All his life he [the American] jumps into the train after it has started and jumps out before it has stopped; and he never once gets left behind, or breaks a leg.

George Santayana

LIVE TO WORK, OR WORK TO LIVE?

So far we have looked at Americans’ concept of their identity as a people and nation, and described their view of society and the rest of the world. We have also described attitudes and expectations that they acquire through family life and education, and highlighted their approach to social relationships. What affect do all these influences have on the way Americans do business?

What is your view? What are your perceptions of Americans’ attitude toward work and their jobs? What impressions do you have of their “work ethic”?

Many non-Americans have formed a fairly distinct impression of Americans as a people who “live to work”, rather than “work to live”. This implies that work is somehow central to life, or indeed an end in itself, as opposed simply to being a means to the end of providing for oneself or one’s family. Both perceptions are of course oversimplifications, but the phrase “live to work” contains an important truth about Americans. Many non-Americans perceive that this attitude translates into “hard work”, while others see it as expressing itself through “activity without effectiveness” – a great deal of apparent work without much result. Either way, it underlines the centrality of work in the lives of Americans.

We can get an insight into this and other aspects of an American’s approach to work and career by looking at one person’s resume. (Pronounced resumé. The terms CV and curriculum vitae are not generally used in the USA.)

Study the resume in Example 5.1. After you have read it, consider these questions and note your immediate reactions:

• What impression do you form of this person?
• What do you think this person is trying to communicate about herself?
• According to your business background, what information would you want or expect to see on a resume that is not presented here?

For our purposes, we can look at this resume in two ways. The first is to take it for what it is – a specific type of document for a specific purpose. In Chapter 9, we will have more to say about the content of the American resume. The second – and the one that concerns us most here – is to see it as the concrete expression of a number of essential American assumptions and expectations

concerning the world of work: one’s job, the organization, one’s career, management and indeed oneself.

Many of these assumptions and expectations are not unique to Americans, but both in their strength and in conjunction with each other, they are particularly characteristic of Americans. What is more, they are developed from an early age, indeed earlier than is the case for most non-Americans.

“I am what I do!”

In your list of perceived attributes of Americans, you may have noted “competitive”. If so, you are right. But what is important for us to understand is the nature and basis of this “competitiveness”, and what it means for you if you are working with or directing Americans like Ms. Madison.

We have already seen in Chapter 3 that your American business associate has been brought up in a competitive culture. He has learned, as a teenager, to compete for admission to university and for employment. Lenore Madison shows that she understands the means of competition – first and above all, on the basis of your “track record”, your accomplishments and achievements. Does her resume seem to you to be simply a list of things she claims to have achieved? If so, you’re right again. What is important to an American in business is accomplishment, in concrete measurable terms. That is the definition of a person’s professional worth and value. That is who she is, professionally speaking. Simply put, an American would say, “I am what I do, what I have done, and what I can do.”

This is a very egalitarian value. My worth is not matter of my family or class background, although that can give me an advantage. Nor it is a matter of whom I know or where I come from, although those factors too can help. It is not even a matter of how intelligent or knowledgeable I may be. It depends on what I have achieved. In Lenore’s case, her list is intended to declare her value, to both future and current employers, in the terms that they most recognise – what we in America (and in business schools everywhere) call performance.

Your American colleague, boss, or customer is wholly oriented toward getting things done. This applies if it means getting something done less than perfectly, or even if it means getting something done that someone else has previously done, known as “reinventing the wheel”. He or she wants to be known, above all, as a doer, not as a thinker, planner, or even a communicator.

It is also important to be seen to be doing things. To fill time with activity is an apparent need among American families as well as among American business people.

“Time is money”

This well-known phrase “says it all” for Americans. Time is something to gain or lose, spend or save, invest or waste. It is also something that one can “make” or “kill”; or it is like an empty vessel that one can “fill”, with activity, with doing things. This applies at both work and play. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “Leisure is time for doing something useful. . .”

If one’s professional worth is determined by one’s record of achievement, then activity is the appropriate way to use time, preferably short periods of time. American business people focus on and are motivated by short-term objectives. Even if these are not always achievable, they hold the promise of quick accomplishments. Long-term planning, while useful, is far less attractive. This is not because the plan or goal might not be achievable, but because the individual responsible for it may have moved on by the time it is due. He may not be in a position to see the long-term task through to completion, and so cannot add it to his track record.

Americans can be impatient with long “learning curves” or extended training programs, because they may see them as preventing short-term achievement. Many American executives want their reading matter condensed into “executive summaries”, and training programs chopped up into brief simplified bits of advice. Deeper understanding and the development of one’s wisdom is sometimes sacrificed in favor of easily applicable “do’s and don’ts” or lists of rules. One of the most popular management models in American for over two decades is the appropriately titled “One Minute Manager”.

Lenore Madison has no hesitation about laying out her list of short-term accomplishments – whether they took her one minute, one month, or one year – and her rapid movement into jobs of successively greater responsibility. Her resume reflects the importance which both business organizations and their individual members, throughout their careers, attach to this.

