Organizational Change: Power Dynamics, Culture, and Strategy

This essay delves into the critical relationship between power, cultural influences, and organizational change, focusing on a comparative analysis of Australia and Singapore. It begins by defining organizational change and its significance, followed by an exploration of the five bases of power: coercive, legitimate, reward, referent, and expert power. The essay then introduces Hofstede's cultural dimensions, including power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation, applying these dimensions to both countries. It examines how cultural differences affect the acceptance and effectiveness of different power bases in change management, recommending suitable power-related elements for each country. The analysis considers how cultural values influence leadership styles, employee motivation, and the overall success of change initiatives, concluding with recommendations for leveraging power effectively in diverse cultural contexts. The essay utilizes academic journal references to support its arguments.

Student’s Last Name 1
Organizational Development and Change
By (Name)
Course
Professor
University
Date

Student’s Last Name 2
Introduction
In the complex and competitive world, the key to sustaining an organization is the ability
of how each organization to adapt to the change process strategically. Change can e defined as
the modification in an organization that is characterized by environmental factors that relate to
the development of stability. Power is also an important factor in organizational change as it
focusses on how instruments within the organization accept and use the power at hand.
Organizational change can refer to alterations that can occur in the work environment.
Organizations around the globe need to adapt and embrace change, at least they will be left
behind by the forces of change. In a progressive culture that is highly dynamic, organizational
change is inevitable. The change alters the existing relationships and the roles people play in the
organization. An organization can be changed in terms of its technology, structure or even its
people. Differences in national culture somehow affect the legitimacy of management theories,
the suitability of available solutions to problems in the organization as well as how people react
to change within the organization. The influence further extends to how the organizations are
structured. This essay will discuss how social influence and power are related to change. It will
follow the typology of five bases of power and Hofstede’s cultural dimension will be discussed
and applied to both Australia and Singapore. Thereafter, a conclusion will be made to determine
which power-related elements are suitable for each country.
Bases of power are the methods that are used by the managers to influence the
employees. The concept of authority is entirely considered when examining the bases of power.
This means that power and authority are intertwined (Hunt, 2015, 750) Power is considered as
the ability to do things or ordering others to do things while authority is the foundation in which
power is built. The five bases of power were first coined by French and raven in the 1960s. they

Student’s Last Name 3
are coercive, legitimate, reward, referent, and expert power. Coercive power in an organization is
the ability of the manager to force an employee to comply with an order through a threat of
punishment. This kind of power has been associated with short term compliance but in the long
run, it results in dysfunctional behavior (Landells, and Albrecht, 2013). It leads to a lack of
motivation among the employees. However, this kind of power has been on the decline over the
last 50 years due to employee awareness and legal frameworks that have been put in place to
protect the rights of the employees.
Legitimate power exists due to the belief among the followers that the leader has the right
to give orders. For example, in a crime setting, people usually comply with the orders of a police
officer due to the shared belief that he or she has the authority to give the orders. Similarly,
employees comply with the orders of the manager who relies on the legitimate power that is the
virtue of the position he or she holds (Pierro, et al., 2013, 1122). Reward power rest on the
ability of the manager to offer some sort of rewards to the employees. The rewards can be in the
form of monetary compensation or an improved work environment. For example, Sam Walton,
the founder of Wal-Mart stores, is a user of reward power. He is known to sincerely praise his
employees for their outstanding performance. According to Walton, nothing can substitute a
well-timed word of praise (Ovchinnikov, et al. 2015, 67). Reward power is considered to be one
of the most effective work motivators. However, this form of power has been found to have the
potential to divert the attention of the employees from the job and instead focus their attention on
the rewards presented to them (Raven, 2013, 20) Referent power has been attributed to
identifying that someone of a higher position can be targeted as a role model through admiration.
In this kind of power, the manager leads by example and modeling behavior. However, this kind
of power takes a considerable amount of time to develop and may not be effective in a work

