Brazil, with a land mass only slightly smaller than that of the US, a large population (sixth in the world), and the largest economy by far in Latin America (CIA Fact Book statistics), stands to grow economically, although in a relatively modest way, in the coming years. Interestingly, Moran, Abramson, and Moran point out that, while the United States is losing influence in Latin America, China is gaining influence by becoming one of the largest trading partners of South American countries, including Brazil.

In 2009, China surpassed both the US and the EU to become Brazil’s largest trade partner. In 2015, China represented the largest importer to Brazil at 17.9% of imports coming from China, and in that same year, Brazil exported 18.6% of its trade to China. (CIA World Fact book)

My interest is in exploring the ways this mutually beneficial relationship has developed to its current state, as well as trying to uncover what national cultural dimensions may contribute to, or diminish, the ease with which the relationship has evolved. Is there more interest on the part of one country or the other? Or is it a bilateral effort?

In reviewing Brazil and China and where they fall along Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, I hoped to discover similarities or differences between China and Brazil’s rankings in those dimensions that would explain an innate need or desire on the part of one or the other country to work together for mutual benefit–a cultural synergy of sorts.

Ultimately, the dimensions on which Brazil and China align and those on which they diverge may give rise to the activities Brazil is undertaking in its effort to court China, and may explain the willingness China has to embrace (if not make similar efforts in pursuit of) those forays.

China and Brazil are both collectivist cultures, according to Hofstede. Brazil has a score of 38 on the Individualism continuum which means that Brazilians are collectivist and likely to be integrated into strong, cohesive groups. At a score of 20 on the Individualism dimension, China is, similarly, a highly collectivist culture where people are more likely to act in the interest of the group, rather than in their own self-interest. Interestingly, Moran, Abramson, and Moran (p.406) dispute this notion, citing an anecdote by Pomfret in his book (p. 105) about a friendship between two young women–one American and one Chinese–that proves that individual characteristics trump cultural stereotypes. Nevertheless, the trend toward collectivism continues to be supported through the Confucian practice of ganqing–looking after one another’s interests ahead of one’s own (Moran, Abramson, Moran).

While this national collectivism could indicate a lack of desire to reach beyond one’s borders on the part of both countries, it seems Brazil has done so in spite of possibly an opposite innate desire to remain insular. We will continue to explore cultural dimensions to see what may be behind this.

On the dimension of Power Distance, China and Brazil are very closely aligned. At a score of 80 for China and a score of 69 for Brazil, both cultures reflect societal beliefs that hierarchy should be respected and inequalities among members of society are acceptable.

Thus, not surprisingly, Cardozo (2013, 2016) indicates that the relationship between Brazil and China has been heavily encouraged by President Lula (president of Brazil from 2003 to 2011) and, more recently, President Rousseff. The primacy of the presidency in Brazil, thanks to a cultural respect for hierarchy, means that, if the president makes the effort to engage deeply with another country, it is unlikely that the populace would find fault with these overtures.

Ultimately, though, says Guilhon-Albuquerque in his 2014 article about China, Brazil, and the US, “both Rousseff’s and Lula’s discourses are conspicuously silent about international politics and regional cooperation in matters other than trade, investments and global finance.” It seems that, regardless of the cultural similarities and differences between Brazil and China, the financial benefit of collaboration is adequately motivating for both countries.

One more interesting, and possibly telling, statistic about a cultural dimension not specifically measured by Hofstede: according to Transparency International, the two countries are not far apart in their business practices, measured according to the level of corruption they experience. Brazil is at 76 and China is at 83 on the corruption index. This is another aspect of doing business together that may make Brazil and China not odd bedfellows.

There is money to be made on both sides, the two cultures align on some important collectivist and hierarchy-bound dimensions, and Brazil has had a continuum of leaders interested in advancing the relationship with China.

References

Cardoso, D. (2013). China-Brazil: A strategic partnership in an evolving world order. East Asia : An International Quarterly, 30(1), 35-51. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1007/s12140-012-9186-z

Cardoso, D. (2016). Network governance and the making of Brazil’s foreign policy towards China in the 21st century *. Contexto Internacional, 38(1), 277-312.  Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1590/S0102-8529.2016380100008

Central Intelligence Agency. (2016). The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Guilhon-Albuquerque, José-Augusto. (2014). Brazil, China, US: a triangular relation?. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 57(spe), 108-120. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-732920140020

Haibin, N. (2010). Emerging global partnership: Brazil and china. Revista Brasileira De Politíca Internacional, 53. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1590/S0034-73292010000300011

Pomfret, J. (2006). Chinese lessons: Five classmates and the story of the new China. Macmillan. Retrieved from https://books.google.nl/books?id=IlsCkove55YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pomfret+china&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Socialist%20solidarity&f=false

Transparency International (2015). Corruption Perceptions Index, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

Geert Hofstede is crediting with acknowledging that “Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster.” This week I will explore the intersection of synergy (or not) within an organization and synergy (or not) between cultures occurring in my own organization, which is currently somewhere between a nuisance and a disaster.

