Types of Power and their Manifestation

Discuss about the Cultural influences on power.

The business scenario in the present age has become extremely competitive, and each and every sector in the corporate service provider in the present market scenario has to compete with multiple options to catch the attention of the consumer market. It has to be understood that the competitive business environments that is predominating the economy, the business organizations are needed to be one step ahead at all times. Hence, in order to thrive or survive in the changing tides of the economy, the organizations have to go through a process of continual change or transformation[1].

However, it has to be mentioned that the importance of these re-orientation based change programs is ultimate undoubtedly. Although any large-scale change program requires long term and strategic sustainable effort from the different stakeholders associated with the corporate business. In has to be mentioned that the effort from different stakeholders is often interlinked with the power they can exert on the process. Organizational power and its utilization has a direct link to the change implementation and it has to be mentioned that the acceptance and manifestation of power depends on the national culture of the country[2]. This assignment will attempt to discover the influence of power on the change programs, comparing the Australian norms with that of Singapore. Firstly, the essay is going to discuss the different manners that power manifestation influences the change implementation process followed by the advantages and disadvantages of the same, secondly the essay is going to compare and contrast the national cultures of Australia and Singapore taking the assistance of Hofstede cultural dimension analysis, concluding with a final verdict of the argument. This essay will focus on a very novel aspect of change resistance, the owner manifestation and the cultural influence on it, which will discover new variables of the change resistance and how it can be overcome. This essay will not take into account other confounding factors other than the national culture and its impact on power manifestation in change processes.

Power can be described as one of the most basic and fundamental elements of human civilization which has time and again, shaped and reshaped the human society. Power can be of various kinds, be it political, social or physical, there is a significant impact of all kinds of power dynamics on any kind of human dynamics. It has to be mentioned in this context that even in the corporate scenarios, there are different types of power dynamics at play, and each of the power manifestation impact profound effects on the decision making and business process management, especially in case of people management and transactions[3]. On a more elaborative note, a common misconception regarding the manifestation of power in organizational context is that power is force for the different individual to get what they want. Rather, as mentioned by the authors, regardless of the scenario being corporate or not, the power basically emanates from a position or designation of authority, and this authorative power can both be a positive or negative influence of the rest of the staff. It has to be mentioned in this context that the organizational change is most frequently and subsequently influenced sector by the institutionalization of power and its impact on the different stakeholder groups[4].

Power and Organizational Change Programs

There are different types of power and each of power manifestation techniques have been categories into five bases of power. The very first kind of power is the coercive power, where the authority makes use of some kind of threat for the rest of the staff to fall in line. The second base of power is the reward- based power that utilizes the allocation of incentives or other rewards in order to motivate the employees in any of the responsibilities or tasks. The rewards can be of various different types like increments, appraisals or promotions. The third category of power is the referent power, this originates out of the interpersonal relationships that the employees cultivate among each other and in certain cases with the hierarchy of the organization. The fourth power is the expert power, which can be associated with any individual having grater knowledge and understanding or expertise over any matter[5]. And lastly, the most important and relevant power in the context of organizational change is the legitimate power which is the most exerted kind of power in the corporate setting. The legitimate power can also be defined as the positional power. As mentioned above in the essay, the impact of a particular designation or position is extreme; and even in this case the positional power exerted by any individual in the hierarchy of the organization, is one of the key driving force of the change implementation and management process[6].

In support of this school of thought, legitimate or the positional power is the most basic power that has a significant impact on the successful implementation of the change process. This power exertion can come from anywhere; according to the article, in case of any organizational change, exertion of the legitimate power can come from CEOs, managerial hierarchy, change managers, business process analysts and consultants, work and employee councils[7]. However, it has to be mentioned that the impact of the power on the facilitation of the change depends heavily on the organizational culture and the national tradition of the country. It has to be mentioned that the execution of power in the organizational sector has both its advantages and disadvantages, whereas, in the positive sense, the utilization of the positional power to facilitate the different change management programs will help in propelling the entire process[8]. Along with that, it has been mentioned by the authors as well, that the rightful and effective exertion of the power in the organizational change procedures, the unwanted resistance to change implementation and the issues of staff non-compliance can also be overcome as well. In this case, the reward power can also be mentioned, as the incentive based power exertion can also be beneficial for overcoming non-compliance. The positional power is the most cost effective and abundantly taken route for the same purpose. However, there are certain cases where the misuse of power can lead to complications and can further delay the process of change implementation. On a more elaborative note, the stakeholders can misinterpret assertive and authorative use of the positional power often as bossiness[9]. In many of the national cultures, the excessive use of the positional power in any organizational context is also seen as a disrespectful and unappreciated act. Whereas, in some cultural backgrounds, the exertion of power by the hierarchy is a very common norm in the cultural context. Therefore, it has to be mentioned that the that the impact of the national culture is extreme on the power distance of the different nation, and only through the cultural dimension analysis, the impact of the national culture on the power distance of the different nation[10].

