A non-American who has dealings with or who joins “corporate America” will find many familiar concepts and structures. Americans have been preaching management ideals and ideas for years, and for an equally long period, writers, consultants, and businesspeople have been imitating, disseminating, or criticising them. But as with other aspects of working with Americans, it is the day-to-day assumptions, expectations, and behavior that can present problems and obstacles to the foreigner.

POWER, ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIERARCHY

Our look at the American way of management, leadership, and teamwork starts at the top.

Basic fact: senior American management are primarily accountable to the owners of the business. In many smaller businesses, the owner is also the chief executive. Most ownership is by shareholders (also known in the USA as stockholders), who – more than in any other country consist of the public, either individually or through collective investment funds. In America, the prevailing ownership pattern does not involve banks, other companies, or the government as much as is the case elsewhere. This fundamental accountability to the public as owners (hence the American designation, public company) is the most powerful factor in the way the business is run. Profit is the means to the end of increasing the wealth of those stockholders, either through distributed dividends or an increase in share value. But profit is also viewed by American management as a means to a higher end. In the words of one senior executive:

While the return of profit to our shareholders is not the sole justification for our existence as a business enterprise, it is the indispensable means without which we cannot make a contribution to society.(1)

In American business, profit is not the reward for service to society, profit is the means by which service is rendered, creating wealth for owners, employees, and society at large. We have seen this value expressed before, in Chapter 5, in the individual American’s attitude toward wealth and money.

In a society of few obligations, one that is mentioned particularly by American executives is that of “our obligation to our shareholders”. It may be the only one. Indeed, American management feels little obligation or need to take into account the needs of other so-called “stakeholders” in the business. The differences with continental Europe, for example, are striking. American companies as a rule do not have “advisory boards”, “works councils”, or mandatory participation by employees on the Board of Directors (although there are exceptional cases of each of these). Even labor unions have relatively little power in the private sector. Relations between unions and employers are in any case adversarial, so conflict resolution starts with that assumption.

But while top management's freedom of action is not constrained by those factors, their accountability is both strict and short-term. From quarter to quarter, shareholders expect an increase in their wealth, or at the very least an improvement in company results. When the disappointment of shareholders is combined with press and media criticism, top management are normally quick to respond. The popular and business media in America are free and powerful; American executives fear bad publicity as much as bad results. Both cause the stock price to drop, and can make recruitment and retention of staff much harder.

While American senior management wields considerable authority on behalf of the company and its shareholders, an executive’s title Figure 6.1 is not necessarily an indicator of his power. That will depend on the amount of the business (budget allocation, revenue, number of employees) under that person’s control. All executive vice-presidents (EVPs) may report directly to the CEO, but the EVP Human Resources is not likely to have as much power as, for example, the EVP Finance or Marketing. An EVP of “Special Projects” may have a relatively small amount or organizational resources under his control, and thus have less scope for the exercise of direct personal authority.

THE THREE P’s – PROCESS, PROGRAMS, PREACHING

How do American senior executives whatever their power, view their jobs? What are they supposed to do? That question has a simple, but not easy, answer: their job is to get results. In other words, they strive to reach targets.

That is not news to anyone. But non-Americans may be struck by

the methods that American executives prefer to use in achieving these. To use a sometimes irritating mnemonic device that is much loved by senior managers and consultants, we will refer to the most important of these as the “Three P’s”: Process, Programs, and Preaching.

Process

Without entering the age-old discussion as to whether management is an art or a science, we can say that for generations, American business has studied, analyzed, compared, and most of all, talked about management. Americans are particularly fond of describing management in terms of processes – a system of steps that effect sequential change: the “decision-making process,” the “performance management process”, “business process re-engineering”, the “total quality management” process, the “project management process”, even the “creative process”. This belief in process enables the process of management to be not only described and studied, but also taught and learned. When management becomes learnable, it becomes more democratic, not in style, but in accessibility and applicability to anyone anywhere. American business has been teaching others, or trying to, at least since the end of the Second World War, when it sought to help war-ravaged western European industries recover their productivity.

But at an organizational level, for a process to be “implemented”, American executives like to rely on the second “P” – programs.

Programs

America is a land of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion and every change seems an improvement. The idea of novelty is there indissolubly connected with the idea of amelioration.

