Cross Cultural Management

This report provides an overview of cross cultural management in the context of Woolworth, an Australian retailer planning to enter Singapore. It explores the cultural differences between the two countries using the Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimension. The report discusses the challenges faced by Australian businesses in Singapore in terms of leadership, communication, ethics, staff handling, negotiations, and marketing. It also provides recommendations for doing business in Singapore.

Running head: MANAGEMENT
Cross Cultural Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1MANAGEMENT
Executive Summary:
The aim of the report is to provide an overview of the cross cultural management in the context
of Woolworth, an Australian retailer, planning to make an entry into Singapore. The report
portrays the cultural differences between both the countries with the help of Hofstede Model of
Cultural Dimension. Based the cultural differences, the report draws in the challenges faced by
the Australian business in Singapore in term of leadership, communication with the stakeholders,
ethics, staff handling, negotiations with shareholders and marketing. The report also puts across
various recommendations for doing business in Singapore.

2MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction:....................................................................................................................................3
Hofstede Theory of Cultural Dimension.........................................................................................3
Management Challenges Emerging from Cultural Differences s....................................................6
Recommendations:..........................................................................................................................8
Conclusion:......................................................................................................................................8
References:....................................................................................................................................10
Appendices:...................................................................................................................................10

3MANAGEMENT
Introduction:
The report aims at providing an insight into cross cultural management in perspective of
an Australian based company, Woolworths, which would like to make an entry in Singapore.
Woolworths represents one of the largest supermarkets across the Australian continent
(woolworthsgroup.com.au, 2019). The retailer has close to 995 stores along with 115,000
employees that help in providing superior range of service and convenience. The retailer is found
to work closely with the Australian growers and farmers while ensuring customers with the best
quality products. It is in fact the second largest firm across Australia in terms of revenue. The
report also puts forward the challenges that Woolworths might face in terms of leadership,
communication with stakeholders, staff handling, ethics, marketing, negotiations with the
shareholders due to the cultural differences in Singapore. The concepts and theories of the
Hofstede’s Cultural dimension have been used for explaining the challenges faced by the
company.
Hofstede Theory of Cultural Dimension
According to the model, the comparison between the home country Australia and the
foreign country Singapore depends on the six dimensions that includes the power distance,
individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientations and indulgence
(Mazanec et al., 2015).
Power Distance: This particular dimension represents the extent to which the less
powerful members of organization tend to expect or accept that there exists inequality in the
distribution of the power. In this dimension, Singapore has a score of 74 where the organizations

4MANAGEMENT
experiences centralization of the power and the managers mostly relies on the rules implemented
by their bosses. Here, employees also wait for receiving the orders in regard to performance of
the task. Here the managers remain more formal and there is indirect communication with a
selective flow of the information.
In comparison to Singapore, Australia has a score of 36 which implies that in Australian
culture, power has been defined to the degree where a person influences the ideas and behavior
of the people. In Australian organizations, hierarchy is usually developed for the convenience
and where the superiors remain accessible while the managers rely on the individual team and
employees for expertise (Beugelsdijk, Maseland & Van Hoorn, 2015). Here, both the managers
and the employers are expected to be consulted where the information is frequently shared. The
communication at the same time is direct, informal and participative to certain degree.
Individualism: It represents the interdependence of a society amongst its members. In
this dimension, Singapore earns a score of 20 since it remains identified as the collectivist
society (Lee, Trimi & Kim, 2013). However, in the organizational context of Singapore, an
employee is not considered as individual but a part of the organization. The communication in a
Singaporean organization is however indirect and there is harmony maintained within group
through the avoidance of the open conflicts. Here the politeness precedes the honest feedback.
There is a moral basis of relationship that presides over the fulfillment of the task. The managers
also try to maintain respectability and calmness.
Masculinity: This particular dimension deals with the fundamental issue of the means
that motivates people, the urge of being the best and developing likeliness for what a person does
(De Mooij, 2015). Singapore earns a score of 48 in this particular dimension and remains

5MANAGEMENT
inclined towards feminine side. Therefore, in a Singaporean organization, being modest and
humble represents acts as important criterion. There are no conflicts in the private and in the
work life. Here people are too cautious and persistent.
Australia on the other hand represents masculine society and has a score of 61. The
behavior of people with the organization depends on shared value that helps in the people in
delivering the best with winners taking them. The Australians remains proud of the achievements
and the success that acts as the basis for the promotion and the hiring decisions within
workplace. Here, the conflicts get resolved at the individual level with the goal of winning.
Uncertainty Avoidance: This refers to extent where members of the particular culture
feel threatened by created beliefs and unknown situations (Venaik & Brewer, 2013). Singapore
scores close to 8 in this particular dimension which implies that the people of Singapore abide by
various rules and hence the country is able to avoid various uncertainties. Compared to this,
Australia has an intermediate score of 51 and does not have many rules for avoiding
uncertainties.
Long Term Orientation: As per this dimension, it is vital for the society to maintain key
links with past in dealing with the challenges of the present and the future. Singapore has score
of 72 in this particular dimension that portrays cultural qualities of country in supporting the
longer term investments including the sustained efforts, slow results, thrift, perseverance and
remaining sparse with the resources (Garcia, Rodriguez & Frias, 2013). The country however
experiences massive economic success.
In comparison, the score of Australia in this particular dimension stands at 21 thereby
reflecting normative culture where the people have stronger concern about establishment of

