The Hofstede Model: Dimensions Of Power And Their Impact On Change Management

The Hofstede Model

Discuss about the Nature Of Power And Politics In The Organization.

Power is an ability of the person to influence others. It is a fundamental human phenomenon which is deeply entrenched on the conscious and personality of the individuals. The powerful people are not aware of their powers but whenever they can influence or guide other, power rests upon them (Neill 2015). In a business context, having power and using it are different things. Power is the most necessity for the attainment of change because if the authorities do not have and execute power, the employees will not be able to increase their productivity. Power enables the leaders to control the negativity and motivate the employees to lean towards positive progress.  

The difference between appropriate and improper usage of power decides that high or low productivity, success or failure, motivation or disillusionment of the employees. The perspectives of power have different perspectives but the aim always remain one that is to increase the employees’ performance to grow business. Some grant power to have negative influences on the organizational culture, some view positive changes after power is executed (Richardson, Jeremy and Sonia 2015). The authorities with power to change can encourage employees through rewards and appraisals for strong perforce. For this reason, the executives gain more power through the respect and communication of the employees and record low turnover. One the contrary, some leaders threaten employees to perform high or show favoritism to some. Hence, they are not respected by the employees and record high employee turnover in the organization.

This essay discusses the different dimensions of the Hofstede model and explains its power along with usage. There are five sources of power which is explained in detail. The essay then applies the Hofstede model to the change management. It explains the effect of each dimension on the perception of change and its implantation.

It serves as a framework for efficient cultural communication. It captures the influence of the culture of the society on the values and perceptions of its members (Saleem, Salman, and Jorma 2017). This cultural dimension theory buy Hofstede has been presented by using a structure which is derived from the factor analysis. These values recount to the behavior and actions of the members. This model, produced to judge the influence of culture on the behavior, is applied mainly in having a general overview of the people who work together but have different cultural and national background.

The Five Bases of Power

There are six dimensions in Hofstede theory. First is the power intended model, in which the inferior or the less powerful members of the society of organization expects as well as accept the equal power distribution. People in the societies accept a hierarchical structure when they exhibit a degree of power distance. In the hierarchical order, each of the society members have place according to their responsibilities and ask for no justification (Mazanec et al. 2015). Second is the individualism where the individuals of the organization or society take care of themselves without having much concern for the collective welfare. Masculinity index represents the desire for achievements, assertiveness and material rewards for success. On the other hand, feminism is the preference cooperation, modesty and caring for enhancing the quality of life (Bakir et al. 2015). In uncertainty avoidance index, the societies maintain orthodox codes of beliefs as well as behavior thus avoid uncertainty. In long term orientation, the societies prefer to maintain traditions as well as norms and take more pragmatic approaches. They view special changes with suspicion. Finally, in indulgence dimension, the societies like to invest time in leisure and entertainment. The restraint societies on the other hand suppress the gratification of basic human drives (Rallapalli, Kumar and Cameron 2015).

The five bases of power were described by French and Raven in the year 1959. By understanding the bases of power the organizations can use the positive powers to their full effect then distinguish and avoid negative ones.

Coercive power can be derived from the ability of the person to motivate his inferiors via sanctions, punishments or threat. A junior employee therefore works carefully and attentively to avoid the consequences of missing his or her deadline and also avoid the disciplinary actions from his superior (Simpson et al. 2015). Coercive power enables the higher authorities’ ability to fire, punish and reprimands their subordinates. It helps to control the attitudes of the staff and ensure that they work according to the policies or norms of the organization.

Legitimate power is known as positional power. It is derived from a position of a person in a hierarchy of the organization. It chiefly depends on the job descriptions where the junior employees are expected to report to their managers and the mangers have power to assign duties to their juniors.

Expert power is resulted from the passion of knowledge and expertise in specific area. This experienced people are highly valued in the organizations due to their problem solving aptitudes. These people execute their expert powers to perform most critical tasks. Hence become immune in the organizational culture (Scott, Richard and Gerald 2015) Due to their experience and expertise, these people are promoted to the senior managements hence gain legitimate power.

