low k.c.p. (2011) ‘types of singapore corporate culture...
TRANSCRIPT
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1883436
11
Low K.C.P. (2011) ‘Types of Singapore Corporate Culture’, Business Journal for Entrepreneurs, Volume 2011 Issue 2, p. 11 - 49.
Types of Singapore Corporate Cultures
Professor Patrick Kim Cheng Low Ph.D. & Chartered Marketer, Certified MBTI Administrator, & Certified Behavioral Consultant/ Universiti Brunei Darussalam; Associate, University of South Australia
About the Author
Prof. Dr. Patrick Low Kim Cheng , Ph.D. (South Australia), Chartered Marketer, Certified
MBTI Administrator, & Certified Behavioral Consultant (IML, USA), brings with him more
than 20 years of combined experience from sectors as diverse as the electronics, civil service,
academia, banking, human resource development and consulting. His MNC and local
corporate clients from ASEAN, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Bangladesh and Kazakhstan are in
manufacturing, electronics, IT, retail, engineering services, hospitals, hotels, banks &
financial institutions as well as the public sector. The once Visiting Professor, Graduate
School of Business, Universiti of Malaya (Jan to Feb 2007), Prof. Dr. Low was the Deputy
Dean, Postgraduate Studies & Research, teaching in Universiti Brunei Darussalam (2009). He
teaches the graduate students/ MBA in Organisational Behavior, Managing Negotiations,
Leadership and Change Management, and the undergraduates in Leadership Basics,
Challenging Leadership, Business and Society, Issues in Organizational Leadership,
Organization Analysis & Design; and Organization Development & Change. The former
Associate Dean, Director of Career Services and Chair of the Management and Marketing
Department of a University in Kazakhstan (2004 to 2006) focuses on human resource
management and behavioral skills training covering areas like negotiation/ influencing,
leadership and behavioral modification.
An academician-practitioner, a prolific author (author of twelve books including bestsellers
(Strategic Customer Management, 2006, 2002, 2000 – one of Borders’ top ten in 2001/2,
Sales Success, 2006, 2003; Team Success, 2003 and The Power of Relationships, 2001). His
most recent books include Successfully Negotiating In Asia (Springer, 2010) and Corporate
Culture and Values – Perceptions of Corporate Leaders of Cooperatives in Singapore (VDM-
Verlag, 2009). A business coach, Prof. Dr. Low is the founder of BusinesscrAFT™
Consultancy and he previously served as an Examiner for University of South Australia’s
DBA and Ph.D. candidates (2003 to October 2006); presently, he has been appointed as the
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1883436
12
supervisor for its DBA candidates. Besides his experience in academia, training and
consulting, Prof. Dr. Patrick Low has held positions in regional human resource development
(HRD). He has been the Senior Training Manager (Asia Pacific Region) in Standard
Chartered Bank where he was responsible for regional management training and
development, marketing of HRD services and management succession. He can be contacted at
Abstract: The study, an update of a study made in 2005, begins by defining values, and
through literature survey highlights that corporate leaders – through their own values held –
play a large part, if not a key role in molding their organizations and establishing their
organizations’ core values. Using Low’s (2009, 2002) study/thesis as a foundational resource
and data where twelve key Singaporean values were uncovered, this further research study, by
means of questionnaire survey-cum-interviews, examines the core values held by Singapore’s
corporate leaders when running their Singapore companies. A framework with local analogies
or metaphors, are then drawn. The results indicate that a pattern can be extrapolated to portray
the various Singapore corporate cultures in existence, and implications of findings for
corporate leaders are also discussed.
Key words: Corporate culture, values, Singaporean values; Singapore; Bumboat culture;
modernizing culture; Singapore Symphony Orchestra (SSO) culture; School teacher culture;
national culture.
Introduction
Values are the core beliefs, ideas and things people care and believe most. They are people’s
or organization’s (also read as nation’s) priorities; they also provide purpose and a sense of
direction, setting the standards and giving us a sense of right and wrong (Low, 2005). And it
can, in fact, be said that values are derived from the founders and leaders (Borromeo, 1996:
51, Sithi-Amnuai, 1996). Both political and corporate leaders play a part in molding
organization and establishing values and beliefs (Horton, 1999: 32; Borromeo, 1996; Sithi-
Amnuai, 1996). Just as “pure springs make for clean rivers” (Kim, 1994: 145), leaders’ values
make for the organization’s culture. Birch (1993) claims:
Singapore creates itself as modern by relying on establishing a set of shared, i.e. collective, values and ideals. Its politicians, therefore, are also its cultural managers. (Birch, 1993: 76)
13
The perceptions and views of Singapore leaders, political and corporate, are seen to be
critical, since they serve as the visible representation of the types of behavior likely to find
support in Singapore. According to Graves (1986: 122–123) and Sithi-Amnuai (1996) leaders
are perceived as culture givers and givers of meaning. Thus, when a company operates in
Singapore, it is affected by the societal effect (Maurice, 1979) of the Singapore culture.
Objectives of the Study
While significant amount of literature on the patterns of corporate cultures that exist in the
West (for example, Trompenaars, 1994; Handy, 1979), there is an incomplete, if not limited,
amount of research focusing on this issue in the context of Asia in general and Singapore in
particular to date. Therefore this study endeavors to fill this void, it is aim to review the
patterns of corporate cultures that exist in island-republic of Singapore.
Leaders are Primary Formers of Their Organization’s Culture
Founders are often considered as “the principal formers” of their organization’s culture (Low
2005: 47; Schein, 1983; Selznick, 1957). To understand a particular culture within nations and
organizations, it is thus helpful to look at its founders and its present office bearers of business
organizations.
Though Martin, Sitkin and Boehm (1985) appear to be scathing about the seductive promise
that founders can create a culture, cast in the founder’s own image and reflecting his or her
own values, priorities, and vision of the future, it is a strongly held belief. A founder’s own
perspective can be transformed into a shared legacy that will survive death or departure from
the institution — a personal form of organizational immortality (Martin, Sitkin & Boehm,
1985: 99). Organizations’ founders or corporate leaders are indeed “significant individuals in
their organizations” (Jackson, 1993: 150). Parson’s 1998 study supports this; a strong
inference exists in his findings that managerial values were central to the formation of the
organization’s philosophy (Ashkanasy et al, 2000). The leaders’ underlying values influence
the staff’s likes and dislikes, the way they carry out their duties and responsibilities as well as
the work place process and behavior (Sithi-Amnuai, 1996).
Schein (1985, 1990) also invokes psychological theories of the psycho-dynamic make-up of
leaders, when he states that “organizations begin to create cultures through the actions of
founders” (Schein, 1985, 1990: 221).
14
Davis (1984: 8) agrees as in his statement, he speaks of “the leader is the fountainhead” of
culture. In Asia, the saying “the tail trails the head” has the same meaning. One Singapore
corporate leader, the late Lien Ying Chow observed: “We Chinese always say: When a tiger
dies, he leaves his skin; a man dies, he leaves only his name.” (Lien & Kraar, 1994: 82).
The leader, the fountainhead, at times has been described as heroes and champions; and
whether that individual is:
… the entrepreneur-founder who first lays out the guiding beliefs or the current Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who has been given the right to reinterpret the guiding beliefs and state new ones. If the leader is a great person, then inspiring ideas will permeate the corporation’s culture … strong beliefs make for strong cultures. The clearer the leader is about what he stands for, the more apparent will be the culture of that company. Whether strong and clear or not, the individual at the top of the organisation is the one who will set and, if necessary, re-set the beliefs. (Davis, 1984: 8)
Critically seen as reinforcing the basic values of a culture by making desired behavior
attainable and human, leaders serve as role models, are a symbol to the outside world and
preserve what makes the organization special or unique and above all, they set the standards
for performance (Deal and Kennedy, 1982: 39–41, 1988).
CEOs, through their role-modeling and good example-setting, influence the ways things are
done (Daft, 2001; Low, 2001; Low, 2000; Sithi-Amnuai, 1996; Matsushita, 1991). “If the
stick is crooked, the shadow cannot be straight.” (Low, 2000: 139); the leaders’ “action runs
deeper than words.” (Sithi-Amnuai, 1996: 36; Kuczmarski and Kuczmarski, 1995). Whittle
states:
… the chief executive affects how people think, work and act on the job. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree … If the CEO likes a clean desk, executives all keep their desks clean. If the CEO has an outward aggressive personality, and supports marketing, the entire bank (company) supports marketing. If the CEO is a bean-counting cruncher, this influence filters down to the branch managers who emulate this particular management style. (Whittle, 1987: 4)
As the Chinese saying goes, “with wisdom and gentleness, even the most powerful force can
be subdued.” (Wang, 1993: 94). Corporate leaders reinforce the basic organizational values.
Core Singaporean Values
In Low’s (2009; 2002) study, he conducted a survey of 32 Singapore companies, all
Singapore co-operatives; they play a significant role in the local economy (Tan, 1994: 11) and
15
are considered as a social instrument for the rapid development of the country and its people
(David, 1975: 8). “Singapore co-operatives are fully competitive with private enterprise, do
not get special treatment from the Government (and)… their differentiating factor is that
ownership is restricted to local people” (Low, 2009; 2002: 150). Singaporeans wholly own
these companies through their memberships; and hence, they can be duly classified as
Singapore companies (Low, 2009; 2002), reflecting a Singapore brand of corporate culture
and core values. The study investigated the characteristic cultural traits of the typical
Singapore Company through survey questionnaire-cum-interviews. A model of the Singapore
national culture was then identified and analyzed; certain unique Singaporean cultural values
were reaffirmed (Low, 2009; 2002; also see Appendix 1).
