Culture is a social artifact that develops as a result of social contact, either intentionally or unintentionally. Ceremonies, customs, language, symbolism, the design of work environments, the use of technology, and a group's problem-solving procedures or tactics are all examples of culture. The culture of people is much affected by social interaction with certain limits in a social environment. The cultural alignment of a society reveals the complexity of values, behaviors, and attitudes displayed by its members. People in an organization exhibit culture and its normative abilities via the standards they hold regarding their life and the world around them.
The difference in cultural diversity in organizations and various institutions has called for the importance of effective managerial skills for enhancement of intercultural effectiveness in the performance of organizational objectives. Cross-cultural effectiveness is the ability of people in a community to understand individuals from the different cultures and interact with them effectively. Interaction or the cross-cultural competence has become a valuable aspect due to increasing globalization and the shifting from one cultural environment to the other (Rasmussen 2016). This paper will, therefore, focus on the cross-cultural management in Singapore cultural setting.
The Singapore Culture
Since Singapore is a multiracial, multi-religious community, the assimilation of different cultural norms is possible. According to the Singapore Prime Minister, no culture or race is strained to conform to other identities, and therefore, different cultures from various communities are preserved and respected (Salleh 2017). The importance of retaining cultural norms is to foster a society rich in ethics especially in respecting one another. According to Salleh (2017), the Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong asserts a society where people are considerate and kind to one another, which can be enhanced by observing Singaporean culture rather than being rated first in the world’s economy.
In fostering coexistence, Singaporeans maintain their cultural norms and emerge uniquely in multiracial approach (Salleh 2017). Singaporeans observe a culture that is community and family oriented. For Singaporeans, family forms the center of social structure that accentuates loyalty, unity, and respect. Therefore, in all their endeavors, the Singaporean tries not to jeopardize loyalty, unity, and respect. Personal dignity is another important aspect of Singapore culture as personal respect is the most prioritized especially considering the hierarchical difference. That is, employees are bound to show elevated respect to their seniors irrespective of the situation. The character and name are marks of personal attributes that earn Singaporeans respect among their peers. Respect is ranked above personal level and extends to school, company, family, and even the nation itself. The Singaporean Prime Minister asserts that the uniqueness of Singaporean identity is due to the respect of Singapore diversity and fundamental aspects of each group’s identity in the community (Salleh 2017).
One of the major fears of the Singaporeans is the assimilation of various norms from different communities. According to the Singapore Prime Minister, the Singaporeans prefer cultural integration rather than cultural assimilation from the immigrants. Acceptance of immigrants’ culture leads to the loss of the native’s cultural identity and ethnic group. Some of the attributes of Singapore culture have fostered hard work, respect for the elderly, and other charity functions (Salleh 2017). Hard work is fostered by the Singaporean belief on collectivism rather than individualism. People strive to achieve company’s objectives beyond personal interest and gains.
However, the assertion by the Singapore Prime Minister on the uniqueness of the Singaporean culture can be challenged especially in observing social effects associated with globalization. Once immigrants land in the host country, they tend to distribute their cultural norms, which Singaporeans cannot claim to be immune to. Singapore like any other host country for the immigrants is prone to experience the impacts of basic pillars of globalization. These pillars are secularism, radicalism and cynical liberation (Reed 2006). Globalization is the upsurge in the interconnectedness of people, communities, and places due to advances in communication, information technologies, and transportation that cause economic, political, and cultural convergence (Reddy et al. 2010).
The core value of the Singaporeans is a family that is paramount and placed first, but due to globalization processes, the Singaporeans are highly prone to value marginal benefits more than their family. Intrinsically, people are affected in many ways by the multiculturalism, and sometimes it happens without their knowledge (Zengkun 2016). Another issue compromising the integrity in organization setting is the fact that individual dignity is more valued and prioritized. In protecting company’s or managerial dignity, Singaporeans might jeopardize the organization’s integrity.
Personally, I do not think the Singapore culture is as unique as Salleh portrays in his article. Western cultural influences are all palpable in Singapore resulting in mixed traditions and local customs. The diversity and cultural assimilation can be seen through the reflection of common languages in Singapore such as English and Tamil.
Singapore Culture and Work Environment
Singapore, being a diversified society, also follows some cultural norms at work that might defer from those cultures found in the western countries. The working environment, especially in the local companies, is highly influenced by collectivism, high power distance, long-term orientations, and high uncertainty, which all define Singapore workplace. The impact on decision-making and questioning is dependent on the hierarchical relationships. However, this is not the case in the Western country’s work environment as the chain of command is often broken.
