Impact Of Culture And Power On Organizational Change Programs In Singapore And Australia

Importance and types of power in the society

Organizational change refers to the process under which an organization undergoes various changes in their business process that helps them in attaining success in the target market. Organizational change is a field of management that determines the stages under which an organization goes through various changes so as to increase the longevity of the company and implementation of new features as well. Further, power plays a major role in initiating changes in the business process as without power, no company can successfully implement changes in the business. Use of power has different variations on the basis of their cultural influences, like some countries have male dominant society so there power would be segregated between men only. The below mentioned essay explains the impact of power along with the cultural influences in the organizational change program (Antonio, Alessio, Felicia, and Antonio 2018) . As no management can effectively initiate changes in the organization without power in their hands similarly cultural influences affect the degree to which power would effectively make changes in the environment. The initial part of the essay will define the importance and types of power in the society, moving on the negative and positive aspects of use of power in the change program along with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Jocelyn et. al., 2016 287-300). The latter part of the report evaluates power related aspects of Hofstede’s dimensions and application of these dimensions on Australia and Singapore. More details about the essay are discussed below:

Power refers to the authority with which one person makes the other person perform some actions in the external environment. This power is not present in all human beings as it depends upon various circumstances on the basis of which power is divided and used by people in the society. Power in the hands of people holds the capacity to change the functions of the management. There are five bases of power that are legitimacy, expert, reward, coercive and references. Legitimate power is the power that makes a man to force obligation on the individual. Position of a man is for the most part worried under this case as one individual has the specialist to assign work to other individual something beyond administration (Sjoerd, Tatiana, and Kendall 2017, 30-47). Once, a man loses their power then they can never again have the ability to imply duty to other individual. Such powers are held with the pioneers in the general public, for example, CEO of an organization or any political pioneer. Assist the second part of power (coercive) discusses the ability to debilitate somebody. The pioneers utilize this capacity to rebuff or reward somebody for their work done. Under this idea, the choice of the pioneer is constantly joined with the prizes or discipline which the subordinate needs to hold up under (Imelda et. al., 2015 925-942). Expert control alludes to the power under which the pioneer gives counsel or data to their subordinates in an association. Under this power the pioneer utilizes their insight and abilities to encourage other individuals. The intensity of referent manages one individual’s preferences and regard towards someone else. For example, Film stars or celebrities utilize this power as they can undoubtedly affect their fans on what to purchase and what not to. This power is a noteworthy duty (Barbara 2015, 362-367).

Positive and negative aspects of use of power in the change program

A leader in the society has the power to change the business functions in the external environment. As discussed that without power no organization can effectively make changes in the environment. The positive aspect of the use of power in the society is that it helps the business in successfully making changes in the internal environment and freezing and unfreezing the environment according to the external business environment. Power in hand helps the people of management to actively initiate the leadership activities in the leadership activities and increase the respect in front of the subordinates in the environment. The biggest drawback of power is that it eliminates the opinion of other people in the society. Power in the hand of one employee in an organization makes all the other people their subordinate. Resulting to which, the subordinates are obliged to follow the directions of leaders in the society. (Gary and Elizabeth 2017).

The underlying part of Hofstede’s measurement that is power distance refers to the trait that discusses about how much less ground-breaking individual from the general public are acknowledge and expect that control is circulated in the general public unequally. This perspective advises about the sum to which individuals handles disparities among them. Relating it to the nation Singapore, it ought to be noticed that individuals in this nation are more reliant on their administrators to take choice (Kees, Tanja van Veldhuizen, and Al KC Au 2015, 52-75). They do not hold any kind of basic leadership right in their working of association. This movement is started in light of the fact that the larger part populace of the nation is Chinese who has confidence in Confucian lessons (Te-Hsin, et. al., 2017 307-320). While discussing Australia, it ought to be noticed that power distance file in the nation moderately high which expresses that individuals in this nation don’t take a stab at the hierarchical rights. Further, as there is pervasiveness of level authoritative structure in the nation which makes it less demanding for individuals to specifically their director to comprehend the issue (Burak, et. al., 2015 68-80).