In Low’s (2009; 2002) research, with the use and help of the literature review [e.g. Lowe,
2000; Chang and Wong, 1998; Trompenaars, 1994, the Chinese Values Survey (CVS) (The
Chinese Cultural Connection, 1987); Hofstede, 1980, 1991; List of Values (LOV) (Kahle,
1983) and Rokeach’s Values Survey (Rokeach, 1973)], four focus groups of five experienced
human resource practitioners and corporate leaders, providing “background information”
(Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990: 15; Singleton , Jr. & Straits, 2002) such as common sayings
and personal experiences, identified and validated a list of the national values commonly held
by Singaporeans. From this list, a pilot test was conducted, and the list was then further
verified by the focus groups. As in Low (2005), after the test, the pilot respondents’ minor
adjustments were made of the list and survey questions; confirmations were also received
from the pilot respondents that the survey questions did seek their views on the various
Singaporean values, and what and how these values affected their companies. Low (2009;
2002) then validated these value assessments of the twelve values against a panel of two
independent assessors. A survey questionnaire and guided interviews were then used to
explore the values of Singapore co-operatives to realize what distinguishes Singapore
companies from other foreign companies there, and what socio-cultural determinants and
Singaporean values contribute to the success of, or work against, the Singapore companies. In
the process, Low (2009; 2002) uncovered Singapore companies subscribing to 12
Singaporean values and these key values were:
16
Table 1: The 12 Singaporean Values
1 Human Capital
2 Learning
3 Sense of unity
4 Multiracial/multiculturalism
5 Achievement
6 Globalization and networking
7 Continuous effort and being resilient
8 Governmental support and involvement
9 Rationalism
10 Pragmatism
11 Diversity
12 Participation of women
(Source: Low (2009, 2002); see Appendix 2).
One additional value (compared to Low’s 2005 study) appeared in this study, and this value is
the value of science and technology. This value was mentioned in Low (2009; 2002) but it
was considered as a peripheral or secondary value, and not in the top twelve mentioned above.
This study confirms the value of science and technology and Low’s (2011a) observations of
this value.
Research Methodology
In his research, Low (2009; 2002) cites the twelve Singaporean values, and these values are
then cited and used to examine the key value(s) that prevail among these Singapore
companies – as held by their corporate leaders; and if so, to survey what various types of
Singapore corporate cultures that may exist. The primary objective of this further study is to
determine whether surveying these top values held by the corporate leaders can present a
pattern of values or any clusters of similar core beliefs. Thus, like Low’s (2005) study, the
researcher asked the most obvious question, and that is “What is the most important value (or
values) of the Singaporean managers when running their companies?” And are these priority
values of the leaders picked from the 13 (12 + 1) Singaporean values or otherwise?
Low (2009; 2002) thesis served as the foundational source of data with the twelve Singaporean values extracted plus the additional value (uncovered during the present research) for this further study. Data for this further research were collected using
17
questionnaire survey-cum-interviews. Respondents consisted of co-operative leaders of Singapore co-operatives of all categories, that is, Campus, Credit, NTUC, Service sectors.
The survey-cum-interviews were administered. 33 out of a total of 66 Singapore
co-operatives’ leaders participated and the response rate of 50 percent obtained. The survey-
cum-interviews were conducted from September 2006 to end May 2007. To increase the
reliability and objectivity of the study, the researcher also checked and validated these
responses-cum-assessments against an independent assessor, a Ph.D. candidate contracted by
the researcher. Metaphors have been used in attributing cultures (Ortony, 1979; Low, 2008)
and they, in fact, can be used to illustrate a pattern or a theme (Gannon, 1994, 1993). Note that the
same metaphors used in Low (2005) are also applied in this study since they are used to
confirm or negate the cultural descriptions.
Findings
During the survey-interviews, scales of 1 (least agreeable to the value cited) to 10 (most
agreeable to the value cited) were used and the most important value answers from the
respondents were recorded. Their responses were then collated and tabulated; the corporate
leaders’ endorsements were summarized as follows:
Table 2: The most important value endorsed
The most important value endorsed (Here, respondents cited as top value on a scale of 9 /10 out of total 10)
Number and percentage (%) of respondents who agreed
1 Being viable/ concerned with the bottom-line
9 27.27
2 Achieving social objectives (No. 2 matched with the values of the co-operatives – Low, 2009; 2002)
7
21.21
3 Going modern/ professionalism and technology
5 15.15
4 Having close relationships with “all- in-the-family” situation
5
15.15
5 Valuing political stability with a sense of unity (No. 5 matched with the combined values of Governmental support and involvement, and sense of unity, two of the 12 identified Singaporean values – Low, 2009; 2002)
3
9.09
18
6 Being a role-model 2 6.06 7 Going global with diversified
interests (No. 7 matched with the value of globalization and networking, one of the 12 identified Singaporean values – Low, 2009; 2002)
2
6.06
* Two (2) respondents from the above total 33 respondents also spoke of the following issues, they were: 8 Subscribing and valuing science and
technology (No. 8 matched with the values of rationalism and pragmatism, one of the 12 identified Singaporean values – Low, 2009; 2002).
1 3.03
9 Being bureaucratic (No. 9 matched with the overall Confucian Heritage of the Singapore national culture – Low, 2009; 2002), the respondents referred to the various “procedures” or “bureaucratic practices” that prevailed.
1
3.03
It should be noted that the respondents, differs from the respondents in Low’s (2005) study,
were made free to express their views. And they were assured confidentiality and anonymity,
and this researcher felt that they were relaxed and comfortable with him during the
interviews; indeed they were forthcoming and, in fact, readily made available their views.
Possible Weaknesses and Qualifications
In analyzing these data, the researcher compares the above list with that of the original 12
Singaporean values surveyed (Low, 2009; 2002). As in Low (2005), interestingly enough, few
of them chose from the above list of 12 Singaporean values (this study also uncovers the
thirteen value) but, instead, they proposed alternative values. At this juncture, the researcher
will highlight the possible weaknesses so that one is aware of the possible limitations from the
onset of the research.
One possible explanation is that like Low’s (2005) study, the original list asked for core
values (original 12 values – Low, 2009; 2005; 2002 and current study, 13 values) but
respondents were replying in terms of activities. They were thinking more of their operational
activities and urgencies. Similar to Khong’s (1993: 39) research where “the SMEs were more
concerned with their daily operations”, the present study’s examples include the fact that nine
19
respondents (27.27 percent) spoke of their need to ensure the bottom-line and profits. Five
other respondents (15.15 percent) spoke of going modern, being professional while tapping
the benefits of automation and modernity.
Another possible clarification for the respondents’ citing their own alternative values, as
important values could be this researcher’s choice of words in the survey-interviews. Perhaps,
this researcher’s choice of words may not be apt or fitting; the respondents were endorsing
similar items but were using different terms. For example, they were endorsing the value of
globalization and networking but were referring to going global with diversified interests.
And when they were endorsing the value of Governmental support and involvement, they
were referring to safety, political stability (“no inter-racial riots”) with a sense of unity.
Besides, another seeming reason why the respondents selected values outside the list of 13
values could be that they were thinking of their leadership or organizational image and even
the “glamour”, and that they wanted to be seen in the right light as serving their members’ or
stakeholders’ interests. Hence, the citing of profits, being a role model or fulfilling the social
objectives and responsibilities was the most important value that influenced them.
Nonetheless, even if these were not actually the case, these were values that affected them and
were rightly pointed out by them.
Another potential explanation for the respondents selecting values outside the list of the
original 12 values and current 13 values, particularly the social objective value, could be that
the respondents might be thinking of the raison d’être or principle of their existence, hence
their selection of such a value.
Another explanation advanced is that the respondents took the 13 values as axiomatic or self-
evident, considering them as their accepted Singaporean values; and thus, their most
important value might or might not come from these 13 Singaporean values. If the most
important value came from one of the 13 values, then it only reinforces the proposed
Singapore’s Confucian heritage cultural model. If, on the other hand, the most important
value came from outside the 13 values, then it only speaks of the organization’s special
circumstances and concerns. For example, corporate leaders selecting the value of social
objectives may possibly be thinking of their co-operatives’ own mission, objectives and
roadmaps.
20
Granted the latter explanation is true and given the fact that the co-operative leaders were
rightly voicing their most important values as to what they perceived and interpreted as their
priority value in running their organizations (what they want to be practiced), the corporate
cultures that emerged are next assessed. Note that playing an important role, the independent
assessor also further verified the respondents’ answers and confirmed the labels of each
corporate cultural type allocated. Each corporate cultural type with its implications is now
discussed.
Analysis and Discussions
1 The organizations that value profits (profit or the mee-pok man/ street
noodle seller culture) (Also known as the Small business culture)
The majority of respondents (9 or 27.27 percent) indicated that they were more conscious of
their bottom-line with perhaps the strong need to be resilient and survive. “Singapore
companies face tough competition with each other in a small domestic market” (several
respondents’ input). One co-operative leader from the Service sector highlighted the typical
view of organizations that value profits:
as far as I’m concerned, I am not really bothered with whatever (Singaporean) values, we run the company as a profit centre. We have no choice. And run the business as best that we could. Like any other business, profits matter most of all. At the end of the day, we must satisfy our shareholders.
Also reflecting the “profits matter”, another respondent, one from the Campus sector opined
that “First in the ranking, the most important factor: we encourage thrift and savings amongst
our students as much as we try to source out cheap to effect whatever savings – in line with
our coop’s objectives (– and make money)”. Although Low (2010: 95 - 96) stresses that the
Chinese overall want to have a good life – wealth, prosperity and longevity (Fu Lu Shou
thinking generally encoded in the Chinese mind), this money-making, “profits matter”
appears to be most important here for the sake of survival.
