Cultural Differences between Property Developers in Singapore and Russia Essay Example
Introduction
Though they prove difficult to quantify and observe, cultural differences are evidently significant particularly, within an organizational context (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011, p.4). Typically, failure to acknowledge and address cultural differences often leads to poor work relationships, which ultimately result in poor business performance. Cultural differences between property developers in Russia and Singapore have led to poor organizational productivity. This report seeks to evaluate how the Hofstede’s model and Hall’s model can be applied with regard to the cultural differences between property developers in Russia and Singapore.
The Hofstede Model
Definition
The Hofstede model is a cultural framework developed by Geert Hofstede. The cultural framework categorizes culture into five distinct dimensions, which include short term/long term orientation, power distance, masculinity or femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism or c
...ollectivism (Hofstede, 2011, p. 12). For each of the said dimensions, the model gives a scale of 0 to 100, which is used to evaluate the named dimensions in different countries.
The power-distance dimension is concerned with the extent to which people of a particular culture acknowledge, reinforce, and accept that power is not evenly distributed in society (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011, p. 12). Cultures with high power distance scores tend to accept the unequal distribution of power. In this case, the subordinates often show respect toward the seniors. Cultures with low power distance scores do not acknowledge the uneven distribution of power. In this regard, the subordinates do no respect to the superiors.
The individualism/collectivism dimension is concerned with the social ties maintained within the society. Individualistic cultures tend to maintain close social ties, while collective cultures tend to maintain more solid structures and ties (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2011, p. 15). Th
uncertainty avoidance dimension evaluates the extent to which a particular culture is willing to open up to ambiguous situations. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance scores tend to be more open to unknown situations while cultures with low uncertainty avoidance scores tend to be less open to unknown situations.
With regard to the femininity/masculinity, feminine cultures are associated with tender ideals including care for others, personal relationships, and quality of life (Hofstede, 2011, p. 16). On the other hand, masculinity structures are associated with aggressive values such as assertiveness, competition, and achievement. Long-term oriented cultures tend to maintain ties with their past, while dwelling on the future. Conversely, short-term oriented cultures tend to maintain loose ties with their past (Piepenburg, 2011, p. 76).
Application
Based on the scale scores provided by the Hofstede model, Russia, and Singapore scored a power distance between 93 and 74 points respectively (Hofstede, 2011, p. 27). This indicates that the two are high power distance cultures. With regard to individualism/collectivism, Russia and Singapore scored 39 and 20 points respectively. This indicates that the two are collective cultures. With regard to uncertainty avoidance, Russia scored 95 points, while Singapore scored 8 points.
This indicates that the Russian culture is open to unfamiliar situations, while the Singapore culture is less open to unknown situations. With reference to the dimension of masculinity Russia and Singapore scored 39 and 48 points respectively (Hofstede, 2011, p. 27). This indicates that their culture is driven by aggressive values. With regard to long-term orientation, Russia and Singapore scored 81 points and 48 points respectively. This indicates that Russian culture is more inclined on maintaining ties with the past, while the Singapore culture
gives less importance to the past.
By understanding Singapore and Russia’s cultural dimensions, the property developers will be at a better chance of ensuring cultural sensitivity, which will boost employee productivity. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions influence all levels of dialogue, which include verbal, written, body cues, and etiquette. In this regard, the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are applicable to international communication. Effective communication requires a clear understanding of diverse cultural issues. Given that the model provides comprehensive insights and understanding of diverse cultural factors, it is evident that it will be applicable in communication (Makambe & Pellissier, 2014, p. 45). In this regard, it will enable property developers in Russia and Singapore, to understand the cultural aspects that might impede effective communication.
Example
Presuming that property developers in Singapore and Russia are subjected to a leadership crisis, where the subordinates fail to meet the requirements of the seniors, the property developers would incorporate the power-distance dimension to solve the crisis. In this regard, the power-distance dimension would be used to enlighten the subordinates on issues pertaining to the unequal distribution of power. After understanding the disparity in power, they would be in a position to acknowledge, respect, and fulfill the senior’s requirements and expectations.