Cultural Dimension Analysis: A Comparison of Australia and Singapore

Hofstede analysis can be defined as the very basic cultural analysis tool that helps in the understanding of the different cultural domains on the basis of the different national cultural standards[11]. There are different dimensions that are utilized for the purpose if this cultural analysis, for instance, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, long term orientation, indulgence and masculinity. The hofstede comparison between Australia and Singapore indicates at a massive difference between both the countries. For instance, Singapore scores very low in the invidualism dimension, indicating that the societal struicture of this country is exceptionally collectivist and co-operatively respomsible. Whereas, Australia scores 90 at this dimension indicating that the country has an individualistic nuclear pattern. The second dimension is uncertainty avoidance, where Singapore scores as low as 8 when compared to 51 of Australia. In case of long term orientation, Singapore has a much higher score than Australia indicating the nation being a county with  perseverance and sustained efforts being the key structure of the society, where as the Australian society is not much perseverant or resilient. In case of indulgence however, Australia scores higher than Singapore indicating an indulgent and carefree society, where as Singapore has a very moderate or intermediate score indicating that the citizens have better self control. The cultural dimensional analysis up until now indicates at the fact that Australia is a much westernized and modern country with an individualistic, indulgent take to life in general with hopes of short term success. Whereas Singapore can be categorized as a nation that has much more traditional views in mind and practice perseverance, control and collectivism in life in general[12].

(“Country Comparison – Hofstede Insights”. 2018. Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/australia,singapore/)

The final and the most important factor in this cultural dimensional comparison is the power distance between the both of the nation. In terms of power distance, Singapore scores as high as 74 whereas Australia’s score is quiet low at 36. It has to be mentioned in this context that Singapore has a Confucian background in terms of societal structure and lifestyle. Singapore has a syncretic approach to the concept of religion and culture, and this dominant approach structure not just the socio-economic factors of the nation, but this dominant approach has significant impact on the individual lifestyle of the different individuals as well. The most important and fundamental principle of the Confucian society is the stability of the society based on a hierarchical unequal relationship between the different socio-economic strata. In this society, power is the most central and the division of power defines the alliance of different hierarchical positions. The managers rely completely on their bosses and employees are accustomed to do what they are being communicated but the managerial hierarchy. Hence, it can be stated that the flow of power is linear and the higher authority dictates the terms has the absolute control[13].

Power Distance

The scenario is very different in case of Australia, with a considerably lower score of 36 on power distance dimension, the organizational hierarchy is only established for the purpose of convenience, and the employees and the managerial hierarchy has a mutually respectful collaborative relationship. The positional power is not exerted as frequently and the business process management is carried out in harmony with managers relying on the employees depending on the kind of expertise they have. Even the communicational modes are open, informal, direct and participative, which represents a complete contrast to the Singapore scenario[14].

In terms of organizational change implementation, the use of positional power can result into completely different outcomes for the both of the countries. It has to be mentioned in this context that Australia is a more liberal and modernized country where the concept of power distance in just for convenient operational management, the legitimate power is not a popular concept in the nation. The society is accustomed to a much co-operative and liberal working culture and in any kind of change implementation procedure, exertion of power distance will not bear fruitful results. It has to be understood that the Australian organization culture is not accustomed to a stark difference in the decision making abilities among the hierarchy, here communication is free and participative with mutual and equal respect and rights for each employee.

Whereas, in case of Singapore, the traditional and cultural norms have significant impact on the business dealings as well. The power distance among the different hierarchical designations have a controlling role in both decision making, planning and execution. As per the hofstede analysis, the society is dependent on the linear flow of power; whereas, the employees turn to managers for orders, the managers rely on directorial hierarchy for orders. Hence it can safely be stated that the society harmoniously dependent on the power distance, and hence in case of organizational change implementation as well, exertion of positional power will elicit fruitful results[15].

On a concluding note, it can be stated that change is the most constant process in the corporate sector and in order for successful implementation of change, the exertion of power is the most common route taken by the organisational hierarchy. However, it has to be mentioned that with the globalization and technological revolution at its peak, the corporate scenario has also changed significantly. In the more developed nations, the power distance is fast becoming obsolete, and the establishment of co-operative and collaborative multidisciplinary practice has become one of the greatest driving factors of change. Transformational and motivational leadership is gaining popularity, so that the employees can also see the vision behind the need for change and cooperative involuntarily, rather than being forced into it. Australia and its organizational culture bear a conspicuous proof of this revolutionary change in the power dynamics. On the other hand, in the still developing nations like Singapore, the deep routed cultural values, beliefs are the most relevant restrictions to a more liberal organizational culture, and the most fundamental resistance agent is the power distance. Here the execution of positional power is a cultural norm, and the concept of transformational organizational leadership and equity is a taboo. However, with collective effort from all the stakeholders involved, the organization culture of this Confucian country can also be hoped to become more liberal

Reference list:

“Country Comparison – Hofstede Insights”. 2018. Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/australia,singapore/.

Beerli, Monique J. “Legitimating Organizational Change through the Power of Quantification: Intra-Organizational Struggles and Data Deviations.” International Peacekeeping 24, no. 5 (2017): 780-802.

