Summary Of Theoretical Changes To Work

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction

The aim of this report is to analyse the changes to the nature of work in Singapore and Myanmar. The 2nd section discusses the major changes in the management approaches in Singapore for the last 30 years (from the 1890s to 2010s). The 3rd section provides a detail analysis in the areas of Leadership, organization structure and work culture; and dsicussed the impact on the society, organisations and patterns of work

The 4th section examines the 3 aspects in 2nd country of Indonesia. The 5th section provides a comparative analysis between Singapore and Indonesia (section). The last section predicts the potential changes in Indonesia, in the next 10 years

Summary of theoretical changes to work

In the early 1990s, according to the operational perspective in the evolution of management thought, there are scientific management, quantitative management, quality management, bureaucratic management, and administrative management. There is general agreement on the basic characteristics of Japanese and U.S. management, but there is less agreement and certainty about the transferability of the practices (not the science) of management to other cultures (Management Practices in the United States, Japan and the People’s Republic of China, Weihrich). The major approaches to management from the classical point of view are defined as scientific management and administrative management. Scientific management approach which emphasized the scientific study of work method to improve the productivity of individual workers (Taylor and Gilbreth). Scientific method would be described as the practice of postulating a theory and then conducting disciplined experiments to confirm or disprove the theory. And the quality management viewpoint which had practiced by the Japan, includes quality control, quality assurance, and total quality management. The inferior quality of Japanese products began to improve with the arrival of two Americans, W.Edwards Deming and J.M Juran. Today, The Japanese, Europeans, Americans and others who want to compete on the international level have learned a lot about Deming’s, Juran’s and other quality improvement methods. Managers have also learned that simply paying lip service to quality and what it means is not enough. If they are to be more effective, they must translate quality improvement into result such as more satisfied customers, better designed products and more creative approaches to solve problems.

Analysis of detailed in situation of Japan

Leadership

Leadership styles and management methods around the world are diverse and influences by specifications dominant in the environment. Different studies and researches in different countries have defined leadership style in terms of success conditions. The relationship between managers and culture, the leaders and culture is different. The three styles of leadership are autocratic style, democratic style and laissez-faire (genuine) style. The Japanese society is a very collective society. The Japanese are a very collectivist society. There is a tighter social framework in which the person respects the group he or she belongs. Also, the Japanese place a great emphasis on belonging, working together and being a good member. Therefore, the best type of leadership style that would be most effective for the Japanese would be the participative leadership approach. The participative leadership approach is a style of leadership in which employees are involved in the decision making process and all members are invited to think strategically and also to improve the operation of the organization. Unlike managers in most other countries, Japanese managers have a strong belief in the capacity of subordinates for leadership and initiative. In addition, Japanese managers place strong emphasis on ambiguous goals. The manager alone exercises decision-making and authority for determining policy, procedures for achieving goals, work tasks and relationships, control of rewards or punishments (Mullins, 2010). Some characteristics possess in leaders of Japan are seriousness, continuous work, cooperation and coordination with others, ability to establish close relationship with colleagues, tolerance of hardships and difficulties of work, self-discipline, ability to control demands and personal feelings and sympathy with followers in Japanese society have changed in terms of values and economic systems but traditional leadership standards are remained fixed. The Japanese value of creating harmony and the family style of organization exist in company need that everyone agrees with the final decision. Even though the leaders make the final decision, that decision includes the opinions of everyone.

Organizational structure

Organizational structure is very important in every organisation. Good structure proved good organizational performance. There are many factors which influence the most appropriate organization structure and system of management, which include situational factors and contingency approach.

Culture

Culture consists of values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour of people. It plays a major role in the way how people think, learn, and communicate, n lead. Culture influences employee motivation, authority, leadership behaviour and interpersonal relationships. Some of the components of culture include language, ethnicity and religion. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Japanese society is a very collective society. In traditional society, the group mean the family or village but today, the group is the work team or business organisation to which an individual belongs. In Japan, each person is expected to conform to society where and norms, though there are exceptions with much of the radical younger generation and a few individuals that intentionally mock conformity. Japan is a collectivist society where group needs and wants are placed above those of the individual and Japanese people tend to be other-directed (Ritts, 2000). By practicing and together and by sharing personal and team lives, the members get to know one another so well that their mode of communication takes on implicit phrases and expression, rather than explicit verbal discussions (Tsurumi, 1976). Which mean in Japan, people care about how something is said is more important than what is said.

Analysis of detailed in situation of the United States

Leadership

Cultural differences infulence leadership styles, norms, role expections, and traditional governing the relationship among variious members of society. These are strong determinants of effective leadership behaviour in a society (Fatehi, 1996). According to the one article, it says that leadership styles are more varied in America today than in Asia. In America there are five styles practicing which are, directive, participative, empowering, and charismatic. These four reflect how an executive deals with subordinates in the company.