Alexis de Tocqueville(2)

A program, in American business, is an organized campaign to bring about some kind of change, usually based on some process. A program is often given a memorable and supposedly catchy title, such as “Enterprise 2005” or “Road to Excellence”, or something similar. A senior executive, sometimes the CEO, is designated as the leader or sponsor. Meetings are held, and internal or external publicity is generated to inform lower level managers and employees about the goals and tasks that will bring about the changes that are envisioned.

This way of bringing about change is not unique to business, or to American business. It does, however, embody certain important American values and assumptions. The first, as observed by De Tocqueville, is that change is a good thing. It can of course be a bad thing, in the form of deterioration or degradation, but Americans attach relatively less importance to stability than do many people elsewhere in the world, and so they do not instinctively fear change. If you listed among your perceptions of Americans in Chapter 2, “open to new ideas”, you have put your finger on this.

Change brings about something new, and newness is another good thing. “Progress is our most important product” was the motto of the General Electric Corporation some years ago. It may be less fashionable now to talk about material progress as an undiluted benefit, but in the American pursuit of ideals and achievements, change, newness, and improvement are necessary.

A third important American assumption here is if change is necessary, it does not need to be “evolutionary”. To use another American business cliché, it needs to be “revolutionary”. Change is something that you “drive”, rapidly, visibly and concretely, and with leadership. That is where the third “P”, Preaching, comes in.

Preaching

The word preach, drawn from the domain of religion, defines very clearly a style of executive leadership that is very common in American business, but often incomprehensible to many non-Americans. If you have been working in a foreign subsidiary of an American corporation, you have at some point probably had to put up with “mission statements” and lists of “core values” (such as Innovation, Close to the Customer, Communication, etc.). These appear in company literature, on the corporate website, in new employee handbooks and on posters affixed to walls and partition dividers from Chicago to China. The popularity of these methods of implementing programs, or of creating a “corporate culture”, stems from the management literature of the 1980s, in which American corporations were criticized for having lost their sense of “mission” or purpose, their focus.

Whether or not mission statements and statements of “core values” and “key drivers” are effective in achieving the desired ends is another question best left to management consultants. It is easy to be cynical about them, which is always the case when a person, an organization, or (especially) a nation articulates ideals, and then inevitably falls short of realizing them. Non-Americans may perceive them as naive, unrealistic or even patronising.

In this example, the German’s reaction was a common one to what appears to be an American need to state the obvious. She implied that if Americans have to spell out the importance of quality in this way, then it must be lacking in them and in their business. Other non-Americans, however, may respond differently. A Frenchman working in a hotel near Paris was delighted that his establishment had been purchased by an American company and was now part of a chain. “The Americans know how to develop an esprit de corps,” he declared.

Effective or ineffective, these practices echo American attitudes and customs from the early days of the settlement of the continent and the establishment of a new society, when preachers were both the spiritual and intellectual leaders of their communities. Armed with “mission statements” it is no accident that many American chief executives become “missionaries”, preaching every sort of ideal, from ending world poverty through the internet, to saving the planet, or achieving success through their approach to management.

Modelled on traditional religious practices, and shaped to fit the requirements of secular business life, mission and values statements are necessary American tools for giving to a diverse group of people a sense of common purpose, and on a practical level, providing a basis for daily actions. We like these things to be made explicit, preferably in writing, so that everyone can pull together.

If you sympathize with our German friend and find this sort of corporate preaching tiresome and unnecessary, many Americans would agree, especially if they cannot relate it to the job that needs to be done. But we are used to it, we respond to it, and we expect it. We will certainly notice if it is absent, and may wonder why. We are not a cynical people by nature (although we can find plenty of things to be cynical about). We appreciate strong corporate leadership providing clear direction, under the influence of a strong visible chief.

What about “People”?

If you have entered into the spirit of this “Three P’s” format, you are probably complaining at this point that we have omitted the most important P – people. American senior managers would agree, and no doubt would have added that to the list in answer to the question, “What do you need in order to get results?”

“People are the leaders of change”, would serve as a good statement of the ideal of executive leadership. (People are also supposed to be the followers, although that may be a less inspirational way of looking at it.) Americans expect that top management will want to make changes, not only to better achieve results, but so that an executive can put his particular “stamp” on an organization. In many American companies, large, medium, or small, there still exists a very real respect for the values and personality of the founder. In many cases, of course, that influence is sustained directly in the person of the founder as CEO or Chairman of the Board. In older companies, the influence of the founding “entrepreneur with a vision” may still be strong, unless corporate mergers and take-overs have erased it.