The following measurement is the independence versus community (IDV) measurement which discusses how much individuals in a nation incline toward dealing with just themselves and their close families in the general public. The highlights of collectvism discusses the inclination of individuals in the general public to think about their relatives and different individuals in a gathering and give them unquestioning steadfastness too. The freely weave aggregate talks in the dialect of ‘I’ and the firmly tightly knitted groups talks in the dialect of ‘We’. Further, in the nation Singapore, individuals do think about their expansive more distant family; they depend on them also (Olga, Bart, and Aaron 2015 706-741). They score low in this edge as they have confidence in starting exercises together. Negating to the case in Australia, individuals in this nation share the sentiment of independence and care for their close family and themselves. These individuals are self-solid do not favour contingent upon somebody for their typical cost for basic items or passionate help. Individuals of Singapore are viewed as collectivist though Australians are called individualists (Su Lin, and Augustine Pang 2017 112-122).

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and their power-related aspects

Masculinity alludes to the measurement that speaks to an inclination in the general public for chivalry, fiscal prizes and accomplishment in the general public. Also, then again, feminism remains for the inclination for co-activity, humility and minding in the general public. The two perspectives negate to their works, as masculinity discusses the quantitative development though feminism discusses personal satisfaction. Ordinarily this perspective is additionally identified with extreme versus delicate (Jay, Steven, and Yong 2015). Further, Singapore scores 48 for this situation which implies that the general public is minimal more slanted towards feminism while on account of Australia, the score is 61. It expresses that the nation is overwhelmed by male area of the general public. Uncertainty avoidance alludes to the manner by which society roadsters with the forthcoming unforeseen circumstances. It discusses the manners by which individuals handle with obscure circumstances going ahead their way. The nation Singapore scores 8 for this situation where as Australia score 51. The score 8 expresses that the nation completely withstands the standards and controls shaped for their advancement (Kees, Tanja, and Al 2015, 52-75). Additionally long term orientation alludes to the level of reasoning of individuals to represent the future development while remembering the past encounters. 72 is scored by Singapore which says that the nation has faith in methodology long term orientation while Australia score somewhat less in long term orientation which recommend that individuals of this nation points on a short term approach. Lastly, indulgence measurement discusses the degree to which individuals in a nation attempt to control their feelings and driving forces. Australia scores 71 which expresses that individuals of this nation are more liberal where Singapore score 41 which demonstrates that individuals of Singapore are restrained (Ryan, et. al., 2015, 720-745).

Discussing the effect of culture on power, it ought to be noticed that every measurements of Hofstede’s model influence the leadership quality and power of people in a nation. Discussing power distance in the nation Singapore, it ought to be noticed that the nation is more anticipated that would have genuine power. The nation uses such sort of intensity in light of the fact that there is high level of intensity remove in the nation. Though, then again, as Australia has a low score for this situation so this nation utilizes the intensity of expert or referent. Australia utilizes this sort of intensity in light of the fact that there is nearness of individuals who go for fairness in the general public. Specialists or experts of the public are the boss that shapes the exercises of an association present in the market (Ryan et. al., 2015, 720-745). Additionally, the nation Australia is an individualistic nation, so the workers of nation need to act financially in order to keep up the typical cost for basic items themselves; further, a shared relationship is kept up with the representatives and the leaders present in the public. Therefore, it ought to be noticed that the experts include satisfactorily underpins the social exercises of the nation, as an individualistic nation which makes the director to start their capacity so that it give help to the worker to keep up their everyday exercises. The intensity of experts encourages the administration to effortlessly take care of the basic issues in the association and help the workers in business functions frenchtoo. Aside from that, discussing the nation Singapore, it ought to be noticed that the nation is a solid conviction of collectivist society where all relatives live respectively and bolster each other with their every day schedule exercises (Lee, I-Chen, Carol, and Te-Yi 2017, 807-831). The legitimate power works as indicated by the social various levelled routes and as indicated by the social standards. Under this case, the hierarchical structure gives the ability to the pioneers to institute diverse exercises in an association. The pioneers under this case have full ideal to force duties or oblige the representatives as per work issued to them. Relating the instance of real power with the collectivist culture of the public it ought to be noticed that, as the general population of this nation are subject to their bosses which starts them to concur on the confinements forced on them (Loosemore, Lim, Ling, and HZeng 2018 149-159).

Comparison of Singapore and Australia in terms of Hofstede’s dimensions

With the end goal to execute an adjustment in an association, the most vital element which is required is control as without sufficient power no leader can settle on their choice successfully in an association. Organizational change administration alludes to the system that bargains with the procedure of progress started in an association for the great. Power is the main thing that influence individuals in an association and propel them to pursue the change also. Further, as talked about above there are numerous bases in which the power utilized in an association is separated. It completely and exclusively relies on the way of business life of an association as per which power ought to be used (Niki, Gabby, and Edric 2018). Like, if legitimate power is inferred in an individualistic nation then the power would not demonstrate its impact on the change. In this way it ought to be noticed, the power and culture, both the elements that impact change program are straightforwardly identified with each. An association needs to control the correct kind of intensity as per the way of life with the end goal to start changes. In conclusion, it ought to be noticed that utilization of intensity would be more proficient in Singapore if the worker have administering expert above them. As indicated by the power distance component of social measurement, individuals of this nation are more impacted by the ground-breaking and they require a decision expert above them. Change would be viable in the associations of Australia if every one of the workers get equivalent appropriate to propose their perspective and live economically. Exercises like open discussions would start change administration exercises in Australia (Jay, Steven, and Yong 2015).