So, in what way is “profit matter” linked to the Mee-pok Man (street noodle seller)? How does
this researcher derive the Mee-pok man analogy? The Mee-pok Man is seen as a hardy seller
of a popular Singaporean fast food – a cheap fish-ball flat-noodle dish – much liked by
Singaporeans (see Appendix 3). Here, the Mee-pok Man, the hardy seller is seen as analogous
21
to the resilience value, “a certain can-do spirit” (Chua, 2003: H13) that is identified as one of
the underlying twelve Singaporean values (Low, 2009; 2002).
Such a Mee-pok Man culture is also reflected in Lee and Sheh’s (1994) study where the
results proved that the human-relations approach and business orientation are most important.
Consistent with earlier findings which indicated that the Chinese mind being pragmatic and
devoted to seeking profit (Zhang, 1999), the majority also demonstrated the need for
thriftiness. Indeed, in such a culture, profits are ploughed back and being frugal is a virtue.
Thrift or prudence involves the use of limited resources — material, capital and human
resources (in line with the island Republic’s limited resources that has impacted on its culture;
Low, 2009; 2002) and this results in improving productivity and overall profitability (Sheh,
2001) as well as more investments and business growth. Being thrifty helps to prosper, if not
survive (Mulchand & Fong, 2004). Besides, being determined, the leaders and the people
persevere, working hard (Sheh, 2001; Robertson, 2000; Yeung & Tung, 1996) and exercising
endurance, particularly at the early inception of the business where existence and survival are
the key objectives. The existence of this culture as discussed very much supports the
prevalence of the Singapore’s Confucian heritage national culture (Low, 2009; 2002)
although other writers have challenged such a notion.
One further implication of companies with an “organizations that value profits” culture is that
they can be niche players, making full use of their resources as well as being thrifty and
having a certain resilience, and can better survive in competitive environments.
2 The organizations driven by social objectives (co-operative culture) (Such a
corporate culture is often typified in cooperatives charitable organisations and government
bodies, tasked to carrying out certain social objectives and responsibilities.) Seven co-
operative leaders or 21.21 percent of the respondents expressed the social objective
imperatives. One co-operative leader from the credit sector reported that “We look after
members’ interests; members’ interests come first.” Another respondent (Service) pointed out:
Our social objectives are the core; we’re here to help them. These are ex-convicts, and former drug addicts. They find difficulties in getting employment and we are here to help them getting jobs, be useful and re-integrate into the society.
Cooperatives have interestingly met their members’ needs, and are very relevant in self-help
as well as playing a “role in promoting economic growth” (Balakrishnan, 2009). When others
22
are down-sizing, they help to retain the staff. Overall then, it is heartening to note that the
co-operative’s social objectives were pursued; these organizations sought to satisfy their
members’ needs, especially in the presence of economic hard times. The co-operatives have
achieved their objectives, including the fact that NTUC co-operatives have also contributed to
the Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF), improving the workers’ welfare, and furthering the
development of the trade union movement in Singapore (Foo, 1996). Besides, the NTUC co-
operatives were created to enable workers to acquire assets and thus give them a greater stake
in the economy (Campos & Root, 1996: 71). The metaphor, “organizations driven by social
objectives” can thus be interpreted to reflect very much the Confucian value of helping others
and paying back to the community (Low, 2005).
NTUC Fairprice, one of the leading super-marts, unlike its profit-driven competitors, has cut
prices on 400 items and would do so for other items too. NTUC Fairprice has a social
obligation, helping workers pull through the economic hard times and redistributing the
profits to society (Osman, 2001; Soh, 2001; Ee, 2001; 2001a). Call was also made for more
co-operatives to care for the elderly, with NTUC Eldercare opening day-care operations and
heavily subsidizing its operations to keep the rates within the means of the working class (Ee,
2001a: 228–229).
Though in Singapore business, there are often pressures to up profits, one can argue that
there’s still a prevailing Confucian value of benevolence being practiced. As a Confucian
value, the leaders serve as guardians and providers of their people’s welfare. Though some
may dismiss this as mere patronage, nonetheless, it can be argued that Confucian teachings
stress benevolence and compassion and, as a corollary, a successful and good person is one
who is also benevolent and compassionate to sufferings and deprived fellows (Sheh, 2001;
Scarborough, 1998; Chan & Chiang, 1994: 292). The leaders often help others less fortunate
or pay to the society what has been taken from it. The existence of such a co-operative culture
reinforces Singapore’s revamped Confucian cultural model earlier identified in Low’s (2009;
2002) study.
The implications of such a culture are that these co-operatives help ordinary people to be
company shareholders, while closing the ranks between the rich and the poor — they help
promote egalitarianism. Additionally, such a culture would easily carry our or fulfill its
corporate social responsibility.
23
3 The organizations that value going modern (modernizing/ the bum-boat owner culture) (Can also be called the Modern Singapore private business culture; they are usually family-owned businesses, adopting modern management to compete with others by adopting modern technology to remain competitive in modern times.) Five corporate leaders highlighted this view with one of them, voicing that:
These days, in Singapore family-run companies – most key positions are held by family members and power is kept from ‘outsiders’… yet they do adopt a more professional management style. They use modern equipment or engage the services of top management consultants to advise and streamline their companies.
Indeed, it is not surprising that the “go-modern” business owner/ bum-boat owner culture
prevails in the Singapore corporate scene. The existence of Singapore companies, especially
small Chinese companies under the strong pressure of a modernizing environment, cannot be
denied. They have to upgrade their present level of technology and management know-how so
as to compete locally, regionally and internationally as evidenced in Lee’s (1996) study as
well as in Long (2004); this also, in most ways, coincides with Low’s (2009a) study of the
Singapore’s national culture of strategic maintenance, improving and upgrading facilities to
seek overall excellence. One key example is that of Tan Seng Kee Foods which was founded
with humble beginnings dating back to 1936; it began operating as a sole proprietorship
manufacturing rice and wheat based noodle products. The company improves its productivity
and it (in collaboration with Spring Singapore) produces the new type of noodles with a
longer shelf life (Low, 2011: 1, A8).
The existence of such a culture is further supported by the 2000 year-end joint study
researched by the National University of Singapore’s Centre for Business Research and
Development (CBRD) and the Singapore Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry
(SCCCI). Though the Chinese companies subscribed to IT, e-mail and the setting up of web-
sites, they faced modernization issues such as needing more knowledge and information of
Governmental assistance as well as tapping into the various Government’s assistance schemes
(SCCI-NUS, 2001).
Though Singapore businesses placed great value on new technology adoption (Menkhoff &
Loh, 2002), many of them — especially small Chinese ones — need to emphasize technology
and advancement (Long, 2004; Chan & Chiang, 1994: 272, 350, 357; Siew, 1987).
Singaporean business owners should bring innovation and change into their organizations,
24
with professional management replacing the family entrepreneurs (Bjerke, 1999: 146; SyCip,
1995: 21). As mentioned by Low (2005), a newspaper columnist Leong (2003: 33) in fact
reported the growth of a family-owned company through modernization and the hiring of
professional managers, particularly YHI. Other such Singapore companies include Breadtalk,
which makes buns (“relinquishing control and letting others take charge, which many
businessmen are loath to do”, Wong, 2011: A18), and Qian Hu, which rears ornamental fish
and Osim, which sells massage chairs. One modernizing, happy family group’s corporate
leader admitted, that “at the end of the day, what is important is that the (company) …must be
professionally managed” (Koh, 2003: A14). To these, the researcher would also like to add
goldsmith company, Poh Heng as under this category of companies under this corporate
culture type. It also attempts to update its image with a tagline, “I am gold. Gold is true. Gold
is trust. Feel it in yourself. Find it in all that is Poh Heng.” (as in an ad, The Straits Times,
2011a: 11).
Nevertheless, it is believed that Chinese businesses are faced with dilemmas to retain
traditional Chinese management (human-centeredness, family-centeredness, centralization of
power and small size) or adopt the knowledge needed for the modern economy (Lee, 1996).
Different perspectives are held by the two generations on how to run the organization
(especially when children of first-generation leaders/founders in Chinese organizations have
received a Western education) (Lee, 1996; Siew, 1987).
This description, as Low (2005) has argued, has been employed because like the bum-boat
that is a motorized sampan, the organizations that value going modern apply technology to
reap its benefits while adopting a professional approach. In the past, bum-boats were very
commonly found in the Singapore River and they were used for loading or unloading goods
from ships berthed at the Singapore Harbor’s Outer Roads). The Bum-boat Owner corporate
culture is characteristically unique in that it includes certain enlightened management
practices.
One implication of such a “bum-boat” corporate culture is that of the challenge of continuing
the traditional values of familial-like relationships, or facing expansion while embracing
modernization. Yet another implication is the challenge of integrating the values of both the
first and second-generation (fathers and sons) leaders, and that of the older and younger
generation.
25
The organizations that value family relationships (sole proprietor/ towkay
and family culture) (These are normally shopkeepers and/or small companies.)
It can be interpreted that in Singapore, within organizations that value family relationships,
the situation is very much the same as what one respondent (from the Credit sector)
expressed:
Sense of belonging is vital to us, creating that sense is important; the people enjoy that sense of family-ness; we want to also better the rapport among our members; we are to help each other.
I also believe in relationship-building – networking. When you’re small, you’ve to network so that you can build your contacts, have more business and go on.
Another respondent (Campus) opined that:
We’re really unique in most ways; we stress more on building relationships. In this small business, we want the members to build their friendships with each other. We also want to stress on the togetherness among our members.
