Culture and Leadership in Singapore:
Combination of the East and the West
As a newly industrialized economy in Southeast Asia, Singapore stands out as a unique country in terms of culture and leadership style. This uniqueness can be attributed to the influences of both the East and West. In this chapter, we examine Singapore's unique culture based on the results of our recent study, which is a part of the GLOBE research effort. To better understand the results, we first provide a brief discussion regarding Singapore's cultural heritage, and then discuss the environmental factors that have influenced the country's culture and leadership style in recent years. After that, we review past research on leadership style in Singapore. Finally, we report on the findings of our studies and discuss their implications.
1. CULTURAL HERITAGE OF SINGAPORE
Background
At one time, Singapore was a British Crown colony, founded by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819. It suffered Japanese occupation during World War II and was granted internal self-government status by Britain in 1959. After briefly entering into a federation with Malaysia in 1963, lasting until 1965, Singapore has since existed as an independent country. It has been under the uninterrupted leadership of the People's Action Party, specifically the party's stalwart, Lee Kuan Yew, since 1959.
According to the latest estimates, ethnic Chinese account for 77% of Singapore's population of 3 million and have control over 81% of Singapore's listed companies in terms of market capitalization (see, e.g., C. Tan & Torrington, 1998, p. 471). Over 40% of Singapore's ethnic Chinese can trace their ancestral roots to the Fujian Province, and another 40% to the Guangdong Province. In terms of dialect background, 40% of the Chinese in Singapore are Hokkien, 18% Cantonese, 23% Teochew, 9% are Hakka, 7% Hainanese, and the remainder comprise an assortment of other dialect groups. In terms of language preference, around 20% of the Singaporean Chinese speak English as their preferred language. These tend to be the political, bureaucratic, and professional elite. A further 65% speak English adequately, but prefer to speak in Mandarin or other dialects. The remaining 15% either cannot speak English at all or speak it very poorly (East Asia Analytical Unit, 1995, p. 240).
The Chinese junk traders of the Fujian and Guangdong Provinces had been active in dealing with Southeast Asian countries for several centuries before the actual founding of Singapore. The first arrivals of Chinese to Singapore are known to have come from Malacca. These Malacca-born Chinese were originally attracted to Singapore's free-port status. Chinese emigration to Singapore was largely based on economic pursuits and was an unorganized, individual process, unaided by government although there were instances of indentured labor. Commerce and trade formed the primary basis of business activity among the Singapore Chinese. However, the earlier Singapore economy also needed the knowledge of the English and Malay that had been gained by the earlier Chinese merchants and traders who had arrived from Malacca. These Malacca-born Chinese also knew the habits and commercial procedures of both the European merchants and the natives. They showed great skill and perseverance in their methods of bargaining and haggling over business transactions with the natives, a procedure considered as being demeaning by the European merchants (Selmer, 1997). Finally, the establishment of Singapore as a free port provided traders with an environment to match the motivation and skills of these Singapore Chinese. As Cheng (1985) pointed out:
In a colonial laissez faire economy based on trade, the Chinese realized that the effective avenue of upward mobility lay in petty trade. This accounts in part for the strong desire of the Chinese to be their own masters in business. The easy entry into petty trade provided the individual Chinese entrepreneur a chance to exercise his talent. It is through petty trade that skills were developed and more capital was accumulated. (p. 102)
Because the ethnic Chinese are the majority population in Singapore, Chinese cultural values have great influence over the culture and leadership styles adopted there. This is especially true in recent years with the emphasis that has been placed on Confucianism by the Singapore government. In the rest of this section, we provide a brief review of Chinese cultural values and discuss their influences on Singapore today.
Chinese Cultural Value and Its Influences
It is easy to see the influences of Chinese cultural value in Singapore today. In other words, notwithstanding the strong influence of the British and other cultures in Southeast Asia, Singapore still manages to maintain much of its Chinese cultural tradition. This is because the majority of Singaporeans come from traditional Chinese family backgrounds, rather than Peranakan backgrounds. For instance, Chinese family and clan associations are prevalent in Singapore. These associations often hold valuable real estate, and function to provide mutual help, loans, and scholarships for the children of its members (Cheng, 1990). Leadership among the Chinese is reflected in the role of clan associations. Nearly all of the traditional Chinese associations have been initiated, controlled, and led by wealthy businesspeople who accordingly have enjoyed high social status and prestige as leaders. This indicates that wealth has always been a very important variable in determining one's social position, particularly during the colonial era. Furthermore, with leadership's link to the association, the association has been turned into an institutional base for those who aspire to become dialect or community leaders. Over the years, a strong conviction about the association leader has been developed among the Chinese; a leader is required to be public spirited, generous, and willing to serve.
An example of a successful clan association is the Ngee Ann Kongsi. It was founded in the 20th century by 12 families who paid $175 for 75 acres of land alongside what is now Singapore's (City) Orchard Road, a major shopping and tourist precinct. The Kongsi subsequently developed Ngee Ann City, Singapore's largest shopping mall, in a joint venture with a Japanese department store. Net revenues from such projects enable clan associations to continue funding schools and other charitable works (Kraar, 1971).
To promote greater coordination and mutual assistance among clan associations, an umbrella organization, the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations (SFCCA), was formed in 1986. The objectives of the SFCCA, listed next, reflect the determination of Singapore Chinese to maintain their cultural heritage:
- To promote, foster, and encourage better and closer relationship, coordination, cooperation, and understanding among the various Chinese clan associations in Singapore.
- To promote, organize, or finance educational, cultural, social, and other activities for greater awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the Chinese language, culture, and traditions.
- To encourage, finance, or undertake research related to the Chinese language, culture, and traditions.
- To promote better relationships, understanding, and cooperation between the SFCCA and other organizations in the public and private sectors.
- To organize, participate, or help in community and welfare services.
- To promote and protect the interests and welfare of its members.
- To do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the aforementioned objectives.
It should be pointed out that the Chinese cultural values in Singapore differ, in some aspects, from those values in mainland China. For example, the traditional Chinese culture reflected heavily on the philosophy of Confucius, which emphasized the importance of farming rather than business. Businesspeople were considered the lowest in the social hierarchy, below officials (intellectuals), farmers, and workers (Creel, 1953). The early Chinese cultural value in Singapore, on the other hand, valued entrepreneurs’ spirit and encouraged the setting up of businesses, especially family-run businesses (e.g., Godley, 1981; Hicks, 1993). These differences can be attributed to the history of the ethnic Chinese in Singapore. As it was mentioned earlier, some of the Chinese came to Singapore as traders, and some were brought into Singapore in the 19th century as indentured labor. After paying off their bonds, many of these laborers also set up their own businesses. With the development of the Malay Peninsula as a major tin- and rubber-producing region at the beginning of the 20th century, a major business activity of these Chinese became that of purchasing goods from Malaysia and Indonesia, and then selling them to European or American importers. An outcome of this trading activity was the development of the “traders’ mentality” (i.e., a preference for short-term measures and quick profits), which is acknowledged to still persist in Singapore society today (Cheong, 1991).