Thus, in the limelight of above mentioned events, the fact should be noted that the essay explains the importance of the power in the process organizational change management process. Change is only effective when the management initiate functions using power in the hands of people. Without power in the hands of people, the companies find it difficult to initiate change in the market. Culture of the country also plays the lead role in dividing the power in the society. The above mentioned essay explains the ways in which power is divided in the societies of Australia and Singapore on the basis of cultural influences. Australia is individualistic society while Singapore is collectivist so there is difference in the ways in which power is divided in both the countries.

References

Aiello, Antonio, Alessio Tesi, Felicia Pratto, and Antonio Pierro. (2018). “Social dominance and interpersonal power: Asymmetrical relationships within hierarchy?enhancing and hierarchy?attenuating work environments.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology .

Bélanger, Jocelyn J., Antonio Pierro, Barbara Barbieri, Nicola A. De Carlo, Alessandra Falco, and Arie W. Kruglanski. (2016).”One size doesn’t fit all: the influence of supervisors’ power tactics and subordinates’ need for cognitive closure on burnout and stress.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25, no. 2: 287-300.

Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Tatiana Kostova, and Kendall Roth. (2017). “An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006.” Journal of International Business Studies 48, no. 1: 30-47.

Caleon, Imelda S., Ma Glenda L. Wui, Jennifer Pei-Ling Tan, Ching Leen Chiam, Tan Chee Soon, and Ronnel B. King. (2015). “Cross-cultural validation of the Academic Motivation Scale: A Singapore investigation.” Child Indicators Research 8, no. 4: 925-942.

Chang, Te-Hsin, Anita R. Tucker, Christine Lynn Norton, Michael A. Gass, and Stephen E. Javorski. (2017). “Cultural issues in adventure programming: applying Hofstede’s five dimensions to assessment and practice.” Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 17, no. 4: 307-320.

Comber, Barbara. (2015). “Critical literacy and social justice.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 58, no. 5: 362-367.

Dodd, Olga, Bart Frijns, and Aaron Gilbert. (2015). “On the Role of Cultural Distance in the Decision to Cross?L ist.” European Financial Management 21, no. 4: 706-741.

Ferraro, Gary P., and Elizabeth K. Briody. (2017). “The cultural dimension of global business. Taylor & Francis.”

Lee, I-Chen, Carol YY Lin, and Te-Yi Lin. (2017). “The creation of national intellectual capital from the perspective of Hofstede’s national culture.” Journal of Intellectual Capital 18, no. 4: 807-831.

Loosemore, M., B. T. H. Lim, F. Y. Y. Ling, and H. Y. Zeng. (2018). “A comparison of corporate social responsibility practices in the Singapore, Australia and New Zealand construction industries.” Journal of Cleaner Production 190: 149-159.

Macionis, Niki, Gabby Walters, and Edric Kwok. (2018). “International tertiary student experience in Australia: A Singaporean perspective.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education .

Oc, Burak, Michael R. Bashshur, Michael A. Daniels, Gary J. Greguras, and James M. Diefendorff. (2015). “Leader humility in Singapore.” The Leadership Quarterly 26, no. 1: 68-80.

Shafritz, Jay M., J. Steven Ott, and Yong Suk Jang. (2015). “Classics of organization theory”. Cengage Learning.

van den Bos, Kees, Tanja S. van Veldhuizen, and Al KC Au. (2015). “Counter cross-cultural priming and relative deprivation: The role of individualism–collectivism.” Social Justice Research28, no. 1: 52-75.

Vogel, Ryan M., Marie S. Mitchell, Bennett J. Tepper, Simon LD Restubog, Changya Hu, Wei Hua, and Jui?Chieh Huang. (2015).”A cross?cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 36, no. 5: 720-745.

Yeo, Su Lin, and Augustine Pang. (2017). “Asian multiculturalism in communication: Impact of culture in the practice of public relations in Singapore.” Public Relations Review 43, no. 1: 112-122.