Introduction
The chief objective of this discussion is to compare the Australian regions with those of Singapore in the context of the dimensions of culture of Hofstede, including the discussions regarding the ways and procedures of impact of the national culture Five Bases of Power by Raven and French. The various communities that do not consider themselves to interchange the culture make up the culture of Singapore. On the contrary, they consider being a part of the cultural system as a whole. The Australian culture, on the other side, mostly follows the western culture which, to some extent, was derived from Britain. The aim of this essay will be to research the contention that influences both the use and the acceptance of power in change programs which is influenced by the national culture. The power related components of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions will be comparatively applied to the countries of Australia and Singapore and thus will be explored. The essay consists of the types of power that can be applied and used in change programs. It will include both the positive as well as negative effects of using power in the change programs. With a better focus on more exploration of the power based aspects of the dimensions of Hofstede, there will be an introduction to the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Eventually, a comparison will be made for the power based aspects of dimensions of Hofstede in between Australia and Singapore.
Types of Power
The procedures of organizational changes are chiefly influenced by institutionalising power and the attitude of interested teams throughout the business establishments of the world that also includes Singapore and Australia. The power installed in the process, existing arrangements as well as formal framework of the companies are getting dramatically transformed. The continuous pressures from the international competition or globalization including non-intervention has forced several business organizations to search out for renewed and fresh organizational forms and different models for managing the employees in their companies as well as with the societies in which they are serving. The power including both the responsibilities and liability are being fixed to the organization’s executives. There is a constant change in the mode of work and roles played by labour unions. The basic changes of the organizations are transferring the latest power balance. The forces throughout the companies are working on the maintenance of the balance which can affect the changes while other forces can inspire the change processes. Organizational change, resistance and power are intimately associated with one another. The ‘Five Bases of Power’ by French and Raven have chosen out five kinds of power. They are as follows:
- Coercive – Here the power is derived from a person’s ability for ordering punishment for other people due to non-conformity. For instance, being afraid of losing the yearly bonus or even losing a job. In this case, the seniors can dominate the people by the punishment or removal scare from the respective positions held by the employees.
- Reward – In this base, the power is derived from a person’s ability for issuing rewards. For instance, issuing time off in lieu. Here, the employees or other people can be influenced by supplying them promotions and accolades, in order to motivate them to perform better.
- Legitimate – Here, the power is obtained from one’s formal right of delivering the orders or directives due to their positions which are held in the business. For instance, the CEO has the authority or power to deliver the strategy of the company. In this case, the seniors can influence by taking the help of the positions hold by them in offices or society.
- Expert – The power, here, is derived from a person’s experience or knowledge. For example, a senior surgeon or doctor passes the knowledge in which he is an expertise. In this case, the seniors can influence the people with the aid of the gained knowledge in their work life.
- Referent – The power, in this base, is obtained from being trustful or respectful. For example, huge respect is earned by a manger who treats each and every employee equally and gives them proper respect. In this case, the seniors are capable enough to handle the problems by sharing healthy and strong relations with other people in the work places and societies.
Positive and Negative Aspects
The positive aspects of using the power as change programs can be described as below:
1. Power as change programs aids to raise the potential capability of the employees in order to result a target within the business operations of a company, whether it is in Australia or Singapore or any other regions of the world.
2. This will aid the organizations to take prompt decisions by the senior managers or leaders of the business houses in case if urgent conditions.
3. It decides in compliance when the teams or the employees in the organizations depend on each other.
4. No substitute strategies need to be followed or used while following the power as change programs.
Negative Aspects
1. The power as change programs involves the fearless up and down approaches to change, which may restrict the work balance within the organizations.
2. Tight schedule of planning might be not being available in some of the cases which makes it hard to accomplish the aim or objectives of the alterations required in the companies.
3. Clarity might be an issue in accomplishing the required changes by the companies.
4. The power models permit little or no presence of the employees or members of the organizations and ignores learning opportunities (Blois & Hopkinson, 2013).
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory
The cultural dimension’s theory can be illustrated or interpreted as the framework or arrangement necessary for cross-cultural communication, which was outlined by Geert Hofstede. It helps to distinguish or define the effects on the culture of a particular community, like Singapore and Australia in this case, on the worth of its people or members of the society, and also the processes the ways of relation between these worth and behavior, by using a structure which is borrowed from factor analysis. The original theory of him advised four dimensions along which the cultural worth could be evaluated. They are power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance. Later, he included a fifth dimension, whose name was long-term orientation, in order to protect the value aspects which was not argued or studied in the original paradigm. He also included a sixth dimension in 2010, which was named as indulgence versus self-restraint (Hofstede, 2013). The theory structured by him is hugely used in different fields as a paradigm for research, mainly in cross-cultural psychology, cross-cultural communication and international management of various nations in and around the world. As discussed earlier, the cultural values of Australia are similar to the cultures possessed in the western countries. So the social and cultural beliefs are similar kind of nature. On the other hand, the social and cultural values are similar for the different people who comes from different backgrounds.. The initial or the foremost evaluation helped to recognize systematic alterations in national cultures of different countries on four major dimensions, namely individualism, power distance, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. His six-dimensions model helps to acknowledge international contrasts between cultures, which is also known as comparative research. Geert Hofstede is possibly the best known anthropologist or sociologist as well as culture in the context of utilization for understanding international business. His overall utilizations are very much helpful in international communication, international negotiation, international management and international marketing. It has been found in the studies and researches that this model is normally accepted as the most comprehensive framework or design of national cultures which involves the values where it includes the study of business culture, its effectiveness as well as its limitations, which is scrutinized at an extreme level. Each nation, whether it is Australia or Singapore, has been placed relative to other countries through a score on each dimension (Dartey-Baah, 2013).
