IndexDefinition of Collectivistic and Individualistic CulturesWhat makes Brazil a collectivistic culture and the United States an individualistic culture? Workplace Hierarchy and Workplace ConflictDifferences in Conflict TrainingDifferences in Reasons for ConflictConflict Avoidance Versus ComparisonConclusionReferencesMany aspects of Brazilian society make it different from that of the United States. Climate, racial and ethnic populations, and landscape are just a few of the superficial differences. But when it comes to cultural attitudes in the workplace, one of the main differences can be found in the definition of Brazil as a collectivistic culture, while the United States is an individualistic culture. These labels have the biggest effects on how the United States and Brazil differ in their approaches to workplace conflict. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Defining Collectivistic and Individualistic Cultures Before explaining how these important definitions alter the way Brazilians and Americans handle workplace conflicts, it is important to have a good understanding of the definitions of the terms in these situations. According to Schreier, Heinrichs, and Alden (2010), a collectivistic culture places greater emphasis on altruism and community needs. Collectivistic cultures also have a need to work together as a group and believe that giving support to others within their group is absolutely essential to their daily lives. Within a collectivistic society, what is best for society, family, and overall common goals are the most important goals. In contrast, an individualistic culture places greater emphasis on the importance of the individual. The primary goal is to promote the self, rather than promoting the needs of the group. What makes Brazil a collectivistic culture and the United States an individualistic culture? Rodrigues and Collinson (1995) cite as the reason Brazil's huge emphasis on loyalty within the family which is classified as a collectivist country. Furthermore, both Rodrigues and Collinson (1995) and Senosiain (2012) discuss the importance Brazil places on strong groups of which each individual is a part at work and at home. In contrast, the United States emphasizes concepts such as personal space, aggression, and independence. In the United States, workplace goals revolve around these values, rather than the team cultures that may operate there. Workplace Hierarchy and Workplace Conflict When examining how workplace conflict is addressed in Brazil and the United States, it is important to examine the differences the two countries have in what they consider a workplace hierarchy adequate. Within the workplace, Brazil's collectivist nature can be seen in the structural hierarchy of the workforce. Senosiain (2012) states that Brazil is a country with high power distance, while the United States is a country with low power distance. In practice, this means that Brazilian culture expects a powerful person to be at the head of a group, and that person should take a strong role in conflict management. For Brazil, this tradition of having a strong central power that is in control due to conflicts has resulted in extreme difficulty in allowing any type of union to last long in Brazil. According to many Brazilians, the head of the company should have power over the group. The unions thatsuccessful start-ups in Brazil rarely last long, entirely due to the collectivist nature of the country. There is no need for a union to intercede on your behalf when you believe that power should be at the top of the existing power hierarchy. In the United States, many organizations, merchants and businesses rely on an impartial third party to make sure everyone's individual needs and goals are met. This is something that will not work in a collectivistic society the same way it will work in an individualistic United States. Differences in Conflict Training The CPP Global Human Capital Report. (2008) found that Brazilian employees received a greater level of conflict management training than any other country in their study, including the United States. 60% of Brazilian employees are trained in conflict management (The CPP Global Human Capital Report, 2008). More importantly, as many as 74% of these employees reported to the CPP Global Human Capital Report that they found conflict management training helpful (2008). In contrast, employees in the United States who reported receiving conflict management training were primarily administered by managers. While in Brazil everyone is expected to work to resolve the conflict in order to improve the goals of the group as a whole, in the United States the group is expected not to take care of the conflicts. Although in Brazil the manager is considered the ultimate boss, workers are expected to try to arrive at a solution before bringing it to the manager's attention. This is what is best for the group they are part of as workers. Differences in Reasons for Conflict The CPP Global Human Capital Report reported that the United States has high levels of conflict in the workplace and that employees reported having to deal with it “always or frequently” (p. 22). The role of the United States as an individualistic country can be seen in the reasons given by workers for repeated conflicts: egos and personality clashes were the main reasons given for conflict disputes (CPP Global Human Capital Report, 2008). Brazilians report that a “clash of values” is the main reason for conflicts at work (CPP Global Human Capital Report, 2008). Having a similarity of values ​​is a highly desirable trait within a collectivistic culture. Conflict Avoidance and Confrontation Perhaps the biggest difference in conflict management between Brazil and the United States is the desire of Brazilians to avoid it altogether. Gunkel, Schlaegel, and Taras (2015) report that early responses to workplace conflict for Brazilians are avoidance and cooperation. Furthermore, they report that Brazilians are more likely to seek non-confrontational solutions. In contrast, conflicts in the United States are much more often approached with dominant, conflictual attitudes. Again, this can easily be traced back to differences in what matters most: it's easy to avoid and compromise when your focus is the group. It's important to demand and confront yourself when your goal is yourself. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Ultimately, Brazil and the United States very much view the role of conflict within society differently. For Brazil, conflict is a way to improve relations within groups. For the United States, conflict is a way to achieve greater personal gain. This fundamental difference reflects the way in which.).