Finally, we should note that an important part of Singapore's cultural heritage is the culture of the Straits Chinese or Peranakans. Peranakans are a distinct ethnic group peculiar to Singapore and parts of Malaysia, who can trace their ancestry to both ethnic Chinese and Malays. Their unique culture is an eclecticism of Chinese, Malay, and English cultural elements. Many of Singapore's first-generation political leaders came from this British-educated Peranakan elite (including the country's most influential leader, Lee Kuan Yew, ex-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee, and ex-Cabinet Minister Lim Kim San). Along with the British during the colonial period, these first-generation leaders formed many of the institutions that made Singapore what it is today (East Asia Analytical Unit, 1995). For example, these leaders built a British-style public administration (albeit with increasing Confucian characteristics in recent years) rather than a traditional Chinese structure.
In summary, the cultural heritage of Singapore reflects values of both the East and the West. This heritage has had a strong influence on the formation of the country's culture and leadership style. Further discussion on this issue is provided in other parts of this chapter.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS INFLUENCING CULTURAL VALUES AND LEADERSHIP IN SINGAPORE
In this section, we focus on two environmental factors that have had a major effect on the development of culture and leadership style in Singapore. One factor is the presence of a large number of foreign firms; the other is the heavy involvement of the government in all aspects of the country's social life.
Role of Foreign Firms in Singapore
One important environmental factor in Singapore is the preeminence of foreign firms in the country's economy. In this island nation comprising only 650 square km in territory, the industrialization process began in the early 1960s with an import substituting thrust. This thrust was intensified during the 2-year federation with Malaysia. However, by the late 1960s, it was apparent that the import substitution strategy (greatly limited by the small size of the domestic market) was not working (Cheong, 1991).
The Singapore government then decided to shift to an export-oriented focus. Specifically, the government implemented trade liberalization policies and introduced export subsidies to equalize incentives across different activities and to ensure that domestic producers competed on equal terms with foreign firms. Additional export promotion measures, such as the development of overseas marketing services, were also undertaken by the government (Tay, 1986). Most import duties had been set at 5% since 1981, and in 1988 the last quota (on air conditioners) was removed, making Singapore practically a free-trade economy.
The government also changed its foreign investment policies to encourage foreign direct investment (FDI). For example, tax incentives to encourage FDI were introduced in 1967 and extended later. This encouragement of foreign investment, particularly that of multinational corporations (MNCs), enabled Singapore to combine local productive factors with foreign technical and managerial know-how, and to overcome local producers’ lack of knowledge or information about world markets.
The shift in trade and foreign investment policies in Singapore was accompanied by labor law revisions, introduced with the explicit intent of enhancing the attractiveness of Singapore to foreign investors. Legislation enacted in 1969 lengthened the standard workweek; reduced the number of holidays; placed various restrictions on the payment of retirement benefits, paid leave, overtime, and bonuses; limited unions’ ability to represent managerial or executive employees; exempted promotions, transfers, firings, and work assignments from collective bargaining; and lengthened the minimum and maximum durations of labor contracts (Haggard, 1990).
Over the years, the presence of foreign companies in the Singapore economy has steadily increased. This is especially true in manufacturing, where foreign firms regularly account for more than 80% of net investment. By 1984, for instance, foreign companies (defined as firms with more than 50% foreign equity) produced 71% of Singapore's total output, and accounted for 63% of value added and 82% of manufactured exports (A. T. Koh, 1987). Other sectors of the Singapore economy, such as finance and banking, are similarly dominated by foreign firms (East Asia Analytical Unit, 1995).
The operations of these foreign firms in Singapore have had a major effect on the country's culture and leadership style. Most of these MNCs come from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, particularly the United States,
Japan, and the European Union. As each MNC is given a free hand in developing its management system, Singapore has acquired a wide selection of advanced management systems, developed and tested in different parts of the world. For instance, American management systems and Japanese corporate philosophies have been effectively implemented in the Singapore context (Tan & Torrington, 1998).
According to Cheong (1991), a typical American subsidiary in Singapore usually prepares a long-term plan for about a 3- to 5-years duration. The planning process involves all levels of managerial, technical, and supervisory personnel. The plans are generally concentrated in the areas of products, pricing, personnel selection and development, salary standards, and plant investment. American subsidiaries in Singapore typically pay good wages to their local employees and give them sufficient training and business exposure so that they can assume very senior management positions. The chief executive officers (CEOs) of Hewlett Packard and National Semiconductor, for example, are local employees, trained and promoted from within their respective organizations. In general, the manpower management policies in a typical American subsidiary in Singapore are fairly well structured. Human resource management techniques, such as job evaluation, promotion criteria for managerial and technical personnel, and training programs, are frequently employed. The training grants provided by the government-administered Skills Development Fund (SDF) have enabled the American companies to have long-term training programs for the development of their employees.
As for the Japanese companies, they have promoted the value of teamwork or Japanese-style collectivism by setting up Quality Circles (QCs). Surveys done by the National Productivity Board show that QCs have improved teamwork both among workers and between workers and management. The activities of QCs also help increase employee morale and change the leadership style in Singapore from autocratic to more participative. Moreover, the subsidiaries of Japanese MNCs also encourage a leadership style that helps promote harmonious labor–management relations. This style is often characterized by management spending more time with the local staff, especially after office hours, through company dinners or after-dinner visits to bars and pubs.
Effects of Heavy Government Involvement
Another important characteristic in the environment of Singapore is the heavy involvement of the government in the economy and other aspects of social life. This heavy government involvement makes Singapore different from other Chinese communities with a similar economic development, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan. For instance, only in Singapore can one see such powerful government organizations as the Economic Development Board (EDB) and the Trade Development Board (TDB). The government has either direct or indirect control over all the major local banks. For example, the largest local bank, the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), is a well-known government-linked bank.
This issue is best discussed and understood by doing a comparison of Singapore with another country such as Hong Kong. Both entities are island cities, with ethnic Chinese representing the majority of their society. Both cities also share historic similarities. They were both former British colonies and were occupied by the Japanese during World War II. Additionally, the two cities possess similar levels of technological and economical development. Nevertheless, these two Chinese communities differ immensely in governance, specifically with regard to government involvement in business and other aspects of social life.
In Hong Kong, the government has always adopted a laissez-faire approach to the economy (see, e.g., East Asia Analytical Unit, 1995). There also exists a very low level of government control and involvement in business. Government policies have created an environment that thus allows the survival of a substantial number of small and medium-size firms in Hong Kong's manufacturing industry (East Asia Analytical Unit, 1995). The small size of the firms and the free-market environment favor risk taking and entrepreneurship. In Singapore, on the other hand, there has been heavy government involvement in business since the country's independence. For example, the Singapore government often gets involved in the mergers of local companies, including taxi companies, high-tech firms, or banks. Consequently, the Singapore economy is now dominated by two groups of large companies: the MNCs, of which there are some 7,000 in the country, and the government-linked companies, which have penetrated almost all industries in Singapore, from taxi operations to newspaper publication.