Here, such corporate cultural traits can be assessed as applicable to the sole proprietor or
small-family Singapore companies. Indeed, there exist pockets of Chinese family businesses
in Singapore where the emphasis is on family (Sheh, 2001: 75-83). The Towkay corporate
culture can be construed as the typical ‘family’ or closely-knit business a la Phua Chu Kang
(PCK), a popular local Television of Singapore (TCS)’s sitcom featuring the on-goings in
Singapore’s favorite “Ah Beng” (backwoods or country bumpkin boy) contractor. Phua Chu
Kang’s wife, Rosie and Architect brother, Phua Chu Beng are both roped in to help in Chu
Kang’s business. The Chinese Towkay is a closely-knit ‘all-in-the-family’ type of corporate
culture where every members, their relatives, friends and relationships count. Relationships
matter most.
Towkay (Low, 2005) or “Boss-centered” (the analogy used by Sheh, 1995: 28), the proprietor
or business leader, runs the show, providing the knowledge and expertise with good
relationships with his people (Sheh, 2001; Ng & Ng, 1996: 368; Sheh, 1995; Chen, 1991,
Siew, 1987; Yao, 1987). Chinese-owner managers take their meals with their employees at a
round table. Knowledge, information and experience are transmitted through this informal
gathering (SyCip, 1995: 21). This family culture, the analogy used by Trompenaars (1994),
appears foreign to most in the United States — conversations are more important than
research questionnaires and subjective data are superior to objective data (Hodgetts &
Luthans, 1997: 163). In fact, there is a tendency to “use more saliva than tea” (Low, 2001).
26
Talking means that the leaders’ ears are on the ground and that they keep themselves aware of
the environment in which they are operating.
Cultivating personal relationships (guan xi) is stressed (Yeung & Tung, 1996; Montagu-
Pollock, 1991; Siew, 1987; Yao, 1987). Superiors show concern openly but not criticism
(Yao, 1987). This lends support to Lee’s (1996) and Siew’s (1987) studies where family or
familial relationships play a critical role in the organization (Bjerke, 1999: 153, Sheh, 1995).
In such a corporate culture, the business is run based on good relationships and employees are
not only being treated like all in the family situation, but they also view their organizations as
traditional families (Sheh, 2001; Adler, 1997: 52; Lee, 1996; Siew, 1987, Chong, 1987).
Reflecting the Singapore’s Confucian heritage cultural model, the corporate leaders or
managers, like benevolent fathers, use more saliva than drinking tea — meaning talking,
coaching and taking personal interest in the employees’ welfare. Informality and intimacy
exists — with everyone undertaking a variety of activities to meet daily performance demands
(Low, 2001: 98–99; Ng & Ng, 1996; Chan & Chiang, 1994: 55–56; Lasserre & Schutte,
1995: 105; Bond, 1991; Siew, 1987).
One implication is that in such a culture, seniority and good conduct of behavior such as
reliability and trustworthiness are given greater weight or emphasis.
In fact, both these organizations (“organizations that value family relationships”) as well as
“organizations that value going modern” (see 3) have its implications for Singapore and the
rest of Asia where overseas Chinese family businesses prevail and where they are affected by
the winds of change and modernization. One such implication of the sole proprietor or the
“organizations that value family relationships” culture is that, as the company expands, it will
evolve into the “organizations that value going modern” culture (see 3), embracing values of
modernization such as valuing modernity (such as the use of consultants) and technology such
as e-commerce and others.
27
5 The organizations that value political stability (stability or the orchid shirt
and national dress culture) (Such a culture may often prevail in Singapore’s banks, fund
management and insurance/ credit companies).
This research also confirms the appropriateness of Low’s (2005) metaphor for this corporate
culture type. For companies under this category, national stability and the Government’s help
are stressed. These companies, being nurtured in such a politically stable environment, grow
and expand. Order and stability were found to be much valued in Confucian societies
(Robertson, 2000; Yao, 2000). Singapore, in particular, “has long had a reputation for being
intolerant of corruption and for having one of the more efficient, no-nonsense regulatory
systems in Asia” (PERC, 2003: 14).
True, all SMEs or for that matter, businesses in Singapore value political stability but in such
a culture, that political stability value is stressed, and in such a culture, the role of the
Singapore Government is emphasized and evidenced as a priority value. A typical view
expressed by the corporate leaders in such organizations goes as follows:
First in the ranking? The most important factor… we value political stability. The government provides the systems, the roads and all the necessary amenities and infrastructure. With political stability and unity within the organization, we can work together to grow the company.
Strongly reflecting the Government component of the underlying Singapore cultural model
earlier mentioned, this notion of “organizations that value political stability” corporate culture
is further supported by Lee’s (2001) research of larger companies and SMEs in Singapore.
These companies have normally expanded and grown through Government incentives,
financial assistance schemes as well as support, and form a seabed of future Singapore MNCs.
Interestingly, it should be noted that in Singapore, the Orchid-shirt is a noted national
costume, it can be a dress, a lady’s blouse or a man’s shirt with printed or batik orchid motifs.
The Singapore Government has been encouraging the use of this national orchid wear, among
Singaporeans particularly when attending official functions abroad; hence, the name for such
a corporate culture. The Orchid-shirt (national dress) wearer corporate culture that exists in
Singapore companies has distinctive emphasis on political stability, being dependent on that
governmental factor for growth.
28
There is no denial that there is Singapore companies that prosper and want to play it safe.
They have enjoyed Singapore’s political stability, its social cohesion and whatever products
of good government such as an efficient and effective civil service. Unlike its neighboring
countries, particularly Indonesia that suffered from much social disorder, politically safe and
financially prudent Singapore has been highlighted as a good place to do business, especially
evident during the Asian Economic Crisis. This Orchid shirt-wearer corporate culture would
include Singapore’s banks, fund management and insurance/ credit companies. These
companies traditionally, over the years, benefit from a well-ordered city, the Singapore
Government’s smooth successions, the efficient and effective Civil Service, the tripartite
arrangements, provision of good roads, infra-structure and communications systems; things
that are doubly hard to let go. The efficient and effective Civil Service’s influence on
Singapore enterprises can be linked to political stability, one of the Singapore values
concurrently identified in Low’s (2009; 2002) study.
An implication of this culture is that success breeds success, as there is special emphasis on
the winners (Lee, 2001; Doh, 1996) by being identified as the Enterprise 50 companies and
being able to utilize Government initiatives such as the Local Industry Upgrading Programme
(LIUP) and others (Lee, 2001). The Government lends much support to innovative local start-
ups and companies that have critical mass, commitment, capacity and capability to innovate
and grow (EDB, 1989). Another implication is that a need exists for the Government to put
more emphasis on developing other SMEs, alongside the development of this “organizations
that value political stability” corporate culture. Otherwise, a ‘lop-sided’ economy may
emerge, one that is heavily dependent on government’s initiatives, and GLCs with the latter
growing bigger while emasculating the SMEs with the passing time.
6 The organizations that value being role model (role model or school teacher
culture) (Such a culture tends to prevail in schools, universities/ vocational and technical
schools, and government’s model companies.)
In organizations that value role model, one respondent said that:
We want to learn and teach love; as Catholics, we want to spread the message of love and charity. That’s the very reason of our formation and existence… …the key to whatever we do is that of being the role model.
And another respondent (Service sector) further indicated that his co-operative is:
29
to provide “contoh” (Malay for “example”), be the example or a role model in which a group of people come and work together for our mutual gains. Besides, it’s to raise our honor and good names.
We also have a co-op, ours… …that is professionally run.
Corporate leaders and managers should present the image of a mighty leader — in a way,
leaders need to set the example, and be trusted by counterparts and employees; this is similar
to Chen’s (1991) study or, as in Yao’s (1987) study, paternalistic leadership is fostered (Bond,
1991: 71).
Like the benevolent father, the Singapore Government has intended that the GLCs lead the
way in becoming world class. For certain industries, GLCs such as POS Bank and DBS were
leading because of the pioneering nature of the industries (Tan, 1975: 93). “Operat(ing) in a
vast array of sectors” with “the single-minded quest for efficiency”, the GLCs playing “the
leading role”, “plot and spearhead economic moves” (Shameen & Reyes, 2000: 43). This
“organizations that value being role model” culture reinforces the Confucian heritage cultural
model discussed in Section 6.1. The teacher or the role model in the Confucian sense is
respected, commanding the same respect as is due to one’s father and elders and are, in fact,
the primary source of guidance (Scarborough, 1998: 23; Bond, 1991: 29).
The Singapore Government has, in fact, reinforced this teacher or role model corporate
culture. Both POS and DBS Banks were set up by the Singapore Government to serve as role-
models or ‘lead’ the local banks in embracing hi-tech and updating their IT processes, more
so during the first twenty years after Singapore’s independence. And it can be argued that
during the Asian economic crisis 1997 – 1999 when the Government was emphasizing that
big or corporate size matters, DBS Bank led in the acquisition or the merger with POS Bank
in 1998. DBS Bank also went shopping, buying into Philippines bank, paying a total S$1.2
billion, “a near 20 per cent stake in Bank of Philippine Islands, which is poised to be that
country’s largest bank” (Velloor, 1999: 1). And DBS thus sets the example when Singapore’s
local banks were told that they needed to consolidate, merge or follow-suit to be stronger and
competitive.
30
An implication of the “organizations that value being role model” culture is that even when it
comes to investing abroad and spreading Singapore’s external wings, the cosmopolitan GLCs
encourage and set the example for other Singapore companies to follow suit.
7 The organizations that value going global (going-global or the Singapore
Symphony Orchestra: SSO culture) (Often found in Singapore international businesses
with overseas network and business dealings)
Two larger co-operatives (that have the necessary resources and means to go abroad) out of
the 33 corporate leaders interviewed perceived going global, growing into a Singapore MNC,
as the most important value they espouse. Here, one interviewee highlighted:
The critical value? Going overseas, perhaps regional? JTC has a JTC International. We’ve our dreams or vision (too)…. Of course, we want ‘quality’, ‘being the best’ and wanting to achieve ‘growth’. We have to be efficient and effective. Of course, we would like to go regional. Going regional is an opportunity for us, to grow bigger is to reap the economies of scale. However, very frankly, we must get it right first; we really need talents, diverse talents and resources.
