dependent agencies, institutions, service providers, and contingent workers that are largely outside the formal organization design.view of the high levels of individualism across US society (indeed, can we talk in terms of one society?), Creating a typical organizing framework is imprecise to say the least, Still, it is possible to at least highlight some of the more common trends, as illustrated in Exhibit 6.3.exhibit illustrates the general paradigm for US firms. However, in view of the highly individualistic nature of the prevailing culture, it is not surprising to find a wide variation around this general model. US firms can be highly autocratic or highly participative, mastery-oriented or harmony-oriented, and so forth. Even so, a general model serves a useful purpose as a starting point for cross-cultural comparisons.and management trends in Canada and the UKis ??clearly a mistake to assume that organization and management practices are identical - or even similar, in some cases - across the broad so-called Anglo cluster. For example, when British managers are asked to compare US and British managers and corporations, they typically offer one of two responses: either they are very similar or they are very different. Such is the heterogeneity of corporations on both sides of the Atlantic. Frames of reference, as well as nuances, become both important and ambiguous. At the same time, when Canadians are asked to compare US and Canadian managers and organizations, they, too, can sometimes find sizable differences.order to delve a bit deeper here in this comparison, and commenting on British organizational trends, London Business School professor Nigel Nicholson has suggested that the major challenge is to understand how much of an organization s ethos or operating model comes from national cultures, sector cultures, or parent company cultures. At the national level, key inputs are obviously regulatory elements as well as governance norms and cultural factors, such as shared expectations of employees and other stakeholders. On these factors, only a few differences between the two cultures are noted. However, the typical governance rules in the UK are quite different. As a rule, British companies are far less tolerant of power aggregation than are their American counterparts. For example, they tend to oppose unitary boards of directors and strongly prefer the separation of the Chairman and CEO roles between two people, unlike the tendency in the US to integrate these two roles into one person. They also dislike dual-share voting systems, and have rules that prevent banks from owning major shares in companies.addition, British firms are also far less encumbered with layers of lawyers, spend far less money on government lobbying, and have generally weak trade associations . Management consultants do have an influence on British firms, but less so than in the US.general, then, Nicholson notes that British firms tend to be more liberal than the US and maintain more liquidity and fluidity in ownership. However, if British firms are more liberal in ownership and governance, they tend to be more conservative in management policies and practices. The ethos of British management is highly pragmatic, achievement-oriented, and entrepreneurial, but is often opposed to out-of-the-box thinking, weak on leadership, strong on financial management, and frequently poor on vision, community, and integration. to these observations, Un...
