Hofstede’s book Culture’s Consequences

The Notion of Hofstede’s Dimensional Parading

The notion of Hofstede’s Dimensional Parading, which was first introduced in his book Culture’s Consequences, has emerged as the main element in determining how national cultures around the world are to be understood (Hofstede, 2011). To understand the characteristics that distinguish different world cultures, the model use a district qualitative-comparative approach that can be used in a variety of contexts. Brazil and China, which are both unique nations and are located on the South American and Asian Continents, respectively, can be used to compare the perceptions of the various dimensions of power distance, uncertainty, individualism, masculinity, long-term orientation, and indulgence.

Power Distance in China and Brazil

Consideration of how the two nations fare should be the first factor that should be of power distance. Power distance is defined as the feature that assumes that individuals are not equal in the society and tends to express the attitude of the culture in the society. It is the level at which the less powerful in a given country accept their minor state and appreciate that power tends to be distributed in an unequal manner. At 80, China is among the high-ranking nations in the index, and it implies that people in the country believe that inequities are acceptable and individuals are influenced by the authority (Geert Hofstede, 2017b). Meanwhile, in the Brazilian context, the PDI index is at 69, implying that it is lower than in China. The reason for the belief and acceptance in the country is because it is assumed that it is important to show respect to the elderly.

Individualism in China and Brazil

The other core element of the Hofstede principle that is worth mentioning is the aspect of individualism, described as the degree of interdependence that a particular group maintains among its boundaries and among its members. Based on the Hofstede indices, China scores 20 in individualism, implying that it is a highly collectivist culture as people prefer to act as a group rather than in an individualistic manner (Geert Hofstede, 2017b). In Brazil, meanwhile, the index is rated at 38 which is comparatively higher but overall it is low, meaning that Brazilians are integrated into coherent groups (Geert Hofstede, 2017a). The implication in the work setting is that the older and more affluent are expected to help the younger nephews in their efforts to get hired for a job in a family business enterprise. It is also an essential trait as it helps in building stronger professional relationships in the workplace.

Masculinity in China and Brazil

While Brazil scores 49 in terms of the masculinity index, the China context rates at 66, meaning that the two countries vary in their appreciation of competition, achievement, and success. The Hofstede definition of masculinity assesses the manner in which a given group perceives what motivates people, trying to achieve the best as a masculine feature, or attempting to like what one does, which is a more feminine feature (Geert Hofstede, 2017b). Because China score 66, in the masculinity context, it is inferred that the country’s culture tends to be more driven in the dimension of desire to sacrifice family and leisure and place more emphasis on work. People tend to be more motivated by the desire to pursue wealth as and compete to achieve more success, and people tend to have a deep drive to perform better at work. One the other hand, the Brazilian case of 49 involves a country that has an intermediate score in the masculinity and femininity feature.

Uncertainty Avoidance in China and Brazil

It is also worth assessing the aspect of uncertainty avoidance in China and Brazil to determine the level at which people in both counties are affected by the threat of ambiguous situations. It is also indicative of the measures that the two culture undertake in trying to avoid the uncertainty or unknown situations. While China scores 30 in the uncertainty avoidance element, Brazil manages a high of 76 implying that the two countries have varying perceptions of the threat of the uncertain future. It shows that while Brazilians, just as many Latin Americans prefer a scenario of laws and rules governing the social existence to make the country a better place to live in, China are less mindful of what the future holds (Geert Hofstede, 2017a). It implies, therefore, that China builds a culture of entrepreneurship and traits that are difficult for the rest of the world to follow as depicted in the ambiguity in their language. Thus, in the work environment, the Brazilians are more traditional and resistant to change and would desire to proceed with the stipulated code than trying to be innovative, which is major feature promoted in China.

Long-term Orientation in China and Brazil

Long-term orientation is described as the tendency for a given society to adhere to the links of the past as opposed to dealing with the challenges of the present and the future. It describes that there could either be normative or pragmatic societies depending on the manner in which the two perceive existential goals. China scores 87 in its level of adherence to traditional links as a strategy to deal with the present and the future while Brazil has a relatively intermediate score of 44 in this category (Geert Hofstede, 2017a, 2017b). It would mean, therefore, that while the Chinese tend to display and extremely high pragmatic behavior that implies that people believe that the truth is more dependent on the situation, context at which it applies and the time factor. It explains that in a professional and work setting, the Chinese are more like to adapt to the conditions at stake based on their reliance on the traditional way of solving problem rather than on the changed conditions.

Indulgence in China and Brazil

The last critical feature that is worth describing is the level of indulgence that the society is likely to display. It is defined as the level at which people tend to have an influence over their desires and impulses based on the manner in which they were raised. China is a restrained society with a score of as low as 24 while Brazil is relatively higher in this dimension as evidenced by the 59-mark score. It means that Brazilians are more likely to display optimism in the workplace and have a desire to perceive fun and enjoying life out of their work settings. However, the restrained society in China would mean that there is no much push into leisure time and there is an inherent trait of pessimism in the work environment in the Asians country China.

Summary

In summary, China and Brazil compare distinctively in various dimensions of the Hofstede model of assessment of cultures. It shows that both China and Brazil share in their perceptions of power distance and individualism, but the two countries differ in their perceptions regarding masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long distance orientation, and in their indulgence features. Through the Hofstede model, it is arguably possible to determine the level of cultural orientation that a given country embodies, which is critical in understanding the perceptions of the professionals and work environments.

Reference

Geert Hofstede. (2017a). Brazil. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/brazil.html

Geert Hofstede. (2017b). China. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/china.html

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures : The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014