Comparison of Two Countries Using Hofstede-myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theComparison of Two Countries Using Hofstede for Target. Answer: Introduction Power can be defined as the ability of a person to influence others in the organization. This mainly refers to the capacity of the person to affect the ways by which his subordinates behave in an organization. This is mainly related to an exchange relationship that deals with the transactions that occur between the agents and the targets. The agent is referred to a person who uses this power and the target is the person who is on the receiving end of the power (Bakir et al 2016). Change implementation can be influenced by the power of the managers that they are able to exert on the subordinates. The managers in this case can also be termed as change agents and they mainly facilitate the strategic transformation of an organization. The most important quality of a change agent is power. The leaders or the managers need to show their power and use it in the right manner to implement the change in the organizations successfully. The power that is used by the managers needs to be of the right type so that the employees comply with the instructions that are given to them (Beugelsdijk et al. 2015). The perspectives of power can be defined as the different contrasting and incompatible concepts related to power. The three dimensions of power are mainly, subjective and objective power, power as influence, power as ability and power-to and power-over. The perspectives of power are considered to be useful for the organization. The essay will be based on the analysis of the different types of power that can be used by the managers of the organization to implement any strategy or bring a change in the processes. The Hofstede model will be used to compare the cultures that are followed in the organizations in Australia and Singapore. Analysis of Hofstede Model As discussed by, Brouthers et al. (2016), the Hofstedes cultural dimension framework is mainly related to cross-cultural communication and this theory has been developed by Geert Hofstede. This describes the ways by which the culture followed in a particular society can affect the values of the members. The relation of these values to the behaviour of the members of that society is derived from the factor analysis process. The original framework developed by Hofstede depicted four major dimensions which could help in the analysis of the cultural values which includes, individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity. This theory is mainly used in the research related international management, cross-cultural psychology and cross-cultural communication. The Hofstede analysis is mainly used for the purpose of identifying the differences between the national cultures of the countries. The differences between the cultures and the values of differen t countries can be analysed by using the Hofstede model (Clinton 2017). The index of the six dimensions of Hofstede model determines the differences in the cultures that are followed in the countries. The six major components of the Hofstede model are, 1st dimension Power Distance Power distance is mainly related to the inequality of power between the supervisors and the subordinates. 2nd dimension Uncertainty avoidance This dimension is related to the extent up to which the members of a particular society are able to cope with the uncertainty that can occur in the future. 3rd dimension Individualism vs. Collectivism This dimension is related to the level up to which the individuals in the society are interested in the formation of groups. 4th dimension Masculinity vs. Femininity This dimension is related to the distribution of the emotional roles between the different genders. 5th dimension Long-term vs. short term orientation This dimension is based on the orientation of the individuals towards a particular long-term or short-term goal. 6th dimension Indulgence vs. restraint This dimension in mainly based on the happiness level of a particular society (Marieke 2015). Sources of power The five different sources power are as follows, Coercive Power Coercive power is mainly derived from the ability of the person to influence others with the help of threats, sanctions or punishments. This power is therefore related to the ability of the person to fire, punish or reprimand the other employees or subordinates of the organizations. This helps in controlling the behaviour of the employees in the company. Reward Power This power is related to the ability of the person to affect the allocation of the incentives of the organization. These incentives consist of increments of salary, promotions and performance appraisals. Reward power can be used to motivate the employees so that they improve their performance (Lauren, Mathieu and Kukenberger 2016). Legitimate Power Legitimate power is derived from a person who holds a position in the hierarchy of an organization. This type of power can also be termed as positional power. The positional power of legitimate power can be exercised efficiently only if the person has earned the power in a legitimate manner. Expert Power This type of power is related to the expertise or knowledge that is derived from a particular area. The skilled people are high value in the organization and they are also known for their skills related to problem-solving (Jane and Ragins 2017). Referent Power This power is derived