Using Power in an Organizational Context

Referent power arises from the charismatic feature of the of a person. He influences others and gains admiration, trust and respect. These people maintain personal relationships with others which give them referent power (Jia et al 2015). Through referent power, these people achieve whatever they want in the organization.

Reward power is derived from the person’s ability to stimulate the allocation of incentives. These incentives can be a salary increment, positive appraisals as well as promotion. The people enjoying reward power can influence the activities of the employees. They can greatly motivate as well as demoralize the employees.

The ways in which the business has been conducted internationally, are affected by numerous factors. One leading aspect that plays a vital role in the many facets of the globe business, is culture. As mentioned by Hofstede the culture is the collective programming in the human mind that differentiate the associated members from one category of people to others. Within the study of Hofstede’s cultural dimension model, the concept of culture has been researched in the national scale (Engle, Robert and Briana 2015). Managers working in the international organizations come across different cultures in different countries. Hence they need to change the company’s norms and policies according to the culture of that particular country. In today’s multicultural global business communities frequently encounter cultural differences, that interfere with the successful completion of their projects.

For working effectively, the process of change management need to consider the methods of adjustment and replacement of the systems along with the employees in the company. Moreover, the consideration also focuses on the impact of changed management in the company’s process, communication and planning. In addition to this, changed management also influence the process of scheduling and documenting (Upadhyaya, Shikha and Terri 2015). Both these components are critical in changed management as they help in maintaining an audit trail and in ensuring compliance with the external and internal controls.

In introducing a successful change in the organization, the companies face a primary barrier that is the culture (Harper 2015). The social organizational of a culture includes institutions, religion, behavior, perceptions, adherence to laws, family structure and the process of maintaining relationship. All these factors determine the effect of culture on an individual. Each of these factors decides how different cultures organize themselves into one particular hierarchy. Hofstede’s model offers a clear view on the extensive evidences along with the overall classification schemes for the cross-cultural comparisons.

Impact of Power on Change Management

From the perspective of the power distance index, it can be said that some countries do not allow much power sharing in the organizations. Here the decisions are made by the higher level authorities and the lower levels are expected to carry out without any confusion (Khatri, Naresh      and Eric 2016). Changed management of an organization may focus on the inclusion of views from lower level also in making new policies but the culture which have higher power distance index will never accept the knowledge sharing procedures among high and low level of employees of the organization. This differences of perspectives can create confusion among the staffs and may nurture an autocratic feature in the organization. Differences in the power distance often influence the degree of decentralization in an organization.

The application of the changed management can face a strong barrier in the high uncertainty avoidance countries. As is dimension defining a higher degree of collective tolerance for ambiguity, it does not allow the organizations to have change. As this type of culture fears uncertainty, try to avoid it through rigid customs and rules. This ultimately effect the organizational structure as well as authority relations (Einarsen et al. 2016). The aims of improvement by means of changed management largely depends om the masculinity factor. With the differences between masculinity and femininity dimensions, the focus of the organizations changes so also their operations. In addition to this, very masculine cultures feel difficulty in seeing women in the higher authoritative positions.

Some of the countries put emphasis on the collectivism which value the effect of the groups. On the other hand, highly individualistic cultures focus on the performance of the individuals. Therefore, this culture faces more difficulty in working with teams because all of the people in this culture work for themselves only. Changed management sometimes may focus on the urgency of group tasks but highly individualistic culture of the organization, evolve trust issues and fail to operate properly (Hu et al. 2016). The believe and practice of the traditional norms along with experiences, in doing a project can be questionable for the organizations that follow sort them orientation. Change management of an organization may emphasis on the relation between work and play but resistant culture may not allow the emotion or indulgence in work. This culture is more rigid and result oriented hence control the lives of the employees. The concept of changed management strategies assumes the culture of the different people working in one culture. It needs to devote effort in designing effective policies in the company hence need to consider values that influence the perceived importance of changed strategies as well as ultimate success. Different cultural dimensions, connect with the environment differently, build relationships and remain active according to different perceptions. Without understanding the cultural need of the employees, the companies will not be able to gain success in changed management.

