Organisational change is referred to the process in which the company make changes in the technologies, culture, strategies and procedures and it is also defines the effect of these changes on the company (Eason 2014). Power is referred to the capacity of individuals to overcome resistance in the organisation caused due to change and produce consistent results; the use and acceptance of power in organisational change varies as per national cultures because it is common to use power to overcome resistance in Asian countries whereas western nations did not prefer the use of power (Elsmore 2017). This essay will evaluate the role of power in avoiding employee resistance and compare Singapore and Australia based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to discuss how use of power is efficient in Singapore whereas it is inefficient in Australia. Firstly, this essay will define the types of power given under French & Raven’s ‘Five Bases of Power’ which are used in change program and evaluate both positive and negative aspects of use of power in change management. Secondly, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions will be defined in the essay along with focus on exploring power-related aspect of the model. Lastly, power-related aspects between Singapore and Australia will be evaluated in this essay. The scope of this essay is limited to factors given in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and it will not include any other social or cultural aspects of both nations. This essay will also not include informational power which was later added by Raven in the bases of power.

There are different types of power can be used by leaders in change programs such as coercive, reward, referent, expert, and referent as given by social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven (Lunenburg 2012, 1-9). Coercive power focus on using threat to make people do what the management wants. In case of organisations, this means that the leader threatens the employees by using different mediums such as firing, demotions, transferring and others to force the workers to submit to the demand of the leaders based on the fear of losing something. This is a type of formal power which is used by leaders to avoid resistance among employees against program. Reward power focuses on rewarding the employees using perks, bonus, growth opportunities, monetary benefits or others to influence the decision of people (Hillman 2012). This is a formal power which is commonly used by leaders all across the globe. Another type of formal power is legitimate power which emanates based on the official position of the leader. This power is short in duration because it only remains valid till the person holds the position. The expert power is a type of personal power which comes from one’s experience, skills and knowledge. Due to the expertise, the leader has special power above others based on which he/she can exercise such power to influence people to resistance in the workplace due to change program (Blois and Hopkinson 2013, 1143-1162). Another personal power is referent which comes from being trusted and respected. This power is used by celebrities and movie stars who have huge following, and they have the ability to influence a large number of people and their decisions. Similarly, leaders who are trusted and respected by their employees are likely to use this power to influence them to avoid resistance in change programs.

The Positive and Negative Aspects of Different Types of Power

While using these powers in change programs, there are both positive and negative implications which the leaders, employees and the organisation have to face. Firstly, the positive aspect of coercive power is that it is a traditional tool which is used by leaders to ensure that their employees did not resist a change program. However, the negative aspect is that with the growing popularity of employee rights, it has become difficult for leaders to rely on this power. Leaders can face negative consequences if they threaten employees to comply with their change program because employees could file a harassment or discrimination complaint against the leader (Eason 2014). On the other hand, the reward power is positive because it approaches a wider audience and people are more likely to respond to rewards in change programs. However, it has a negative impact on the organisation since it has to pay those rewards which resulted in increasing overall operating costs and it hinders the budget of the company (Lunenburg 2012, 1-9). The negative aspect of legitimate power is that it is available for a limit period after which this power becomes ineffective. On the other hand, expert power is related to the skills and knowledge of the person that remains forever. However, many times the employees find it difficult to rely on the expertise of the leader or the leader makes mistake which resulted in negatively affecting the employees and the organisation (Finn and Ledbetter 2013, 26-47). The benefit of referent power is that it appeals to a large audience based on which leaders can effectively implement a change program. However, different employees could have different opinions regarding the leader which could result in reducing the impact of his/her referent leader. Thus, there is both positive and negative impact of using different types of powers while implementing a change program in the organisation.

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory is referred to a framework which was developed by Geert Hofstede. This model is used for cross-cultural communication because it assists in describing the impact of the culture of a society on its members (Mazanec et al. 2015, 299-304). This framework is also used for evaluating how cross-cultural values influence the behaviour of individuals. This model was developed at the end of the 1970s, and it was based on a decade of research. In his research, Hofstede studied people of more than 50 countries who were working in IBM, and he initially provided four dimensions which can be used by parties to distinguish culture from others. Later, two more dimensions were introduced by Hofstede in cooperation with Dr Michael H. Bond and Michael Minkov. The six dimensions provided by Hofstede include power distance index, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance index, pragmatic versus normative and indulgence versus restraint (Dartey-Baah 2013, 39). The countries which are compared on this model are scored on a scale of 0 to 100 on each dimension given by Hofstede. Based on the analysis conducted by Hofstede, it was found that there are clear patterns which highlight similarity and differences in different dimensions.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Power

The Power Distance Index (PDI) defined by Hofstede is used for measuring inequality which exists and accepted by people with and without power. The power distance term is used for describing how people belong to specific culture perceive the power relationship which includes the superior and subordinate relationship (Taras, Steel and Kirkman 2012, 329-341). This factor focuses on evaluating the degree up to which people who are not in power accept that the power is spread unequally. The cultures which demonstrate a high power distance are very deferential to those individuals who have power, and they generally accept the unequal distribution of power. On the other hand, cultures which demonstrate a low power distance are more likely to question authorities who have power, and they expect to participate in decision-making process. Based on the cross-cultural aspects, the leaders are more likely to select a type of power which is more suitable as per the cultural aspects of the employees to implement the change program (Elsmore 2017). This dimension assists a person in business negotiations with third parties and employees, and this framework enables management to avoid resistance of employees towards an organisational change.