Organizational structure

Organizational structure refers to the way that an organization arranges people and jobs so that its work can be performed and its goals can be met. When a work group is very small and face-to-face communication is frequent, formal structure may be unnecessary, but in a larger organization decisions have to be made about the delegation of various tasks. Thus, procedures are established that assign responsibilities for various functions. It is these decisions that determine the organizational structure. At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States business sector was thriving. Industry was shifting from job-shop manufacturing to mass production, and thinkers like Frederick Taylor in the United States and Henri Fayol in France studied the new systems and developed principles to determine how to structure organizations for the greatest efficiency and productivity, which in their view was very much like a machine. Management thought during this period was influenced by Weber's ideas of bureaucracy, where power is ascribed to positions rather than to the individuals holding those positions. It also was influenced by Taylor's scientific management, or the "one best way" to accomplish a task using scientifically-determined studies of time and motion. Also influential were Fayol's ideas of invoking unity within the chain-of-command, authority, discipline, task specialization, and other aspects of organizational power and job separation. This created the context for vertically-structured organizations characterized by distinct job classifications and top-down authority structures, or what became known as the traditional or classical organizational structure. This is the organizational structure which practiced during 21st century.

Culture

The culture of the United States is primarily a Western cultuur, but is also influenced by Navie American, African, Asian, Polynesian, and Latin American cultures. It has it own unique social and cultural chharactieristcs such as dialect, music, arts, social habits, cuisine, and folklore. The United States of America is an ehtically and racially diverse country as a result oflarge-scale immigration from many different countries throughtout its historyAmerican culture includes both conservative and liberal elements, scientific and religious competitiveness, political structures, risk taking and free expression, materialist and moral elements. Despite certain consistent ideological principles (e.g. individualism, egalitarianism, and faith in freedom and democracy), American culture has a variety of expressions due to its geographical scale and demographic diversity. The flexibility of U.S. culture and its highly symbolic nature lead some researchers to categorize American culture as a mythic identity. One of the most pervasive values in United States culture is individualism and understanding its effects can help illuminate many aspecs of the culture. In an individualistic culture, decisions made to benefit the self, such as moving far from one’s parents to go to your preferred choice for college would not be as likely to be considered selfish, but would be supported. In fact, children’s independence is encouraged in American culture. Teenagers of all socioeconomic classes might be expected by their parents to have an after school job to promote autonomy and responsibility.In American culture, in order to succeed ad achieve your personal best, one must be strong and independent. American culture has historically given work a central place in the constellation of values.

Comparative analysis of both countries

The current trend in globalization of businesses has created a diverse workforce comprising individuals from many countries and cultures. The major leadership theories were developed with the assumption that leaders and followers shared common values, beliefs, traditions and culture (Evan, Hau, & Sculli, 1989). The notion that a good manager in one country, say the United States will be a good manager in other countries is no longer true. Different national cultures require different leadership styles (Morris & Pavett, 1992, Erez & Earley, 1993, Bigoness & Blakely, 1996, Newman & Nollen, 1996). The leadership style is yet another area where cultural intelligence is required and where local cultures play an important role. The point here is to see the importance of having the knowledge, motivation, and flexibility to enact the appropriate leadership style in any given situation. A competitive advantage, increased profits, and global expansion are central to why many of us are interested in cultural intelligence; however, most of us would readily agree we’re also interested in behaving in a more respectful, humanizing manner to the people we meet throughout our work. Culture has so much impact on business world, such as the values society hlds in esteem, the way people treat each other, various life experiences, and how future generations will be raised. Values build the foundation for an individual’s decision making and morals. Without values, a person’s foundation will be shaky, and when the person is faced with difficulty, he or she more likely to break under pressure. From the cultural point of view, we can see that how much differences in the culture of Japan and the United States. Organization are able to operate efficiently only when shared value exist among the employees. Values are the conscious, effective desireor wants of people that guide behavior. In Japan society, people from there feel threatened by ambiguous situations which is uncertainty avoidance, one of the value dimension provided by Hofstede. But Japan is more on collectivsit country in which the will of the group rather than the individual predominates. Collective societies value harmony, whereas individualist cultures valuue self-respect and autonomy. Managers in these countries tend to have a propensity for low-risk decision making, and employees exhibit littleaggressivess. On the other hand, the another dimention used by the United States called individualism which refers to the tendency of people to fend for themselvesand their family. In Japan, when something goes wrong, the person in charge takes the blame but in the United States, decision making is centralised and responsibility is diffused which is the opposite of Japan, where the decision making is diffused and responsibility is concentrated.

Predictive changes

We have analyze the leadership styles, culture and the organizational structure of Japan and the United States. According to the culture and leadership style in Japan, Japanes companies traditionally took a more paternalist approach and were rewarded with low turnover rates. Company executives have traditionally treated people working under them like family and have felt a moral obligation to take care of them. And there is slowly some changes occur in society, In the midst of changing economic conditions, as well as the graying of the population and low birth rate, the traditional Japanese employment practicesof lifetime employment and seniority-based pay have began to erode, and various ew systems have emerged. Ever since the end of bubble economy, companies have been hiring fewer regular employees, while the number of contract and part-time workers has increased. Unemployment among those irregular workers has become a society-wide issue in the wake of the global financial crisis. There has also been trend to reward leadership and innovation. Japanese companies began to promote managers based on their leadership skills and ability to motive workers and begun hiring new emploees based on their creativity and desire rather than simply their ability to take stress and graduate from good universities. A number of Japanese companies have announced that they are changing their traditional employment practices, and mergers and acquisitions have become increasingly common. It thus might appear that Japanese and Western managerial philosophy and approaches are converging.