The Singapore government not only maintains a heavy economic presence, but also makes individuals in the country much more dependent on the government, compared to Hong Kong. For example, the people in Singapore depend on the government for housing, low-cost medical service, and pension (i.e., the Central Provident Fund). This dependence has become so significant that, in recent years, even the Singapore government leaders have begun to worry. Recently, a senior government official referred to Singaporeans as “flowers in a greenhouse,” who are unable to survive without the greenhouse (Lianhe Zaobao, July 8, 1997, p. 11).
One direct consequence of this heavy government involvement is an increase in Uncertainty Avoidance, a cultural value first identified by Hofstede (1980). When Hofstede studied the cultures in Asian countries in the 1970s, he found that all Chinese communities included in his study (such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan) had low Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) values. Hofstede and Bond (1988, p. 17) subsequently linked this low UA to what they called East Asian entrepreneurship. Similar findings have been obtained by other studies using historical data and observations (e.g., Godley, 1981). This explains why, historically, there was little need for any government to encourage entrepreneurial activity among ethnic Chinese.
Interestingly, in the 1990s, the Singapore government had to make great efforts to encourage entrepreneurship in the country. In fact, as early as 1986, the government had already detected the decline of entrepreneurship in Singapore society. That year, a special government committee, headed by Lee Hsien Loong, then minister of state for defense and trade & industry and currently deputy prime minister, was formed to study this decline. In its report to the government, the committee pointed out that: “Entrepreneurship has historically been a key ingredient in the economic success story of Singapore. As Singapore progressed from its entrepot role to that of a low cost export oriented assembly centre, and recently to that of a high tech manufacturing and services centre, the significance and impact of local entrepreneurship in the private sector gradually declined in relative terms” (Lee, 1985, p. 1).
In the report, the committee attributed the decline of entrepreneurship in Singapore mainly as a result of economic and technological development. In doing so, the committee failed to consider an important fact: High-tech manufacturing, service industries, and/or socioeconomic development have not led to less entrepreneurship in other societies. For instance, Hong Kong and Taiwan, which have similar conditions to those in Singapore, have shown no decline in entrepreneurship. Neither has the United States, with its highly developed high-tech and service industries. Having failed to understand the real cause of declining entrepreneurship in Singapore, this committee could not really propose effective measures to address the issue. As a result, lack of entrepreneurship remained a problem in Singapore's economic development.
In the early 1990s, while Hong Kong and Taiwanese firms aggressively invested in China and other Asian emerging markets, Singapore firms remained reluctant to venture abroad, suggesting little improvement in entrepreneurial spirit. In response, the Singapore government formed another special committee in 1993 aimed at studying how Singapore enterprises can be promoted overseas (Ministry of Finance, 1993). In its report to the government, the committee commented:
As we seek to encourage Singapore companies to venture abroad, the local enterprise sector takes on a greater significance as we need to depend on our home grown enterprises, and our home grown entrepreneurs to lead the way. But some have argued that our companies are not sufficiently well developed to compete abroad, as compared to those from the developed countries, or Hong Kong and Taiwan, and that Singaporeans are generally risk averse, preferring to take safe professional and managerial jobs rather than to strike out on their own. (Ministry of Finance, 1993, p. 31)
Once again, the committee failed to identify the root of the problem. In explaining the lack of entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore, the committee simply said that:
Economic success has brought about even higher expectations of success, but it has also brought the expectation that progress and growth is assured. It has brought about a desire for more possessions, but also a reluctance to risk what we already have. There also appears to be a common perception amongst younger Singaporeans that to be successful, it is only necessary to do well in school, graduate with a good degree or diploma, and then join a large local or foreign company to get onto the escalator of stable jobs, ever growing wages, and good future prospects. We need to correct this misconception. (Ministry of Finance, 1993, p. 34)
Without identifying the real cause of declining entrepreneurial spirit, the Singapore government has made little progress in encouraging entrepreneurship. Recent empirical observation and academic research support this assertion. For example, Yeo's (1997) research showed that, among managers in manufacturing industries, those from Singapore have significantly higher Uncertainty Avoidance scores compared to their counterparts in Hong Kong and Taiwan. More significantly, studies on the actual behavior of Singapore firms also showed a strong risk avoidance tendency. A recent study conducted by the Singapore Chartered Institute of Marketing (C. Tan, 1997), which examined over 150 companies, found that local Singapore firms are reluctant to invest in other countries even though limited local markets and resources constitute serious impediments to a firms survival and growth. The study also found that only 40% of local firms in Singapore have plans to expand to other countries in Asia the following year. This low percentage contrasts with the 70% of Western MNCs with regional headquarters in Singapore, and the 80% of MNCs from other Asian countries with regional headquarters in Singapore.
Among Singapore firms that do conduct business in foreign markets, they tend to adopt a different approach than their Hong Kong and Taiwanese counterparts. In China, for example, whereas the firms from Hong Kong and Taiwan rely mainly on their kinship and friendship networks in China, the majority of Singapore firms rely on the networks built by the government. In other words, regardless of business opportunities, Singapore investors prefer to go into those Chinese cities where their government has already established relations with the local governments. The reason is that this approach involves lower risks. As a group of Australian government researchers observed:
Despite 80% of Singapore's Chinese having ancestral origins in either Guangdong or Fujian Provinces, only 24.1% of recently announced projects are in either province. Very few Singaporeans have ancestral origins in Jiangsu or Hebei Provinces and yet 45.1% of recent projects are there. Thus, Singapore might well be a “gateway to China” for Western investors, but the means of access will usually not be traditional Chinese networks. (East Asia Analytical Unit, 1995, p. 240)
Singapore government officials are aware of this problem and have expressed their concern. For example, some government officials such as Ow Chin Hock, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, have argued that Singaporeans should learn from Hong Kong and Taiwanese entrepreneurs and adopt a more aggressive and higher risk-taking strategy in their foreign ventures. His views were published in a major Singapore newspaper, Lianhe Zaobao (July 8, 1997, p. 11). These views highlight a prevalent mind-set that pervades much of Singapore society today: kiasuism, the fear of failure or of losing out to others. Kiasuism is derived from the word, kiasu, in the Hokkien dialect (which is equivalent to the term pa(4) shu(1) in the Mandarin dialect). According to Singapore government officials, the negative consequence of kiasuism is the lack of creativity and entrepreneurial spirit among Singaporeans. In fact, there has been support among empirical studies for a partial relationship between government involvement and the level of Uncertainty Avoidance in any society. According to the data collected by Hofstede (1980), among industrialized countries, societies with high degrees of government involvement in the economy and with well-developed social welfare systems (e.g., France and North European countries) tend to register high values of Uncertainty Avoidance. On the other hand, societies with low levels of government involvement in the economy and with less developed social welfare systems (e.g., the United States) generally have low Uncertainty Avoidance scores. Thus, if a government adopts extensive social welfare policies, people in that society will enjoy a high level of certainty from childhood, and will grow up feeling less comfortable with uncertainty and risk. As a result, the culture in that society will move toward the direction of high Uncertainty Avoidance.