For the most part, however, Americans will not look to the past for that inspiration. Businesses are constantly changing, with or without programs, and customers’ needs are changing as well. Americans look to the present, to their current senior management, for leadership.

Let us now turn our attention to the middle and lower levels of the organization. How do Americans view their relationship to this hierarchy and to their immediate boss?

THE “DIRECT REPORT”

“I work for Susan Johnson.”

“He reports to John Hirsch.”

“The Vice President of Finance has six direct reports.”

These ways of expressing one’s relationship to one’s boss may seem strange to you. After all, an employee of an organization does not “work for” a single person (except in cases of a two-person company). He works for the organisation. And why refer to people as “reports”? Why not just say “subordinates”? (Perhaps you thought a report was a kind of document or presentation.)

The fact is that Americans use the term “subordinates” less and less, because it implies inferior status, something that we egalitarian Americans can never admit that we accept. But “direct report” is a useful term, expressing as it does two key aspects of a relationship: the directness, which means one-to-one without intermediaries or barriers of rank; and the reporting, which is what a “subordinate” must above all do to his manager.

Do you perceive Americans as “hierarchical” or “following the chain of command”, or do you, conversely, perceive them as people who often bypass the chain of command and disagree with their managers? I have often encountered these contrasting views on the part of non-Americans. Your particular view will depend on your background, but both have some truth in them. This is explained by the particular American formula of relating to one’s manager, which balances attentiveness to his requirements with a need for autonomy and independence.

Separating personal from professional

The first important aspect of this formula is that the manager–direct report relationship (or boss–subordinate relationship if you prefer) does not in any way apply away from work, or in matters not pertaining to work. The people involved may go to sporting events together, get together with their families, and may even be friends. Their working relationship is completely separate from their personal relationship. The manager is not entitled to any special treatment, respect, or regard away from work.

The American manager is therefore not a person of different social rank or type. Nor is he regarded as a “father figure” (and I use the term here to include women, without feeling obliged to say “mother figure”). An American worker does not expect his boss to help with personal problems, by offering, for example, financial assistance, counselling, or even an “ear” to confide in. The first of these is considered very bad practice, and American organizations frown upon it or may indeed prohibit it. For the second, many large American companies expect troubled employees to be referred to, or to refer themselves to “employee assistance” services. As for a trusting ear in which to confide, this might occur but will depend on the relationship between the two. Work and non-work issues are kept separate, for it is work that really matters.

“One-on-one”

When an American says that he “works for Susan Johnson”, he is implying that he has a one-to-one relationship with that person. The manager is not only or even primarily a team leader; he or she is also an individual leader, within certain limits and with certain definite responsibilities.

To start with, an American assumes that his boss has certain clearly defined objectives of her own, which represent “pieces” of the overall company goals. Through this system of delegated authority, the direct report accepts and expects that he will support his manager’s objectives. For this reason, the two need to be in full agreement as to the direct report’s objectives. Americans define job expectations primarily in this way, and do not rely on written job descriptions or professional obligations.

Managers, for their part, are expected to take responsibility for the feedback, evaluation, and development of the performance of their direct reports. This is not to say that American managers always carry out these responsibilities well, or at all. These tasks are not easy, and many managers do their best to avoid them. This accounts for the need and popularity of such theories as the “One-Minute Manager” mentioned earlier. It is also true that the higher the level of management, the less “developmental” is the relationship. Nevertheless, even upper management complain that they do not get enough feedback from their chiefs. In short, throughout the organization Americans will expect more from their managers than just to be “left to get on with” the job.

Like anyone else, Americans do want a degree of autonomy. They do not always expect or want to be told what to do or how to do it. The direct-reporting relationship does not mean that control is expected to be tight. Control (in the English sense of the word – direction, correction, feedback) should be as tight or loose as it needs to be for the job to be done, and ideally agreed between the people involved.

WHEN IS MY BOSS NOT MY BOSS?

With those elements in place, an American can be comfortable with two variations to this structure: “matrix” or “dotted line” reporting, and bypassing laterally or vertically the chain of command.

Matrix reporting

Matrix management evolved as a way of managing operational and project responsibilities for certain objectives, while maintaining an overall corporate structure and accountability. Under this arrangement, one manager provides specific day-to-day direction to an employee on his immediate assignment, a project for example. The employee’s “direct” manager retains responsibility for his training, career development, conditions of employment, and overall role within the organization. (See figure 6.3.) This appears to be a case of two bosses, but is more accurately described as two separate roles. There may be conflicts, and some organizations are not able to make this work. But provided that the specific responsibilities of each “line” are made clear, Americans can work effectively in this structure. To them, management and authority reside in the role, not in the person.