Perhaps, globalization will spur growth. To expand markets, we need to network to strengthen our business. And human resource development or training is another key factor.
And another interviewee added that:
We have and want to build our global contacts and network. We’ll train, equip ourselves. We want, have the resources to go regional. We have previously tried it. We’ll go in, expand at the right time. We’ll go overseas when right opportunities prevail. And if so, our venturing overseas will be profit maximizing.
Why then the SSO label? Again as in Low (2005), such organizations normally seek to go
global, embracing or “tapping or enjoying technology”, and building contacts and networks as
well as resources and talents. Usually big, they have the necessary resources and diverse
talents to build up their diversified business interests. For example, it is reported that NTUC
Fairprice has expanded its range of house brands by partnering with overseas retailers (Lim,
2011: B5).
Like the SSO – international in composition, of diverse talents and Singapore’s largest
professional artistic body aspiring to be a world-class orchestra, Singapore companies with
such a corporate culture are multinational, usually fairly big companies and banks with
several overseas branches (or at least has the potentials to be as such). Here, “access to global
talents (is) critical for Singapore banks” and “the best in the world will help the industry set
31
itself up as entrance to the regional economies” (The Straits Times, 2 Feb 2000, p. 45). And
they too aspire to be world-class. They can also grow by leveraging knowledge and other
capabilities in multiple locations, rather just at home (Williamson, Yes Dos & Santos, 2001
cited in Khanna, 2004).
Singapore as a global city is acting as key basing points for the expanding corporate
Singapore (Yeung, 2000). Increasingly, Singapore companies are becoming more and more
international with such a cultural orientation. The empirical support of the existence of such a
culture also comes from Low’s (1994) study of Singapore’s MNCs and the Ministry of
Finance (1993).
Additionally, such organizations with the SSO culture ordinarily bear valued brand names
(such as Tiger Balm, Yeo’s, Anchor, Tiger) and valuing technology, such typical companies
include those awarded with incentives or supported by Government bodies such as the Trade
Development Board (TDB), to go overseas (Trade Winds’ Industry Weekly, 1996). They
usually also employ foreign talents or have a diversity of people within their ranks and file.
Here again, the presence of such a culture reinforces the presence of the benevolent father, the
Government as in the Singapore’s Confucian heritage cultural model (Low, 2009; 2002). The
Government through its various agencies such as EDB plays an active role — almost like a
partner — in helping Singapore companies venturing overseas.
One implication of such a culture is that its potentials and strengths of diversity and creativity
can be further tapped to expand the company.
Another implication is that in such a culture, the company resorts to global sourcing,
providing it access to lower cost raw materials and components, particularly those not
available locally as well as access to higher quality inputs such as better technologies or more
skilled workers. Global sourcing and networking equips the company too with less reliance on
a small number of possible suppliers, which reduces risks.
8 The organizations that are science and technology-driven (Metamorphosis culture)
(Usually found in high-tech start-ups or big technology/ green companies)
It is worthy to note that one interviewee or 3.03 percent from the above cultural types
highlighted there were science and technology (technology-driven) issues. We can extrapolate
32
that on one hand, such a culture exists particularly from scientific-based companies evolving
from big companies’ projects or start-ups (foreign direct investment: FDI). And on the other
hand, we can see that, linked to this culture type, such companies may have its roots, starting
small in bio-technological or high-tech companies and it may then evolve to become the
Going global: SSO culture or other corporate culture types.
In land, energy and resource-constraint Singapore, science and technology will be the driver
for Singapore companies. In an April 2009 report, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
(cited in Poh, 2010) noted that Singapore, an emerging biotech cluster, was “aiming to move
up the value chain and position itself as a world-class center for R&D through significant
government investment”. Here, such a company’s corporate culture would be able to harness
Singapore’s key strengths, that is, its educated and skilled workforce; supportive government,
business, and regulatory environment; and government-supported research institutes.
One such company with a metamorphosis culture can be seen in Singapore-based Sing Yue
Technologies, which unveiled its latest innovation, the CherWind compressed wind turbine.
This wind turbine provides an alternative renewable energy source to urbanised areas and
cities with high population densities. Leveraging on high-rise buildings – instead of offshore
or suburban areas where wind turbines are usually located – this small wind turbine is
designed for metropolitan Asian cities (http://www.siew.sg/sites/siew.sg/files/SIEW_2010_-
_IAA_DecJan2011.pdf)
This one respondent (3.03 percent) expressed that “we are rational and pragmatic and in this
technological age, we value progress, and science and technology, be it information-
communications technology. Science and technology can be used as rocket fuel to propel or
lead us to greater progress and beat the competition”. The respondent also added that “we
want excellence and in a way, quick results”, and here, perhaps one can extrapolate that there
may be an element of impatience or adding stress to the work situations or setting which may
be the downsides of such a corporate culture.
One implication is that in such a culture, the company resorts to global sourcing and for
greater advancement, to recruit and select local science and technology professionals and
foreign talents. Other implications include the point that the use of technology would enhance
the edge and competitiveness of Singapore companies in the international scene.
33
9 The organizations that are procedure-driven (bureaucratic or Kathakalli culture)
(Usually found in government bodies and banks)
It is significant that one interviewee or 3.03 percent from the above cultural types indicated
that there were bureaucratic issues. Thus, it would show that although the interviews were
done with a group of co-operative leaders, the findings suggest that another corporate cultural
type that is evident in the Singapore corporate scene. One such respondent (Credit) observed:
Some segments in the Singapore corporate culture that exists tend to be rather procedure-driven.
And he further added:
When we’ve spoken to them, asking for their help, yes, they would refer to the fact that they are bound by the rules, “their hands are tied”. (Again as in Low, 2005, these were mentioned…) For example, the poor is defined as having an individual income of S$800 in order to qualify for free legal advice now this is quite unrealistic, the people there knows yet they are quite rigid. In terms of the aged, the family’s income needs to be less than $2000 to qualify. Easily, many middle-income Singaporeans would not have been qualified. The people there are rule-bound and they don’t want to subsidize the middle income but rather the poor. You can earn S$1300 or slightly more yet you can be poor. They know of the changing incomes/ conditions yet they fail to change the guidelines, perhaps …very bureaucratic.
It can be inferred that such a corporate culture tends to exist in pockets of Civil Service, a
particular Ministry or Ministries that this respondent had dealings with. And this strongly
coincides with what Chua (2003: H13) has cautioned, not to be overly rule-bound (“hyper-
precaution”), lack of risk-taking, tense and over-reacting.
There are organizations that are procedure-driven or rule-bound in getting the tasks done.
Such a culture is very much like Morgan’s (1986) machine or bureaucratic organizations.
Studies of bureaucratic culture has been documented in Wallach (1983 cited in Wimalasari,
1991: 42) and Blau (1956) as having these dimensions — power-oriented, cautious,
established, solid, regulated, structured and procedural. These studies are useful as guides in
identifying aspects of such cultures in Singapore.
The existence of such a bureaucratic culture in Singapore has been further substantiated by
Yeung’s (2000) study. Being a developmental State, Singapore’s preoccupation with
economic development must be supported by the establishment of an elite economic
bureaucracy to guide the market, as argued by Wade (1990) and Johnson (1982). A case in
34
point is that since 1961 the Economic Development Board (EDB) of Singapore has been
established as a one-stop investment promotion agency to assist foreign firms in their
investments, entry to and operations in Singapore.
The researcher agrees with Low’s (2005) argument that bureaucracy is a Confucian tradition
and, here again, this metaphor strengthens the Singapore cultural model (Low, 2009; 2002).
Confucian institutions embody a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure. The paternalistic
approach that governs the family is extended to the organizations, tempered with paternalistic
benevolence (Scarborough, 1998: 21; Bond, 1991).
The existence of this bureaucratic culture highlighted here is also consistent with the
personality profiles studies done among the Singaporean managers (e.g. Tan and Tan 1999;
Ditzig and You, 1988). In their research, Tan and Tan (1999) cited “serious”, “systematic”,
“thoughtful”, “thorough” and “conservative” with the likelihood to “harbor traditional
orientation” as the dominant traits among Singaporean managers.
One respondent or 3.03 percent referred to this Bureaucrat or the Kathakalli Dancer corporate
culture. The continuation of such a culture has been confirmed by Low’s (2008) study. Low
(2008, 2005) has explained the label “Kathakalli” and its significance. The Kathakalli form of
classical Indian dance is also one of Singapore’s traditional dances, and in the modern
Singaporean context, the Kathakalli has been highly stylized (‘mechanical’) classical dance
that emerges from its own milieu, i.e., it is old yet elegant and with its dramatic core retained.
Like the bureaucracy in its puritan form, the Kathakalli dancer is a rare breed, and its numbers
are also fast diminishing.
In the same way as not many people nowadays want to learn such traditional ‘elaborate step-
by-step’ dances like the Kathakalli dance, not many corporations too want to keep or hold
much of its elaborate bureaucratic practices. Be it as it may, the “bureaucrat” corporate
culture reflects organizations as “machines” (Morgan, 1986); the implied downside of such a
corporate culture is its typical less open in communication, and its more of one-way flow of
information – i.e. top-down, rule-bound and procedure-oriented with slow adaptation to
changes. Companies with such a corporate culture can be victims of mergers and acquisitions;
the Big Boys – large corporations, using their financial muscles – can easily acquire or take
over them.
