Implications of National Culture on Acceptance of Organizational Chang

Question: Discuss about theImplications of National Culture on Acceptance of Organizational Change. Answer: Organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in the firm in such a way as to minimize resistance from the workers and cost of change administration, while at the same time maximizing on the changing effectiveness. In organizational change, power is used by the top managers, CEO, consultants, employees and other stakeholders who manage and influence the whole process of change[1]. National culture dramatically influences power acceptance among different states, for example, some national cultures do not allow women and youths to rise to top-level positions at the workplace. This essay seeks to explore the belief that national culture dictates the use and acceptance of power in organizational change programs through a comparative application of Hofstedes cultural dimension to Australia and Singapore. The essay will be organized in five sections- the sources of power as discussed by French and Raven, the positive and negative aspects of power use in change pr ograms, the Hofstede's cultural dimensions and a comparison of the power-related elements of Hofstede's dimensions between Singapore and Australia. The last part of this essay is a general conclusion highlighting all the significant aspects discussed. However, the essay has not covered the dimensions of change highlighted by other scholars apart from Geert Hofstede. Different personalities require power and influence to administer organizational change. As evaluated by French and Raven, there are five sources of power- coercive, legitimate, referent, reward and expert power. First, Legitimate power is derived from the position a person owns in a firms hierarchy[2]. For example, in a job description that requires junior workers to report to the manager, the manager has the power to assign duties to the junior managers. Second is the expert power which is earned through possessing some unique skills or expertise in a specific field in the organization[3]. People with expert power form the backbone of every organization and may be consulted from time to time regarding strategies that relate to a particular department such as the accounting department, finance, and production departments. The third is referent power which arises from charisma, whereby a person is admired by other people. Another source of power is the coercive power which is earned from an individuals ability to influence his subjects or juniors by using threats and punishment[4]. The last source of power is reward power, which is the ability of a person to influence others using material and nonmaterial rewards like positive appraisals and salary increments among other rewards. The managers must use the power positively bestowed on them to formulate change in the organization. Positive power in an enterprise entails encouraging commitment and productivity[5]. This involves giving the workers the power to make decisions, appointing workers who perform well to supervise other employees and rewarding workers for good performance. Positive use of power also means that people gain power through communication and respect and not through coercive efforts. When power is used appropriately in an organization, it may prevent the chances of occurrence of any barriers to change such as employees opposing change since they were not involved in the change process[6]. It ensures that all the employees' decisions are incorporated in the process of formulating business strategies. When the employees feel like part of the organization, they tend to be motivated hence leading to high employee retention rate. Employees are also given the power to express their concerns and fee lings about specific strategies freely. This makes the policymakers to make informed decisions which are fully supported by all the workers. Conversely, if power is not used well by the managers, then it may have negative impacts on the organization. When the leaders in the firm do not have the respect of the workers under them, then they are said to have negative power[7]. In this case, the manager motivates employees to carry on their duties by threatening them with punishments and job loss or favors some employees rather than recognizing the excellent work of all the workers. When the worker's opinions are not incorporated when making major strategic decisions in the firm, they may impose barriers to strategic change, by acting against the change[8]. They may also become demoralized and leave the firm leading to high turnover rates in the firm. When the employees impose barriers to an expected change, then this may lead to strategic failure. To better understand the national culture and the cultural dimensions that exist in different cultures, it is important to evaluate the six dimensions of national culture as brought forward by Hofstede (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity). Working together with Michael Bond, Geert Hofstede added a fifth dimension known as Confucianism. As explained by Hofstede, people in individualistic societies tend to care for themselves and their immediate relatives only, while in the collectivist societies people view themselves as members of larger groups including large families and tend to take responsibility of caring for each other[9]. About power distance, different cultures have different levels of acceptance of unequal distribution of authority. On