Introduction
The experience of living in a national of dynamism and multicultural setting like Singapore is one of its kind that will last in my memory for quite some time and it could be a remarkable life-time experience. The core cultural beliefs and values come into play in the communicative behaviors of the individuals living in a state or nation (Wong, 2011). I give an explicit insight into the cultural values of the Singaporeans from an experience of a person who had the opportunity to stay in the country for about four and half years as a student. This gives a good overview of the profound driving aspects of the Singaporean culture in relation to the other cultures of the world.
According to t definition given by Hodgetts & Luthans (2011), culture is knowledge that is acquired and helps in generating and making sense of social behavior. It is significant for individuals in managerial positions to understand and be in a position to handle the arising situations from the cultural differences for them to steer their teams towards the desired direction. On the other hand, culture can be considered as the “shared values or beliefs” or rather a common way of looking at things which are shared by individuals inhabiting the same social environment.
The Hofstede’s Singaporeans Cultural Dimensions.
Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions serve as the framework on which this study on the multicultural aspect of Singaporeans is conducted. The aspects covered in the Hofstede’s cultural dimension include power distance; uncertainty avoidance; masculinity versus femininity; collectivism versus individualism; and long – term versus short – term orientation (Lian, 2016). The framework of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions becomes relevant to this study because his work derived from a research of different nation’s culture values. Additionally, he also incorporated Singapore in his survey, and therefore this paper finds an empirical basis for creating a comparison of specific aspects of Singapore’s “national culture” with that of other nations, for example, United Kingdom and the United States.
Power Distance
The power distance factor of the Hofstede’s cultural dimension gives reference to the extent in which an unequal distribution of power is accepted among Singaporeans. This factor covers that fact that all the Singaporeans are not equal. Therefore, the power distance aspect articulates the attitude of the national culture towards such inequalities among the nation’s citizens. The fact has always remained that people are unequal when it comes to issues of control and power. What creates a significant difference is how small or large these “psychological distances” are maintained at the various organizational levels.
Singaporeans have strong value and adherence to the hierarchical relationship within their society, due to Confucian teaching. The Singaporeans view the society as composed of individuals who are inherently unequal in standing and rank, and such differences in rank are reinforced and signaled by the style of the interaction among the involved parties. Respect, deference, and formality towards their superiors are the norm. Additionally, juniors are required to keep their ideas and opinions to themselves unless directly or specifically. Thus, it becomes unlikely to find that subordinates in Singapore questioning authority, and still they are less likely to initiate an upward communication unless asked to do so because its culture values of “the importance of status differences and hierarchies (Wong, 2011).”
Uncertainty Avoidance
This cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance encapsulates the measure of the extent to which the nation’s culture programs its members to feel comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured situations. That is, how the society deals with the fact that the future is always unknown. It is considered that nations with high uncertainty avoidance ratings like France and Japan, have higher needs for more written laws, strong beliefs in expertise and knowledge, security and lower labor turnover.
In a study carried in early 80’s Hofstede rated the uncertainty avoidance index of Singapore at 8. This gives the evidence that Singapore displays a higher degree of tolerance for ambiguity. Furthermore, the Singapore government has been consistently creating an environment to assist aspiring entrepreneurs to start up their businesses (Lian, 2016). Among the key mission of its key missions is to build a highly vibrant entrepreneurial culture in Singapore which would thrive in nimbleness, creativity, and good business sense.
Individualism
The dimension of individualism posses the concern for one’s self as an individual unlike giving concern to the priorities and rules of a group to which a person belongs ( Hodgetts & LUthans, 2011). The culture of individualism gives priority to the rights and achievements of an individual, as they are valued on the basis of their own status and achievement.
Singapore drives towards a collective culture. The government of Singapore stresses on the concept of communitarianism in which they believe that the collective interest should be put above any individual. This aspect becomes important to the nation as it doesn’t posses any natural resources. Its sustenance relies on the neighborhood nations, and thus, Singaporeans can see the great essence of standing united hence exhibiting low individualism.
Assertiveness – Modesty
In a social behavior setting, the Singaporeans usually tend to be modest. The requirement of modesty makes them to be averse to the self – assertion and ensure expression of humility at a compliment. The Singaporeans show the lack of assertiveness a result of being assertive. They exercise lots of caution not to be viewed as braggarts as they strive not to make any promise which they are not absolutely sure they would fulfill. In Singapore, the people took down upon fools “who have no idea of their own limits”. Boasting, bragging, lack of humility and modesty are traits which can cause envy and trouble. The Singaporeans believe that they need to demonstrate competence in action instead of bragging about how best or well they are able to do their jobs (Hodgetts & Luthans, 2011).
Masculinity and Femininity
The terms of femininity and masculinity are used by Hofstede to show the specific sets of traits which could be regarded predominately feminine or masculine. The traits under masculine would include acquisition, aggression, and assertion while the feminine traits would encompass supportiveness, and nurturing and caring traits. A country with a high index of masculine gives emphasis on winning and success, while the one with a high index on feminine gives emphasis on environmental concerns and quality of life. Singapore is rated to be midway, neither masculine nor feminine.
Conclusion
Having stayed and experienced the life in Singapore with regards to its multicultural composition, there are a lot to emulate about Singapore (Hefner, 2001). The country is moderately tolerant of such controls which are imposed; it is group orientated and moreover able to cope with the high levels of ambiguity and complexity that exist among its residents, thereby potentially making its people independent and creative minded.
Bibliography
Hefner, R. W. (2001). The politics of multiculturalism: pluralism and citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Honolulu, Univ. of Hawai'i Press.
Hodgetts, R.M. & LUthans, F. (2011). International Mangeement, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hofstede, G. (2013). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw – Hill.
Lian, K. F. (2016). Multiculturalism, migration, and the politics of identity in Singapore. Accessed on April, 29, 2016 at shttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1087952.
Wong, K. (2011). Media and culture in Singapore: A theory of Controlled Commodification. Great Britain: Hampton Press.