35
On the other hand, another implication of the “organizations that are procedure-driven”
culture is that there are systems and procedures, these not only supply a source of stability,
but also that of steady growth. Mechanistic corporate culture further implies that
centralization benefits the organization; greater effectiveness is derived from this centralized
decision-making way.
In summary, the above 8 Singapore corporate cultural types are shown in Table 3:
Table 3: The 9 Singapore Corporate Cultural Types
(Based on the selected top values perceived and voted by the corporate leaders; these are the
summaries based on interviewees’ input, further interpretations and extrapolation)
1 Profit or the Mee-pok Man/ Street Noodle Seller (small business) Culture (can be niche-player). They are normally small businesses with the use of limited resources (material, capital and human resources) that orientates its business towards meeting the customer needs for better survival or profits. They are often cautious to balance with productivity to obtain profits. This kind of corporate culture requires one who has the following qualities, valuing:
o Profits, the bottom-line (Low, 2005).
o Prudence, thriftiness and business viability – Being frugal is virtue; prudence helps to boost investments and grow the business.
o Self-sufficient and hardworking
o Good human-relations approach and business orientation
o Having “a certain can-do spirit” (interviewees’ input). Being street-smart, surviving in the harsh environment and can be quite hardy or resilience.
2 Co-operative Culture (often found in cooperatives, charitable organizations and
government bodies, tasked to carry out certain social objectives) values:
o Social objectives, doing good and meeting the needs of the community (Low, 2005.
o Helping others and paying back to the community (Confucian value)
o Carrying out corporate social responsibility.
36
3 Modernizing/ the Bum-boat Owner Culture (Modern private business culture) values: o Being brought about normally by the growth of a family-owned company through
modernisation and the hiring of professional managers (Low, 2005).
o Going modern and professionalism, using technology to reap the benefits of
automation and modernity (technology is normally resorted to remain
competitive).
o Emphasizing on productivity
o Learning, and bringing in of change into organization (change is seen as necessary).
4 Sole proprietor/ Towkay and Family Culture (normally shopkeeper and/or small
companies) values:
o Being “boss-centered” but like “benevolent fathers (parents)” (Low, 2005)
o (Superiors are normally) showing concern openly.
o Creating “all-in-the-family”; “we’re to help each other” (Low, 2005).
o Having a personal and caring atmosphere, building a high sense of belonging and
togetherness.
o Cultivating personal relationships (guan xi).
5 Stability or the Orchid Shirt and National Dress Culture (may include Singapore’s
banks, fund management and insurance/ credit companies) values:
o Political stability and the government’s help and support with a high sense of
unity (Low, 2005).
o Having prospered, these companies want to play it safe. Such companies also
have the critical mass, commitment, capacity and capability to innovate and grow.
6 Role model or School Teacher Culture (prevalent in schools/ universities/ vocational
and technical schools, and government’s model companies) values:
o Feeling compelled to set the example, and is trusted by counterparts and employees
(Low, 2005).
o Being the role model, is respected, commanding the same respect as is due to
one’s parents and elders.
7 Going-global or the Singapore Symphony Orchestra: SSO Culture (usually found in
Singapore’s big businesses with international business concerns and network) values:
37
o Going global with diversified interests (Low, 2005).
o Technology.
o Resorting to global sourcing and networking, giving it access and advantage to
lower costs, raw materials and components.
8 Technology-driven or the Metamorphosis Culture (that prevails in high-tech start-ups; green
companies) values
o Progress and (green) technology
o Innovation and new inventions
o Rationalism and pragmatism
o High team-based and value-added projects, emphasizing on high returns and net value add.
9 Bureaucratic or Kathakalli Culture (exists normally in the government bodies and banks)
values:
o Embodying a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure.
o Getting the tasks done; and in a way, being procedure-driven (Low, 2008; 2005).
o Can be said to be having these qualities: “serious”, “systematic”, “thoughtful”,
“thorough” and “conservative”.
Corporate Culture Type
Examples Such a corporate culture type has these characteristic features:
1. Profit or the Mee-pok Man/ Street Noodle Seller (small business) Culture (can be niche-player)
They are normally small businesses with the use of limited resources (materials, capital and human resources) that orientates its business towards meeting the customer needs for better survival or profits. They are often cautious to balance with productivity to obtain profits. They also include: the mee-pok seller, street noodle seller, Hawker stall-owners, Shop/market stall-owners.
- Is concerned with making profits (the bottom-line) for the sake of survival (to satisfy basic needs)
- Values prudence, thriftiness and business viability
- Being frugal is virtue; prudence helps to boost investments and grow the business.
- Is self-sufficient and hardworking
- Has good human-relations approach and business orientation.
- Has “a certain can-do spirit” (interviewees’ input).
- Is street-smart, surviving in the harsh environment and can be quite hardy or resilience.
38
2. Co-operative culture Often found in cooperatives, charitable organizations and government bodies, tasked to carry out certain social objectives
- Pursues social objectives and the needs of the community.
- Helps others and pays back to the community (Confucian value)
- Carries out corporate social responsibility. 3. Modernizing/ the Bum-boat Owner Culture (Modern private business culture)
Modern private business, family-owned companies.
- Is brought about normally by the growth of a family-owned company through modernisation and the hiring of professional managers.
- Stresses on productivity. - Goes modern and professionalism, using
technology to reap the benefits of automation and modernity (technology is normally resorted to remain competitive).
- Values learning, and bringing in of change into organization (change is seen as necessary)..
4.Sole proprietor/ Towkay and Family Culture
Shopkeeper, small companies - Tends to be “boss-centered” but like “benevolent fathers (parents)”
- (Superiors normally) shows concern openly. - Creates “all-in-the-family”; “we’re to help each
other.” - Has a personal and caring atmosphere, builds a
high sense of belonging and togetherness. - Cultivates personal relationships (guan xi).
5.Stability or the Orchid shirt and national dress Culture
Singapore’s banks, fund management and insurance/ credit companies.
- Values political stability and the government’s help and support with a high sense of unity.
- Has prospered, and such a company usually want to play it safe. Such a company also has the critical mass, commitment, capacity and capability to innovate and grow.
6.Role model or School Teacher Culture
Prevalent in schools/ universities/ vocational and technical schools/ Government’s model companies
- Feels compelled to set the example, and usually trusted by counterparts and employees.
- Being the role model is respected, commanding the same respect as is due to one’s parents and elders.
7.Going-global or the Singapore Symphony Orchestra: SSO culture values
Usually found in Singapore’s big businesses with international business concerns, trade and network
- Goes global with diversified interests. - Values technology. - Resorts to global sourcing and networking, giving it access and advantage to lower costs, raw materials and components.
8. Technology-driven or the Metamorphosis Culture
Companies that prevail in high-tech start-ups; green companies
- Values progress and (green) technology - Values innovation and new inventions - Values rationalism and pragmatism - Is high team-based and works on value-added projects, emphasizing on high returns and net value add.
9. Bureaucratic or Kathakalli Culture
Exists normally in the government bodies and banks
- Embodies a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure - Gets the tasks done; and in a way, being procedure-driven. - Can be said to be having these qualities: “serious”, “systematic”, “thoughtful”; “thorough” and “conservative”.
Further/Future Areas Of Research
It would be good for future research and researchers to study the corporate cultures of
companies in the various sectors or industries in the island-Republic to confirm; verify or
further expand on the characteristic traits of each of the various typologies as identified in this
study. The framework and typologies used in this study can also be applied in the study of
corporate cultures in modernizing Asian economies.
Concluding Remarks
39
Singapore as a global city is acting as key basing points for the expanding corporate. Overall,
by grouping the most-important value answers from the respondents, this research has
confirmed Low (2005) study, and it has added one more corporate culture type to the eight (8)
different corporate culture typologies identified and analyzed in Low’s (2005) study. This
study thus revealed nine (9) different corporate culture types that exist in the Singapore
Company’s corporate cultural scene.
These metaphors are, in effect, situations, events or circumstances that occur in a culture that
capture and clarify its essential elements. Indeed, of prime relevance is the research study’s
usage of the metaphors in describing the Singapore corporate cultures since they create a new
understanding about the new objects (cultures) (Ortony, 1979).
Linking to and explaining the local metaphors used, nine (9) different Singapore corporate cultural
types are derived. Admittedly though some may argue that these cultural types identified may
appear not to be easily understood by non-Singaporeans or those who are less exposed to
Singaporean culture, Singaporeans nonetheless should be better able to identify, relate or
associate and appreciate some, if not all, of the local parallels and analogies made.
Appendix 1
Please see
1. Low Kim Cheng, Patrick (2009) Corporate culture and values: Perception of corporate
leaders of co-operatives in Singapore, VDM-Verlag: Germany.
2. Low Kim Cheng, Patrick (2002) Corporate culture and values: Perception of corporate
leaders of co-operatives in Singapore, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, the University of South
Australia.
Low (2009; 2002) thesis investigated the characteristic cultural traits of the typical Singapore
company through survey questionnaire-cum-interviews. The researcher looked into the
validity and measurement of culture, specifically looking at developing a list of commonly
included dimensions or values in other empirical and theoretical publications, as well as
testing out these values and confirming with the focus groups held. Values were compared
and many studies were looked into, and among these studies reviewed, just to name a few,
included Lowe, 2000; Chang and Wong, 1998; Trompenaars, 1994, the Chinese Values
Survey (CVS) (The Chinese Cultural Connection, 1987); Hofstede, 1980, 1991; List of
Values (LOV) (Kahle, 1983) and Rokeach’s Values Survey (Rokeach, 1973).
40
Leaders of 32 Singapore co-operatives owned by Singaporeans were then interviewed and
from the study, a model of the Singapore national culture was also identified and analyzed.
