Using Hofstede's (1985;1993) model of cultural dimensions, compare and contrast the cultural dimensions of at least two countries/regions and address how these situations uniquely drive motivational strategies. Is Hofstede's cultural dimensions model an adequate and thorough paradigm for cross-cultural motivational leadership? (See Hofstede (1985) and Hofstede (1993)). What important elements, if any, need to be added to this model? Provide rationale to support your opinion.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com May 20, 2020, 10:12 pm ad1c9bdddf
Using Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions we compare and contrast the cultural dimensions of Brazil and the USA. On the dimension of power distance Brazil is 69 whereas US is 40. The degree of individualism in Brazil is 38 whereas the degree of individualism in the US is 91. On the dimension of masculinity/femininity, Brazil scores 49 whereas US scores 62. The next dimension is uncertainty avoidance. In the case of Brazil the score is 76 whereas in the US it is 46. Finally, long term orientation is 65 for Brazil and 29 for United States (Peng. M, 2008), .
- The high power distance in Brazil and the relatively lower power distance in the US show that hierarchies are important in Brazil. A leader with charisma can easily motivate employees in Brazil; on the other hand, low power distance means that participatory leadership will work well in the US.
- The low individualism score of 38 in Brazil means that belonging to groups is very important. The affiliation with a group is a strong motivator for people in Brazil. If the supervisor builds relationships with employees it will lead to strong motivation. On the other hand in the US individual rewards like stock options will be strong motivators.
- Brazil scores 49 on masculinity. This means the degree of competition, achievement and success should be ...
This posting gives you a step-by-step explanation of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The response also contains the sources used.