← Explore Power Distance by country

Hofstede Power Distance · Country comparison

Hofstede Power Distance: Japan (54), Germany (35) and Brazil (69) country comparison

What do these power distance scores mean? Compare each country’s index score, then read the dimension in context—not as a prediction about any person.

54Japan 35Germany 69Brazil

These are broad, national-level comparison signals. Regional, generational, organizational, and personal differences matter.

Basemap tiles © Esri · Country boundaries © Natural Earth contributors.

Compare this dimension

Compare Power Distance across countries

Choose two or three country profiles to compare their scores and what the differences may mean.

Country 1 Country 2 Optional third country

The cultural picture

What the power distance comparison may mean

How much unequal power and hierarchy are accepted in a society.

Germany has the lowest observed score, while Brazil has the highest. The observed spread is 34 points on the 0–100 scale. A higher score does not mean “better”; interpretation depends on the dimension’s definition and the situation.

PDI · HOFSTEDE

Japan

54/100

Moderate power distance · #167 of 203

Japan scores 54 on Power Distance, ranking #167 of 203 in the dataset. That is 11.8 points below the global average and 10.3 points below the East Asia regional average. A moderate power distance profile on this dimension points toward clear hierarchy, respect for seniority, and more centralized authority. In practical analysis, this dimension is useful because it connects broad values to visible patterns in workplaces, classrooms, public institutions, and family expectations. Use Power Distance as a comparison signal, not a stereotype. Hofstede scores describe national-level tendencies; individuals and organizations inside Japan can differ sharply by region, class, generation, profession, and local history.

Explore Japan’s full power distance index

PDI · HOFSTEDE

Germany

35/100

Leans egalitarian · #189 of 203

Germany scores 35 on Power Distance, ranking #189 of 203 in the dataset. That is 30.8 points below the global average and 9.5 points below the Western Europe regional average. A leans egalitarian profile on this dimension points toward flatter authority, consultation, and easier access to decision makers. In practical analysis, this dimension is useful because it connects broad values to visible patterns in workplaces, classrooms, public institutions, and family expectations. Use Power Distance as a comparison signal, not a stereotype. Hofstede scores describe national-level tendencies; individuals and organizations inside Germany can differ sharply by region, class, generation, profession, and local history.

Explore Germany’s full power distance index

PDI · HOFSTEDE

Brazil

69/100

High power distance · #106 of 203

Brazil scores 69 on Power Distance, ranking #106 of 203 in the dataset. That is 3.2 points above the global average and 1.5 points below the Latin America regional average. A high power distance profile on this dimension points toward clear hierarchy, respect for seniority, and more centralized authority. In practical analysis, this dimension is useful because it connects broad values to visible patterns in workplaces, classrooms, public institutions, and family expectations. Use Power Distance as a comparison signal, not a stereotype. Hofstede scores describe national-level tendencies; individuals and organizations inside Brazil can differ sharply by region, class, generation, profession, and local history.

Explore Brazil’s full power distance index

Treat national scores as prompts for better questions, not assumptions about individuals. The dimension summarizes broad cultural patterns and should be read alongside the dataset’s methodology and limitations.

Country profiles

Explore the selected countries

Open any country’s full culture profile.

In-depth country report

There is more to learn about Japan!

Download our full Japan cultural analysis for only $9.99.

A full report covers:

All six Hofstede dimensions and their practical meaning
Country-specific insights and recommendations
Methodology, limitations, and references

Download the free sample View the sample report online

For teams and organizations

Practical cultural intelligence

Custom cultural intelligence reports from $50, tailored to your market, team, and goals.

Market-entry briefings
Cross-cultural training
Organization-specific analysis
Business etiquette guidance
Negotiation and communication analysis

No account or sign-up required. Tell us what you need in chat and we’ll discuss the brief.

Sources and methodology

Sources adapted from the Hofstede and Hall references used in the shared dataset. The communication-context score shown on this site is a transparent proxy calculated as 0.70 × (100 − IDV) + 0.30 × PDI; it is not a score directly measured by Hall.

Hofstede dimensions and country data

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Klasika i Stil.
The first four Hofstede dimensions draw on IBM employee studies. Long-term orientation and indulgence draw on later cross-cultural survey research, including the Chinese Value Survey and World Values Survey, as summarized in the sources above.

Hall’s communication-context framework

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans. Intercultural Press.
Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. (2011). Beyond Culture or Beyond Control? Reviewing the Use of Hall’s High-/Low-Context Concept. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management.
Cardon, P. W. (2008). A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model: A Meta-Analysis of Literature on Intercultural Business and Technical Communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.
Broeder, P. (2021). Communicating Distances and High- and Low-Context Cultures. Language and Intercultural Communication.
Lamino, P. P., & Diaz, J. (2025). Intercultural Competencies: Understanding High- vs. Low-Context Cultures. University of Florida IFAS Extension (AEC813).

Limits and critical perspectives

McSweeney, B. (2015). Hall, Hofstede, Huntington, Trompenaars, GLOBE: Common Foundations, Common Flaws. In Transculturalism and Business in the BRIC States.
Country scores and the communication-context indicator are broad, national-level summaries. They do not predict an individual’s behaviour and should be interpreted with attention to local, organizational, regional, and personal variation.

Hofstede Power Distance: Japan (54), Germany (35) and Brazil (69) country comparison

Compare Power Distance across countries

What the power distance comparison may mean

Japan

Germany

Brazil

Explore the selected countries

There is more to learn about Japan!

Practical cultural intelligence

Hofstede dimensions and country data

Hall’s communication-context framework

Limits and critical perspectives

What can we help you figure out?

Get the complete country analysis

There is more to learn about Japan!