Certain unique Singaporean cultural values were reaffirmed, and a process model, using focus
groups, literature reviews, pilot test and interviews, for measuring national culture also
emerged.
Appendix 2
These 12 Singaporean values were uncovered in Low (2009; 2002)’s thesis. Interestingly, Low’s
(2009; 2002) research has created a process model for developing an adequate description of a
national culture and values. What the study has done is to focus on a strategy for analyzing
the components of a national culture as represented by the local companies. Such a strategy in
arriving at a set of values in isolating a national culture — or the model — can be represented
in the following stages:
1. Set up focus groups of locally relevant experts to identify an initial set of
values cherished at the national level. The use of the focus groups is a good way of getting
uninhibited opinions and views from the experts who are prepared to talk and argue about the
country’s national culture and values. Here, Blumer (1969: 41) noted the importance of group
interviews or focus groups. Focus groups comprising “acute observers and who are well-
informed … a small number of such individuals brought together as a discussion and resource
group is more valuable many times over than any representative sample”.
In the study of culture, as in this study, focus groups are “useful when it
comes to investigating what participants think, but they excel at uncovering why participants
think as they do” (Morgan, 1988: 24).
2. Develop the set of core values from the universal literature.
3. Give summary of core values from literature to focus groups.
4. Focus groups revise and then establish set of national values. The
researcher then checks with a panel of independent assessors who reviews the set of national
values. Finalize conceptual framework of local national culture.
5. Pilot-test.
6. Test for applicability with locally important informants.
7. Arrive at a final model of national culture.
41
The experts asked were experienced corporate and business leaders, because of the
peculiarities of Singapore — its history and economy. The model was then tested for
applicability since there is a synonymous match between the national culture and business or
corporate culture in Singapore. This synonymous match is primarily because of the country’s
small size and lack of natural resources, and because since its birth as a modern nation,
Singapore is dependent on human capital and relies strongly on its economy for its survival
and growth.
The use of best experts in the focus groups helps; they are able to provide more accurate
evidence, very much the same as courts of law getting expert witnesses. For the model to
work, and thus be applicable, the key to finding the national culture of a particular country
lies in getting members of the focus groups who are locally relevant experts. This is because,
in certain countries, certain sectors or fields need to be emphasized since they serve as critical
inputs to the national cultures involved. For example, in Indonesia, in finding the national
culture and core values of that country, the focus groups should consist of experts — among
them, the mullahs and the ulamas (Islamic leaders and religious teachers), and the farmers.
This is because Islam is the country’s key religion (Indonesia is the world’s most populous
Muslim country) and the agrarian way of life have influenced much of Indonesia’s history,
politics, economy, leadership, way of life and thinking.
The Hofstede and Bond (1988) study, on the one hand, has come up with the dimension of
traditional Asian values (called Confucian Dynamism), a measure that is salient to
investigators of Chinese values, as other cross-cultural studies of values are based on survey
instruments developed by Western researchers. On the other hand, this research study has
mapped out a process model of using core values identified by the local experts. The one
aspect of the focus groups that is universally supported is their employment as tools of
exploration (Templeton, 1994: 138). Hence, in this way, future researchers in their own
countries could use this process model in order to audit and identify the relevant set of core
values, thereby customizing the measurements of culture in their respective country or
society.
Appendix 3
42
As highlighted in Low (2005), Mee-pok is Singaporean as much as tom-yam (a spicy soup dish
is to the Thai. This fish-ball flat-noodle dish was very commonly sold in the back streets or
the seamier side of Singapore.
Interestingly, the author spoke to various Singaporeans on the metaphor and they agree that
the metaphor is befitting; there’s a surprisingly strong sense of survivalism and resilience in
mee-pok stalls. The dish is at times being sold at night or in the wee hours of the morning in
notorious parts of Singapore. The Mee-pok Man’s patrons include the denizens of the night,
sometimes a motley assortment of characters from the seamier side of life. Mee-pok Man, a
Singapore story has in fact been made into a feature film in 1995, gaining much status in
international film festivals and even getting awards including:
1. Special Mention Prize from the International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI), 8th
Singapore International Film Festival
2. Special Jury Prize, 9th Fukuoka Asian Film Festival - July 1996
3. Special Mention from the Jury - New Currents Award Competition - Best New Asian
Director - 1st Pusan International Film Festival - September 1996; see
http://www.zhaowei.com/mpmfest.htm .
43
References Adler, N. (1997) International dimensions of organizational behavior, South-Western College Publishing, ITPC, USA. Ashkanasy N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M. and Peterson, M. F. (eds.) (2000) Handbook of organizational culture and climate, Sage Publications Balakrishnan, V. (2009) ‘Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Speech’, SNCF Annual Cooperative Leaders’ Conference 4 October 2009, Singapore. Birch, D. (1993) ‘Staging crises: Media and citizenship’ in Rodan, Gary (ed.) (1993) Singapore changes guard: Social, political and economic directions in the 1990s, Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd., Australia, pp. 72–83. Bjerke, B. (1999) Business leadership and culture, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, UK. Blau, P. M. (1956) Bureaucracy in modern societies, Random House, New York. Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Bond, M. H. (1991) Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology, Oxford University Press, Hong Kong. Borromeo, H. M., Jr. (1996) ‘Beyond strategy: The CEO as Maestro’ in Asian Institute of Management (1996) The CEO and corporate culture, Asian Institute of Management, Philippines, pp. 45–55. Campos, J. E. and Root, H. L. (1996) The key to the Asian economic miracle, The Brooking Institute, Washington, D.C. Chan K. B. and Chiang S. N. C. (1994) Stepping out: The making of Chinese entrepreneurs, Centre for Advanced Studies, National University of Singapore and Prentice-Hall, Singapore. Chang W. and Wong W. K. (1998) ‘Rational traditionalism: Chinese values in Singapore’ in Lim, H. and Singh, R. (eds.) (1998) Values and development, Centre for Advanced Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, pp. 295–308. Chen, M. C. (1991) ‘Family culture and management’ in Yang C. S. and Tseng, C. S. (1991) (eds.) A Chinese perspective of management, Kwei Kwan, Taipei, pp. 189–212. Chong, L. C. (1987) ‘History and Managerial Culture in Singapore: “Pragmatism”, “Openness” and “Paternalism”’, Asia Pacific journal of management, Vol. 4, No. 3, May, pp. 133–134. Chua M. H. (2003) ‘Kiasu and kancheong but let’s not be kiasi’ in The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2003, pp. H13 Daft, R. L. (2001) (7th edition) Organization theory and design, Thomson Learning, USA. David, A. A. (1975) ‘Co-operatives: Their significance’, 50 years of co-operation: 1925–1975, The Registry of co-operative societies, Singapore, pp. 8–9. Davis, S. M. (1984) Managing corporate culture, Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Deal T. E and Kennedy, A. A. (1982, 1988) Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life, Penguin Group, U. K. Ditzig, H. and You, P.S (1988) ‘In search of the Singapore managerial style’ in Singapore management review, 3, pp. 35 – 51. Doh, J. C. (1996) ‘The strategy of SME development in Singapore’ in the Singapore Development Series, Entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship and enterprising culture, Addison Wesley Publishing Co. Inc. Economic Development Board (1989) SME master plan: Report on enterprise development, Singapore, Economic Development Board. Ee, B. L. (2001) Managing the crises, National Trade Union Congress, Singapore. Ee, B. L. (2001a) Stretching the dollar, National Trade Union Congress, Singapore.
44
Foo, Y. S. (1996) An analytical study of the National Trade Union Congress Co-operative Ventures in Singapore, A Master of Business Thesis, School of Accountancy and Business, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Gannon, M. J. (1993) Cultural metaphors: Capturing essential characteristics of 17 diverse societies, Sage Publications, Chicago. Gannon, M. J. (1994) Understanding global cultures — Metaphorical journeys through 17 countries, Sage Publications. Graves, D. (1986) Corporate culture — Diagnosis and change, Frances Pinter, London. Handy, C. (1979) Gods of management, Pan Books, London. Hodgetts, R. M. and Luthans, F. (1997) International management, McGraw-Hill, Singapore. Hofstede, G. (1980, 1984 2nd ed.) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-Related values, Sage Publications, California. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind, McGraw-Hill, London. Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. (1988) ‘The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth’ in Organizational dynamics, 16, 4, 1988, pp. 5–21. Horton, T. R. (1999) ‘Chapter 5’ in Vlamis, Anthony (1999) Smart leadership, AMA Management Briefing, American Management Association International, New York, USA. http://www.zhaowei.com/mpmfest.htm Kahle, L. R. (ed.) (1983) Social values and social change: Adaptation to Life in America, Praeger, New York. Khanna, V. (2004) ‘As SMEs go global, It’s time to cheer’, The Straits Times, 16 April 2004. Khong, B. Y. (1993) An exploratory study of multinational corporations and indigenous entrepreneurship in Singapore, BBA. Honours, An Academic Exercise, Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore. Kim W-C. (1994) Every street is paved with gold, Times Books International, Singapore. Koh, E. (2003) ‘A fourth generation of Wees at UOB? It’s possible’, The Straits Times, 21 May 2003. Kuczmarski, S. S. and Kuczmarski, T. D. (1995) Values-based Leadership, Prentice Hall, USA. Lasserre, P. and Schutte, H. (1995) Strategies for Asia Pacific, Macmillan Press, London. Lee, J. (1996) ‘Culture and management — A study of small Chinese family businesses in Singapore’ in Journal of small business management, Milwaukee, July 1996. Lee, J. and Sheh S. W. (1994) ‘Chinese values and organizational practices: A study in Singapore’ in International journal of management, Vol. 11 Issue 4, December 1994, pp. 946-953. Lee N. H. (2001) ‘Profile of the Enterprise 50 companies and other SMEs in Singapore’ in Singapore management review, Vol. 24 No. 1 First Half 2001, Singapore Institute of Management, pp. 27–50. Leong C. T. (2003) ‘Vision, flair & gumption help family business go regional’, The Sunday Times, 29 June 2003, pp. 33. Lien Y. C. and Kraar, L. (1994) From Chinese villager to Singapore tycoon: My life story, Times Publishing International, Singapore. Lim, J. (2011) ‘House brands: Fairprice partners retailers abroad’, The Straits Times, 7 March 2011, p. B5. Long, S. (2004) ‘Empires of rising sons – and daughters’, The Straits Times, 13 June 2004. Low, A. (2011) ‘Productivity drive off to good start’, The Straits Times, 2 March 2011, p. 1, A8.