In summary, the cultural values and leadership style in Singapore can be influenced by many environmental factors. Among them, two factors, according to past research and empirical observations, may have the most important effect. One of these two factors is the influence
TABLE 26.1
Ranks and Scores of Societal Cultural Dimensions In Singapore
Note. Dimensions are listed from highest to lowest “As Is” rank (out of 61 GLOBE countries). of Western MNEs operating in Singapore; the other is the influence of the Singapore government since the independence of the country. In the rest of this chapter, we report on the GLOBE studies about societal cultural practices, values, and leadership style in Singapore.
3. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON SOCIETAL CULTURE IN SINGAPORE
In this section, we report the results of the GLOBE questionnaire survey (cf. House et al., 2004), which was used to evaluate societal culture practices (“As Is”) and values (“Should Be”) in Singapore. GLOBE results about leadership concepts held in Singapore are reported in the next section.
Respondents. The respondents were middle managers working in two Singapore industries: the food industry and the finance and banking industry. After reading a letter inviting them to take part in this study, 217 managers (i.e., 113 women and 104 men) agreed to participate. Eighty-three managers responded to the GLOBE questionnaire dealing with societal culture; the remaining 134 managers (58 and 76 managers from the food and banking industries, respectively) responded to the GLOBE questionnaire about organizational culture.
All the subjects who participated in this study were ethnic Chinese. The mean age of these managers was 36 years. On average, they had about 16 years of work experience and 11 years of management experience. The average number of subordinates for each manager was 23 persons, indicating that they were mainly middle managers.
Results
Table 26.1 reports the cultural values in Singapore's society and their rankings among the 61 countries sampled in the GLOBE project.
Uncertainty Avoidance. On “what things are” of this cultural dimension, Singapore is ranked third (see Table 26.1, “As Is” section) among 61 countries sampled. Its score on this dimension is lower than only two of those north European countries, Switzerland and Sweden. In fact, among the top eight countries on this dimension, Singapore is the only Asian society. All the others are north or west European countries (i.e., Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, and Austria), which typically have the best social welfare and security systems in the world. Therefore, on this particular dimension of societal culture, Singapore seems to have become very similar to these European “welfare” states. This finding seems to support our argument that the more a government gets involved in the social lives of its citizens, and the better this government takes care of its citizens, the higher the societal value of Uncertainty Avoidance. As for the other Chinese societies, China's higher rank of 9, compared with the lower ranks for Hong Kong and Taiwan (ranks of 20 and 19, respectively), is also consistent with this argument.
However, on the “Should Be” of this cultural dimension, the score from Singapore is much lower. This seems to reflect the effect of education campaigns by the Singapore government in recent years. As was suggested earlier, the Singapore government has been making great efforts recently to encourage people to go regional/international, to overcome the psychology of fearing failure, and to learn from successful entrepreneurs at home and abroad. Therefore, Singapore managers seem to agree that the culture in their society should have less Uncertainty Avoidance.
Gender Egalitarianism. For the societal cultural practices (“As Is”) on this cultural dimension, Singapore (Score 3.70, Rank 11, see Table 26.1) is much less male dominated than Hong Kong (Rank 40), China (Rank 58), and Taiwan (Rank 52). On the dimension of “Should Be,” Singapore managers Score 4.51 (Rank 36), which is still higher than their counterparts indicate in China (Rank 58) or Taiwan (52). Knowing that in the GLOBE sample of 61 countries, the overall trend is toward more Gender Egalitarianism “Should Be,” it would be interesting to investigate why Singapore managers’ societal cultural values in terms of Gender Egalitarianism score go up (from 3.70 to 4.51) but in terms of the worldwide ranking it goes down (from Rank 11 to Rank 36).
Future Orientation. The Future Orientation score given by the Singapore respondents shows that the current societal culture in Singapore is very future oriented (Rank 1). This high score can at least partially be attributed to the Singapore government's practice of making “unpopular” but far-sighted decisions. However, it is interesting to note that, on the dimension's “Should Be,” Singapore's score was lower (Rank 22). This lower score seems to suggest that the Singapore respondents may want to see less Future Orientation in their societal culture.
Power Distance. Again, on this cultural value, Singapore (Rank 42) is very similar to Hong Kong (Rank 43). Interestingly, in respect to this dimension of culture, all four Chinese communities are very similar, with China ranking 41 and Taiwan ranking 32. However, on the “Should Be” dimension all four Chinese communities show similar desires to have less power stratification in their societal culture, which is also apparent in nearly all 61 GLOBE countries.
Institutional Collectivism. On the dimension of Institutional Collectivism, Singapore is ranked fourth, while Japan is third and China is seventh. In contrast, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United States are ranked lower. These observations are consistent with recent findings by other researchers. In the case of Singapore, the government has been instrumental in cultivating a greater degree of collectivism. For example, Singapore's prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, recently urged young Singaporeans to turn away from Western materialism and Western-styled democracy (see, e.g., “Singapore: West-Bashing,” 1994), which are closely related to Western individualism. Recent studies confirm that a high collectivistic value does exist among Singaporeans (e.g., Chew & Putti, 1995; Yeo, 1997). In fact, Chew and Putti's study found that Singapore managers value collectivism even more than their Japanese counterparts. In contrast, the societal cultures in Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be moving toward the direction of Western individualism (e.g., McGrath, MacMillan, Yang, & Tsai, 1992; Westwood & Posner, 1997; Yang, 1986, 1991; Yeh, 1988; Yeh & Lawrence, 1995; Yeo, 1997). Finally, on the “Should Be” Institutional Collectivism dimension, Singaporean's do show a desire to have less collectivism (Rank 37) or more individualism. This seems to be consistent with the fact that many Western-educated Singapore professionals emigrated to the West in recent years. Many middle managers included in the study were also young professionals who received their education in the West. Therefore, they show the same tendency to prefer less collectivism.
Humane Orientation. Singapore's score on “As Is” of this cultural value was very low among the other countries included in this study (Rank 55). Singapore's score is also lower than the scores of other Chinese communities. This seems to reflect some of the dimensions of reality in Singapore society today. Compared with the majority of countries in the world, Singapore society has a high degree of control on individual behaviors. Moreover, many rules adopted by British colonists, such as punishment with a cane, remain unchanged.
On the other hand, with a very high score in “Should Be” (Rank 3), respondents indicated that Humane Orientation should be much higher in its culture. This is consistent with the situations in other Chinese communities. We believe that this desire to have more Humane Orientation also reflects the influence of modern civilization from the West.
Performance Orientation. On the dimension of “As Is,” Singapore's score on Performance Orientation is high, ranking second among all of the countries tested in the GLOBE project. Here again, Singapore and Hong Kong had very similar scores whereas China and Taiwan had lower ones.
These scores seem to indicate that the society in Singapore stressed performance or achievements as much as that in Hong Kong. However, stressing performance or achievement might not mean risk taking. According to the scores on both Uncertainty Avoidance and Performance Orientation, it seems arguable that the Singapore culture stresses performance but not risk taking.
