Cultural dimensions and organizational change
Question:
Discuss about the Power and Social Influence in Relationships.
Organizational change refers to the different ongoing changes within the organization for better understanding the organizational goals and objectives. Changes in the organizational structure can have a positive or negative impact depending on the changes. Two types of changes that occur within the organization are the planned and unplanned changes. Planned changes results from decision making whereas unplanned changes are most of the time imposed upon the organization (Bélanger, Pierro and Kruglanski 2015, 163-169). However the impact of power within the organization often suggests to the negative notion such as it might dominate the employees and can be manipulative. Although power exist in every organization, and managing and utilizing power in an effective way can bring positive results in the organization. Furthermore, with the increase in the globalization in business, understanding the concept of power in different business cultures have become an important notion. For instance, the organizations of Singapore comprises of high power index while the imposing of power within the Australian organization is low. The paper elucidates on Hofstede Model and how power affects organizational changes in Australia and Singapore and the five sources of power. The thesis statement is that different cultural dimensions affect the implications of power in business organization.
The cultural Dimension Theory, introduced by Professor Geert Hofstede is an agenda for cross cultural communication that mainly explains the impact of the society’s cultures on its members (Beugelsdijk et al. 2015, 223-240). The use of this Hofstede Model of Dimension helps to understand different cultural aspects within the organization. Moreover, in order to expand business in the global market, it is important to understand the cultural dimension in different countries.
Power Distance Index: Power distance Index refers in terms of inequality within the business organization, for people with and without any power. A high Power Distance Index means organization will accept unequal distribution of power and hierarchy among the employees. Whereas, in low Power Distance Index employees will not be accepted with unequal power in the organization and this will generally have flatter organizations.
Collectivism versus Individualism: According to Hofstede, in collectivism, employees tend to be in the group collectively and are loyal to their other members, and in individualism, people are more to them and are less likely to take others’ responsibilities.
Masculinity versus Femininity: In the cross cultural dimension, this refers to the gender issues and distribution of roles in the society and workplace (Brockner et al. 2013, 300-315). In masculinist society, males are likely to behave in an assertive way, whereas in feminine societies, women tend to be more modest and perceive.
Avoidance of Uncertainty: The forth cultural dimension is the avoidance of Uncertainty where it deals with anxiety and disbelief and it has very less risk factor. To avoid uncertainty, it is required to avoid surprising situations with the implications of strict laws and codes.
Pragmatic versus Normative: This dimension has incorporated lately, so it covers less data and deals with changes. It tends to be long term oriented and deals with modesty. On the other hand, normative society is less sceptical to changes and has a low scorecard.
Hofstede Model and its application to organizational change
Indulgence versus Restraint: The last cultural dimension is the indulgence versus restraint that deals with both the aspects. In indulgence culture, people are free to do anything that their impulses want. Similarly, in the restraint culture, people are being restrained from putting forward their own needs and desires.
Every organizations are comprises of individuals that exercises power on their subordinates. Although exercising of power may be different for individuals such as exercising power in the form of interpersonal relationships (Daniels et al. 2014, 1202-1229). Accordingly, French and Raven has introduced five forms of power that are mainly used in organization to understand the implications of different forms of power within the organization.
Coercive Power: This power refers to forcing any individuals or employees to do any sort of work against their will. This type of power is mainly the authority of dictators and often threats are being used while imposing this power.
Reward Form of Power: Reward form of power can be any various types, but in organization reward power is related in financial terms. This form of power used by many organizations, such as Woolworths in Australia use this type of power to motivate their employees. It should be noted that this type of power given to the employees for their performance, and in return employees should work for the organization (Ferraro et al. 2017, 120-125).
Legitimate Power: Legitimate power is consider as the most recognized form of power within the organization. This power is also known as title power, as this power generally comes in action when an individual is appointed to any specific position. Legitimate power is mainly based on social rules can be divided in to various forms that includes legitimate power of equity, responsibility and more. For instance, Steve Job being the CEO of Apple enjoys the legitimate form of power.
Expert Power: Expertise power mainly comes through experience, knowledge and skills that means talented individuals can expertise their knowledge in the given area and accordingly can exercise power. An example of expert power is that, this type power can be exercised by the Labour Unions to other members to raise their voices for better work culture or wages.