Power-related aspects of Hofstede’s dimensions
The power distance or the power related aspect has been described or introduced as the range to which the powerful employees or members of the various business houses receive as well as expect that power is distributed unequally. This helps to present inequality, which can be more versus less. It advices that the level of inequality of an organization or a community as a whole is asserted by the employees or the admirers as much as by the seniors or leaders. There are variations between the large and small power distances in the context of business houses or communities in the regions of Australia and Singapore (Venaik & Brewer, 2013). Power Distance Index scores are recorded for 76 countries, which turn to be higher for Asian, East European, African and Latin countries and lower for English and Germanic-speaking Western countries. The powers used by the senior level authorities or the managers would be unlike in Australia with that of the Singapore, as the cultural along with the social beliefs are dissimilar with each other in the context of organization changes. The powers should be used by higher authorities by following the cultural differences in the nations, so that the power changes performed would be ethical and organizational cultures are not restricted. Seniors need to maintain the organizational cultures of both Singapore and Australia before connecting the power changes in the business entities or in the communities where they are performing their business operations. It would help to change the organizational or communal culture by effective and efficient use of the power.
Australia and Singapore
The figure shows the Hofstede’s 6 dimensions between the nations of Singapore and Australia (Beugelsdijk, Maseland & Van Hoorn, 2015).
Figure 1: Hofstede Insights of Singapore and Australia
Source: Created by the Author
Power Distance of Australia
This dimension deals with the reality that all the public in societies are not the same, as it exposes the attitude of the culture towards this unevenness amongst the communities. Power distance is described as the quantity to which the less powerful representatives of business houses or societies within a nation expect as well as intake that power is distributed unequally. Australia scores less on this dimension, which is 36. Within the organizations of Australia, hierarchy is introduced for convenience, managers are always available and rely on individual people and associations for their expertise. Both leaders and employees expect to be considered and information is exchanged on regular basis. At the same time, communication is participative, informal and direct.
Power Distance of Singapore
On the other hand, Singapore is a multi-ethnic society with Chinese around 77%, Indian around 6%, Malay around 15% and expatriates around 2%. Singapore scores high on this dimension, which is 74. With a Confucian background, which includes the Chinese, they normally acquire a syncretic approach to religion, which is also the dominant approach in Singapore. One of the major principles of Confucian teaching is the fixedness of society, which is based on unequal relationships between the individuals of the business entities or communities. Confucius distinguished five basic relationships. They are senior friend-junior friend, ruler-subject, older brother-younger brother, father-son and husband-wife. These relationships are based on shared and interdependent obligations. Here the high Power Distance Index can be viewed as an after effect. Power is centralized here and leaders rely on their superiors apart from the rules and norms. Employees are expected to be guided what to perform. Control is likely and attitude towards seniors is formal. The information flow is selective and communication is indirect
Conclusion
From the above discussed essay, it can be concluded that the national culture impacts the uses as well as the acknowledges of power in change programs. The variations in the power has both the positive and negative effects on the business houses as well as in the community in not only in Singapore and Australia, but also on the other parts of the world. There are constant demands from the context of global competition or globalization which has forced many companies to look out for fresh forms of business operations and different models in order to manage the employees in their companies along with the community where they are performing their business operations. But, the power along with the accountabilities, roles and responsibilities are being established to the executives of the business houses or to the communities by the help of Hofstede’s cultural dimension’s theory, which helps to demonstrate the framework or design required for cross-cultural communication between the countries of Australia and Singapore, or between any other nations in and around the world. The fundamental or basic changes of the business houses along with the communities are changing the current balance of power. Forces in and around the companies are trying to sustain the balance that can prevent such changes, while other forces can motivate the change processes which will maintain the sustainability between the cultures of the nations involved in the processes.
References
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are Scores on H ofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), 223-240.
Blois, K., & Hopkinson, G. C. (2013). The use and abuse of French and Raven in the channels literature. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9-10), 1143-1162.
Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (2014). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 25(2), 233-257.
Dartey-Baah, K. (2013). The cultural approach to the management of the international human resource: An analysis of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(2), 39.
Ford, G., & Kotzé, P. (2015, September). Designing usable interfaces with cultural dimensions. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 713-726). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Hofstede, G. (2013). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.
Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48, 299-304.
Raven, B. H. (2017). The comparative analysis of power and power preference. In Social power and political influence (pp. 172-198). Routledge.
Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2013). Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469-482.
Zigarmi, D., Roberts, T. P., & Alan Randolph, W. (2015). Employees’ perceived use of leader power and implications for affect and work intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(4), 359-384.