The differences between the culture of Australia and Singapore are highlighted by the power-related aspects of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model. Singapore scored high on this dimension with a score of 74 (Hofstede 2018). Singapore is a multi-ethnic society in which 77 percent people are Chinese. They have a syncretic approach to religion, and they have a dominant approach in Singapore. There are five basic relationships which are identified in Chinese culture which include husband-wife, father-son, ruler-subject, older brother-younger brother and senior friend-junior friend (Taras, Steel and Kirkman 2012, 329-341). Based on these relationships, the power is centralised, and parties have to comply with complementary obligations. Employees are expected to do as the leaders say and control is expected in the organisation. On the other hand, Australia scored low on this dimension with a score of 36 (Hofstede 2018). In Australia, the hierarchy in organisations is established based on convenience and superiors are always accessible to employees. Managers also rely on expertise of employees and include them in decision-making process. The communication structure is informal, direct and participative. Thus, there is a high power distance in Singapore and a low power distance in Australia based on which the culture of both countries are different which also affects the change management programs of organisations.

The Power Distance Index and Cultural Differences Between Singapore and Australia

Based on the analysis of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, it can be determined that use of power by the leaders for managing change is more efficient in the case of Singapore than compared to Australia. The majority of people in Singapore are Chinese, and they give priority to relationship between superior and subordinates. There are mutual obligations which parties have to comply with and one of which include compliance with the order of superior (Borg 2014, 161-168). The superiors are responsible for taking business decisions, and the employees are not included in the decision-making process. The employees are expected to comply with the guidelines issued by the leaders. Thus, selection of the types of formal powers is more effective and efficient in Singapore than compared to Australia. For instance, the managers can use coercive power to change policies in the organisation. They can create a fear in employees that if they resist this change or did not comply with the policies, then they can lose their job or growth opportunities. They can also use reward power to lure employees into accepting the change in policies. The current leaders in the organisation can use legitimate power to ensure that the employees comply with the change policies without resisting to them (Kirsch, Chelliah and Parry 2012, 166-195). On the other hand, selection of these powers is not an effective and efficient option in Australia. Employees have more freedom in Australia, and they also become a part of the decision making process. They can easily communicate with their superiors, and they are not feared by them since they know their rights. Therefore, in Australia, the leaders can rely on types of personal powers to implement change program. The managers can use expert and referent power to influence the decision of employees; however, they will not be as effective as compared to use of formal power in Singapore (Bergiel, Bergiel and Upson 2012, 69-79). The managers should focus on implementing change by discussing the policies with employees first to ensure that they did not resist this change in Australia. Therefore, power in change programs is more efficient in case of Singapore than compared to Australia.

In conclusion, cultural factors play a crucial role in influencing the effectiveness of implementing a change program in the organisation. It is discussed in the essay that due to cross-cultural factors, use of power is more efficient in Singapore than compared to Australia. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model is an effective tool which is used by individuals and organisations to evaluate key cultural factors influence the behaviour of employees. French & Raven has provided five bases of power which can be used by leaders to manage the operations of the company. As per the evaluation of the power-related aspect of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, it is determined that use of power is more effective and efficient in Singapore than compared to Australia. The culture of Singapore is heavily influenced by Chinese, and they comply with hierarchies in positions. They give respect to the decisions of superiors, and the employees are not included in the decision-making process by the leaders. Thus, the leaders can use coercive, reward and legitimate power to implement change program in the company. On the other hand, the culture in Australia is more open, and employees have the right to give contribution in decision-making process. Therefore, the use of power in change programs is more efficient in the case of Singapore than compared to Australia.

References

Bergiel, Erich B., Blaise J. Bergiel, and John W. Upson. 2012. “Revisiting Hofstede’s dimensions: examining the cultural convergence of the United States and Japan.” American Journal of Management 12, no. 1: 69-79.

Blois, Keith, and Gillian C. Hopkinson. 2013. “The use and abuse of French and Raven in the channels literature.” Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 9-10: 1143-1162.

Borg, Michael A. 2014. “Cultural determinants of infection control behaviour: understanding drivers and implementing effective change.” Journal of Hospital Infection 86, no. 3: 161-168.

Dartey-Baah, Kwasi. 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, no. 2: 39.

Eason, Kenneth D. 2014. Information technology and organisational change. Florida: CRC Press.

Elsmore, Peter. 2017. Organisational Culture: Organisational Change?: Organisational Change?. Abingdon: Routledge.

Finn, Amber N., and Andrew M. Ledbetter. 2013 “Teacher power mediates the effects of technology policies on teacher credibility.” Communication Education 62, no. 1: 26-47.

Hillman, James. 2012. Kinds of power. New York: Crown Business.

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

Kirsch, Christina, John Chelliah, and Warren Parry. 2012. “The impact of cross-cultural dynamics on change management.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 19, no. 2: 166-195.

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

Mazanec, Josef A., John C. Crotts, Dogan Gursoy, and Lu Lu. 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.

Taras, Vas, Piers Steel, and Bradley L. Kirkman. 2012. “Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions.” Journal of World Business 47, no. 3: 329-341.