The Western countries acknowledge individualism more than collectivism. Individualism is a concept that individual accomplishments belong to him and so the individual acts according to his judgment as well as pursues individual goals as he perceives. Therefore, individualism stresses more on person’s independence, reliance, and liberty. Unlike individualism, collectivism focuses on the notion that individual life and achievement belongs to the society or a group of people surrounding him. As a result, he must sacrifice his goals and values for the good of the society (Biddle 2012).
In the Western culture, in settings where individualism dominates, personal success is highly valued, and therefore, the person associated with this success will be more appreciated in the working stations. In contrast, the majority of Singaporean companies believe in the group-centered culture that helps in maintaining cooperation, teamwork, and harmony in the workplace. They also believe that prioritizing individual desires above the community’s needs poses a risk to group harmony. Thus, the collectivist culture is more preferred as the group acquires the company’s achievements equally, encouraging dissemination of ideas in the workplace.
Singapore is also known to have strict rules when it comes to decision making, and as opposed to universal work culture principles, there are restrictions to every situation. This is a major blow to innovators as it takes time and protocols for individual’s idea to be adopted by the senior management. The economy, therefore, suffers from the lack of innovations due to boundaries and restrictions. Innovation is left to the few chosen people, while the rest of population has to follow. As a consequence, this culture is prone to deter innovation process and possible technological advancement.
The whole idea of cultural respect in the community is to restore and maintain human dignity and ethical principles. Consequently, in the workplace, the culture should allow for coexistence. Studying the Singapore cultural aspects, I see some sorts of selfishness that might encourage intimidation or rather oppression of the employees. In protection of the perceived Singaporean dignity, there are rules in the workplace environment that seem to be a bit compromising.
Employees are not allowed to correct the superior’s mistake and question their employer in public. Also, disagreeing with superiors and employers in public is prohibited as well as refusing employers outright. This is also echoed with another rule which forbids confrontation against the boss. The challenge is that the employee might be forced to agree or comply with terms of his will. The fact that the employee is bound to agree with all the directives from the employer might make him work against his wish, and thus, slavery might be encouraged.
The working cultures in Singapore have some impact on the management as they enhance fast decision making. The manager can supervise the employees due to the strict set of rules to protect the Singaporean dignity. The importance of decision making, which is fastened by the Singaporean work culture, is that it allows proper allocation and utilization of resources and achievement of set objectives. Also, business growth, increased efficiency, and better tactics of solving problems and challenges are enhanced (Akrani 2011). However, there is a major challenge in managing a multicultural workplace as the culturally diversified community tends to stick to native customs which might not conform to the Singaporean workplace cultural behaviors.
Comparison of the Singapore Culture and the American Culture
In this section, the paper will focus on the diversity of my culture and that of the Singapore. The culture of the work environment will be considered as the main core of the argument. In comparing the two cultures, Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions will be used. They include power distance, individualism and collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientations, indulgence versus restraint, and masculinity versus femininity (Hofstede 2011, p.8).
Power Distance
Power distance is a notion that tries to explain the criteria people use in society to handle inequality issues. A high power distance, therefore, ranks everybody in the society in hierarchical order regarding prestige, status, authority, power, and wealth. On the contrary, a society with low power distance strives to equalize the distribution of power (Leibensperger 2015). The United States’ culture is low power distance oriented as compared to the high power oriented Singapore culture. The higher the distance, the more the disconnection is realized in the organization. In local perspective, decision making flows from the top management to the employees. There are no restrictions on the access of opinion from the employ to the manager. Unlike the US culture, in Singapore, the lower level staffs do not make a significant impact on decision making as their opinion is rarely considered.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is the people’s tolerance for ambiguity. It defines the way societies deal with unknown situations stress change and the unexpected events. A culture that scores high in the uncertainty avoidance index tends to minimize the anxiety of the unexpected events by employing rigid rules and regulations (Hofstede 2011, p.10). The western culture, especially the United States, is low in uncertainty avoidance. They, therefore, take individual initiatives and risks as they prefer conflict associated with the risk. When it comes to risks and initiatives, the Singaporeans tend to be a bit observant, and thus, they are high in uncertainty avoidance (Cats 2013).