Bypassing the boss

Americans do not expect that their managers will have all the answers to organizational and technical questions, nor are they expected to be able to provide all the resources necessary for a particular job. For their part, managers in general understand that their direct reports will have greater knowledge than they of situational requirements and methods for doing a given job. For these reasons, an American will normally go directly to others in the organization from whom he needs information, co-operation or resources. It will not be necessary to go through his boss or to involve him. It is definitely expected, however, that he will keep his boss informed of the “bypass”.

On the other hand, it may not be appropriate to bypass one’s manager in cases of grievance or dissatisfaction. These cases do occur, when a person has a poor relationship with his boss or when he wants to “blow the whistle”, in other words, to report business practices contrary to corporate policy or ethics. (This is not to be confused with blowing one’s horn!) A poor relationship with one’s boss, of course, makes it necessary to bypass him in order to communicate with someone else. But in the majority of these cases, senior management (or the Legal or Human Resources department) will still expect the matter to first be

discussed with one’s immediate manager. “If you have a problem, first talk to your boss.”

TO “MBO” OR NOT TO “MBO” – AMERICAN MANAGEMENT STYLE

What sort of management style are Americans comfortable with? It is even more difficult than normal to offer generalities here; this depends on the people involved. Americans expect their managers to be flexible, adapting their degree of control to the demands of the task, and to the skills and motivation of the individual.

We can say that Americans expect to have specific measurable objectives toward which to direct their efforts. Whether these objectives are set by their management, or jointly agreed, is less important – the key is the target. In the light of this, and of Lenore Madison’s expectations, you can see now why Management by Objectives (popularly known as MBO), or should we say the MBO process, has played such a big part in American management. As a formal process or “program”, it has perhaps fallen out of fashion, but this focus on objectives, on results, is virtually taken for granted in America.

What has been your experience with MBO? How widely has MBO been used in your country or your organization?

To ilustrate of the difficulties other business cultures may have with MBO, one intercultural specialist, Geert Hofstede, has pointed to the example of France. Known in that country as la gestion participative par objectifs, it had relatively little success when it was introduced. The explanation proposed by Hofstede is that the theoretically “participative” aspect of it ran counter to French notions of hierarchical authority, or in his words, “power distance”.(3)

In other business cultures, MBO has had varying degrees of relevance, popularity, and effectiveness. In America, the degree of “co-determination” of objectives on the part of manager and direct report is less than we would like to think, but the principle has an egalitarian appeal. Americans expect to have a certain degree of “input” concerning their objectives, but they also accept that these often depend on higher level departmental or corporate objectives on which they will have no say.

In American business, a productive management style is more than just a matter of setting objectives. Americans expect a certain amount of feedback from their boss. They will also want, up to a point, to be recognized when they have done a good job. Perhaps more than many Europeans, we appreciate a certain amount of direct praise. If we do not receive any, we will feel the need to blow our own horn even louder. And perhaps more than some Asians or Latin Americans, we are comfortable with that recognition being addressed to us individually, and not only to the group of which we are a part.

PLAYING IN THE BAND – TEAMWORK THE AMERICAN WAY

At this stage, you may be wondering how it is possible to integrate these individualistic self-interested Americans into a team. We Americans think of ourselves as good co-operative team members by nature and would point to the success of American businesses as evidence. That self-image is, however, a reflection of our particular view of teamwork.

Far from resisting working in a team, Americans embrace it, as long as it matches our expectations. We know that without it, we cannot achieve organizational objectives. That is why organizations exist, after all. But what carries equal weight to Americans is the expectation that a good team, at organizational or project level, will make possible the individual achievement that they seek.

What are the qualities of a good team member, from an American perspective?

WYSIWYG – what you see is what you get!

Let us return to the example of Lenore Madison (Figure 5.1). Her resume gives us no indication of the quality of her teamwork, or of how she might fit productively into a team. Would she be compatible or incompatible with the others? We are unable to get even the slightest idea of her personality or her individuality from her resume.

Her response to this would be, “What you see here is what you get!” She would remind you that, “I am what I do.” Her ‘personality’ is the results-oriented worker you see. Her individuality at work is the individualism of personal achievement, not the uniqueness of her ideas, her self-expression, or her personal “style”.