the other hand, uncertainty avoidance implies the limits to which the society may become uncomfortable or threatened with a specific level of ambiguity. Masculinity-femininity evaluate s the dominant values of a particular culture and identifies where the particular values fall on a spectrum in which masculine is related to assertiveness, caring for others and acquisition of wealth[10]. Finally, Confucianism examines the event to which a specific culture considers respect for tradition and satisfying social responsibilities. Hofstedes cultural dimensions can be used as a framework for evaluating the society and examining cultural orientations adopted by different societies. The above dimensions have some power-related aspects that are worth exploring. First, Hofstede used the PDI (Power Distance Index) to evaluate the limits to which the less powerful people accept unequal power distribution in different national cultures. Power distance suggests that some levels of inequality in a community are endorsed by the employees as well as the leaders[11]. For instance, Australia ranks 36 on the Hofstedes cultural scale of analysis. Compared to Singapore where the power distance is more (74) and Israel where it is as low as 13, Australia falls in the middle. It does not have a high power distance between the rich and the poor but has a firm belief in equality in leadership for all its citizens. Australia, therefore, has a chance to rise in society. Conversely, the power distance in the US scores 40 as shown in Hofstede's cultural scale. The US demonstrates an unequal distribution of power compared to Australia. As years elapse, it seems that the gap between the rich and the poor escalates. Second, a collectivist society tends to work in groups while the individualistic community tends to avoid teams and work[12]. To this end, it can be viewed that societies embracing individualism can form teams and achieve synergy in administering change while the ones that embrace individualism are often isolated from others and unable to embrace successful teamwork. For example, The US is highly individualistic with an index of 61. In this country, individuals are expected to work independently and improve their living standards regardless of their wealth status. Masculinity versus femininity evaluates the distribution of roles between genders. Japan has the highest masculinity index (95), and therefore, women may not find their ways into top ranks in organizations in Japan. Therefore, companies in Japan when administering change would ensure that they consider this to avoid barriers being imposed by employees that may lead to strategic failure. Conver sely, Sweden has the lowest masculinity index (5), making it easier for its women to rise into top-level management positions. Last, uncertainty avoidance indicates the level at which the members of the society, programs to be either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations[13]. In administering change, uncertainty avoiding cultures tend to minimize risk by enacting strict rules, safety procedures, and security measures. For instance, Germany has a reasonably high uncertainty avoidance index (65) while Singapore ranks as low as 8. Therefore, in strategic planning, Germans tend to be more strict and careful to avoid uncertainty than Singapore. To better understand the cultural influence of power on strategic change, it is primary to compare the power-related aspects of Hofstede's dimensions between countries. In this case, a comparison has been made between Australia and Singapore. Power distance in Singapore is high at 74 because of its Confucian background[14]. Therefore, Singaporeans tend to obey rules and instructions given by their seniors as the management approach is always top-down and power flows from senior management to the juniors. In comparison, Australia scores low on this criterion (36). In Australia, hierarchies in organizations are developed for convenience. Communication is informal, participative and direct. Singapore is a collective society with a score of 20 in the individualism index. Singaporeans tend to work in groups and take care of each other, exhibiting harmony, respect, and calmness in their groups. This means that most of the Singaporean firms capitalize on leadership and not just management i n administering strategic plans. Conversely, Australia has a highly individualistic culture with a score of 90[15]. In this culture, people look for themselves and their immediate families. Therefore, power is usually gained by individuals ability to perform specific tasks. On the masculinity index, Singapore scores averagely (48). It, therefore, weighs more on the feminine side. Consequently, the softer cultural aspects like consensus, leveling with colleagues and sympathy for the underdog are encouraged. Showing pride is not liked and being humble and modest is respected[16]. Therefore, managers in Singapore are driven by respect and humility in their leadership. They tend to seek and respect the opinions of their employees in administering strategic change. However, Australia can be evaluated as a masculine society with a score of 61. Australians are therefore grateful for their achievements and offer promotions purely based on merit. Conflicts about specific strategies and organ izational conflicts are solved at individual levels. Also, Singapore scores eight on the uncertainty avoidance index. This means that in Singapore, people abide by the rules no to avoid risk but because of the high power distance