Referent Power: Referent form of power basically derives from being trusted and loved by others. For example, employees in Google, tends to respect and trust the Human Resource Managers as he ensures that every employee within the organization would be treated equally, and save those who are not treated equally (Qinxuan et al. 2015, 513-529).
In order to understand the change in management within business organization of Australia and Singapore, Hofstede model has been further analysed. In case of power distance relationship, Australia scores thirty-six percent that means Australia is low in this dimension as within the business organization of Australia, managers and supervisors mainly rely on their employees for fulfilling the organization objectives. Furthermore, in Australian context, managers and the employees communicate more frequently among themselves for smooth running of the organization and while implying change management (Kraid and Marwan 2017, 316-339). Whereas, in Singapore the power distance score is high, (74%) as the higher level people exercise power on their subordinates, and employees are expected to work as per the advice of their managers. In Singapore organization, the implication of power is more and the communication process is more formal. In the context of individualism, Australia is highly individualistic country with a score of 90%. Within Australian organization, employees are tends be self-dependent and self-sufficient and mainly follows individualistic business culture within the organization. Furthermore, employees in Australia are promoted based on their performance and merit. On the other hand, Singapore follows collectivist culture and score low that is 20%. In business organization of Singapore, higher level managers look after their employees in return of trust and loyalty (Kawar and Tagreed 2014, 3(6)). An employee within the organization does not look after as an individual person, but tends to be a part of the organization. Masculinity dimension of Australia indicates high score (61%) and signifies that the Australian business is mainly focussed on competition and success. Australia is mainly recognized as a masculinist society, as individual within the organization thrives to be the best and majority of the Australians are proud of their success that helps them in their promotion (Simpson et al. 2015, 393-420). On the other hand, Singapore lies in the middle scale of masculinity dimension that is 48%. In Singapore majority of the individuals are on the feminine side that means within the organization employees are not forced for any work, rather they are encouraged and motivated (Muenjohn, Nuttawuth, and Armstrong 2015, 2).
Power Distance Index, Collectivism versus Individualism, Masculinity versus Femininity, Avoidance of Uncertainty, Pragmatic versus Normative, Indulgence versus Restraint
Furthermore, it should be noted that conflicts are being avoided in the workplace and respect for other employees regarding cultural differences consider as one of the important things. In case of avoiding of uncertainty Australia has a medium score that means Australian business culture tends to avoid any kind of risk and uncertainty within their business organization. They mainly believe in the present outcomes rather than analysing any future risks. Singapore has a very low uncertainty score (80%) and in the work culture individuals are abide by various rules and regulations as individuals are imposed fine for everything and for this reason Singapore is known as a “fine country”. Long term orientation dimension describes how organization and society need to maintain certain rules while dealing with present and future challenges. Australia follows a normative dimension with 21% score (Brett and Jeanne 2018, 32-52). Australian business organization follows traditional work culture, therefore in the change management system employees are intended to follow traditional methods while introducing any new changes. Similarly, Singapore is more focussed on long-term investment and therefore accepts changes positively within the organization. As per the report, the organization of Singapore has achieved immense success. In terms of indulgence, Australia has a high indulgence score that in changing management system individuals accepts changes more willingly and tends to enjoy their work lives. On the other hand, organization in Singapore has low indulgence score and as a result organization often goes for unplanned changes that means employees are imposed with new changes forcibly and they do not tend to enjoy their work culture (Edward 2015, 115-127).
In terms of power related aspects of Hofstede model dimension, Australia and Singapore tends to have different power cultures in respect to change management within the organization. In the context of change management, Australia do not implies more power on their employees (Saleem, Salman, and Larimo 2017, 247-263). Prior to that supervisors and managers are more likely to rely on their employees for better productivity. This type of power within the organization tends to have a positive impact on the organization. Whereas, on the other hand Singapore poses strict control over their employees and they are not allowed to communicate freely with their supervisors in the change management system. However, in the case of introducing positive power such as rewards can be advantageous for the organization, as employees will be motivated more to work harder (BoKyung et al. 2015, 243-252). In order to expand business either in Australia or Singapore, business organizations should adhere to the cultures of the respective places. For instance, if Australia plans to shift its business in the market of Singapore, then Australia needs to accept certain facts such as in Singapore business organization, employees gives more respects their higher authorities. Apart from this, as Singapore follows authoritarian entity, Australia also needs to follow the same. On the other hand, expanding business in Australia, Singapore should much focus on equality among the employees and the managers as Australia follows egalitarian society (Weiskopf, Richard, and Yvonne 2016, 1621-1640).