On the other hand, the culture in Hong Kong stresses Performance Orientation as well as risk taking. On the “Should Be” dimension, the absolute score from Singapore in respect of Performance Orientation is even higher (5.72). However, the score ranks only 48th among all of the GLOBE countries tested. Almost all of the countries seem to believe that there should be more Performance Orientation in their societal cultures. This is also true for Singapore although the “Should Be” score is comparatively low.
In-Group Collectivism. Whereas institutional collectivism refers to the degree to which individuals are encouraged by societal institutions to be integrated into broader entities (e.g. the government), In-Group Collectivism refers to the extent to which members of a society take pride in membership in small groups such as their family and circle of close friends, and the organizations and units in which they are employed. Singapore's score (Rank 17) on this value is the second highest among the four Chinese communities. Several studies have found that as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan become industrialized, the traditional Chinese family value is decreasing in these societies (e.g., Westwood & Posner, 1997; Yang, 1986, 1991; Yeh, 1988; Yeo, 1997). Singapore's score on this cultural value may be higher than those from other Chinese societies due to the efforts by the Singapore government to cultivate family value and Confucian philosophy in recent years. For example, in 1999, the Singapore government launched the Singapore 21 Committee with a purpose to strengthen the “heartware” of Singapore in the 21st century. “Heartware” refers to the intangibles of society such as social cohesion, political stability, and the collective will, values, and attitudes of a people (cf., “Co-opt People,” 1999). After talking to 6,000 Singaporeans from all walks of life, to help the country navigate the challenges of the new millennium, five key ideas evolved that form a vision for the future. One of these ideas is the importance of the family; that is, “Strong families are our foundation.”
However, in terms of “Should Be,” middle managers from all four Chinese communities seem to prefer less In-Group Collectivism (Rank 40). This seems to be the result of fast economic development and the improvement of living standards in these societies.
Interestingly, this value in the United States and Japan seems to be changing in the opposite direction. Although these two developed societies reported low scores on “As Is,” the managers from these countries indicated that they prefer more In-Group Collectivism in their culture.
In summary, in terms of societal culture, Singapore has been influenced by values from both the East and the West. Specifically, compared with other cultures in the “As Is” part of the testing, the Singapore subjects have been found to have high scores on the dimensions of Uncertainty Avoidance and Future Individualism/Collectivism, and low scores on the dimension of Humane Orientation. Also, the Singapore respondents are often similar to their counterparts from Hong Kong on such dimensions as gender differentiation and others. On the other hand, compared with other cultures in the “Should Be” part of the testing, the Singapore respondents score high on only one dimension, that is, Humane Orientation (Rank 3), and medium to high on Power Distance “Should Be” (Rank 13), Assertiveness “Should Be” (Rank 14), and Future Orientation “Should Be” (Rank 22).
As a follow-up study, it would be interesting to examine the process in which these influences have taken place and to explain why certain values have become more salient/less salient. It seems that the two environmental factors that we mentioned earlier (i.e., the dominance of Western MNCs in Singapore's economy and the heavy involvement of the Singapore government in all aspects of social life) have much to do with the direction of malleability of societal culture in Singapore.
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON LEADERSHIP STYLE IN SINGAPORE
In this section, we discuss leadership research in Singapore and report the results of three studies, (a) focus group interviews, (b) media analysis, and (c) the GLOBE questionnaire study, each of which is focused on leadership style in Singapore. These studies were conducted during the period of 1994–1996.
Past Research
Influenced by the same cultural heritage and environmental factors, one can also observe a process of malleability in Singapore's leadership style. Some earlier studies suggested that management practices among the local Chinese companies were poorly developed, and that the traditional leadership style could best be characterized as paternalistic autocratic (see, e.g., Cheong, 1991). In other words, traditional Singapore managers or leaders typically made decisions promptly, ordered their subordinates to take certain actions (without sufficiently explaining the rationale behind those actions), and expected their subordinates to comply regardless of the correctness of those actions. Although these traditional Singapore leaders showed little respect for the opinions of their subordinates, they tried hard to make all their employees feel that they were members of a large extended family. Not surprisingly, these leaders could be found visiting employees or their family members when they were ill, and often subsidizing their medical expenses (Cheong, 1991).
According to Hofstede (1980), such a paternalistic autocratic leadership style tends to be favored in all large–Power Distance societies in Asia (Hofstede, 1980). Some other researchers have tried to explain this observation in the context of Singapore. For instance, it has been argued that the large Power Distance in Singapore's culture could be attributed to the autocratic rule of British and Japanese governors before the independence of Singapore (Yeh, 1988).
Following the influx of direct foreign investment into Singapore in the 1970s, more advanced management practices were gradually introduced. With American, Japanese, German, French, and British MNCs being the major investors in Singapore, new cultural values and leadership styles were introduced to Singaporeans. These new styles and practices subsequently influenced the behaviors of local managers or leaders.
Several studies reflect the changes in leadership style in Singapore over the recent years. For example, Chew and Putti (1995) interviewed Chinese managers in Singapore firms and found that these managers “generally emphasize the total welfare of their staff by understanding as well as explaining to and cultivating their staff” (p. 1167). These managers preferred talking to their subordinates and maintained a “relatively small Power Distance” (p. 1167). A study by Koh, W. L. Steers, and Terborg (1995) examined transformational leadership in Singapore schools, and concluded that the transformational leadership style of school managers predicted the satisfaction of their subordinates (i.e., the teachers).
In spite of the aforementioned studies, our understanding of culture and leadership style in Singapore is still not sufficient. Several issues need to be addressed further. First, past study results often contradict each other. It is hard to decide which result is more reliable and defendable. For example, some studies indicated that the societal culture in Singapore is characterized by low Uncertainty Avoidance, but some suggested that the Singapore society emphasizes high Uncertainty Avoidance (Yeo, 1997). The same is true on the issue of paternalism. Whereas some authors suggested that the leadership style in Singapore could be characterized as paternalistic autocratic (e.g., Cheong, 1991), others may imply that, in recent years, the employer–employee relationship is becoming more business like than family oriented (e.g., Yeo, 1997). Second, past research relied on questionnaire survey only. Other research methods, such as focus group interviews and media analysis, have never been adopted in studying cultural and leadership issues in Singapore. It is still not clear whether the results from studies with different methods can converge. Finally, few empirical studies tested culture together with leadership styles at both the societal and the organizational level. It remains a question as to whether and how cultures influence leadership styles in a society. To address these issues, we conducted, as part of the GLOBE research project, empirical studies on culture and leadership styles in two main industries in Singapore (food processing and financial services). Our results show some interesting consistencies with the results of past research as reported previously. In the following sections, we first report on the results of the media analyses and focus group interviews in the first part of the research methods portion of the chapter. We follow that with a report on the results of a large-scale questionnaire survey.
Study 1: Focus Group Interviews
From 1994 to 1997, we conducted four focus group interviews with middle managers from both the banking and food industry sectors in Singapore. The purpose of these interviews was to identify the cultural values and preferred leadership styles among managers and leaders. In total, 21 participants took part in these interviews: 9 were female managers; those remaining were male managers. The average age of participants was 32 years, average work experience 13 years, and finally, their average education was 11 years.
