Table of ContentsDefining Collectivist and Individualist CulturesWhat Makes Brazil a Collectivist Culture and the United States an Individualist Culture ?Workplace Hierarchy and Workplace ConflictDifferences in Conflict TrainingDifferences in Reasons for ConflictConflict Avoidance Versus ConfrontationConclusionReferencesMany aspects of Brazilian society differentiate it from that of the United States. Climate, ethnic and racial populations, and landscape are just some of the superficial differences. But when talking about cultural attitudes in the workplace, one of the main differences is the definition of Brazil as a collectivist culture, while the United States is an individualistic culture. These labels have the greatest effects as 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 Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayDefining Collectivist and Individualist CulturesBefore explaining how these important definitions change the way Brazilians and Americans handle conflict on the workplace, it is important to have a good understanding on the definitions of terms in these situations. According to Schreier, Heinrichs, and Alden (2010), a collectivist culture places more emphasis on altruism and the needs of the community. Collectivist cultures also need to work together in groups and believe that providing support to other members of their group is absolutely essential to their daily lives. In a collectivist society, what is best for society, family and overall common goals are the most important goals. In contrast, an individualistic culture places more emphasis on the importance of the individual. The main goal is to advance oneself, instead of meeting the needs of the group. What makes Brazil a collectivist culture and the United States an individualist culture? Rodrigues and Collinson (1995) cite Brazil's immense emphasis on loyalty within the family as the reason. that it is classified as a collectivist country. Additionally, Rodrigues and Collinson (1995) as well as Senosiain (2012) discuss Brazil's emphasis on strong groups that each individual is a part of in the workplace 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 group cultures that may operate within them. Workplace Hierarchy and Workplace Conflict When looking at how workplace conflict is handled in Brazil and the United States, it is important to examine the differences. that both countries have in what they consider to be an appropriate working hierarchy. In the workplace, Brazil's collectivist nature is reflected in the structural hierarchy of the workforce. Senosiain (2012) cites that Brazil is a country with a high energy distance, while the United States is a country with a low energy distance. In practice, this means that Brazilian culture expects there to be a powerful person at the head of a group, and that person is expected to play an important role in resolving conflicts. For Brazil, this tradition of having a strong central power having control Conflicts has led to extreme difficulty in allowing any type of union to last very long in Brazil. THEThe head of the company should have power over the group, in the minds of many Brazilians. Unions that manage to get off the ground in Brazil rarely last very long, entirely because of 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 already existing power hierarchy. In the United States, many organizations, professions, and businesses rely on an impartial third party to make decisions to ensure that everyone's individual needs and goals are met. This is something that will not work in a collectivist society the same way it will work in the individualistic United States.Differences in Conflict TrainingThe CPP Global Human Capital Report. (2008) found that Brazilian employees received a higher level of conflict management training than any other country studied, including the United States. At least 60% of Brazilian employees are trained in conflict management (The CPP Global Human Capital Report, 2008). More importantly, 74% of these employees reported in the CPP Global Human Capital Report that they found their conflict management training useful (2008). In contrast, employees in the United States who reported receiving conflict management training were helpful. The resolution training sessions were mainly for managers. While in Brazil everyone is expected to work to resolve conflict in order to improve the goals of the group as a whole, in the United States the group is expected to stay out of conflict. Although the manager is considered the final boss in Brazil, workers are expected to attempt to reach a resolution before having to bring it to the manager's attention. This is what is best for the group they are a part of as workers. » (p. 22). The role of the United States as an individualistic country can be seen in the reasons workers gave for their repeated conflicts: ego and personality conflicts were the main reasons given for conflicts (CPP Global Human Capital Report , 2008). Brazilians say “values ​​conflict” is the main reason for workplace conflicts (CPP Global Human Capital Report, 2008). Having a similarity in values ​​is a highly desirable trait within a collectivist culture. Conflict Avoidance Versus Confrontation Perhaps the biggest difference in the handling of the conflict between Brazil and the United States is the Brazilians' desire to avoid it altogether. Gunkel, Schlaegel, and Taras (2015) report that the first responses to workplace conflict for Brazilians are avoidance and cooperation. Additionally, they report that Brazilians are more likely to seek non-confrontational solutions. On the other hand, conflicts in the United States are much more often confronted with dominant and conflicting attitudes. Again, this is easily explained by differences in what matters most: it's easy to avoid and compromise when your goal is the group. It's important to demand and confront when your goal is yourself. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Ultimately, Brazil and the United States see the role of conflict within society very well. differently. For Brazil, conflict is a way to improve relations within groups. For the United States, conflict is a means to greater personal achievements. This key difference.).