index. The managers in this country, therefore, would experience little resistance from the employees whenever they administer change[17]. However, Australia scores 51 on this dimension. This is a very average score, making it difficult to tell whether their citizens readily accept or reject risk. Finally, Singapore scores 72 in long-term orientation index, which depicts that it has cultural qualities that support long-term investments like sustained efforts and perseverance. Therefore, managers in this nation can easily formulate long-term investment strategies and receive active support from the employees. Australia, on the other hand, has a normative culture and scores 21 on this dimension. The managers and employees have strong concerns in identifying a bsolute truth[18]. They have great respect for traditions and focus on attaining quick results, and therefore they may only accept change after a thorough evaluation. In conclusion, managers require power to enforce change in the organization. The sources of power for managers encompass, legitimate, referent, coercive, reward and expert power. Also, the essay has proven the contention that the use and acceptance of power in change strategies is significantly affected by National culture. As evaluated by Geert Hofstede, national culture consists of five dimensions which dictate how power is acquired and distributed in the organizations in different societies. For example, an analysis of the Australian and Singaporean culture has proved that Singapore ranks higher in power distance femininity, low uncertainty avoidance, collectivism and long-term orientation than Australia. The managers in Singapore tend to use humility and seek opinions of all the employees in administering change which is always implemented as a team. The managers also experience low resistance to change due to low uncertainty avoidance. On the other hand, the Australian culture i s still characterized by individualism, high uncertainty avoidance, small power distance, masculinity, and tend to be normative. They, therefore, tie power to personal competencies of their leaders and exhibit pride in their successes. They also rank intermediately in uncertainty avoidance making it difficult to determine the amount of resistance the employees would pose on change. Bibliography Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Robbert Maseland, and Andr Hoorn. "Are Scores on Hofstede's DimensionsOf National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis." Global Strategy Journal 5,No.3 (2015): 223-240. Billing, Tejinder K., Rabi Bhagat, Emin Babakus, B. N. Srivastava, Mansoo Shin, and Fran Brew. "Work-Family Conflict in Four National Contexts: A Closer Look at the Role ofIndividualism-Collectivism." International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 14,No. 2 (2014): 139-159. Fleming, Peter, and Andr Spicer. "Power in Management and Organization Science." The Academy of Management Annals 8, No. 1 (2014): 237-298. Ganescu, Cristina, Andreea Gangone, and Mihaela Asandei. "Assessing the Impact of the NationalCultural Framework on Responsible Corporate Behaviour towards Consumers: An Application of Geert Hofstede's Cultural Model." Amfiteatru Economic 16, No. 35 (2014):351. Geppert, Mike, Florian Becker-Ritterspach, and Ram Mudambi. "Politics and Power inMultinational Companies: Integrating the International Business and Organization Studies Perspectives." Organization Studies 37, No. 9 (2016): 1209-1225. Hamamura, Takeshi, and Berlian Gressy Septarini. "Culture and Self-Esteem over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis among Australians, 19782014." Social Psychological and Personality Science 8, No. 8 (2017): 904-909. Jacobs, G., Van Witteloostuijn, A., Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013). A Theoretical Framework ofOrganizational Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 772-792. Liu, Junying, Fanye Meng, and Richard Fellows. "An Exploratory Study of Understanding ProjectRisk Management from the Perspective of National Culture." International Journal of Project Management 33, No. 3 (2015): 564-575. Magnini, Vincent P., Sunghyup Hyun, Beomcheol Kim, and Muzaffer Uysal. "The Influences ofCollectivism in Hospitality Work Settings." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25, No. 6 (2013): 844-864. Matusitz, Jonathan, and George Musambira. "Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Technology: Analyzing Hofstede's Dimensions and Human Development Indicators."Journal of Technology in Human Services 31, No. 1 (2013): 42-60. Minkov, Michael, Vesselin Blagoev, and Geert Hofstede. "The Boundaries of Culture: Do Questions about Societal Norms Reveal Cultural Differences?" Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44, No. 7 (2013): 1094-1106. Pierro, Antonio, Bertram H. Raven, Clara Amato, and Jocelyn J. Blanger. "Bases of Social Power,Leadership Styles, and Organizational Commitment." International Journal of Psychology48, No. 6 (2013): 1122-1134. Sturm, Rachel E., and John Antonakis. "Interpersonal Power: A Review, Critique, and ResearchAgenda." Journal of Management 41, No. 1 (2015): 136-163. Uz, Irem. "The Index of Cultural Tightness and Looseness among 68 Countries." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46, No. 3 (2015): 319-335. Zhang, X., Liang, X. and Sun, H., 2013. Individualism-Collectivism, Private Benefits of Control,And Earnings Management: A Cross-Culture Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics,114(4), Pp.655-664.