This is a very different view to that of other business cultures – possibly yours – in which building a good team depends on finding different complementary and compatible personalities who can fit together or “harmonize”.

Choosing to fit in

To Americans, fitting in is a matter of what one does, not what one is. If you asked Lenore, “How well do you fit into a team?” she might find the question strange. Her reply would be that she does what is necessary and expected in order to fit into the team. She will, in essence, make herself fit in. She knows that it is expected of her, and sees no need to mention it on her resume. Personality is not that important. As a team member, she will adopt the “personality” that is necessary to support the team and get the job done. She will fit in because she chooses to, not because she is a certain type of person.

The most important criterion, therefore, for the selection of team members is not personality, or thinking style, but rather the ability to do a required task. Team harmony is above all assured, not by having people who get along with each other, important though that is, but by first having a clear framework of goals, objectives, job roles and responsibilities. Good relationships will in part be the result of task clarity, rather than its cause. Teamwork is yet another application of that fundamental principle of working with Americans: whether we are buyer and seller, or manager and direct report, our relationship ultimately depends on how well we can get things done together.

This attitude may explain why, to some business people from outside the USA, “corporate” Americans may appear to be such conformists.

In this very gray area of teamwork, we have emphasized possible group differences in order to delineate them with sharper lines. The foundations of successful teamwork are the same everywhere: clear objectives, roles, responsibilities, communication, and good relationships between the team members. Americans do not want to work in teams that are bureaucracies. Like others, they want to work with congenial colleagues.

It goes without saying that getting along well facilitates the quick resolution of conflicts, whatever their origin, and prevents others. At the same time, those good relationships are not just a matter of a bunch of people having pizza and beer together. They depend, in the American view, on a clear framework. For this reason, Americans often work well with more formalized team “processes”, such as various project management methodologies or group problem-solving and brain-storming methods.

What does this mean for you?

Here is what Americans are likely to expect from you as the leader of an American team, or of an international team that includes Americans:

• They expect an active leader, not one who will merely “let them get on with it”. An active team leader will give the group focus, by means of a “mission” (at an organizational level) or simply a clear common objective, feedback on progress, and a positive confident attitude.

In the absence of clear leadership, Americans are likely to view their own areas of contribution as most important, and give priority to those. They may be reluctant to “take a back seat” to let someone else “drive”, if they have no confidence in the driver. Consequently, they may either turn away from the team goal in favour of their own individual objectives, or they may attempt to assert leadership on their own.

• They may expect that the team leader will play a role in resolving disagreements, since these often stem, in the American view, from task issues rather than “personality questions”.

Your preferred style may be to expect the people involved to negotiate a solution among themselves. If you select team members for their ability to get along together, they should as professionals be able to sort things out. In many situations, this approach may be appropriate. But Americans often see something more at stake here than “getting along”. If their individual contributions are at issue, then they are not as likely to set their differences aside “for the good of the team”, precisely because as we have seen, these contributions are part of the “good of the team”.

Having looked at these American assumptions and expectations of teamwork, it is time that we observed an American team in action (or inaction, as the case may be), as described in Example 6.4. This raises a number of questions that relate to the American way of meetings, team problem-solving, group decision-making, and relationship to the hierarchy.

1. Based on your background and business experience, what is your opinion of the lack of discussion?

• a)The lack of discussion is understandable, since neither the Project Manager nor the Vice President Finance has yet invited people to express their views.
• b)The lack of discussion makes no sense. Surely the reason to hold such a meeting is to identify potential problems and decide what to do about them.
• c)The lack of discussion is not a problem. Meetings like this are not the right place for expressing these sorts of disagreements or concerns.
• d)The lack of discussion indicates poor leadership. All those present should have the opportunity to express their opinions of the plan at the meeting. If the plan has been decided by management, the whole group should nevertheless accept it.
• e)The lack of discussion is understandable. Project plans are guidelines, not firm commitments, so concern about achieving the plan is a low priority.
• f)The lack of discussion indicates that even though they have their doubts, the team accept and will work toward the schedule, which is what they should do.
• g)Other. If you have an opinion that is not described by the above alternatives, you can note it here:

2. Considering the list of alternatives, what do you think would be the view of an American?

Before we comment on your response and the American expectations of such a situation, we need to point out that this is not intended to illustrate a “typical” situation in American business. Things may or may not happen in this way. Many such meetings involving Americans would differ greatly according to circumstances. But many Americans would not be surprised or even disappointed by what is described here, and it will be helpful to understand why.