6MANAGEMENT
truth. In other words, Australia also exhibit greater respect for tradition, smaller propensity for
the future savings and focuses on achieving quicker results (Su, Baird & Blair, 2013).
Indulgence: This dimension is the reflection of the degree to which the people tries in
controlling their desires and impulses based on the ways in which they are brought up. A higher
score in indulgence refers to the relatively weaker control. Singapore is controlled by rules and
regulations thereby reflecting a moderate score of 46.
Compared to this Australia refers to an indulgent country and has a higher score of 71.
The high score along with the exhibited willingness of the Australian people in having
enjoyment and fun classifies the people of Australia. Besides, the Australian people possess
positive attitude and tendency to remain optimistic. They also consider importance of leisure
time and like to spend as per their wish.
Figure: Comparison between Singapore and Australia
Source: (Engle & Nash, 2015)

7MANAGEMENT
Management Challenges Emerging from Cultural Differences s
 Leadership: The aspect of leadership has gained attention in Singapore with elder
generation of the leaders explicitly indicating the imminence of the newer leadership. A
leader should be someone who not only connects but is also forward looking thereby
transforming the organization. According to the Hoftstede Model of Cultural Dimension,
in Singapore the challenge of leadership lies in implementing rules and acts more formal
(Ng et al., 2015). They mostly rely on indirect communication thereby ensuring selective
flow of information.
 Staff Handling: From the Hofstede Model, it became clear the work culture in Singapore
is controlled by rules. The challenge lies in employees waiting for receiving orders in
respect to the performance of the task. The country is also known for having rules in
dealing with every situation. The Singaporean work culture does not entertain large
number of employees running around with crazy ideas nor do they entertain unfocused
fragmentations of core business. In name of creativity, employees are encouraged to be
creative with tones of restrictions and boundaries.
 Communication with Various Stakeholders: According to the Hofstede Model, the
challenge in communication within the Singaporean organization remains in indirectness
and the urge in the maintaining harmony within the group through avoiding open
conflicts (Yeo & Pang, 2017). Politeness is often over by the honest feedback. In the
country there exists a moral basis for every relationship. Here, the managers mostly try in
maintaining calmness and respectability.
 Ethics: The Hofstede Model of cultural dimension provides an insight into how the
Singaporean practice the traditional values of the group centeredness thereby respecting

8MANAGEMENT
the hierarchical relationship and are advised for understanding behavioral patterns of
Indians, Chinese and the Malays of Singapore. The challenge lies in the fact that most of
the Singaporeans still preserve the traditional values irrespective of the adoption of
Western Culture.
 Negotiations with Stakeholders: The Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimension shows that
majority of the Singaporeans follows a collectivist culture thereby ensuring maintenance
of group harmony. They believe in smoother negotiations and individual recognition
often learning from one another. The challenge lies with the younger generation who
exhibited individualistic trait.
 Marketing: Marketing can be quite challenging in Singapore since there availability of
various options that ranges from digital to the outdoor to the print (Kerin et al., 2013).
Therefore, it is necessary for business to consider the merits of various marketing media
in the Singapore for market positioning and market share. Businesses must have well
conceived strategy for survival in a highly competitive market of Singapore. The
adoption of the digital media has also shaken up the business market in Singapore.
Recommendations:
These include:
 It is recommended that for Australian businesses making an entry into Singapore should
keep in mind that it is one of the western influenced Asian economies which also put
across confusing mix of the traditional Asian Values and the modernized business
techniques.

9MANAGEMENT
 Australian Businesses should also understand that Singapore represents a mix of various
cultures that includes Malays, Chinese, Indians and the global expatriates
 An Australian business should also understand that the business structures in Singapore
have a tendency towards hierarchical decision making with the senior management at the
top.
 It also recommended that businesses in Singapore does not display open disagreement or
decision making.
Conclusion:
On a concluding note, it can be said that an Australian retailer planning to make an entry
into Singapore will face management challenges due to the cultural differences between the two
countries. The cultural differences between the two countries is viewed with the help of Hofstede
Model of Cultural Dimension that draws a comparison between the two countries in terms of
power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and
indulgence. Based on the dimensions one can overview the management challenges of Singapore
in terms of leadership, staff handling, communications with various stakeholders, ethics,
negotiation with the stakeholders and marketing.

10MANAGEMENT
References:
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are Scores on H ofstede's Dimensions of
National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), 223-240.
De Mooij, M. (2015). Cross-cultural research in international marketing: clearing up some of the
confusion. International Marketing Review, 32(6), 646-662.
Engle, R. L., & Nash, B. (2015). Does it matter if researchers use individual dimension constructs or
only aggregated constructs of cultural distance and cultural intelligence?. Journal of
International Business Research, 14(2), 47.
García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2013). The cultural system and
integrated reporting. International business review, 22(5), 828-838.
Kerin, R. A., Lau, G. T., Hartley, S. W., & Rudelius, W. (2013). Marketing in Asia. McGraw-Hill.
Lee, S. G., Trimi, S., & Kim, C. (2013). The impact of cultural differences on technology
adoption. Journal of world business, 48(1), 20-29.
Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural
values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions in a
single nation. Tourism Management, 48, 299-304.
Ng, D., Nguyen, D. T., Wong, B. K. S., & Choy, W. K. W. (2015). A review of Singapore principals’
leadership qualities, styles, and roles. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 512-533.
Su, S., Baird, K., & Blair, B. (2013). Employee organizational commitment in the Australian public
sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 243-264.

11MANAGEMENT
Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2013). Critical issues in the Hofstede and Globe national culture
models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469-482.
woolworthsgroup.com.au (2019). [online] Retrieved fromhttps://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/
Yeo, S. L., & Pang, A. (2017). Asian multiculturalism in communication: Impact of culture in the
practice of public relations in Singapore. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 112-122.

12MANAGEMENT
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Country Comparison between Australia and Singapore