Good day writer,
Please see the attachments for the assignment instructions. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Chapter 16: The Future of Organization Development
1
Major Challenges Facing OD (1 of 2)
Increasing complexity of change:
Pace of change.
Globalization.
Outsourcing, offshoring.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
2
2
Major Challenges Facing OD (2 of 2)
Changing workforce demographics:
Generational differences.
Workforce diversity.
Changing nature of work:
OD and technology.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
3
3
Generational Differences at Work
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
4
Figure 16.1: Generation X and Millennials in the Workplace.
4
Changing Nature of Work (1 of 2)
Job tenure.
Self-employment, freelancing, contract work.
Technology, telecommuting, and “work from anywhere”:
OD and technology.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
5
5
Changing Nature of Work (2 of 2)
Flexible career paths, “boundaryless” careers.
Global, virtual teams.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
6
6
Future of OD
What strengths do you see in OD practice today?
What weaknesses do you see?
Opportunities for OD:
OD and sustainability.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
7
7
image1.png
,
Chapter 15: Global Issues in Organization Development
1
Six Dimensions of Culture
Power distance.
Uncertainty avoidance.
Individualism—collectivism.
Masculinity—femininity.
Long-term—short-term orientation.
Indulgence—restraint.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
2
2
Power Distance Defined
Power distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede et al., 2010, 61).
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
3
3
Power Distance Index
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
4
| Country | Power Distance (high numbers reflect greater power distance; range is 11–104) |
| Mexico | 81 |
| China | 80 |
| India | 77 |
| Hong Kong | 68 |
| South Korea | 60 |
| Iran | 58 |
| Japan | 54 |
| South Africa | 49 |
| united States | 40 |
| Great britain | 35 |
| Denmark | 18 |
Source: Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 192–194.
Table 15.1 Power Distance Index Examples
Table 15.1: Power Distance Index Examples.
4
Uncertainty Avoidance Defined
Uncertainty avoidance is defined as “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede et al., 2010, 191).
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
5
5
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
6
| Country | Uncertainty Avoidance (high numbers reflect greater need for uncertainty avoidance; range is 8–112) |
| Russia | 95 |
| Japan | 92 |
| South Korea | 85 |
| Mexico | 82 |
| Iran | 59 |
| South Africa | 49 |
| united States | 46 |
| India | 40 |
| Great britain | 35 |
| China | 30 |
| Hong Kong | 29 |
| Denmark | 23 |
| Jamaica | 13 |
Source: Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 95–97.
Table 15.2 Uncertainty Avoidance Index Examples
Table 15.2: Uncertainty Avoidance Index Examples
6
Individualism–Collectivism Defined (1 of 2)
Individualist societies are defined as those “in which the ties between individuals are loose: Everyone is expected to look after him- or herself and his or her immediate family” (Hofstede et al., 2010, 92).
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
7
7
Individualism–Collectivism Defined (2 of 2)
Collectivist societies are those “in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede et al., 2010, 92).
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
8
8
Individualism–Collectivism Scores
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
9
| Country | Individualism–Collectivism (high numbers reflect greater individualism; range is 6–91) |
| united States | 91 |
| Great britain | 89 |
| Denmark | 74 |
| South Africa | 65 |
| Israel | 54 |
| India | 48 |
| Japan | 46 |
| Iran | 41 |
| Mexico | 30 |
| Hong Kong | 25 |
| China | 20 |
| South Korea | 18 |
Source: Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 141–143.
Table 15.3 Individualism–Collectivism Index Examples
Table 15.3: Individualism–Collectivism Index Examples.
9
Masculinity–Femininity Defined (1 of 2)
Masculine societies describe cultures where “emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.”
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
10
10
Masculinity–Femininity Defined (2 of 2)
Feminine societies describe cultures where “emotional gender roles overlap: Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (Hofstede et al., 2010, 141).