We asked all participants to respond to two questions: (a) What are the qualities of a capable leader? And (b) What are the qualities of an outstanding leader? Following is a summary of their opinions.
The Quality of a Capable Leader. There are different opinions on what should be the quality of a capable leader. When asked to provide an example about a capable leader, the majority of the participants seemed to agree that some of the business leaders in Singapore, such as some well-known bankers or leaders in the subjects’ own corporations, could be seen as capable leaders. The qualities of these leaders were mainly hardworking, knowing how to identify and capitalize on opportunities, and overcoming great difficulties to achieve great successes in their businesses. Interestingly, no female business leader was mentioned by the subjects in these interviews.
Some of the participants mentioned student leaders whom they had remembered in their high schools or universities. The qualities of these leaders, according to participants, were the knowing of how to organize people in activities, and being able to overcome difficulties and, get things done.
One participant considered the former Chinese premier, Zhou Enlai, as a capable leader; the major quality of this leader being said to be “the ability to get things done.” The participant did however obtain her information mainly from books and newspapers.. It should be pointed out that no Western leaders were mentioned in these interviews; neither were any military leaders, be they from the West or the East.
The Quality of Outstanding Leaders. The majority of the participants in the interviews believed that the founder and leader of the Republic of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, should be considered as an outstanding leader. The qualities of an outstanding leader, according to these participants, included being visionary, making unpopular but farsighted decisions, and overcoming great difficulties to achieve success. Two of the participants pointed out that they themselves did not favor or support some of the decisions made by Lee Kuan Yew in the past. Some even believed that he had previously being doing something wrong against the interests of the Chinese community in Singapore. However, seeing the success of Singapore in the past decades, these subjects now believed that Lee Kuan Yew was in fact doing the right thing.
It is interesting to note that none of the participants, in spite of their ethnic Chinese background, discussed the moral quality of the leaders. Confucian philosophy stresses the moral quality of a leader. If these Chinese participants are heavily influenced by Confucianism, they should have more or less discussed the moral quality of the leaders in the interviews. The fact that moral quality was not even mentioned seems to suggest that the Singapore middle managers are less influenced by traditional Chinese values, such as those from Confucianism.
Study 2: Media Analysis
In this report, we discuss the media analysis in three parts: (a) the selection of the media; (b) the coding of stories, and (c) results and implications.
Selection of the Media. We selected three printed media sources for this analysis. One is the largest local English newspaper in terms of circulation, the Strait Times. Another is a government publication by Singapore's Information Ministry, the Singapore Bulletin. Finally, the third publication is a magazine targeting the business community, the Singapore Business Review. Considering the fact that Singapore is a small country with less than 4 million people and few newspapers and magazines, we believed that the number of publications included in this media analysis was sufficient.
Two time periods of the newspaper were selected. One was between mid-October and mid-November 1998. The other was between mid-December and mid-January 1999. For the newspaper in these two periods, we covered all the major sections including politics, foreign affairs, economy, sports, and society.
For the magazines, we covered eight issues from February to September 1998. These issues were read from cover to cover to identify stories about leaders’ behavior and activities.
The Coding of Stories. An instrument for data coding was developed based on the GLOBE pilot leadership survey and the methods described in the Australian and Indian GLOBE chapters (chaps. 9 and 27, this volume). Specifically, this instrument consisted of 50 dimensions of leader behaviors or activities, such as “aggressive,” “objective,” or “live a simple life.” Among these 50 dimensions, 16 were from the GLOBE pilot leadership survey (cf. Hanges & Dickson, 2004, p. 127). Others were developed based on the findings of the two pilot studies mentioned previously.
Two student research assistants (research students at Master level) were employed to code the stories from the aforementioned publications. Training was provided by asking the research assistants to practice coding several sample stories together with the first author of this chapter. For example, if a leader in a story was reported to get things done effectively, the activity would be coded as “capable.” If a leader was proposing reform or changes, the coding would be “change oriented.” Finally, if a leader was praised for doing or proposing something because of a certain value, we would code the leader's behavior as “value driven.”
After the training, we requested the research assistants read stories in the three publications together, and code all the discussions about leaders’ activities and behaviors. If there was any disagreement, these research assistants would first discuss the discrepancy and then reach a consensus between them. The first author of this article would get involved if these student assistants could not reach an agreement on a certain coding decision.
Results of Media Analysis. In total, 57 stories about leaders’ behavior or activities were found. Out of these stories, 29 of them were about business leaders (50%), 18 of them were about political leaders (32%), and the rest were about leaders in other areas, such as leaders in the military or in sports (18%).
Table 26.2 presents the information about the characteristics of these Singapore leaders. The most frequently praised characteristics of the leaders are, visionary (51 times), confident (45 times), objective (35 times), considerate (25 times), capable (competent) (24 times), change oriented (23 times), and open to learning (20 times).
TABLE 26.2
Results of Media Analysis
The results of this media analysis are largely consistent with the focus group analysis. Some of the most praised characteristics of leaders, such as being visionary, are mentioned by the middle managers in the focus group interviews as the most important ones for outstanding leaders. However, it is interesting to note that many behaviors that commonly exist among Asian leaders, such as autocratic, bureaucratic, and face saving, were not even mentioned in this media analysis. This seems to suggest that there are differences between the behaviors encouraged by the media and those actually practiced by the Singapore leaders. Also, it should be pointed out that Singapore media seldom publish anything that is inconsistent with the policies or ideas of the Singapore government. Therefore, the results of the media analysis can be seen as a reflection of the government policies in Singapore.
To summarize, among the Singapore participants, the qualities of capable leaders were said to be hardworking, knowing how to identify and taking advantage of opportunities, and overcoming great difficulties to achieve great successes in their businesses. On the other hand, the qualities of an outstanding leader, according to these participants, included being visionary, making unpopular but farsighted decisions, and overcoming great difficulties to achieve success. The media analysis suggested that, among some of the major Singapore's news media, at least the major English news media, the most frequently mentioned characteristics of good leaders include visionary, confident, objective, considerate, capable (competent), change oriented, and open to learning.
TABLE 26.3
Comparison of All Countries From the Confucian Asian Cluster
Note. Compared to the other countries from the Confucian Asian cluster, Singapore scores more similar to Western country clusters (e.g., Anglo, Germanic, Nordic), that is, higher on Charismatic and Participative Leadership and lower on Self-Protective leadership.
Study 3: GLOBE Questionnaire Survey
In Table 26.3, Singapore's scores on the second-order GLOBE leadership dimensions are compared to five countries (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan), which also belong to the Confucian Asian cluster (cf. Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). Compared to these countries, Singapore scores more similar to “Western” country clusters like Anglo, Germanic, or Nordic, than to the countries in the Confucian Asian cluster. In particular, Singapore scores higher on Charismatic and Participative Leadership and lower on Self-Protective leadership than the other Confucian Asian countries. On the other hand, Singapore scores high on Team Oriented and Humane Leadership, which is typical for the Confucian Asian but also for the Southern Asian cluster. This supports our argument that the cultural values and leadership style in Singapore are influenced by both the East and the West.
