Organisational Power and Change: Australia vs. Singapore Analysis

This report delves into the complexities of organizational change management, focusing on a comparative analysis between Australia and Singapore. It begins by utilizing Hofstede's cultural dimensions to frame the cross-cultural communication landscape, exploring how societal values influence individual behavior and organizational practices. The report further examines the influence of national culture on the five bases of power as defined by French and Raven, including legitimate, reward, referent, coercive, and information power. An argument is then presented on the effectiveness of power usage within change programs in both countries, considering the varying power distance indices and individualism levels. The analysis draws upon sociological and organizational theories of power to evaluate the efficiency of power dynamics, considering both visible and less visible forms of influence. The report concludes by highlighting the insights related to effective practice of power in change programs of organization by providing the effectiveness of Australia as compare to Singapore.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
Management

Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................4
Hofstede theory on cultural dimension......................................................................................4
Influence of the national culture on the five bases of power of French & Raven’s...................5
Argument based on the efficiency level of power use in change programs of Australia and
Singapore....................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7
References..................................................................................................................................8

Introduction
In the essay, discussion has been carried on the organisation change management. Essay
starts by doing the comparison between Australia and Singapore based on Hofstede culture
dimension. This cultural dimension gives the framework for cross cultural communication.
This theory directly provides the culture influence of the society on member’s value and
represents how value if directly relating with the behaviour (Ferdman, Bernardo, 2018, 157-
167). In addition to this, paper also discusses how national culture tends to influence the five
power bases. As per French and Raven, power has distinct forms. These forms have been
described as the power base including referent, legitimate, reward, coercive as well as expert.
In the report, further argument has been done on the effectiveness of power usage in change
programs at the time any organisation change in Australia and Singapore.
Hofstede theory on cultural dimension
As per Schein, (2017) comparison done on the Hofstede cultural dimension between
Australia and Singapore is based on the six dimensions includes individualism, power
distance, masculinity, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, indulgence and long-term
orientation.
Power distance: it is said to be the extent in which less powerful people of the organisation
expect that there is no equal distribution of power in organisation. in this dimension,
Singapore has scored 74 where Singapore organisations tend to experience the power
centralisation where managers relying on the rules and bosses implemented. Employees also
have expectation to receive the orders from their manager for their task performance. Due to
this, Singapore has high power distance index. As compare to Singapore, Australia score is
low. Australian organisations have established the hierarchy. Mangers also rely on the
individual employees as well team for expertise. This helps in building trust among the
employees that their efforts are also valued in the organisation. At the same time, supervisors
always remain accessible for their employees. Managers as well as employees expect to
consult by sharing the information. In this way, communication in Australia seen to be
informal, direct as well as participative.
Individualism: it refers to the interdependence that is maintained among the members.
Singapore tends to score around 20 in this dimension by identifying as the collectivistic

society. In Singapore, person is not seen as the individual but treated as the organisational
member. In this, communication remain indirectly and the group harmony is maintained by
avoiding the entire conflicts. In this way, politeness is preceded on honest feedbacks. In
addition to this, managers are required to be maintaining respectability and calmness. As
compare to Singapore, Australia scores around 90 and seen as the individualist culture. There
are high expectation from the employees to show their initiatives (Anderson and Donald,
2016).
Masculinity: this dimension deals with the issue that tends to motivate people by effectively
by defining the masculinity. In this regard, Singapore has scored around 48 and more inclined
on the feminine side. In the business enterprise, being modest and humble is significant
criterion. As compare to Singapore, Australia scores around 61 by representing the
masculinity society. People behaviour is directly based on the share value for bringing the
best among employees. Australians are also proud of their achievements and success that
helps in offering promotion. At the same time, conflicts are also solved at the individual level
(Beugelsdijk and Welzel 2018, 1469-1505).
Uncertainty avoidance: it is said to be the extent by which members of any particular culture
feels threatened by creating unknown situation and beliefs. In this dimension, Singapore has
scored around 8 because the people of Singapore abide by different rules due to high power
distance index. As compare to Singapore, Australia scores close to 51 (Karin et al.2014, 55-
77).
Long-term orientation: as per this dimension: it is quite significant for the society to maintain
some of the links with past at the time of dealing with challenge for past as well as future. In
this dimension, Singapore has scored around 72 which directly depicts the cultural qualities
of Singapore in order to support the investment including thrift, slow results as well as
sustained efforts. As compare to Singapore, Australia has scored around 21 in this dimension.
This shows the normative culture in which people put strong concern with absolute truth
(Omar, 2017, 92-115).
Influence of the national culture on the five bases of power of French & Raven’s
Legitimate: it refers to the power due to someone organisational position or role. Therefore,
the legitimacy of boss at the time of assigning office, teacher at the time of grades assigning,
and police officer at the time of arresting citizen are some of the example of legitimate