Are you qualified?

American businesspeople are, of course, not the only ones who seek to meet objectives, and to do what needs to be done. But what makes Americans notable in this regard is that it is the core of their professional self-esteem and day-to-day motivation. As we noted earlier, in America what is important is not whom you know or what you know. What matters is what you do with what you know. In business, your track record is more important than your education or other “qualifications”.

On Lenore Madison’s resume, did you note the absence of any description of her academic studies, apart from her BA (Bachelor of Arts) degree?

Traditionally, academic study has simply not been considered a vital ingredient of business success. It is true that in her field, more information on her studies of English literature would add little to our ability to judge her fitness for the kind of job she says she is looking for. In other fields, such as medicine, law, and other professions, more detail on university studies would be expected. But what is important here is the relative value that Americans give to the level and content of academic achievement, compared to common practice in other societies. The popular history of American business includes many examples of successful people who had no formal qualifications and little formal education, let alone a university degree. Yet they went on to develop successful products, establish companies, and – most important of all – acquire great wealth. The traditional ingredients for this dramatic success were (1) a good idea, and (2) hard work.

This does not mean, however, that American professionals and managers do not attach importance to a college or university degree. It is in fact considered indispensable, but – in the case of a BA or BS – primarily as a “door opener” or a jump onto the ladder of success, and as a general, if imperfect, indicator of intelligence and maturity. Lenore does hold a MBA (Master’s Degree in Business Administration), which has doubtlessly given her a good basic knowledge of business, and to an employer evidence that her career aspirations no longer focus on Shakespeare. Yet even a MBA is not regarded as a “qualification” for any position, important credential though it may be, especially in marketing and financial services.

In this way, you can see that to an American, “Are you qualified?” does not mean, as it does in many countries, “Have you attained the right level of education or training?” It means rather “Do you have the combination of skills, training and record of similar accomplishment that enables you to do a job?” Is Lenore Madison “qualified” for a position in product marketing? According to the American way, and to her, she most definitely is, based on her “track record”.

Keeping your options open

This emphasis on doing as opposed to learning in American business has another consequence for people’s professional self-image which is important for non-Americans, especially those working in an American company, to understand. Since the American education system does not compel students to commit themselves very early to one special discipline, Americans are used to “keeping their options open” throughout their careers. We have seen the example of Lenore’s BA degree in English literature. Irrespective of their academic field or vocational training, your American colleagues and “direct reports” are accustomed to looking “laterally” to other fields for opportunities for achievement and advancement – to move, for example, from finance to marketing, from technology to sales, from administration to logistics, and even from labor to management. In true American fashion, they view their field of opportunity as wide, and not limited or bound by their previous study or by the need to acquire the right “qualifications”. They do not want to feel that they are being kept in a box.

If you are managing Americans, it will be useful to keep this in mind when learning about their career goals and expectations. As the title of a hit Broadway song goes, “Don’t fence me in.”

GETTING AHEAD – BLOWING YOUR OWN HORN

Lenore may have no problem seeing herself as “qualified” for the type of position she seeks, but she is also presenting herself, marketing herself, as such. Americans, as we saw in Chapter 3, learn to do this early in life. It is true that competition for employment is a fact of business life everywhere, not just in the USA. But if you come from a culture in which modesty is preferred, or talking about your accomplishments leaves a bad impression on others, be prepared for a different attitude among Americans.

We do not believe that our accomplishments will “speak for themselves”. We have to speak for them, to “blow our own horn”. Your American colleagues at work will keep “blowing”, so to speak, throughout their time with the company. They want others to know what they are doing and have done, and want those achievements to be known to management. In her resume, Lenore makes no mention of others with whom she has worked, or the teams of which she was a member. This is not because she reached all those objectives by herself, or that she is ignoring the efforts of others. It is simply that she sees no need to mention them. She’s blowing her horn; they are fully capable of blowing theirs.

“Looking out for number 1”

Lenore also knows that in American business life it is important to know what you want or to appear to know what you want. Americans do not expect their employer, however large, to fully manage their career development. Large Japanese companies, on the other hand, have traditionally adopted a much less autonomous and individualistic approach. In those organizations, one’s career development is for the good of the company, not for the satisfaction of individual needs. It is the company that will largely determine the course of a person’s career. Some large American organisations, such as IBM or General Motors, have had traditions of long-term corporate career development for employees. These tendencies, in both Japan and the USA are (I suspect) less strong now, with “leaner” organizations and more mobile employees. But whatever the corporate culture, an American knows that he can never keep a low profile or rest on his laurels if he expects to get ahead. A person is responsibility for his own career, and has to “look out for number 1”.

Lenore may or may not be sure of what she wants, but she knows that it is important to give that impression. This is an essential factor to grasp when working with Americans. We will have more to say about this in Chapter 7. Between the lines, she is making very assertive statements in a very American style: I want to do this job; and I am able to do this job. You may find this to be egoistic, if not boastful. Perhaps she thinks too much of herself. To Americans, however, she is doing no more than what is necessary to get ahead.