A more detailed view is given in Table 26.4 which shows the scores and ranks of the 21 first-order and the 6 second-order GLOBE leadership dimensions for Singapore, together with highest and lowest country scores in the GLOBE sample of 61 countries.
It is interesting to note in Table 26.4 that, on several dimensions related to Confucian cultural values, the scores from Singapore managers ranked high. Specifically, on the dimension Self-Sacrificial, Singapore ranked 11, which is consistent with empirical observations in recent years. For example, since the 1998 financial crisis, the governments in both Hong Kong and Singapore have faced some financial difficulties and needed to cut the salaries of its employees. In Hong Kong, there has been fierce resistance among government employees recently against cuts to their incomes or benefits, which is necessary to control the government's huge financial deficits. Similar resistance has never occurred in Singapore, even when the Singapore government actually asked its people to make a greater sacrifice for the long-term interests of their society. Here the explanation can be that, influenced by the Confucian cultural values, which see the society as one family, Singapore managers are more willing to make self-sacrifice for their society. On the other hand, influenced by a societal culture with more Western individualistic value, Hong Kong managers are less willing to make personal sacrifice.
TABLE 26.4
Scores and Ranks of the 21 First-Order and the 6 Second-Order GLOBE Leadership Dimensions
Second-Order Leadership Dimensions First-Order Leadership |
Score |
Rank |
Highest Score |
Lowest Score |
Charismatic Leadership |
5.95 |
23 |
6.46 |
4.51 |
Performance Orientation |
6.11 |
26 |
6.64 |
4.51 |
Visionary |
6.17 |
25 |
6.50 |
4.62 |
Inspirational |
6.09 |
37 |
6.63 |
5.04 |
Integrity |
6.15 |
28 |
6.79 |
4.72 |
Self-Sacrificial |
5.39 |
11 |
5.99 |
3.98 |
Decisive |
5.85 |
32 |
6.37 |
3.62 |
Team-Oriented Leadership |
5.76 |
34 |
6.21 |
4.74 |
Team Integrator |
5.41 |
38 |
6.09 |
4.42 |
Collaborative Team Oriented |
5.94 |
33 |
6.43 |
4.10 |
Administratively Competent |
5.71 |
37 |
6.42 |
4.53 |
Diplomatic |
5.58 |
27 |
6.05 |
4.49 |
Malevolent (reverse scored) |
1.83 |
21 |
2.67 |
1.33 |
Participative Leadership |
5.30 |
32 |
6.09 |
4.50 |
Autocratic (reverse scored) |
2.73 |
25 |
3.86 |
1.89 |
Nonparticipative (reverse scored) |
2.68 |
28 |
3.61 |
1.86 |
Humane Leadership |
5.24 |
10 |
5.75 |
3.82 |
Humane |
5.10 |
17 |
5.68 |
2.23 |
Modesty |
5.35 |
13 |
5.86 |
4.14 |
Autonomous Leadership |
3.87 |
30 |
4.63 |
2.27 |
Self-Protective Leadership |
3.31 |
40 |
4.62 |
2.55 |
Self-Centered |
2.05 |
37 |
6.20 |
1.55 |
Status-Conscious |
3.78 |
46 |
5.93 |
3.00 |
Conflict Inducer |
3.64 |
46 |
5.01 |
3.09 |
Face Saver |
3.19 |
11 |
4.63 |
2.05 |
Procedural |
3.81 |
37 |
5.12 |
2.82 |
Note. Leadership scores where compared across industries (food, finance) within Singapore. Only one significant result out of 21 comparisons was obtained, which equals chance probability.
Similarly, on such items as Humane leadership and Face Saver, one can also see the heavy influences of Confucian cultural values in Singapore. Singapore manager ranked high on these dimensions, whereas other East Asian societies with less Confucian influences today, such as the case of Hong Kong, ranked lower on these dimensions.
5. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
In this chapter, we have shown that the cultural values and leadership style in Singapore can be seen as a combination of the East and the West. To understand the culture in this country, one needs to consider the interactions of various environmental factors, especially the significant role of foreign MNCs in the country and the heavy involvement of the government in social life. All of these have important implications for future research. Take the involvement of government as an example. Past research has largely attributed cultural change to such factors as technological revolution and socioeconomic development, and pays insufficient attention to the role of government in this process. On the other hand, in a society heavily influenced by Confucian cultural value, such as Singapore, the role of government in shaping and changing the societal and organizational cultures seems to be very significant. Although the dominant view today suggests that government policies reflect societal cultures (e.g., Hofstede, 1980), the cases of Singapore and other Chinese societies in East Asia often suggest a reverse notion. This is especially true in those societies where Western-style democracy does not exist. In such societies, governments do not necessarily reflect majority opinion or societal culture when generating policy. Instead, it may be the societal and organizational cultures that are more often influenced by the government policy (cf. Li & Karakowsky, 2002). Therefore, a contingency approach regarding the relationship between cultures and government policies may be more useful for future study.
Also, consistent with past research findings, Singapore's societal culture has been observed to have a greater effect than specific organizational cultures on individual Singaporeans’ perceptions and attitudes about leadership. This finding is in line with the results from an analysis across all 61 GLOBE countries showing that societal culture is a much stronger predictor of organizational cultural practices than is industry sector (Brodbeck, Hanges, Dickson, Gupta, & Dorfman, 2004).
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
The culture in Singapore seems to have changed dramatically over the years, making it inappropriate to label its societal culture as Chinese or Asian. This finding is important for both researchers and practitioners. For researchers, it suggests the need to deal with the issues of cross-cultural management within a more dynamic, more comprehensive, and more timely approach. First, cross-cultural management issues need to be addressed not only from the dominant perspective of cross-cultural research that treats culture as a constant and independent variable (e.g., Hofstede, 1980), but also from a dynamic perspective that examines culture as a dependent variable that can be influenced by other environmental factors. This approach will improve our understanding of cultural differences and their consequences. Researchers who continue to employ a broad and static definition of Asian culture, for example, may find it difficult to explain important differences in individual and organizational behaviors that continue to emerge across different Asian societies. To effectively conduct cross-cultural studies in modern societies, we need to adopt a more dynamic approach.
Second, we argue for a more comprehensive approach to examine the nature of culture, its antecedents, and the processes of change, and not merely the differences and consequences of culture. Whereas past research has often attributed cultural change to technological revolution and socioeconomic development, the cultural changes noted in this study and some other recent studies on culture (e.g., Ralston Gustafson, Cheung, & Tarpstra, 1993) suggest more complex processes are at play. With comparable levels of economic and technological development in many modern societies (e.g., the development of information technology), the effects of other antecedents, such as government policy, may act as much more significant roles. Consequently, examining cultural values and their effects should entail a more comprehensive approach that considers additional factors as well as the interactions among these factors.