Individualism versus Collectivism
Individualistic oriented cultures emphasize on the prominence of attaining personal goals, while the collectivists stress on the group’s achievement. According to Hofstede (2011), in individualism task prevails over the relationship, and therefore, personal opinion is encouraged. On the contrary, collectivism advocates for the relationship over the task (Hofstede 2011, p.11). Individualism prevails more in the Western region such as the United States. The Singapore culture is characterized as collectivism as opposed to the US culture.
Masculinity versus Femininity
Masculinity and femininity can be in various contexts. For instance, in business context, femininity is referred to an organization which is modest in its operations, while masculinity presents an organization that is highly competitive (Leibensperger 2015). Considering this definition, the local country would score high in masculinity as compared to Singapore. This means that the US members are more competition oriented in their organization (Leibensperger 2015). However, according to Hofstede (2011), in femininity cultured society, both genders deal with facts and feelings and are expected to balance family and work. Contrarily, masculinity culture believes that women deal with feeling and men with facts. Also, according to masculinity, work prevails over family (Hofstede 2011, p.12).
Long-Term versus Short- Orientation
This cultural dimension describes a community's time horizon. Short-term oriented culture asserts that the past and present occurrences are interconnected while long-term oriented culture sees time as linear and stresses on the future rather than past and present. Also, short-term orientation believes that the most important occurrences in life occurred in the past or take place now. In the case of long-term oriented culture, the most important events will occur in the future (Hofstede 2011, p.15). The United States’ culture is more short-term oriented as people prefer to maintain American tradition and norms (Hofstede 2011). On the other hand, Singapore culture is long-term oriented therefore supporting long-term investment. Long-term investments are characterized by sustainable efforts, perseverance, slow results, and thrift.
Indulgence versus Restraint
The indulgent culture believes in individual happiness, and thus, leisure time is paramount. Also, personal control and freedom are much advocated in indulgent cultures. Restraint culture, on the other hand, limits freedom and leisure time, as a consequence, positive emotions are less freely expressed (Maclachlan 2013). Restraint cultures tend to prevail in the Eastern countries, whereas the indulgence culture is more dominant in the Western region.
Conclusion
Globalization has brought about the interaction of different cultures of the world. Singapore being a business hub has become one of the world’s multicultural societies. Singapore seems to be reluctant in assimilating cultural norm from the immigrants. Therefore, the Singaporean culture is dominant in spite of the diversity. To improve coexistence in such a community, it is critical to observe cross-cultural competence.
References
Akrani, G., 2011. Importance of Decision Making in Management. [Online] Available at: http://kalyan-city.blogspot.co.ke/2011/08/importance-of-decision-making-in.html [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Biddle, C., 2012. individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice. [Online] Available at: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/ [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Cats, 2013. Different Cultures, Different Styles. [Online] Available at: http://www.stjobs.sg/career-resources/workplace-success/different-cultures-different-styles/a/100516 [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Hofstede, G., 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Reading in Psychology and Culture, II(1), pp. 3-26.
Leibensperger, M., 2015. Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory & Employee Behavior. [Online] Available at: https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2015/11/28/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory-employee-behavior/ [Accessed 25 May 2017].
Maclachlan, M., 2013. INDULGENCE VS. RESTRAINT – THE 6TH DIMENSION. [Online] Available at: https://www.communicaid.com/cross-cultural-training/blog/indulgence-vs-restraint-6th-dimension/ [Accessed 25 May 2017].
Molinsky, A., 2016. Cultural Differences Are More Complicated than What Country You’re From. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/01/cultural-differences-are-more-complicated-than-what-country-youre-from [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Rasmussen, L., 2016. Cross-Cultural Competence: Engage People from any Culture. [Online] Available at: https://www.globalcognition.org/cross-cultural-competence/ [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Reddy, G. et al., 2010. Cross Cultural Management. [Online] Available at: https://phanisarma.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/cross-cultural-management.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Reed, N., 2006. Globalization and its impact on Singapore family values. [Online] Available at: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/11/globalization-and-its-impact-on-singapore-family-values/ [Accessed 22 May 2017].
Salleh, N., 2017. Singaporean identity is unique: PM. [Online] Available at: http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/singaporean-identity-unique-pm [Accessed 22 May 2017].
Zengkun, F., 2016. HOW CULTURE SHAPES OUR BEHAVIOUR. [Online] Available at: https://www.smu.edu.sg/news/smuresearch/2016/06/28/how-culture-shapes-our-behaviour [Accessed 23 May 2017].