Student’s Last Name 4
setting with high employee turnover. Expert power arises when a party possesses a particular
area of expertise, experience or set of knowledge and unique skills.
The dimensions of cultures provide perceptions and terminologies that facilitate
awareness to grow, gauge and discuss their values and practices observed to make a comparison
in human culture. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions’ studies aid in the identification of culture
based on the six dimensions that are namely power distance(PDI), individualism versus
collectivism (IDV), masculinity versus feminists (MAS), long-term orientation(LTO) versus
short-term orientation, indulgence versus restraint (IND), and uncertainty avoidance (UAI).
PDI is explained as the degree to accept the unequal allocation of power and the level of
social inequality that comes with it. The difference between individuals is big when PDI high
and small when PDI is low. For IDV, individualism and collectivism are a distinction to one
another. Individualism involves prioritizing the interests of oneself while collectivism is
prioritizing the interests of the community in general (Schmitz, and Weber, 2014). Collectivism
results in a high and tight relationship. This entails that individualism can back out while
collectivism can stay and offer assistance when the community is in trouble. Masculinity versus
feminists refers to how the world perceives the roles between genders and this is consequently
recognized by the culture. Social values that include assertiveness, competition and toughness
are infiltrated throughout the masculinity society while in feminist cultures, the quality of life
and tenderness are the main values. UAI refers to the level of acceptance of the uncertainty of
feelings by people. Individuals with high uncertainty avoidance are more likely to be emotive
and clear vague circumstances. Those with low UAI are less likely to be emotive and generally
exhibit a sense of calmness when facing ambiguous conditions (Soh, 2014, 460). LTO represents
the nurturing of virtues, specifically perseverance and thrift, and leaning towards the imminent

Student’s Last Name 5
achievements of goals. Short term orientation, on the other hand, represents the nurturing of
virtues that are associated with the present and the past; specifically, representing tradition and
satisfying social obligations. IND is based on visibly defined study items that determine very
precise phenomena. Indulgence refers to the predisposition of allowing the satisfaction of
fundamental and natural human needs which is associated with possessing fun and relishing life
without any restrictions (Laitinen and Suvas, 2016) Restraint, in contradiction, refers to a belief
that such satisfaction needs are required to be limited and controlled by stringent social norms.
The level of PDI determines the commitment of employees in the change process.
According to Hofstede and Bond, PDI in Singapore is high. This is because the employees are
accustomed to a centralized working environment and being instructed on what to do. Thereafter,
decisions are made by the management and the employees do not in any case challenge the
decisions made. This results in individuals of low status and power accepting the autocratic
leadership style and the general existence of a hierarchy chart. There exist a disconnect between
parties and individuals that possess high power and certain social status (Sohaib and Kang,
2014). They treat the higher status parties as their superior and therefore, they have the
propensity to keep their opinions to themselves. This is because the employees fear the
punishment that might be meted out to them if they disagree with the decisions of the
management. Therefore, the use of legitimate power is recommended as individuals are being
influenced on the task-related commitments and responsibilities because the explanation given
by the management is based on reasonability and individuals acknowledge that without any
resentment. However, in Australia, Hofstede and Bond state that PDI is low. This is because the
employees are habituated to the decentralized form of a working environment. The employees in
Australia are being encouraged to share their views and opinions. There exist some kind of

Student’s Last Name 6
workplace equality and the relationship between individuals and those holding positions of
power is considered harmonious. Individuals in Australia are more expressive of their opinions
due to the equality that exists (Rylander, 2015, 112). Expert power is suggested to be applied as
individuals tend to prefer working with someone of a certain competency level. If opinions are
raised and the management can convince individuals with their expert knowledge, individuals
feel more at ease. By raising the opinions, the management shares their knowledge and also
allows the self-improvement of the employees. The employees consequently feel more valued
and committed to achieving work goals and any rewards that accompany it. Concerning IDV,
Singapore belongs to the communist segment while Australia is more of an individualistic
society. Being a collectivist community, people in Singapore tend to make decisions that
prioritize the interests of the group. There exists a harmonious relationship among people
(Junaimah, See and Bashawir, 2015). Consequently, it is easier to foster collaboration by
applying referent power. Australia being an individualistic society, People place their interests
first before anything else. There is a diminished level of trust and confidence between each other.
This leads to less frequent social interactions. In Singapore, people may tend to sacrifice their
ideas to maintain harmony while Australian will stick firmly to their opinions and their task at
hand will be a priority. In the situation of Australia, expert power is more likely to be used to
show employees how work has to be done. In MAS, both Singapore and Australia have a fair
level of masculinity records. However, Australia shows a fair level of masculinity while
Singapore shows a fair level of feminism. The masculine community is more result-oriented and
attempts to reward achievement based on equity while feminine community rewards
achievement based on equality. Singapore is more people-oriented and is engaged in a societal
relationship that fosters inter-dependent relationships committed to serving the community