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
11
11
Masculinity–Femininity Scores
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
12
| Country | Masculinity–Femininity (high numbers reflect greater masculinity; range is 5–110) |
| Japan | 95 |
| Mexico | 69 |
| China | 66 |
| Great britain | 66 |
| South Africa | 63 |
| united States | 62 |
| Hong Kong | 57 |
| India | 56 |
| Israel | 47 |
| Iran | 43 |
| South Korea | 39 |
| Denmark | 16 |
Table 15.4 Masculinity–Femininity Index Examples
Source: Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 256–258.
Table 15.4: Masculinity–Femininity Index Examples.
12
Long-Term–Short-Term Orientation (1 of 3)
Short-term orientation and long-term orientation were added to the four original dimensions defined above based on a set of new surveys implemented in the 1980s (the Chinese Values Survey).
This dimension describes the degree to which a culture emphasizes the future or the past and present.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
13
13
Long-Term–Short-Term Orientation (2 of 3)
Long-term orientation is defined as “the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards—in particular, perseverance and thrift.”
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
14
14
Long-Term–Short-Term Orientation (3 of 3)
Short-term orientation is defined as “the fostering of virtues related to the past and present—in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face,’ and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede et al., 2010, 239).
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
15
15
Long-Term–Short-Term Orientation Scores
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
16
| Country | Short-Term–Long-Term Orientation (high numbers reflect greater long-term orientation; range is 0–100) |
| South Korea | 100 |
| Japan | 88 |
| China | 87 |
| Hong Kong | 61 |
| Great britain | 51 |
| India | 51 |
| Denmark | 35 |
| South Africa | 34 |
| united States | 26 |
| Mexico | 24 |
| Iran | 14 |
Source: Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 282–285.
Table 15.5 Short-Term–Long-Term Orientation Index Examples
Figure 15.5: Short-Term–Long-Term Orientation Index Examples.
16
Indulgence–Restraint Defined
Indulgence refers to a “tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun.”
Restraint “reflects a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict social norms” (Hofstede et al., 2010, 281).
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
17
17
Indulgence–Restraint Scores
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
18
| Country | Indulgence–Restraint (high numbers reflect greater indulgence; range is 0–100) |
| Mexico | 97 |
| Denmark | 69 |
| Great britain | 68 |
| united States | 68 |
| South Africa | 63 |
| Japan | 42 |
| Iran | 40 |
| South Korea | 29 |
| India | 26 |
| China | 24 |
| Hong Kong | 17 |
Source: Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 57–58.
Table 15.6 Indulgence–Restraint Index Examples
Figure 15.6: Indulgence–Restraint Index Examples.
18
OD and U.S. Culture Scores (1 of 2)
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
19
Figure 15.1: Six Dimensions of Culture.
19
OD and U.S. Culture Scores (2 of 2)
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
20
Figure 15.1: Six Dimensions of Culture.
20
OD and Cultural Values (1 of 4)
Cultures low in power differences are more compatible with organization development, with more decentralized, flatter, and collaborative organizations.
Cultures low in uncertainty avoidance are more compatible as indicated by more collaboration, rejection of Theory X, and greater gender equity.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
21
21
OD and Cultural Values (2 of 4)
Organization development is less compatible with cultures high in power distance because of more centralized, more hierarchical, and control-oriented organizations.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
22
22
OD and Cultural Values (3 of 4)
Organization development is less compatible in countries high on uncertainty avoidance because of more structured, more bureaucratic organizations, and more task-oriented, less flexible managers.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
23
23
OD and Cultural Values (4 of 4)
Organization development is less compatible in high-masculinity environments because of less collaboration, less acceptance of Theory Y, and less gender equity.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
24
24
Advice for the Global OD Practitioner (1 of 2)
Conduct a “cultural diagnosis” about the nature of change and perceptions of OD in the client environment.
Consider stability of the cultural values, within-country variation, and organizational cultural differences.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
25
25
Advice for the Global OD Practitioner (2 of 2)
Consider what interventions might work in the given context for the relevant problem, and “evaluate the problem-appropriate interventions rankings on the dimensions of culture.”
Consider the match between culture and intervention choice.
Adapt as necessary.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
26
26