Conclusion

Conclusion:

Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a strong relation between power and the various dimensions of culture. As the Hofstede model implies, different countries and different culture and perspectives which is reflected in their organization culture. Hence the power possessed by the leaders must be executed according to this cultural differences. The leaders need to have proper understanding of the expectation of the employees which varies from culture to culture. The change management can create major issues in the organization because implementation of changes has various effects on the business as well as their employees. Due to fact that the chief aim of the leaders is to motivate the employees by executing power, they follow the cultural dimension model closely.

Singapore has a multi-ethnic society with majority of Chinese people hence in the power distance aspect, it scores high. The culture is more collectivist where people thinks about the al, inclusive growth instead of self-interest. In masculinity index Singapore scores 48 which keeps it in middle but more on the feminist side. Hence consensus and sympathy works more than achievement and rivalry. The organizations in the country tends to abide by many rules which ultimately helps to avoid uncertainty. It believes in long term orientation and take more pragmatic approach for sustenance. This culture emphasizes more value on the virtue which has made them superior that the western culture. Unlike China, the culture of Singapore also does not prefer the indulgence of luxury in work. By keeping these factors in mind the leaders can control and maintain the motivational factors and productivity growth.

Reference:

Bakir, Aysen, Jeffrey G. Blodgett, Scott J. Vitell, and Gregory M. Rose. “A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions.” In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference, pp. 226-232. Springer, Cham, 2015.

Einarsen, Ståle, Merethe Schanke Aasland, and Anders Skogstad. “the nature and outcomes of destructive leadership behavior in Organizations.” Risky Business: Psychological, Physical and Financial Costs of High Risk Behavior in Organizations (2016): 323.

Engle, Robert L., and Briana Nash. “Does it matter if researchers use individual dimension constructs or only aggregated constructs of cultural distance and cultural intelligence?.” Journal of International Business Research 14, no. 2 (2015): 47.

Harper, Charles. Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Routledge, 2015.

Hu, Xiaoxiao, Phillip L. Gilmore, Lois E. Tetrick, Feng Wei, and Arianna White. “On the functioning of reciprocity in organizations: The moderating effects of relationship orientation and power distance.” The Psychologist-Manager Journal 19, no. 3-4 (2016): 123.

Jia, Peng, Anahita MirTabatabaei, Noah E. Friedkin, and Francesco Bullo. “Opinion dynamics and the evolution of social power in influence networks.” SIAM review 57, no. 3 (2015): 367-397.

Khatri, Naresh, and Eric WK Tsang. “Antecedents and Consequences of Cronyism in Organizations.” In Crony Capitalism in India, pp. 9-31. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016.

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.

Neill, Marlene S. “Beyond the c-suite: corporate communications’ power and influence.” Journal of Communication Management 19, no. 2 (2015): 118-132.

Rallapalli, Kumar C., and Cameron D. Montgomery. “Marketing strategies for Asian-Americans: guidelines based on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions.” In Minority marketing: Research perspectives for the 1990s, pp. 73-77. Springer, Cham, 2015.

Richardson, Jeremy, and Sonia Mazey, eds. European Union: power and policy-making. Routledge, 2015.

Saleem, Salman, and Jorma Larimo. “Hofstede cultural framework and advertising research: An assessment of the literature.” In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. VII), pp. 247-263. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2017.

Scott, W. Richard, and Gerald F. Davis. Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge, 2015.

Simpson, Jeffry A., Allison K. Farrell, M. Minda Oriña, and Alexander J. Rothman. “Power and social influence in relationships.” APA handbook of personality and social psychology 3 (2015): 393-420.

Upadhyaya, Shikha, and Terri L. Rittenburg. “Cultural influences on experiences of and responses to consumer vulnerability.” In Annual macromarketing conference, p. 59. 2015.