from the interpersonal relationships that the people create with the others in the organization. These people possess the referent power when the others have respect for them. This type of power arises from the charisma of the person and ways by which he influences other people in the organization. Referent power can also be derived from the personal connections, trust and the respect among people. The personal relationships of the people help them in generating the power over others. Application of Hofstede model to change management Power Distance Index (PDI) As discussed by, Martin, Evanschitzky and Gilliland (2016), Power Distance Index is related to the degree of inequality of the power between the employees of the organization. Singapore has a high Power Distance Index or PDI which depicts that it deals with many levels of hierarchical power distribution. The society of Australia has low PDI which means that the hierarchical levels in the organizations of this country are low. Change implementation is tougher in organizations with high PDI that is Singapore as compared to the Australia which has low PDI. The reason being that the high PDI organizations have many levels hierarchy which leads to longer time taken for decision-making. In case of a country with high PDI like Singapore legitimate power will prove to be the most useful as many hierarchies are present in the different decision-making levels. On the other hand, for the country with low PDI like Australia rewards power is much more useful the levels of hierarchy are less (Dezhu, Yew-Kwang and Lian 2015). Individualism Vs. Collectivism According to, Handley, Sean and Angst (2015), the degree of individualism in the Australian society is high and it has received a score of 90 in the analysis. The Australian culture is Individualist in nature and the citizens are self-reliant. The degree of individualism is low and it has received a score of 20 in the analysis. The concept of We is important in the society of Singapore and this depicts the highly collectivist culture of Singapore. The people belonging to a certain group are always loyal with each other. The type of power which is suitable for the highly individualist culture like Australia is expert power and the reason is that the knowledge of the individuals in the society can influence others. The power that is suitable for a highly collectivist society like Singapore is the referent power as the interpersonal relationships between the members of the group are good and they are loyal to each other. The change management process will be easier in case of a collectivist society as the members of the society are related to each other and will be able to understand the benefits of change. On the other hand, the change implementation will be difficult in case of a highly individualist society as each of the individuals are interested in their own benefits. Masculinity Vs. Femininity As discussed by, Karlsson et al. (2018), the score of Singapore in this dimension is 48 and this depicts the levels of competition in the society are low. The society is more feminine in nature and it is mainly driven by the values and the ways by which the individuals care for each other. The score of Australia in this dimension is 61 and this depicts that the Australian society is more masculine in nature and the it is drive more by the competition as compared to the values and care that the individuals have for each other. The power that is suitable for a highly masculine society like Australia is the reward power as the high levels of competition in the society will encourage them in competing with each other for rewards. On the other hand, referent power is suitable for a highly feminine society like Singapore as the importance of values in the society will help them in developing interpersonal relationships (Sykes et al. 2014). The change implementat ion process needs to be different for both types of society. In case of a highly masculine society where competition is high the managers of the organizations need to educate the employees about the benefits of the change for the individuals. On the other hand, in case of a society with high values the change needs to be useful for the entire society. Uncertainty Avoidance Index According to, Riadh, Souiden and Choi (2015), the score of Singapore in the uncertainty avoidance index is 8, which is considered to be low. This depicts that the society of Singapore and the individuals are not able to avoid the stress related to the uncertainty that can occur in the future. On the other hand, Australia scores 51 in this dimension which much higher than Singapore. This score depicts that the individuals of this society are able to deal with the changes or the uncertainty that can occur in the future. The power which is suitable for a society with low index of uncertainty is coercive power as the individuals in the society cannot deal with the changes and they need to be sometimes compelled to accept the changes with the help of punishments. The power that is suitable for a society with the high uncertainty index is the legitimate power which will help in instructing the employees to adapt to the changes. The process of change implementat ion will be the toughest for a society with low uncertainty index (Sturm, Rachel and Antonakis 2015). Change can be easily implemented in a society which has low uncertainty index as the individuals are ready to accept change. Long-term