastern organizations; it has entered both societies with the couched assumption that it will bring enjoyment providing increased acquisition of knowledge, higher performance, deeper commitment, and greater innovation without having to depend on formal leaderships. It is absolute that the complexities of dynamics in groups and the puzzle of ensuring high performance is still a constant struggle especially for organizations and researchers as well as practitioner (William et al., 1995). In this new age of lean organizations, it is possible to assert that many of the work groups existing today are being pushed to evolution through team development. The late 20th century theorists in business have popularized the concept of team’s constructions in both eastern and western organizations (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). Differing opinions are in existence on the usefulness of the new management fad. Some of the theorists view the concept team as a panacea finally helping to realize the effective human relations movement's desire in integrating the organizations in both regions. Adding to this concept of teams both western and eastern forms of organizational change feature the element of group decision making. This has been the latest and most apparent way of progressive organizations (Nancy et al., 2002). All organizations have changed from the top-bottom approach and they are adopting a new bottom up approach in the context of developing participative management that is the route to successful organizations. It is emerging that the era of bureaucracy is moving far from organizations and diplomacy is reaching optimum in the respective organization. This change is indiscriminating in both western and eastern region, in the context of organizational change (Giuseppe et al., 2000). Reconciliation of both western and eastern explanation of change converge in the explanation of the changing the changing attitudes and behaviors of respective personnel in both region’s organizations. In the conceptions of change for both eastern and western regions, there is clear evidence that conceptions for both reconcile under Cultural diversity (Michael et al., 2003). Culture diversity has affected both regions; it is an implicating sweeping change in respective regions asserting changes in behaviors of individual within organizations that lead to organizational changes in totality. Culture diversity is exhibiting consequential effects on employees of the organizations in their respective work places (Nancy et al., 2002). Because of the high integration of diverse cultures in the respective organizations, individuals experience exposure to varying types of cultures a singularly common phenomenon in everyone within these organizations. Many other changes in the cultural make-up of organizations today happen both in western and eastern regions forcing the leaders imperatively to understand the vibrant cultural diversity as well as how it affects their organization. Cultural diversity refers to the perpetual representation, in a particular social system, of individuals from distinctive affiliations in a different group of cultural significance (Michael et al., 2003). This issue has been in the work place for over decades in the human resource departments in both regions, therefore, reconciling the conceptions of change and closing the gap of the differences as espoused by theorists. However, some researchers try to distinguish organizational changes regarding the eastern changes as primary and the western changes as secondary. This however, has some similarities and converges to the aspect that the two are evidenced changes in cultures because of the integration of varying cultures in both regions (Nancy et al., 2002). Some researchers go further in defining culture diversity in primary as well as secondary dimensions in order to analyze the effect of changes in organizations from a broad perspective. From the primary dimensions, changes in culture diversity features in terms of age, ethnicity, physical abilities, gender, race, as well as sexual orientation. The primary dimensions of diversity in any given organization have been in the limelight changing drastically because of the globalization process as it features in organizations (Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005). This is what the researchers seek as organizational changes for the eastern regions. The dimensions shape the individual’s basic self-image and his fundamental worldview. This means that the individual changes the perceptions of the work place including the tasks mandated to do and the people around him. Additionally, the dimensions influence work groups in respective workplaces as well as the society in general either negatively or positively. It is becoming one of the biggest challenges for the human resource department to handle the issue of change in culture diversity forcing them to change approaches. Gauging from the environments within organizations of the western regions, the scenario is the same because they experience the same changes though at an advanced level (Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). The theorists go ahead to explain changes of the western as secondary in nature. The changing of secondary dimensions of cultural diversity, on the other hand, include geographic location, educational background, income, religious beliefs, marital status and work experience (Nancy et al., 2002). These changing dimensions are relative to the work place because they affect an individual’s self-esteem including the self-definition. Apparently, this is acutely evident in the western conceptions of change because it is an advanced stage (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). It is apparent that the dimensions in diversity are not exact because there are other individual influences affecting the individuals at the work place and determining the result of the effect. The same individual influences have been changing more within work places and human resource departments feature strategies to deal with the same. It is undeniable that the organizational changes of this kind also feature in western regions and explain organizational changes meaning that the two correlate and they merge in drawing closer and filling the gaps with explaining change (Nancy et al., 2002; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). The conception of organizational change in both eastern and western regions reconcile to the fact that change is difficult to come by. Characteristically, there are resistances to random changes in both regions where it comes to organizational change. People are always afraid of what is not known, therefore, they tend to be conservative no matter how appealing the change might be (Michael et al., 2003). Majority of the people in western and eastern have one thing in common they take things to be already just fine and never understand why there is that urgent need for change. It is therefore, a reconcilable feature that change becomes one of the biggest challenges in respective regions (Nancy et al., 2002; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). Majority is inherently pessimistic about any form of change, especially from reading more about the notion "change" as if it develops as a hymn. Many also happen to doubt there are any available effective means to bring forth organizational change, therefore, makes it harder for organizations to realize the change (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). Many are times when there are precisely conflicting goals in the respective organization whether in the eastern or western for instance an idea from a part of the organization to increase the organization’s resources in accomplishing the change but others concurrently look at the costs that will be involved and discourage the organization from spending (Nancy et al., 2002). Organizational change in both regions often goes totally against the values held so close by members devoted to the organization, meaning that, the change might go totally against the way members believe the aligned things should be. That is why organizational change in both regions always proves a hard task and a challenging affair for the organization. The management theorists espouse organizational changes in the management levels. The eastern conceptions of change feature more in the behavioral discipline because they are deemed social in nature while the western are more of the capital. In the respective explanations of the eastern and western theorists, however, they develop one reconcilable feature of time (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004). The changes occur in given specifications of time. Time in this essence is noteworthy in the sense that no matter the type of change in the organization structure for both western and eastern regions, time dictates the level of change. In the specifications of time, it includes the period of change as well as the happenings in the organization and the global world in the event of change (Nancy et al., 2002; Giuseppe et al., 2000; Michael et al., 2003; David 2005; Elizabeth et al., 2004; William et al., 1995). Conclusion Some change management theorists have suggested that meaningful, and possibly irreconcilable, differences exist between Western and Eastern conceptions of change (Nancy et al., 2002). This is because they explain the differences in the two divergent regions in terms of the organizational cultures, technological developments, capacity and future prospects among others. This, however, does not justify that the two conceptions are contrary to the other as many theorists explain because they merge and close down the gaps in the respective areas as discussed including organizational changes because of globalization, culture diversity, among others. Therefore, it would be adamant to go with the theorists and draw a line between western and eastern conceptions of change terming the as different because they exhibit the same characteristics only that these are on diversified levels. References David, J. (2005). Employee Cynicism and Resistance to Organizational Change. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 4 (summer, 2005), pp. 429-459. Elizabeth, H. et al. (2004). Uncertainty during Organizational Change: Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Jun., 2004), pp. 507-532. Giuseppe, L. et al (2000). A Grounded Model of Organizational Schema Change during Empowerment. Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2000), pp. 235-257. Michael, T. et al. (2003). Cascading Organizational Change. Organization Science, Vol. 14, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2003), pp. 463-482. Nancy, S. et al. (2002). Time to Change: Temporal Shifts as Enablers of Organizational Change. Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2002), pp. 583-597. William, P. et al. (1995). Modeling Internal Organizational Change. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 21, (1995), pp. 217-236. Read More