45
Low K. C. P. (2011a) ‘Typologies of the Singapore Corporate Culture’, http://www.globaltrade.net/international-trade-import-exports/f/business/pdf/Singapore/Operating-a-Business-Singapore-Corporate-Culture.html Low K. C. P. (2010) Successfully negotiating in Asia, Springer: Heidelberg, Germany. Low, K. C. P. (2009) Corporate culture and values: Perception of corporate leaders of co-operatives in Singapore, VDM-Verlag: Germany. Low, K. C. P. (2009a) ‘Strategic Maintenance & Leadership Excellence in Place Marketing – The Singapore Perspective’, Business Journal for Entrepreneurs (since 1988 - articles peer reviewed & listed in Cabells), Volume 2009 Issue 3, p. 125 - 143. Low, K. C. P. (2008) ‘The Singapore civil service bureaucracy and the Kathakalli corporate culture – The analogy revisited’, Leadership & organizational management journal, Volume 2008 Issue 4, p. 108 -133. Low, K. C. P. (2005) ‘Towards a framework & typologies of Singapore corporate cultures’ Management development journal of Singapore, Vol. 13, No. 1, May 2005, p. 46 - 75. Low, K. C. P. (2002) Corporate culture and values: Perception of corporate leaders of co-operatives in Singapore, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, the University of South Australia. Low, K. C. P. (2001) The power of relationships: How to boost your business and Lead A Better Life, BusinesscrAFT™ Consultancy, Singapore. Low, K. C. P. (2000) Strategic customer management: Enhancing customer retention and service Recovery, BusinesscrAFT™ Consultancy, Singapore. Low, K. C. P. (1994) A study of Singapore MNCs — The route to globalisation, A Master of Business (International Marketing) Project, Curtin University of Technology, Australia, June 1994. Lowe, A. C-T. (2000) The relationship between values, lifestyles, possessions and food consumption for Beijing consumers, Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Division of Business and Enterprise School of Marketing, University of South Australia. Martin, J., S. and Boehm, M. (1985) ‘Founders and elusiveness of a cultural legacy’ in Frost, P., Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (eds) Organizational Culture: The meaning of life in the workplace, Sage, CA Beverly Hills, pp. 99–124. Matsushita, K. (1991) Velvet glove, iron fist, PHP Institute, Inc., Japan. Maurice, M. (1979) For the study of ‘the societal effect’, see ‘Universality and specificity in organization research’ in C. J. Lammers and D. J. Hicksons (eds.) Organizations alike and unlike: International and interinstitutional studies in the sociology of organizations, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Poh, L. C. (2010) ‘Singapore: Betting on Biomedical Science’, Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2010. Website: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_201004/ai_n55069508/ Accessed on 23 Feb 2011 Menkhoff, T. & Loh, B. (2002), ‘Organizational change management practices of Chinese SMEs in Singapore’ in Suryadinata, L. (ed.) (2002) Ethnic Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia, Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. 277–300. Ministry of Finance (1993) Interim/ final report of the Committee to Promote Enterprise Overseas, May/ August 1993, Ministry of Finance, Singapore. Montagu-Pollock, M. (1991) ‘All the right connections’, Asian business, January 1991, pp. 17–24. Morgan, D. L. (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research, A Sage University Paper, Sage Publications, USA. Morgan, G. (1986) Images of organization, USA, Sage Publications Mulchand, A. & Fong, T. (2004) ‘Mr No Frill’, The Straits Times, 13 June 2004.
46
Ng B. K. and Ng E. J. (1996) ‘Dynamism of small Chinese business in Malaysia and Singapore’ in Low Aik Meng and Tan Wee Liang (ed.) (1996) Entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship and enterprising culture, pp. 367–376. Ortony, A. (1979) Metaphor and thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Osman, A. (2001), ‘Fairprice ready to cut prices when needed’, The Straits Times, 28 April 2001, pp. H2. PERC: Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd. (2003) ‘Quality of corporate governance’ in Asian intelligence, 18 June 2003, No. 635. Robertson, C. J. (2000) ‘The global dispersion of Chinese values: A three-country study of Confucian dynamism’ in Management international review, Wiesbaden Third Quarter 2000, Volume: 40, Issue: 3, pp. 253–268. The Straits Times (2011) ‘Poh Heng advertisement’, The Straits Times, 6 February 2011, p 11. Rokeach, M. J. (1973) The nature of human values, The Free Press, New York. Scarborough, J. (1998) ‘Comparing Chinese and Western cultural roots: Why “East is East and…”’ in Business horizons, Vol. 41, No. 6, Nov–Dec 1998, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business. Schein, E. H. (1983) ‘The role of the founder in creating organizational culture’ in Organizational dynamics, 12, pp. 13–28. Schein, E. H. (1985, 1990) Organizational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers, California, USA. SCCI–NUS (2001) ‘Are Chinese firms ready to embrace the new economy?’ in Chinese enterprise, Issue 5 & 6/2001, SCCI Publications, Singapore. Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in administration, Harper & Row, New York. Shameen, A. and Reyes, A. (2000) ‘Creative destruction city’ in Asiaweek, 24 Mar 2000, pp. 42–46. Sheh S. W. (2001) ‘Chinese cultural values and their implications to Chinese management’ in Singapore management review Vol. 23 No. 2, Second Half 2001, Singapore Institute of Management, pp. 75–83. Sheh S. W. (1995) Chinese management, UPA Press Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia. Siew K. L. (1987) A Chinese conception of management — An interpretive approach (Singapore), A Ph. D. Dissertation for the Doctor of Education, Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts. Singleton, Jr., R. A. & Straits, B. C. (2002) ‘Survey interviewing’ in Gubrium, Jaber F. and Holstein, James A. (eds.) (2002) Handbook of interview research: Context and method, Sage Publications, USA, pp. 59–82. Sithi-Amnuai, P. (1996) ‘How to build corporate culture’ in Asian Institute of Management (1996) The CEO and corporate culture, Asian Institute of Management, Philippines, pp. 29–44. Soh, N. (2001) ‘Fairprice to slash prices of 400 Items’, The Straits Times, 12 Dec 2001. Stewart, D. W. and Shamdasani, P. N. (1990) Focus groups: Theory and practice, Sage Publications, USA. SyCip, Washington Z. (1995), ‘Cultural differences in management’, The Asian manager, Vol. VIII, No. 1, Feb–Mar. 1995, pp. 20–22. Tan K. L. (1994) ‘Vision, objectives and strategies for the cooperative movement’, Paper presented in the 2nd Cooperatives leaders’ conference (Cooperative strategic review 1993/94) Sunday, 29 May 1994, Carlton Hall, York Hotel. Tan, V. and Tan N. T. (1999) ‘Personality type and the Singapore manager’ in Singapore management review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 15 – 31. Templeton, J. F. (1994) The focus group, Probus Publishing Company, USA.
47
The Chinese Culture Connection (1987) ‘Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture’ in Journal of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 143–64. The Straits Times, 2 Feb 2000, p. 45. Trade Winds’ Industry Weekly (1996) ‘TDB’s award encourages firms to go international’ in Trade Winds’ industry weekly, Jun 3, 1996, Financial Times Information Ltd., Dallas. Trompenaars, F. (1994) Riding the waves of culture, Burr Ridge, Irwin, Illinois. Velloor, R. (1999) ‘DBS Buys into Philippine Bank’, The Straits Times, 24 Dec 1999, p. 1. Wang X. (1993) Gems of Chinese wisdom, Asiapac, Singapore. Whittle, J. W. (1987) ‘The personality at the top influences all levels’ in American banker, July 15, p. 4. Wimalasiri, J. (1991) ‘On the concept of corporate culture in strategic management’ in Singapore Management review, The Journal of Singapore Institute of Management, Vo1. 13, 2, 2 July 1991, pp. 39–51. Wong K. H. (2011) ‘Bread can talk – just ask George’, The Straits Times, 16 March 2011, p. A18. Yao, X. (2000) An introduction to Confucianism, Cambridge University Press, UK. Yao, E. L. (1987) ‘Cultivating guan-xi (Personal relationships) with Chinese partners’ in Business marketing; Chicago, Jan 1987, Vol. 72, Issue 1, Jan 1987. Yeung, H. W. (2000) Global cities and developmental states: Understanding Singapore’s global reach, Globalisation and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC) Annual Lecture 2000, http://www. lboro. ac. uk/departments/gy/research/gawc/rb/al2. html. Yeung, L. and Tung, R. (1996) ‘Achieving business success in Confucian societies: The importance of guanxi (connections)’, Organizational dynamics, Autumn 1996, pp. 54–65. Zhang, W-B. (1999) Confucianism and modernization, St. Martin’s Press Inc., USA. Websites http://www.siew.sg/sites/siew.sg/files/SIEW_2010_-_IAA_DecJan2011.pdf Accessed on 25 Feb 2011. http://sg.88db.com/Food/Food-Products/ad-367004/ Accessed on 4 March 2011.