e is not so much how the typical American (or anyone else) is described, but rather against which standards they are judged. That is, what are the characteristics of different cultures and how do these differences affect interpersonal assessments and relations? For example, people from more collectivistic cultures, such as China, Korea, and Japan, often see Americans (as well as some British, Australians, and Canadians) as being highly individualistic, while these Westerners often see their East Asian counterparts as being highly collectivistic. The point here is not that one orientation is superior to the other. Rather, the point is that if both Westerners and East Asians can better understand each other, if they can genuinely get inside each other s heads and learn what motivates them, they are far more likely to succeed in forming partnerships or doing business together than if they remain mired in their own cultural crosscurrents.and management trends in the USon what has been learned so far about prevailing American cultural patterns, consider how the people characterized by this description might build organizations. First, many of these organizations would likely stress individual achievement and responsibility, control over the environment, a linear approach to decision making, respect for rules and policies and a sense of order, and a belief that, at least in theory, anyone can rise to the top. As a result, the typical US organization is perhaps best described as a loosely coupled system with many key parts located outside of the company for purposes of efficiency and flexibility.addition, in many US firms, CEOs get most of the credit for company successes and much of the blame for failure; they also get much of the money, regardless. US CEOs tend to have considerable power as decision-makers and leaders so long as they succeed. Indeed, we often hear about the imperial CEO. If they do not succeed, however, they tend to disappear rather quickly. Partly as a result of this, many US firms tend to have a top-down decision-making style.design in typical US firms tend to be rather fluid. They tend to have many alliances and partners and frequently reinvent themselves when the need arises (eg, under conditions of financial exigency). When they need capital to expand the business, market research for a new product, or in-depth legal advice, most US firms typically go outside the company. Likewise, both manufacturing and service companies often rely on outside suppliers and distributors that have only a tenuous relationship to the company.many American companies, employees on all levels are often viewed as factors of production rather than valued members of the organization. Indeed, in some American companies, permanent employees are routinely hired and fired based on variations in workloads. From an accounting perspective, they are considered as part of a firm s variable costs, not fixed costs. And the use of contingent workers is on the rise, partly to save money and partly to increase operating efficiency. Not surprisingly, as a result of this fluidity, employee commitment to organizations is on the wane.
Exhibit 6.3 Design of a typical US corporation
: The shaded boxes represent formal parts of the organization. The white boxes represent in...
