iversity of Birmingham professor John Child cautions against placing too much emphasis on seeing ideal types and archetypes of British (or any other) firms. For example, while many larger UK companies have been acquired by or merged into larger non-British firms, a strong entrepreneurial and SME sector remains. And, as in any country, there are large differences between traditional manufacturing and newer service firms.Nicholson, Child points to differences in ethos as providing particularly significant contrasts between US and British firms. Indeed, he adds to Nicholson s list of features characterizing many larger British firms, including a short-term cost-conscious orientation (hence, a generally low emphasis on personal development and training), poor internal integration (both horizontal and vertical), and a continuing failure to communicate adequately with employees. Finally, although some have suggested that Britain may be losing its individualistic culture to a degree, Child points out that in organizations that continue to use performance-based incentives (see Chapter 10), such as in many financial and consulting services, we still see high levels of initiative and a strong achievement orientation.of differences between Canadians and their US counterparts, McGill professor Nancy Adler offers the following observations: Compared to Americans, Canadians tend to understate their strengths and perhaps overstate their weaknesses. They do not usually claim to be the best at something. Canadians strongly believe in collegiality. For example, Canada is one of the leaders in creating middle-country initiatives where a group of countries in the world tries to get something done (instead of trying to go it alone). Canadians tend to be more formal than Americans - titles and family names are important. Canadians are generally more polite and less confrontational than their American counterparts. Canadians are also less explicitly and publicly religious. Finally, Canadians believe in more collective responsibility across society in such areas as education and health care. All of this is not to say that overlaps do not occur; obviously they do. However, assuming that Americans and Canadians live identical life styles or share identical values ??can only lead to lost opportunities for global managersmmary, some might argue that in making comparisons between American and British firms, and, indeed, firms in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, the key issue is whether within-group variance is larger or smaller than between-group variance. That is, commonalities can be found among all of the countries that comprise the so-called Anglo cluster. Part of the reason for these similarities can be found in the historic British influences in all of these cultures. Even so, in recognition of the strong individualism found in this cluster, it is not surprising to find it is difficult to make generalizations about organization design and management practice. At the same time, part of the differences here can be found in the increasing cultural heterogeneity of people inhabiting all of these countries. Diversity is increasing throughout. Indeed, as these two countries, along with their Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand counterparts, become increasingly multicultural, perhaps the term Anglo will lose much of its meaning as adescriptor of this cluster of countries. In fact, these countries and cultures may begin evolving in very d...