At its core, synergy is the idea that people working together are capable of making things happen that transcend each individual effort and create collective value beyond those discrete efforts. Further, members can grow in their own potential through the process of working together. (Harris, 2004)

By adding a cultural element to synergy, there exists both the possibility to increase the capacity to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, and there is the possibility to throw a wrench in the works. Moran, Abramson, and Moran (2014) point out that “sharing dissimilar perceptions and cultural backgrounds can be used to enhance problem-solving and improve decision-making.” Thus, the reverse must also also true. If participants are incapable or unwilling to share perceptions and do not recognize differences in their cultural backgrounds, problem-solving is diminished and decision-making is impaired. This binary effect is reflected in what Ruth Benedict referred to as high-synergy v low-synergy societies.

In my current organization, our local team, which represents a high-synergy team inclined to cooperation, consists of two Dutch men and two American women (all four of whom work in the physical office) as well as one other American woman and another British woman (both of whom work remotely). Not an overwhelmingly diverse group, yet each of us brings different perspectives–not only from our respective cultures, but from our tenure in the organization, and our educational and work backgrounds. As an independent organization culture, our national cultural makeup enhances our highly-synergistic approach. We share information, perspectives, and we see that our friendliness and helpfulness toward one another serve us to mutual advantage.

Interestingly, the local team with heavy Dutch influence and a high-synergy culture seems to reflect the Netherlands score of 14 on Hofstede’s Masculinity dimension as described by ITIM International. With a score of 14, the Dutch team reflects the Feminine Dutch culture which insists on quality of life, inclusion, and involvement in decision-making.

This local team is operating at odds with the parameters of the home office, which is a fairly low-synergy culture exhibiting highly competitive, and bordering on antagonistic, behavior. Perhaps not surprisingly, the home office is US-based and represents a low-synergy culture–both organizationally and nationally. The US scores 62 on the Hofstede’s Masculinity dimension. The US office encourages high-pressure sales tactics and tracks sales daily and weekly. The closed system of the home office means the local office does not have access to its own profit and loss statements.

Ultimately, the national cultural dimensions that drive the organization cultures in their respective locations means the high-synergy potential of the local office is tamped down by the low-synergy of the controlling home office. Sadly, the potential synergy for the organization overall of an added cultural perspective is not borne out.

References

Harris, P. R. (2004). European leadership in cultural synergy. European Business Review, 16(4), 358-380. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/225420349?accountid=13158

Hofstede quote. Retrieved from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/

ITIM International. (2016) Hofstede country comparisons. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/netherlands.html

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Routledge.

Penn State University, 2016. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802572/modules/items/21179089

Title image credit

Abraham, R. H. (1988). Social and international synergy. IS Journal, 3(2), 18-26. (Retrieved from http://www.ralph-abraham.org/articles/MS%2349.Synergy/ms49.pdf)

Having been a part of two multi-country, family-owned companies over the past five years, I have seen firsthand two distinctly different management mindsets toward doing business in another country or countries. Based on my experience, I concur with Perlmutter (1969) that these mindsets are not fixed mentalities, rather that they represent points on an evolutionary march toward progress.

As Moran, Abramson, and Moran (2014) describe, a company chooses to expand into another country in order “to find greater competitive advantage” than those opportunities which are present in its native location. (P.107) This desire to expand and to grow into other markets to support overall growth was certainly the original impetus for both companies in which I worked and work. However, their perspectives differ at this juncture.

In the first organization, a Dutch-based professional services firm chose to enter the US market almost fifteen years ago. From the perspective of increasing their scope, the firm recognized that the US market represented a large opportunity for spending in market research, their offering, and far larger than the Dutch market. (D. Huisman, personal communication, May 2011)

When I joined the organization in August 2011, the US office (in New York) was not succeeding as the firm hoped–even after almost ten years in business. Whether assessed on revenues, profit, retaining employees or other measures, the firm was not thriving. The approach up until then was one that Perlmutter (1969) would describe as an ethnocentric mindset. Managers in the US office were Dutch. Decision-making authority (hiring, strategy, budgets) rested in the home office in Rotterdam. Even in those ten years, the “administrative heritage” Moran, Abramson, and Moran describe (2014) was virtually impossible to change in spite of poor performance.

In 2013, the first very senior local (US-based manager) was hired, and the US division of the firm began to operate from a more polycentric mindset. In the intervening three years, the senior manager in the US began hiring and developing local staff as well as continuing to incorporate Dutch staff within the US operations. Further, the US division’s revenue base has changed and reflects the company’s doing business with a preponderance of US-based companies, rather than only US divisions of European companies. In addition, the US division now has offices in San Francisco and Atlanta, in addition to New York.