The Five Forms of Power in Organizations
Conclusion
With the help of Hofstede model it has become possible to understand cultural differences in different countries, as this model is very advantageous for business organization while implicating any kind of changes within the organization or in the case of expanding business to other countries. Change management system within the business organization do not bring fruitful results every time as in most cases changes in the management are not planned and are imposed on the employees. The thesis statement that different cultural dimensions affect the implications of power in business organization justified the same. Organization tends to impose power on their subordinates in various ways that includes authoritarian power, power in the form of rewards such as bonus, incentives, legitimate power and more. However, Hofstede model of cultural dimension helps business organization and individuals to have a clear understanding of the cultural differences with the help of power distance, masculinity, individualism, avoidance of uncertainty and long term orientation. However it should be noted that in order to expand business in the market of Australia or Singapore, business organization must need to follow the rules of different cultures.
However, in Singapore people are very much punctual and dedicated to their work, therefore in order to expand business in Singapore market, Australia needs to be more dedicated and focussed (Puumalainen et al. 2015, 276-287). Prior to this, Australia also need to change its power context in change management system, as Singapore people believes imposing more power to their subordinates and expect employees to listen to them. As per the thesis statement, power in cultural differences plays an important role, as Singapore believes in imposing more power to their subordinates than Australia.
References
Bélanger, J. J., A. Pierro, and A. W. Kruglanski. “Social power tactics and subordinates’ compliance at work: The role of need for cognitive closure.” Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology 65, no. 4 (2015): 163-169.
Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Robbert Maseland, and André Hoorn. “Are scores on Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis.” Global Strategy Journal5, no. 3 (2015): 223-240.
Brett, Jeanne. “Intercultural challenges in managing workplace conflict–a call for research.” Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 25, no. 1 (2018): 32-52.
Brockner, Joel, Grant Ackerman, Jerald Greenberg, Michele J. Gelfand, Anne Marie Francesco, Zhen Xiong Chen, Kwok Leung et al. “Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37, no. 4 (2001): 300-315.
Daniels, Michael A., and Gary J. Greguras. “Exploring the nature of power distance: Implications for micro-and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes.” Journal of Management 40, no. 5 (2014): 1202-1229.
Ferraro, Gary P., and Elizabeth K. Briody. The cultural dimension of global business. Taylor & Francis, (2017): 120-125
Gu, Qinxuan, Thomas Li-Ping Tang, and Wan Jiang. “Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context.” Journal of Business Ethics 126, no. 3 (2015): 513-529.
Kawar, Tagreed Issa. “Cross-cultural differences in management.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 3, no. 6 (2012).
Kraidy, Marwan M. “Hybridity in cultural globalization.” Communication theory 12, no. 3 (2002): 316-339.
Muenjohn, Nuttawuth, and Anona Armstrong. “Transformational leadership: The influence of culture on the leadership behaviours of expatriate managers.” international Journal of Business and information 2, no. 2 (2015).
Park, BoKyung, Jeanne L. Tsai, Louise Chim, Elizabeth Blevins, and Brian Knutson. “Neural evidence for cultural differences in the valuation of positive facial expressions.” Social cognitive and affective neuroscience 11, no. 2 (2015): 243-252.
Puumalainen, Kaisu, Helena Sjögrén, Pasi Syrjä, and Jo Barraket. “Comparing social entrepreneurship across nations: An exploratory study of institutional effects.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration 32, no. 4 (2015): 276-287.
Saleem, Salman, and Jorma Larimo. “Hofstede cultural framework and advertising research: An assessment of the literature.” In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. VII), pp. 247-263. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2017.
Simpson, Jeffry A., Allison K. Farrell, M. Minda Oriña, and Alexander J. Rothman. “Power and social influence in relationships.” APA handbook of personality and social psychology 3 (2015): 393-420.
Webster, Edward. “Labour after Globalisation: Old and New Sources of Power.” Labour and transnational action in times of crisis (2015): 115-127.
Weiskopf, Richard, and Yvonne Tobias-Miersch. “Whistleblowing, parrhesia and the contestation of truth in the workplace.” Organization Studies 37, no. 11 (2016): 1621-1640.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