Finally, we also need a more timely approach to cross-cultural research. Because the elements of cultural value may change rapidly, cross-cultural research faces a new challenge— outdated data. Many studies currently published may actually be reporting on data collected many years ago. This can be seen as a common limitation of these studies, including our studies reported in this chapter. On the other hand, the increasing level of influence exerted by foreign sources, for example, may call into question the accuracy of such data. Specifically, with globalization, greater interactions among modern societies and the rapid development of communication technology are increasing the level of access to foreign cultures, which, in turn, will accelerate and magnify the influence of foreign cultures on cultural values in a given society. This will create difficulty for researchers studying cultural differences and their consequences. For example, the research data collected not long ago may soon become obsolete or irrelevant because of partial changes to some elements of culture in a society. A study conducted today may show that Taiwan manifests a high Power Distance in societal culture, whereas a study conducted in 3 years’ time may show that Taiwan possesses a low Power Distance culture. Therefore, for cross-cultural management studies conducted in modern societies, we need to adopt a more timely approach. For example, more frequent measurements may be needed in those societies where rapid political, social, technological, or economic changes are taking place.
In addition to the limitations that we have already mentioned, another major restriction of this study is its relatively small sample size. Because of the difficulty in collecting data from middle mangers in Singapore, we could not obtain a larger sample. Therefore, we had to adopt a practical anthropological approach toward an understanding of cultural values and leadership in Singapore. Yet this approach limits the generalization of the conclusion to the nation. It also prevents us from conducting a more powerful study in our empirical testing, such as the testing of cultural differences between the two types of industrial organizations in Singapore. Future study should commit more resources to data collection in order to obtain a larger sample size. With a large sample size, more power data analyses can be conducted and more significant findings may be obtained.
Still another limitation of this study is its failure in obtaining more information about the consequences of the cultural values in Singapore. Future study should test more dependent variables that may be influenced by the cultural values, especially those dependent variables measuring individual and organizational performance in Singapore. With more such dependent variables, more interesting findings for both researchers and practitioners may be found.
Practical Implications
Our findings also have some practical implications for mangers or leaders within international business. As our data suggested, there exist significant differences even among East Asian Chinese societies. Accordingly, managers or leaders of international business need to pay more attention to the difference in cultural values and the factors that have caused the partial changes. As Huo and Randall (1991) have argued, multinational firms need to pay attention not only to basic cultural differences between their home country (e.g., the United States) and the host country (e.g., China), but also to differences between different societies that share the same language, religion, and ethnic traditions (e.g., Singapore compared to Hong Kong and Taiwan). This is also true for ethnic Asian managers from an Asian society, such as Singapore. Even for an ethnic Asian manager, it is still necessary to understand cultural changes that have taken place in other Chinese societies. Experience from one Chinese society may not be applicable to other Chinese societies. A successful business policy in Hong Kong may not work well in Singapore; and a successful manager who works well in Taiwan may not work well in China (e.g., Li, Lam, & Qian, 2001). Without an awareness of the differences caused by cultural change and the consequences that follow, multinational firms will risk failure in any attempts to generate effective strategies in areas such as selection and training, marketing and promotion, and business investment.
REFERENCES
Brodbeck, F. C., Hanges, P. J., Dickson., M. W., Gupta, V., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004). Comparative influence of industry and societal culture on organizational cultural practices. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 654–668). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheng, L. K. (1990, April). Reflections on the changing roles of Chinese clan associations in Singapore. Asian Culture, pp. 38–49.
Cheong, W. K. (1991). The style of managing in a multicultural society—Singapore. In J. M. Putti (Eds.), Management, Asian context (pp. 258–283). Singapore: Superskill Graphics.
Chew, I. K. H., & Putti, J. (1995). Relationship on work-related values of Singaporean and Japanese managers in Singapore. Human Relations, 48(10), 1149–1170.
Co-opt people, ideas at all levels, urges BG Lee. (1999). Singapore Bulletin, 27(4), p.2.
Creel, H. G. (1953). Chinese thought, from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dorfman, P., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 669–719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
East Asia Analytical Unit (Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia). (1995). Singapore's investment in China. In Overseas Chinese business networks in China (pp. 19–33). Canberra, Australia: AGPA Press.
“Singapore: West-bashing.” (1994, April 27). The Economist, pp. 28–29.
Godley, M. (1981). The Mandarin-capitalists from Nanyang: Overseas Chinese enterprise in the Modernisation of China 1893–1911. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Haggard, S. (1990). Pathways from the periphery: The politics of growth in the newly industrializing countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hicks, G. L. (1993). Overseas Chinese remittances from South East Asia 1910–1940. Singapore: Selected Books. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organization Dynamics, 16, 178–190.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & Globe Associates. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huo, Y. P., & Randall, D. M. (1991). Exploring subcultural differences in Hofstede's value survey: The case of the Chinese. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8(2),159–173.
Koh, A. T. (1987). Linkage and the international environment. In L. B. Krause, K. A. Fee, & L. T. Yuan (Eds.), The Singapore economy reconsidered (pp. 318–343). Singapore: Institute for Southeast Asian Studies.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319–333.
Kraar, L. (1971, March). The wealth and power of the overseas Chinese. Fortune.
Lee, S. L. (1985). Documents of a special government committee. Singapore: Singapore Press.
Li, J., & Karakowshy, L. (2002). Cultural malleability in an East Asian context: An illustration of the relationship between government policy, national culture and firm behaviour. Administration and Society. 34(2), 176–188.
Li, J., Lam, K., & Qian, G. (2001). Does culture affect behaviour and performance of firms: The case of joint venture in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 115–131.
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., Yang, E. A., & Tsai, W. T. (1992). Does culture endure, or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 441–458.
Ministry of Finance. (1993). Report of a task-force from the Ministry of Finance. Singapore: Singapore Press.
Ralston, D. A., Gustafson, D. J., Cheung, F. M., & Terpstra, R. H. (1993). Differences in managerial values: A study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC managers. Journal of International Business Studies. 24(2), 249–275.
Selmer, J. (1997). Vikings and dragons. Hong Kong: Baptist University.
Tan, C. (1997, January 7). Local firms are not too keen to go regional. The Business Times, p.2.
Tan, C., & Torrington, D. (1998). Human resource management for southeast Asia and Hong Kong (2nd ed.). Singapore: Prentice-Hall.
Tay, B. N. (1986). The structure and causes of manufacturing sector protection in Singapore. In C. Findlay & R. Garnaut (Eds.), The political economy of manufacturing protection: Experiences of Asia and Australia (pp. 83–103). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Westwood, R. I., & Posner, B. Z. (1997). Managerial values across cultures: Australia, Hong Kong and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 14, 31–66.
Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 106–170). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Yang, K. S. (1991, July). Will traditional and modern values co-exist? Paper presented at the International Conference on Values in Chinese Societies: Retrospect and Prospect. Taiwan: Taipei.
Yeh, R. S. (1988). Values of American, Japanese and Taiwanese managers in Taiwan: A test of Hofstede's Framework. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, pp. 106–110.
Yeh, R. S., & Lawrence, J. (1995). Individualism and Confucian dynamism: A note on Hofstede's cultural root to economic growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 3, 655–669.
Yeo, H. P. (1997). Fit of culture in Asian emerging markets: An empirical study of Singapore manufacturing firms (Research Paper). Singapore: National University of Singapore.