BUS298 Assignment 2: Power and Change - Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions

This essay delves into the intricacies of organizational change management, offering a comparative analysis of Singapore and Australia through the lens of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The essay elucidates how national culture influences the five bases of power as defined by French and Raven: legitimate, coercive, referent, reward, and expert power. It examines how these power dynamics play out, and whether the use of power in organizational change programs is more or less efficient in Australia versus Singapore. The analysis utilizes Hofstede's six cultural dimensions – power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, indulgence, and long-term orientation – to highlight cultural nuances and their impact on organizational behavior, communication, and the implementation of change initiatives. The essay discusses the influence of culture on the effectiveness of different power strategies and how cultural contexts impact organizational change. The essay uses academic research and provides insights into the complexities of power dynamics and their implications for effective change management in different cultural settings.

RUNNING HEAD: POWER AND CHANGE
0
Power and Change
Essay
System 0032
[Pick the date]

Power and Change
1
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimesnion and Five Bases of Power
The essay provides an insight on organizational change management. The essay includes a
comparison of Singapore and Australia in terms of Hofstede’s cultural dimension. This theory is
based on the cross cultural communication. This theory focuses on the cultural influence on the
value of members and also describes how values affect the behaviors of other. This essay also
includes how this national culture influences the five bases power framework of French and
Raven. The authors define five powers as legitimate power, coercive power, referent power,
reward power and expert power. The essay also highlights the role of power in efficient and
inefficient way if organizational change is happening in Australia or Singapore.
According to Geert Hofstede (2010), the cultural dimension of both the countries Singapore and
Australia is analyzed using this theory. The comparison of culture is done on the basis of six
dimensions that are; power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and collectivism,
masculinity and femininity, indulgence and long term orientation. Furthermore discussion on
cultural dimension of both the countries is given below on the basis of these six dimensions
(Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov 2010).
This dimension individualism/ collectivism highlights the behavior of the people whether they
like to be work individual or in teams. The individualism index value for Australia is 90 whereas
Singapore score is 20. On the basis of this dimension it can be analyzed that Singapore is
considered as the collectivistic society. In organizational context, in Singapore an employee
prefers to work in team and culture of the country promote collectivism instead of individualism.
Here communication plays an important role in order to bring collectivism, harmony in groups
are maintained with open communication (Loh, Thorsteinsson and Loi 2019). On other side
Australia has individualistic culture where employees are expected to take initiative and remain
self-reliant. Australian culture preferred individualistic approach with the exchange based system
in working and therefore recruitment, selection and promotion is based on the merit and evidence
(Brewer and Venaik 2011).
This dimension power distance is used to measure the power and its influence on members. It
also includes the extent at which lesser powerful members in the organization expect and accepts
the unequal distribution of power. In high power culture the employees in an organization don’t

Power and Change
2
possess power to take decisions all they have to do is to listen their superiors whereas in low
power distance the relationship between superior and subordinates is strong regardless of their
status or rank in the organization. In relation to this dimension Australia power distance index is
relatively low that is 36 and this is lower than the world average power index that is 55. This
states that Australian organizations follow hierarchy for the convenience and superior and
subordinates are free to communicate with each other regardless of any status. The manager
relies on teams for their work and expertise with continuous and effective communication. In
comparison with Singapore, the power distance index is 74. Organizations in Singapore follow
centralization of power and all the power remains in hand of top management. Employees have
to follow the rules and rely on the instruction of superior (Venaik, Zhu and Brewer 2013). There
is strict control over the employees and organizations follow a formal structure for
communication that gives limited control in hand of subordinates. Therefore in comparing both
the countries on the basis of this dimension it is concluded that Australian culture is low power
distance as comparison to Singapore.
The dimension of uncertainty avoidance deals with the level of comfortableness of people in
uncertain situations. The cultures that avoid uncertainty try to implement rules and laws in order
to avoid unusual situation. On other side in uncertainty acceptance culture people accept the
difficult situation and are flexible in nature to change themselves according to situations.
Australia scores 51 in this dimension that reflects that Australians likes to be in the stable
environment or culture rather than accepting changes easily (Tenhiälä et al. 2014). On other side
Singapore scores 8, which states Singapore people can avoid uncertain situations.
This dimension of masculinity and femininity is focused on the dominant values of the society.
Masculine stands or tough, focused on material success and assertive. Feminine is concerned
with the quality of life and less focus on the materialistic things. Australia scores 58 in this
dimension and considered as a masculine society Behavior of people is accordance with their
values, people there are proud of their achievements and success. In organizational context, the
employees get promoted or hired on the basis of their achievement and success and sort all the
conflicts and problem at individual level in order to win the situation. In this dimension
Singapore scores 48 and taken as a feminine society. In organizational context being humble,
polite and patient are the important criteria. This leads to team building and strong relationship