Brinkley, Cindy. “Organizational Inflection Points: The Strategic Application of Simulations at AT&T to Power Organizational Change.(perspectives–counterpoints).” People & Strategy 34, no. 2 (2011): 6-7.

Carter, Min Z., Achilles A. Armenakis, Hubert S. Feild, and Kevin W. Mossholder. “Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34, no. 7 (2013): 942-958.

Chory, Rebecca M., and Alan K. Goodboy. “Power, compliance, and resistance.” The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (2010): 181-199.

Daniels, Michael A, and Gary J Greguras. “Exploring the Nature of Power Distance.” Journal of Management 40, no. 5 (2014): 1202-229.

Espedal, Bjarne. “Understanding How Balancing Autonomy and Power Might Occur in Leading Organizational Change.” European Management Journal 35, no. 2 (2017): 155-63.

Gover, Laura, and Linda Duxbury. “Making Sense of Organizational Change: Is Hindsight Really 20/20?” Journal of Organizational Behavior 39, no. 1 (2018): 39-51.

Hill, N. Sharon, Myeong-Gu Seo, Jae Hyeung Kang, and M. Susan Taylor. “Building employee commitment to change across organizational levels: The influence of hierarchical distance and direct managers’ transformational leadership.” Organization Science 23, no. 3 (2012): 758-777.

Jones, Gareth R., and Gareth R. Jones. “Organizational theory, design, and change.” (2010).

Lunenburg, Fred C. “Power and leadership: an influence process.” International journal of management, business, and administration 15, no. 1 (2012): 1-9.

Mulki, Jay, Barbara Caemmerer, and Githa Heggde. “Leadership Style, Salesperson’s Work Effort and Job Performance: The Influence of Power Distance.” The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 35, no. 1 (2015): 3

Pierro, Antonio, Bertram H. Raven, Clara Amato, and Jocelyn J. Bélanger. “Bases of social power, leadership styles, and organizational commitment.” International Journal of Psychology 48, no. 6 (2013): 1122-1134.

Stainback, Kevin, and Kwon, Soyoung. “Female Leaders, Organizational Power, and Sex Segregation.(Author Abstract).” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639 (2012): 217-35.

Thomas, and Hardy. “Reframing Resistance to Organizational Change.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 27, no. 3 (2011): 322-31.

Thomas, Robyn, Leisa D. Sargent, and Cynthia Hardy. “Managing Organizational Change: Negotiating Meaning and Power-resistance Relations.” 22, no. 1 (2011): 22-41.

Chory, Rebecca M., and Alan K. Goodboy. “Power, compliance, and resistance.” The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (2010): 181-199

Gover, Laura, and Linda Duxbury. “Making Sense of Organizational Change: Is Hindsight Really 20/20?” Journal of Organizational Behavior 39, no. 1 (2018): 39-51.

Lunenburg, Fred C. “Power and leadership: an influence process.” International journal of management, business, and administration 15, no. 1 (2012): 1-9

Thomas, Robyn, Leisa D. Sargent, and Cynthia Hardy. “Managing Organizational Change: Negotiating Meaning and Power-resistance Relations.” 22, no. 1 (2011): 22-41

Pierro, Antonio, Bertram H. Raven, Clara Amato, and Jocelyn J. Bélanger. “Bases of social power, leadership styles, and organizational commitment.” International Journal of Psychology 48, no. 6 (2013): 1122-1134

Espedal, Bjarne. “Understanding How Balancing Autonomy and Power Might Occur in Leading Organizational Change.” European Management Journal 35, no. 2 (2017): 155-63

Beerli, Monique J. “Legitimating Organizational Change through the Power of Quantification: Intra-Organizational Struggles and Data Deviations.” International Peacekeeping 24, no. 5 (2017): 780-802

Carter, Min Z., Achilles A. Armenakis, Hubert S. Feild, and Kevin W. Mossholder. “Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34, no. 7 (2013): 942-958

Mulki, Jay, Barbara Caemmerer, and Githa Heggde. “Leadership Style, Salesperson’s Work Effort and Job Performance: The Influence of Power Distance.” The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 35, no. 1 (2015): 3

Gover, Laura, and Linda Duxbury. “Making Sense of Organizational Change: Is Hindsight Really 20/20?” Journal of Organizational Behavior 39, no. 1 (2018): 39-51

“Country Comparison – Hofstede Insights”. 2018. Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/australia,singapore/.

Brinkley, Cindy. “Organizational Inflection Points: The Strategic Application of Simulations at AT&T to Power Organizational Change.(perspectives–counterpoints).” People & Strategy 34, no. 2 (2011): 6-7

Daniels, Michael A, and Gary J Greguras. “Exploring the Nature of Power Distance.” Journal of Management 40, no. 5 (2014): 1202-229

Stainback, Kevin, and Kwon, Soyoung. “Female Leaders, Organizational Power, and Sex Segregation.(Author Abstract).” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639 (2012): 217-35

Thomas, and Hardy. “Reframing Resistance to Organizational Change.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 27, no. 3 (2011): 322-31