Vs. Short term The score of Singapore in the long-term orientation is 72 and that of Australia is 21. This depicts that the society of Singapore deals with long-term goals and the society of Australia mainly deals with short-term goals. The power suitable for Singapore will be referent power and that for Australia will be rewards power. The change implementation will be easier for a society with high long-term score as compared to that with a low long-term score (Mazanec et al. 2015). Indulgence Vs. Restraint The indulgence score of Australia is 71 and that of Singapore is 46. This score depicts that the individuals of the society of Singapore are not able to control their impulses easily as compared to that of the individuals of the Australian society. The referent power is suitable for a society with a low score in indulgence and expert power is suitable for a society with a low score in indulgence. The implementation of change will be easier for a society where the indulgence level is low as compared to a society where the indulgence level is high (Lourdes and Medina 2017). Conclusion The analysis of Singapore based on the Hofstedes cultural dimensions have depicted that change implementation is not easy in the country. Singapore has received a low score in the dimensions like, individualism, masculinity, avoidance of uncertainty and indulgence. This has made the process of change implementation quite tough. The individuals in the society are not able to control their impulses and emotions and this can lead to many issues in the organizations and the changes that are implemented in the organizations. The low importance given to competition in the market is another issue in the society and this can be solved by increasing the levels of competition and further improving their performance so that they can fulfil their duties. Recommendations The masculinity index of the country can be increased by increasing the levels of competition in the market. The degree of indulgence can be reduced by making the citizens of the country more concerned about their own careers rather being impulsive about the decisions that they take regarding their organizations based on impulse. The power distance index in the company can be reduced by changing the organizational structure of the company and reducing hierarchical levels. References Bakir, Aysen, Jeffrey G. Blodgett, Scott J. Vitell, and Gregory M. Rose. "A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of Hofstedes cross cultural dimensions." InProceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference, pp. 226-232. Springer, Cham, 2015. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Robbert Maseland, and Andr Hoorn. "Are scores on Hofstede's dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis."Global Strategy Journal5, no. 3 (2015): 223-240. Brouthers, Lance Eliot, Victor B. Marshall, and Dawn L. Keig. "Solving the single-country sample problem in cultural distance studies."Journal of International Business Studies47, no. 4 (2016): 471-479. Clinton, J. Robert.The making of a leader: Recognizing the lessons and stages of leadership development. Two Words Publishing, LLC, 2017. DInnocenzo, Lauren, John E. Mathieu, and Michael R. Kukenberger. "A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadershipteam performance relations."Journal of Management42, no. 7 (2016): 1964-1991. De Mooij, Marieke. "Cross-cultural research in international marketing: clearing up some of the confusion."International Marketing Review32, no. 6 (2015): 646-662. Dutton, Jane E., and Belle Rose Ragins, eds.Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Psychology Press, 2017. Eisend, Martin, Heiner Evanschitzky, and David I. Gilliland. "The influence of organizational and national culture on new product performance."Journal of Product Innovation Management33, no. 3 (2016): 260-276. Handley, Sean M., and Corey M. Angst. "The impact of culture on the relationship between governance and opportunism in outsourcing relationships."Strategic Management Journal36, no. 9 (2015): 1412-1434. Karlsson, Niklas PE, Hlne Laurell, John Lindgren, Tobias Pehrsson, Svante Andersson, and Gran Svensson. "A cross-country comparison and validation of firms stakeholder considerations in sustainable business practices."Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society(2018). Ladhari, Riadh, Nizar Souiden, and Yong-Hoon Choi. "Culture change and globalization: The unresolved debate between cross-national and cross-cultural classifications."Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ)23, no. 3 (2015): 235-245. Mazanec, Josef A., John C. Crotts, Dogan Gursoy, and Lu Lu. "Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions in a single nation."Tourism Management48 (2015): 299-304. Munduate, Lourdes, and Francisco J. Medina. "10 How Does Power Affect Those Who Have It and Those Who Dont? Power Inside Organizations."An introduction to work and organizational psychology: An international perspective(2017): 176. Sturm, Rachel E., and John Antonakis. "Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda."Journal of Management41, no. 1 (2015): 136-163. Sykes, Tracy Ann, Viswanath Venkatesh, and Jonathan L. Johnson. "Enterprise system implementation and employee job performance: Understanding the role of advice networks."MIS quarterly38, no. 1 (2014). Ye, Dezhu, Yew-Kwang Ng, and Yujun Lian. "Culture and happiness."Social indicators research123, no. 2 (2015): 519-547.