The Hall’s Model
The Hall’s model is perceived as a theoretical framework developed by Edward Hall, for purposes of evaluating intercultural communication. This model employs three distinct dimensions, which include time, space, and context (Nishimura, Nevgi & Tella, 2008, p. 34). With reference to context, cultures are categorized as either high or low context cultures. High context cultures are associated with diverse contextual factors that boost people’s understanding of cultural rules. On the other hand, low context cultures
are associated with little contextual aspects, which deter misunderstandings.
The time dimension is categorized in two, the polychronic time, and monochronic time. Polychronic societies tend to prioritize human interactions over material factors and time. In monochronic societies, value, time and often encourage one thing to be done at a time. The space dimension is categorized into territorial or communal cultures (Nishimura, Nevgi & Tella, 2008, p. 33). Territorial cultures tend to draw strict boundaries. They do not like sharing their personal space with other people. Communal cultures, on the other hand, are more comfortable and open to sharing their personal space with others.
Application
Both Russia and Singapore are classified as high-context cultures that emphasize all cultural dimensions including time and space. As high context cultures, Singapore and Russia are not verbally explicit. In this regard, they are not proficient with non-verbal cues and written communication. Further, they are territorial. In this regard, they establish distinctive boundaries. Additionally, they are relationship-oriented. In this case, they prefer direct and face-face communication. Like the Hofstede model, Hall’s model is also applicable in communication particularly, cross-cultural communication.
Hall’s model also gives comprehensive insights on diverse cultural factors that might hamper effective communication (Cheng, 2003, p. 78). By distinguishing cultures based on time, space, and context, the model makes it easier to comprehend the distinctive cultural aspects of different nations. For effective corporate communication, property developers in Singapore and Russia must pay close attention to the cultural dimensions of time, space, and context, which have enormous effects on dialogue.
By understanding that Singapore and Russian cultures are high-context cultures, property developers will be in a position to align their individual cultures and tendencies with
the said national cultures hence, gaining greater communication influence and efficacy. Misunderstandings in meaning are good examples of the communication problems experienced by property developers in Singapore and Russia. However, by understanding the cultural dimensions, as seen in Hall’s model, the property developers will be in a position to understand the communication tendencies of their colleagues. This will in turn, eliminate plausible misunderstandings in dialogue.
Example
Assuming that property developers in Russia and Singapore are engaging in dialogue, they will be required to avoid the use of non-verbal cues such as maintaining eye contact, smiling, and the like, since Singapore and Russia are high-context cultures. As opposed to incorporating non-verbal cues, the property developers could consider focusing more verbal communication since it is understood better in high-context cultures.
Conclusion
Cultural differences tend to hamper effective communication among property developers in Russia and Singapore. Based on the evaluation, it is evident that the Hall and Hofstede models can be incorporated to solve the communication hitches triggered by cultural differences. The models give comprehensive insights and understanding of national cultural dimensions. As a result, they facilitate effective communication irrespective of diverse cultural differences.
References
- CHENG, W. 2003. Intercultural conversation (Vol. 118). John Benjamins Publishing.
https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/pbns.118/main - GHEMAWAT, P., & REICHE, S. 2011. National cultural differences and multinational business. Globalization Note Series, 1-18.
http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publications/CDs%20and%20DVDs/GLOBE/readings/national-cultural-differences-and-multinational-business.ashx - HOFSTEDE, G. 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc - MAKAMBE, U., & PELLISSIER, R. 2014. The application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions at Botho University: A model for workplace harmony in a multi-cultural business environment.
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IKM/article/view/10941 - NISHIMURA, S., NEVGI, A., & TELLA, S. (2008, February). Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland,
Japan and India. In Proceedings of a Subject-Didactic Symposium, Finland, Helsinki.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/nishimuranevgitella299.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-analysis-Hofstedes-cultural-dimensions/dp/3640881575?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