Student’s Last Name 7
(Minkov and Hofstede, 2014). Referent power is, therefore, a better choice for the Singapore
community to gain commitment from the employees. For the case of Australia, their aggressive
nature at times causes occasional usage of negative emotions to display masculinity and also hide
their susceptible emotions. Coercive power can work in this case to foster compliance and reduce
resistance for effectual change execution. Regarding UAI, the avoidance rate of uncertainty in
Singapore is considered to be the lowest among the countries. It shows the rate of tolerance for
uncertainty is high. This has resulted in the suppression of emotions due to the social burden.
Australia reveals a moderate score on UAI and is likely to be intimidated by the uncertainties
(Dartey-Baah, 2013, 39). The result is that people are expressive and display their concerns
openly. Australian are more prone to stay in an organization longer as changing their jobs brings
some level of uncertainty. Legitimate power is more likely to work by creating a firm working
environment. For the case of Singapore, expert power is more appealing due to high flexibility in
adapting unforeseen changes. Both Australia and Singapore score moderately in LTO. Singapore
allows individuals to stabilize and develop while allowing the management to be respected. On
the contrary, Australians demonstrate a less far-sighted tendency and they have expectations for
immediate results (Macionis, et al. 2019, 100174). Employees exhibit personal stability and
respect traditions. Reward power can be used in this case for continuous commitments and
contributions. Australia has ranked higher on indulgence as compared to Singapore. Australian
display an enthusiasm to achieve their impulses and wishes related to enjoying life and
prioritizing leisure time. In retrospect, Singapore is lagging as being a high PDI country as it is
filled with rules and regulations. In organizations, rules and regulations are explained to the
employee’s first day at work. However, legitimate power is recommended for Australia.

Student’s Last Name 8
Rewarding power will work for Singapore due to the tendencies of the people to follow the rules
and regulations put in place.
conclusion
From the foregone, Singapore is more applicable to use expert power as Singaporeans
tend to be influenced by the higher authority that displays good knowledge and referent power
can be utilized as an influencing factor to work together with expert power. In this way,
employees can be further convinced. In Australia, it is preferable to use legitimate power where
both coercive and reward power co-exist. There may be times when emotions are being used at
work and legitimate power can be used to influence them to comply. Lastly, the use of power
bases should be applied based on the situation and the culture, and not fixing at one with hopes
that it applies to one, and can also apply to everyone.

Student’s Last Name 9
Bibliography
Dartey-Baah, Kwasi. "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 (2013): 39.
Hunt, Shelby D. "The bases of power approach to channel relationships: has marketing’s
scholarship been misguided?." Journal of Marketing Management 31, no. 7-8 (2015):
747-764.
Junaimah, Jauhar, Lee Pin See, and Abdul Ghani Bashawir. "Effect of manager’s bases of power
on employee’s job satisfaction: An empirical study of satisfaction with
supervision." International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management 3, no. 2
(2015): 1-14.
Laitinen, Erkki K., and Arto Suvas. "Financial distress prediction in an international context:
Moderating effects of Hofstede’s original cultural dimensions." Journal of Behavioral
and Experimental Finance 9 (2016): 98-118.
Landells, Erin, and Simon L. Albrecht. "Organizational political climate: Shared perceptions
about the building and use of power bases." Human Resource Management Review 23,
no. 4 (2013): 357-365.
Macionis, Niki, Gabby Walters, and Edric Kwok. "International tertiary student experience in
Australia: A Singaporean perspective." Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Education 25 (2019): 100174.

Student’s Last Name 10
Minkov, Michael, and Geert Hofstede. "A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance
dimension across nationally representative samples from Europe." International Journal
of Cross Cultural Management 14, no. 2 (2014): 161-171.
Ovchinnikov, Aleksey, Aleksey Mamychev, and Diana Mamycheva. "Sociocultural bases of
state-legal development coding." Mediterranean journal of social sciences 6, no. 3 S4
(2015): 67-67.
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.
Raven, Bertram H. "The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal
influence." Analyses of social issues and public policy 8, no. 1 (2013): 1-22.
Rylander, Pär. "Coaches’ bases of power: Developing some initial knowledge of athletes’
compliance with coaches in team sports." Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 27, no. 1
(2015): 110-121.
Schmitz, Lena, and Wiebke Weber. "Are Hofstede's dimensions valid? A test for measurement
invariance of uncertainty avoidance." interculture journal: Online-Zeitschrift für
interkulturelle Studien 13, no. 22 (2014): 11-26.
Soh, Kaycheng. "Finland and Singapore in PISA 2009: Similarities and differences in
achievements and school management." Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 44, no. 3 (2014): 455-471.

Student’s Last Name 11
Sohaib, Osama, and Kyeong Kang. "Cultural Aspects of Business‐to‐Consumer (B2C) E‐
commerce: Acomparative Analysis of Pakistan and Australia." The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries 61, no. 1 (2014): 1-18.