Introduction
Though geographically distanced, from a cultural and economic point of view, the world is now a much smaller place. And with globalization, people with distant backgrounds are coming together to work towards a common objective. While globalization has brought people together easily, the cultures are not so easily merged. The social behaviour in a particular part of the world derives strongly from a particular context and is deeply connected to the values and beliefs of people in the area which may differ in different parts of the world (Pheng and Yuquan, 2002). Therefore, mismanagement of cultural differences could place the stakes very high. A number of empirical studies have attempted through quantitative research to explain the cultural differences existing between societies by identifying sets of cultural dimensions and have developed frameworks for analyzing cultural differences in work. These theories are pioneers in the development of cross-cultural management (Branine, 2011).
The main aim of this essay is to compare and contrast the Singapore culture through Hofstede theory, the core elements of cross-cultural management and interview with professionals with extensive experience of working in different cultures and discuss whether a strong organizational culture takes precedence over a country’s general culture.
Hofstede Theory
Hofstede theory is one of the most popular and widely disseminated researches on cross-cultural relationship management by a Dutch scholar Geert Hofstede (Branine, 2011). Hofstede collected and analyzed survey data of over 100000 employees of the multinational company IBM in the five years between 1968 and 1973 across forty-eight countries and identified four key elements of cultural differences affecting work and employee relations (Hofstede, 1991). Later on, in collaboration with other researchers, two more dimensions were added to the four. The six dimensions include power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and indulgence (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010).
Figure: Hofstede’s dimension score for Singapore.
Source: Hofstede, 2010
Hofstede’s dimension analysis for Singapore
Power distance denotes the degree to which inequality is accepted in the organization. It is a demonstrated fact that when it control and power, there are hierarchies in organizations and employees at different levels are unequal. But this distance varies for different countries and according to Hofstede, the power distance of Singapore is very high. According to an Interview with Mr Kristensen, Singapore has a more direct and strict management style and it is unacceptable or inappropriate for employees at a lower level to deviate from the chain of command and approach a higher official for any concern. This is basically due to the family upbringing and education style in Singapore where they are taught to obey high authority from a very young age and the behaviour extends into their organizational culture.
Individualism refers to taking care of oneself as opposed to caring about the priorities of a group or community to which a person belongs. An individual culture focuses more upon individual achievements and Singapore scores low on individualism in Hofstede’s dimensions demonstrating that Singapore society is steered more towards collectivism. People here belong in groups and take off each other with utmost loyalty. This may be due to the fact that Singapore is low on natural resources and heavily rely on their unity and neighbours. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the way in which the members of an organization react to an unexpected situation. Singapore has a very low score on this dimension. Singapore people are inculcated to abide by certain rules and situations that are structured and when faced with ambiguous situations, they tend to be clueless.
Masculinity pertains to society that is primarily driven by competition, assertiveness, material success etc as opposed to more modest qualities like the quality of life, caring for others defined as femininity. The score for Singapore in this regard is in between the two qualities with feminine values on the upper hand. Being modest and valuing others are viewed as very important. Also, there is very less gender bias with women being viewed as an essential component in their society. But success and competition are also among the top priorities. Long term orientation refers to a society that while dealing with current and future-oriented challenges finds ways to stay connected to their past. Singapore has a very high score in this regard and strongly supports perseverance, prolonged efforts, being thrifty with resources and so on.
The long term orientation is also referred to as Confucian dynamism and Singapore is still strongly by the doctrine of Confucianism with the majority of the Singapore population being Chinese (Hofstede et al, 2010). Employees in Singapore are more committed towards their work. As explained by Mr Kristensen in his interview, work, in general, has a higher priority in their life and engages in long term planning for the future. Indulgence pertains to the extent to which people are capable of controlling their wants and impulses and with an intermediate score, Singapore has fair control over its desires based on the general upbringing. Therefore, they are neither indulgent nor restrained.
Organizational culture Vs Country’s culture
National cultures in general have a considerable influence on the organizational culture. According to Hofstede et al (2010), culture is not something that is innate. It is based on perceptions, national and regional origin, gender, social class, bias, religious beliefs, ethnic affiliations, type of occupation and level of organization. Every nation possesses a national character and such huge groups of people sometimes share the same beliefs, values and culture. On the other hand, organisational culture is formed when a group of people belonging to the organization struggle to make sense of the new world they are in. and this will strongly be influenced by the founders and leaders who have a certain set of beliefs and values which gets manifested into the organizational culture. According to Schein (2010), there are three levels to organizational culture namely artefacts, espoused values and basic underlying assumptions. Artefacts pertain to the structures and processes that are tangible, espoused beliefs comprise of ideals, values, aspirations and objectives and basic underlying assumptions are those that are accepted without any questions asked.
All these cultures though are basically influenced by the nationality or beliefs of founders and leaders but it is also possible that over a period of time organizational culture and practices also influence the leaders’ behaviours. The subsequent leaders and founders gradually start responding to the organizational culture ultimately changing their behaviours and leadership styles as befitting the organization. This has been demonstrated by a theory developed by House et al (2004) called the culturally Endorsed Implicit Theory of Leadership (CLT). This is especially true in the case of multinational corporations that have branches or subsidiaries in different countries. Though the organisation of the company remains the same in all the nations, the company would still be bound by the values and beliefs of people in the nation.
In conclusion, it can be said that organizational culture grows out of the beliefs held by organizational members and organizational culture with no influence by national culture would be possible only if all members of the organization regardless of their nationality have similar views and beliefs guiding their behaviours and this is an impossible scenario. Therefore, it can be said that both organizational culture and country’s culture influence each other.
References
- Branine, M. (2011). Managing across cultures. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Gerhart, B. (2009). How Much Does National Culture Constrain Organizational Culture? Management and Organization Review, 5(2), pp.241-259.
- Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.
- Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- House, R. J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Kalkschmidt, T. (2013). Organizational Culture in a Cross-Cultural Context. Journal of Applied Leadership and Management, 2, pp.40-51.
- SCHEFFKNECHT, S. (2011). Multinational Enterprises Organizational Culture vs. National Culture. International Journal of Management Cases, 13(4), pp.73-78.
- Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
- Sui Pheng, L. and Yuquan, S. (2002). An exploratory study of Hofstede’s cross‐cultural dimensions in construction projects. Management Decision, 40(1), pp.7-16.