By hiring an experienced American at the very top of the organization in America, the cultural mores of the US began to supplant Dutch mores in the American organization. At this stage, the company remains in this polycentric mode–Dutch management of the Dutch and other European branches, and American management of the now three American branches. At this point, the organization as a whole acknowledges that local branches are best poised to move forward with local talent. At this stage, the senior US manager does not believe there is a world-wide approach to best practices, or a geocentric model. (M. Mabey, personal communication, August 2016)

Contrast this evolution of one organization with the current position of the organization I am part of now. An American company in business for more than 40 years, two years ago we opened an office in Amsterdam. I, as an American having lived in Europe for six years and the first employee, perceive our current organization state as distinctly ethnocentric.

While staffing includes two Dutch salespeople, both instructors who deliver the company’s products are American. Perlmutter would refer to this aspect of ethnocentric mindset as recruiting and staffing people of the home country for key positions in Amsterdam. The Managing Director of the Amsterdam office, while Dutch, does not control the finances of the Amsterdam office. The decision-making authority and the organizational evaluation and control (Perlmutter, 1969) for the Amsterdam office rests in Atlanta. Credit cards for staff use are issued through the American office. Our European headquarters reflects more of an ethnocentric American mindset than any real identification with the Netherlands or the European Union.

What buoys me is, again, the concept that this evolution toward a geocentric mindset simply takes time. If, in the fifteen years it took my former employer to progress to a polycentric mindset, my current employer could also do so, I would consider this serious progress.
References

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Routledge.

Perlmutter, H. V. (1969). The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of world business, 4(1), 9-18. Retrieved from: http://s7f8147710141dd57.jimcontent.com/download/version/1359499033/module/7238636686/name/Master%20DMU%20%20Howard_V_Perlmutter_-_The_tortuous_evolution_of_the_multinational_enterpri%20se.pdf

In the August 8 & 15, 2016 issue of The New Yorker, an article by Jon Lee Anderson entitled “The Distant Shore” explores the Mashco, an isolated tribe in Peru, and the tribe’s interactions with various government, non-government, and religious organizations. As I read the article, I was struck by the impact of culture on our communication and the importance of various definitions of culture we learned in our text.

The Mashco, although they live in Peru, do not follow Peruvian customs. For example, the Mashco tribe has “a ritual greeting: they hugged visitors, put their heads on their shoulders, and then felt inside their clothing, as if to ascertain their sex.” (Anderson, 2016) The tribe also does not wear clothing except for a loincloth.

While the Mashco approach to greeting is different than the greetings one might encounter in other cultures and in other parts of the world, the author’s description of it also demonstrates a fundamental Western assumption. With the words “as if to ascertain their sex,” there is to me a clear implication that the author explains the manual exploration that takes place in Western terms.

Two categories of culture (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2011) seem to apply here. In terms of Sense of self and space, this microculture seems to require very little personal space, at least in their greeting ritual. And their Dress and appearance is limited. Is it possible that feeling inside another’s clothing identifies elements of the person that are for the tribe, with their custom of wearing no clothing, clearly visible to each another? Possibly, as Anderson states with his Western viewpoint, this identification is about the gender of the person they are meeting, but perhaps there is another reason.

Another example of cultural perspective is a discussion of Mario Álvarez, an evangelical preacher, who works with the Mashco, trying to covert them to Christianity. When asked by author Anderson what the Mashco tribe will be doing in five years, he answers, “They will be evangelizing on behalf of the Church, because the Lord’s word is powerful.” (Anderson, 2016) Álvarez’s perspective about this indigenous tribe is informed by his own motivation and beliefs instead of any motivation apparent in the Mashco tribe.

This perspective reminded me of the Alan Greenspan’s own “conversion” to a belief in human nature and culture after his stint as Federal Reserve chairman. (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2011, p.6) At a certain point, if people’s behavior does not change in the direction we anticipate, we must ultimately acknowledge culture. Leaders, and global leaders especially, must be utterly attuned to the culture of those they work with if we are to change people’s behavior in the direction we hope.

 

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Routledge.

Anderson, J. L., (August 8 & 15, 2016) A Reporter at Large. The Distant Shore. In Peru, a killing brings an isolated tribe into contact with the outside world. The New Yorker, 40-51

Actually, I’m posting this from London  on a day-long business trip.  But most of the time  I’ll be posting from Amsterdam where I work and live together with my husband and two kids (17 and 14).

Perhaps an outlier in this class, I’m a graduate student in the OD&C program, taking this course as an elective. Hope to meet many of you soon, and really look forward to working together!

---