But first, what does your response tell you about your expectations in this situation? Compare it to how an American might view each alternative:

Alternative (a)

Not applicable here, normally. If certain participants had wanted to express their views, they would not feel that they had to wait for an invitation.

However, they might be cautious in expressing their concerns, for a number of reasons that we will cover shortly.

Alternative (b)

Many Americans would agree with this. But many others would feel that in fact a meeting is not the best place or means for problem-solving and decision-making. That should be done by those directly involved, those who “own” (are responsible for) the problem.

Alternative (c)

Many Americans would agree with this statement, and we discuss this further below.

Alternative (d)

This would not be the usual American expectation. That a plan has been decided by management does not mean that it cannot be changed, but there is a “right” way to go about this.

Furthermore, to use the meeting simply as an occasion for people to let off steam – which does happen – would be considered a waste of time.

Alternative (e)

Americans generally do not look at schedules as mere “guidelines”. They represent commitments, a kind of contract. The schedule may be changed, but the Americans will focus their efforts on the objective with a positive, but not naive, attitude.

Alternative (f)

Silence does not mean consent. As we noted, people may for certain reasons hold back their opinions at this point. The project team members do, however, recognize that the objective has been set by upper management.

So why, then, might Americans not express their doubts about the schedule?

Wrong time, wrong place

The first and more important reason is that, in fact, a project review meeting may not be the best occasion for this. The basic American assumption would be that those members of the project team responsible for developing the schedule would take it upon themselves to meet together and develop a solution. They would not necessarily expect to consult with other members of the project team who were not involved in planning. To use a common American expression, because they are responsible for the schedule, they “own” it. Their meeting, moreover, would have a very different atmosphere to the one described here: full exchanges of opinion, strong arguments as to what is best, equally strong disagreements with others’ views. It would conclude with a clear agreement on what is to be done, by whom, and when.

Having prepared a solution, they would then inform the rest of the project team, and present it to the Project Manager. If it turned out that higher level approvals were needed, the Project Manager would in turn present the revised schedule to upper management, according to the chain of command.

The Americans’ objective will be to persuade others of the best possible solution, given the requirements and resources. They will not simply seek to agree on a course of action that “everyone can live with”, in which all the different points of view are accommodated. In the opinion of some American managers, getting everyone to agree is what is meant by “consensus”, but it is really a question of persuasion.

Wrong people

A second reason for the lack of discussion has to do with the presence of the regional Vice President of Finance, the Project Manager’s boss. To bring up questions about the plan at this point might embarrass the Project Manager (or even the Systems Development Manager), if he is not aware of these, or if he has not previously discussed them with the VP. Whatever they may think of their boss, the members of the team will not do that. Furthermore, the VP is not likely to want to hear about problems with the schedule unless the Project Manager or the team is ready to present a solution.

Wrong attitude

These are the two other factors that may also influence people’s behaviour in this situation.

The first is more a matter of particular corporate culture than of American culture. It is an unstated norm in some organizations to set “aggressive” targets, with the equally unstated expectation that they will not be one hundred percent achieved. But it is often better to attempt and fall short, provided one has an explanation and a solution for the shortfall (or someone else to blame), than to be timid in setting the target. Trial-and-error is better than a risk avoidance approach of exhaustive time-consuming detailed planning. There will always be a need for balance, but this attitude is common in American business, and non-Americans need to be aware of this. “Aggressive” targets are motivators, and are evidence of a positive attitude. Caution, however logical, sensible and rational, is not rewarded.

Indeed the project plan may be one of the Vice President of Finance’s own individual objectives, achievement of which would affect his individual bonus. Nobody is going to want to appear to be an obstacle to that, unless it is the VP’s own boss.

The second factor also has to do with positive attitudes. To be a “team player” in American business means more than simply working hard toward a common goal. It means that a person will “disagree and commit” – set aside his own opinion to support the course of action determined by the management or by the group. Americans will not try too hard to patch things up, to find a compromise, to let a dissenter “save face”, or to win an opponent over with further argument. Therefore, in practical terms, expressing concerns or doubts without offering a solution, being cynical, pushing one’s arguments or criticism too far, or opting out are very bad form. They are “not an option”.

In this case, therefore, the team members may be keeping their opinions to themselves until a practical, feasible and permissible alternative is available. In the meantime, it is better to show public support for the team with expressions of optimism and confidence, or simply by restraining their doubts or scepticism.

What can we offer then as general guidelines for the American way of holding meetings and making decisions together?