power. Other person only come with request that is made by person as soon as they accept
legitimacy of position irrespective of they are liking it or not. At the same time, individual
can also set the deadline that might put force on employees to think them (Blois, Keith, and
Gillian 2014, 1143-1162). For example: start up organisations also uses their legitimate
power in order to influence the employees to work for long hours.
Reward:
It simply means ability to give reward including perk, an increase in pay or job assignment.
This kind of praise can also yield by any person in public praise form or providing something
in exchange of their compliance. Different companies have different set of monetary and non-
monetary rewards at organisation. For example: Steve jobs took the reward power in the form
of promotion and raises (Landells, Erin, and Simon 2013, 357-365). This supports in building
the morale among employees to work effectively.
Referent:
Referent power come because of person’s personal characteristics referring to the degree of
respecting, wanting or liking to possess some similar features like them. It is also said to be
the charisma that shows the ability of a person to attract someone and win their admiration.
For example: Steve Jobs is the best example who has made use of the referent power.
Coercive: It shows the capability of punishing someone or taking something away for the
noncompliance (Leo et al, 2015, 32-62). This power tends to work by forcing people or fear
process to adopted something that would not be adopted. The best example of this power is
the dictators of government that caused physical harm for non compliance.
Information: it is too much similar to the expert power. The only difference is found in the
source. In terms of information access, information power differs from the expert power. For
example: prices information tends to empower the person with information power at the time
of negotiation. In the organisation, social network of person ends to isolate them for the
information power (Minko et al, 2017).

Argument based on the efficiency level of power use in change programs of Australia
and Singapore
Power changes in organisation change program based on the five perspective of the power
dynamics. The first perspective regarding this give emphasis on pupose used authority and
power of agent that is justified. This perspective has found its roots in the “social
psychological research tradition” that identified as well as investigated the base of power.
Changes in organisation are brought when top managers change their demand or their
requirement related to any position of power changes (Onyema et al, 2018, 191-219). As the
Hofstede cultural dimension theory, Singapore has high power distance index as compare to
Australia. Due to thus, power in change programme will prove to be more effective in
Australia as compare to Singapore. As per second perspective, personal power is most
significant for ensuring the changes that are taking place in organisation. Based on this
perspective, managers, as well as consultant influences by referring to logical arguments
based on the expertise. In context of “Individualism dimension,” Australia has higher score as
compare to Australia thereby complying the use of power in former country organisational
change program. The third perspective has found its root in the organisation and management
theory that reflects the power distribution in organisation as well as use of the agencies
supremacy in order to control the changes in organisations. It mainly gives emphasis on how
power is being distributed in the organisation. Usage of power comes to visibility when
different interest groups take the negotiation in change process direction (Shafritz, Steven
Ott, and Yong Suk Jang et al, 2017). If it is linked with Hofstede cultural dimension,
Australia is found to be more masculine as compare to Australia. Therefore, power usage will
definitely finds its effectiveness more in Australia as compare to Singapore. the forth
perspective has also found its root in the management and organisational theory however
there is shift in the focus toward less visible and unconscious form of power. In this arena,
internal issues include the construction of norms, values as well as perception. However, if
the dimensions related to masculinity hofstede theory will be used, organisation change
program will found to be more effective in Australia as compare to Singapore. The last
perspective give emphasis on the open discussion, agents those mutually tend to influence
attitude of each other as well as visibility in the opinion and power processes that is based on
the democratic dialogue. At the same time, if this dimension will be included, Australia will
score high as compare to Singapore by significantly using the power in bringing effective
changes in organization.

Conclusion
In the limelight of above discussion, the insights related to effective practice of power in
change programs of organization by providing the effectiveness of Australia as compare to
Singapore. In the essay, discussion also carried on the national culture influence in
accordance with the five bases of power given by the “French and Raven.”

References
Anderson, Donald L., ed. Cases and Exercises in Organization Development & Change. Sage
Publications, 2016.
Beugelsdijk, S. and Welzel, C., 2018. Dimensions and dynamics of national culture:
Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 49(10), pp.1469-
1505.
Blois, Keith, and Gillian C. Hopkinson. "The use and abuse of French and Raven in the
channels literature." Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 9-10 (2013): 1143-1162.
Favaretto, Rodolfo M., Leandro Dihl, Rodrigo Barreto, and Soraia Raupp Musse. "Using
group behaviors to detect hofstede cultural dimensions." In 2016 IEEE International
Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp. 2936-2940. IEEE, 2016.
Ferdman, Bernardo M. "Incorporating diversity and inclusion as core values in organization
development practice." In Enacting Values-Based Change, pp. 157-167. Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham, 2018.
Jung, Timothy Hyungsoo, Hyunae Lee, Namho Chung, and M. Claudia tom Dieck. "Cross-
cultural differences in adopting mobile augmented reality at cultural heritage tourism
sites." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (2018).
Karin Andreassi, Jeanine, Leanna Lawter, Martin Brockerhoff, and Peter J. Rutigliano.
"Cultural impact of human resource practices on job satisfaction: A global study across 48
countries." Cross cultural management 21, no. 1 (2014): 55-77.
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.
Leo, Cheryl, Rebekah Bennett, and Charmine EJ Härtel. "Cross-cultural differences in
consumer decision-making styles." Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal12,
no. 3 (2015): 32-62.

Minkov, Michael, Pinaki Dutt, Michael Schachner, Oswaldo Morales, Carlos Sanchez, Janar
Jandosova, Yerlan Khassenbekov, and Ben Mudd. "A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-
collectivism dimension." Cross Cultural & Strategic Management (2017).
Omar, Alicia, Solana Salessi, and Florencia Urteaga. "Impact of management practices on job
satisfaction." RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 18, no. 5 (2017): 92-115.
Onyemah, Vincent, Dominique Rouziès, and Dawn Iacobucci. "Impact of religiosity and
culture on salesperson job satisfaction and performance." International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management 18, no. 2 (2018): 191-219.
Schein, Edgar H. Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. John Wiley & Sons,
2017.
Shafritz, Jay M., J. Steven Ott, and Yong Suk Jang. Classics of organization theory. Cengage
Learning, 2015.