Cultural Dimensions and Leadership

This assignment delves into the realm of cross-cultural studies, examining the influence of national culture on business practices, leadership styles, and organizational behavior. It covers topics such as power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity vs. femininity, highlighting their effects on management decisions, employee motivation, and conflict resolution strategies. The assignment also touches upon the role of cultural intelligence in navigating diverse work environments and fostering effective leadership.

Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Introduction
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.
Discussion
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.

2ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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.
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

3ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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.

4ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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).
Figure 1: Hofstede Cultural Dimension in Australia
Source: 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

5ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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).

6ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Figure 2: Hofstede Cultural Dimension in Singapore
Source: (Brett and Jeanne 2018, 32-52)
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

7ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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).

8ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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.

9ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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.

1
0
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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.

1
1
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
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.