Power and Change
3
with employees and brings harmony in the organization culture (Ladhari, Souiden and Choi
2015).
Long term orientation is the way or the degree at which society hold traditional values or does
not hold that values and keep changing as accordance with the culture demand of future.
Australia in this dimension scores 30 and Singapore score 72. On comparing both the countries
on the basis of this cultural dimension it is analyzed that Singapore has high long term
orientation that indicates country strong growth with holding its culture qualities. On other side
Australian index reflects the normative culture in the country, people over there believe on
traditional aspects and less focused towards achievement of future goals or investment (Leo,
Bennett and Härtel 2015). Thus, it is concluded that Australians have huge respect or their values
and tradition sand invest smaller amount in future.
In this dimension, the degree at which people have control over their desires is identified.
Singapore and Australia in this dimension scores 46 and 71 respectively. In organizational
context, Australia indulgence index is higher that state Australian people enjoy their life at the
fullest and possess positive attitude towards difficult situation. They give importance to luxury
and spend accordingly to fulfill their wishes. Singapore stands at lower score that reflects people
of country can control their desires because people there follow rules and regulations that lead to
moderate indulgence index.
The French and Raven five forms of power are used in organization communication. The bases
of power or power strategy that to be used depend on the situation. These authors described or
divided power in six forms and then an additional power bases is added known as informational
power. In this section of essay, the impact of national culture on these five power bases is
highlighted.

Power and Change
4
Figure 1: French & Raven’s Five Bases of Power
Source: (Hopkinson and Blois 2013)
Coercive Power is showing power through threatening the employees or punishing them for non-
compliance. The coercive power includes use of fear, threat, punishment and suppression on
employees. In an organization, manager use coercive power to get his employees done the work
that they don’t want to do. National culture affects the use of power, as the organizations which
have high power culture use coercive power to make the work done by their employees (Gao,
Winterich and Zhang 2016). For example, Steve jobs used this power or coercion and force them
to abide as per the organization cultures and threaten their employees for firing them.
Legitimate power is provided or used on the basis of hierarchical position in an organization.
This power comes with the status or position in an organization. For example, leader has control
and possesses power to give instruction to the team members. The power of CEO is to give
directions, provide resources and right to hire or fire someone. Legitimate power is used by
managers over the employees by forcing or forming the rules related to long working hours so
that employees contribute more for the survival of the organization. Others have to accept the
legitimacy of the position whether they like it or not (Blois 2010).
Reward power is used for appreciation of work or to motivate others to achieve the target.
Rewards can be monetary or non-monetary benefits given to employees for their good
performance or for their hard work (Landells and Albrecht 2013). This power can be used by
anyone by providing some rewards in exchange of their compliance. For example, managers give
Legitimate
Power
Reward
Power
Expert
Power
Coercive
Power
Referent
Power

Power and Change
5
perks, vouchers, promotion or salary hike to the best performers in order to motivate them. The
power of reward influences any person and pushes them to work harder in their respective fields.
Expert power is considered as the possession of particular skills, expertise and knowledge.
Expert power is limited in a particular field as there is less chance that every individual having
expertise in a particular field, very few people are knowledgeable and finds to be suitable
according to their skills in a particular area that gives power to that expert (Liu, Meng and
Fellows 2015). For example, a teacher is good in teaching economics and he has knowledge
about that particular subject that gives him the power to fail a student in that subject. So powers
come with skills and knowledge. In context to organization, a software engineer has skills and
knowledge and all other team members consult him for getting their things solved so that give
him the power to handle and instruct the people according to his way.
Power that results due to personal characteristics of an individual is known as referent power. It
is also considered as the ability of a person to influence others or the charm of a person by which
others get influenced or admired that personality that gives power to that person (Chen 2014).
Referent power also referred as charisma of winning others and an ability to attract others. For
example, there are various big personalities like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who has that charm to
influence people and this is called referent power.
Power usage in organizational change program is based or related to the five perspectives of
power dynamics and this dynamics are related to the models of organizational change. The first
perspective of power focused on the authority and finds its roots in the tradition research that
discovered the concept of power base. Change is inevitable and decision of change in any
organization is taken by the top management and their legitimate power enforces them to take
the decision to implement change (Cummings and Worley 2014). In looking into the Hofstede’s
theory of cultural dimension, power desistance index of Singapore is higher than the Australia.
Hence it can be analyzed that use of power in the organizational change program in Australia is
considered as the most efficient. Whereas Singapore power distance is lower that indicates the
use of power in organization change program in the country proven to be inefficient. According
to second perspective, personal power is necessary to ensure change can be implemented
efficiently in the organizations. On the basis of this perspective, managers and consultants

Power and Change
6
exercises control by focusing on the facts and logical expertise and in this relation the Hoftstede
dimension of individualism can be used. In comparison the Australia scores higher than
Singapore, which implies the use of power in Australia is more in organizational change
programs. The third perspective is based on the level of usage of power in the organization
change program and the usage of the supremacy in order to control the change implementation in
an organization. While comparing or linking this perspective with the Hofstede theory it is
examined that Australia consist of masculine society and Singapore is proven to be feminine so
the organizations in Australia use power in more efficient way in their change program as
compare to Singapore. The fourth perspective is also come from the organizational and change
model that focus on the less visible power and unconscious power. The internal issues in this
context include norms, perception and values (Shafritz, Ott and Jang 2015). Here the dimension
of long term orientation is compared and Australia has more focused on short term goals and
Singapore on long term goals. The fifth perspective keeps in front open discussion, person who
collectively influences opinion or attitude of each other, visibility in the opinion and power
related to democratic dialogue. The indulgence dimension of Hofstede theory is brought into this
context, that highlights that Australia scores higher in this index in comparison to Singapore and
this proves Australia use the power in more effective way in the organizational change program.
Conclusion
From the above study and comparison the essay ends at the conclusion that the Australia use
power in more efficient way in their organizational change programs as compare to Singapore.
As all the prove and evidence on the basis of Hofstede theory indicates that Australia has culture
that accept and the change and use the power in more effective manner. Furthermore, in the
above essay it is highlighted that national culture influence five bases of power with that
Hofstede culture dimensions is used to compare the culture of Australia and Singapore.

Power and Change
7
References
Blois, Keith. 2010. "The Legitimacy Of Power In Business-To-Business
Relationships". Marketing Theory 10 (2): 161-172.
Brewer, Paul, and Sunil Venaik. 2011. "Individualism–Collectivism In Hofstede And
GLOBE". Journal Of International Business Studies 42 (3): 436-445.
Chen, Chung-wen. 2014. "Does Job Position Moderate The Relationship Between Gender And
Ethics?: A Cross-Cultural Analysis". Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 21
(4): 437-452.
Cummings, Thomas G, and Christopher G Worley. 2014. Organization Development & Change.
Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Gao, Huachao, Karen Page Winterich, and Yinlong Zhang. 2016. "All That Glitters Is Not Gold:
How Others’ Status Influences The Effect Of Power Distance Belief On Status
Consumption". Journal Of Consumer Research 43 (2): 265-281.
Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures And Organizations.
New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Hopkinson, Gillian C., and Keith Blois. 2013. "Power-Base Research In Marketing Channels: A
Narrative Review". International Journal Of Management Reviews 16 (2): 131-149.
Ladhari, Riadh, Nizar Souiden, and Yong-Hoon Choi. 2015. "Culture Change And
Globalization: The Unresolved Debate Between Cross-National And Cross-Cultural
Classifications". Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 23 (3): 235-245.
Landells, Erin, and Simon L. Albrecht. 2013. "Organizational Political Climate: Shared
Perceptions About The Building And Use Of Power Bases". Human Resource Management
Review 23 (4): 357-365.
Leo, Cheryl, Rebekah Bennett, and Charmine E.J. Härtel. 2015. "Cross‐Cultural Differences In
Consumer Decision‐Making Styles". Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 12
(3): 32-62.

Power and Change
8
Liu, Junying, Fanye Meng, and Richard Fellows. 2015. "An Exploratory Study Of
Understanding Project Risk Management From The Perspective Of National
Culture". International Journal Of Project Management 33 (3): 564-575.
Loh, Jennifer M I, Einar B Thorsteinsson, and Natasha M Loi. 2019. "Workplace Incivility And
Work Outcomes: Cross‐Cultural Comparison Between Australian And Singaporean
Employees". Asia Pacific Journal Of Human Resources 52 (13): 32-48.
Shafritz, Jay M, J. Steven Ott, and Yong Suk Jang. 2015. Classics Of Organization Theory.
Australia: Cengage Learning.
Tenhiälä, Aino, Tamara L. Giluk, Sven Kepes, Cristina Simón, In-Sue Oh, and Seongsu Kim.
2014. "The Research-Practice Gap In Human Resource Management: A Cross-Cultural
Study". Human Resource Management 55 (2): 179-200.
Venaik, Sunil, Yunxia Zhu, and Paul Brewer. 2013. "Looking Into The Future: Hofstede Long
Term Orientation Versus GLOBE Future Orientation". Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal 20 (3): 361-385.