Work hard, play hard

Perhaps you observed that Lenore has made no mention of any aspect of her life outside of work (with the exception of the Junior League, which we will come to shortly). There is no mention of hobbies or personal interests. Does this leave her picture incomplete for you? Would you learn more about her as a complete person if you had this information? If you come from Europe or South America for example, Lenore may appear to be a capable but one-dimensional individual.

Many Americans, however, view this from a different angle. Lenore would feel that her hobbies or other “pastimes” are irrelevant to her abilities to do the job. By not mentioning them, she is implying that she would let nothing interfere with her commitment to the organization and to her work. At the office she will show that drive, commitment, and motivation through her activity level, and the hours she puts in from the start of her workday until she leaves. She will often have lunch at her desk, with little if any pause in her work.

Paradoxically, despite this work ethic of activity and performance, Americans are constantly reminded that work should be fun. Chief executives tell them that they should “have fun”, while management gurus write books telling them how. Nobody is quite sure what “fun” means; perhaps it simply means avoiding depression or sadness. If you have fun while you work, in America you must also work hard to have fun. After work and on weekends, Americans will strive to be faithful to Benjamin Franklin’s creed by filling the time with activities, trying to be “efficient” and productive while supposedly enjoying “free time”.

Lenore Madison is not likely to be an exception. If she has a family (also not mentioned on the resume), then non-work hours will be “quality time” with them. Perhaps her duties in the Junior League (an American volunteer service organization for women, not baseball for children!) occupy her. It is the one non-professional activity that she has mentioned on her resume. This is for two reasons. First, her responsibilities in the Junior League have called on skills relevant and similar to those required at work. Second, she wants to show that she has leadership capabilities within a group. Everything on her resume has one objective: to demonstrate her fitness for the job she seeks.

Are Americans “job-hoppers?”

What did you note about Lenore Madison’s career progress? She may work hard and show commitment, but she has moved fairly rapidly from company to company, staying no more than two years at any one place. Does this seem to you to be evidence of instability? Disloyalty? Would you want to hire someone whose career history indicates that they will go somewhere else in a couple years?

Until quite recently, people from other countries looked upon Americans, comparatively, as “job-hoppers”. Now, in the increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving world of international business, increasingly frequent job changes are becoming more common (and necessary) for professionals in many countries.

We need not concern ourselves here with what might be a “normal” length of time Americans stay in a job. That will vary with the industry sector, the type of company, economic conditions, and personal needs and preferences. Lenore Madison’s movement from job to job is certainly not unusual, especially at the early stages of one’s career. If she had been in the “dot.com” sector a few years ago, more than six months in one post might have been considered too long! Later in a person’s career, the company retirement plan (pension) becomes a factor. It is natural for employees to want to remain longer with the company at that stage, the better to take advantage of it. Whatever the frequency, Americans expect this kind of self-initiated career mobility, as long as it results in a stronger track record, greater responsibilities, and the financial rewards that go with them.

During the time, however long, that Lenore is a member of an organization, she will work very hard for it, putting in long hours, supporting its objectives, believing in the value of its products and services. She will wear the company T-shirt or baseball cap. She will refer to the company CEO familiarly as “Charlie” (Yes, him again!). But when the opportunities for achievement and additional responsibility diminish, she will have no hesitation about looking elsewhere. Indeed, she may be continually looking for such opportunities both inside and outside the company while in her current post. What is more, her company knows and expects this.

“Goodbye” is not the hardest word. . .

In American business, the relationship between the employee and the organization is a calculative one, based on mutual self-interest. In exchange for her whole-hearted commitment, Lenore will expect, as we have seen, significant opportunities and a fair individual reward. The company, for its part, sees the relationship in a reciprocal way. It provides the opportunity in the form of a job function to be carried out and results to be attained. When the function or the results no longer fit the objectives of the organization, the job is eliminated, and with it the jobholder’s employment.

This employer’s prerogative, known in legal jargon as “employment at will”, has in recent years been weakened by judicial decisions supportive of the employee’s “property right” to the job. This has an important impact on the legality and appropriateness of certain management actions when it comes to “terminating” an employee, but does not change the underlying value shared by the two parties: when one no longer needs the other, there will be a parting of the ways.

This lack of long-term obligation also means that the parting can occur quickly, with little notice. This accounts for the view that American businesses operate with a “hire and fire” mentality. This view is oversimplified, as we shall see in Chapter 9. But both sides accept changes as necessary, desirable, and feasible. This is not to say that your American colleagues and business partners do not worry about job security, but they are accustomed to an economic climate of opportunity, in which the risk of losing one’s job at relatively short notice is partly balanced by the likelihood of finding a new job shortly thereafter. This transition is, of course, more easily talked about than made. Generally speaking, however, it is made easier by a lighter burden of costs and regulations on companies, when it comes to taking on additional staff, compared to some other countries.

How do Americans feel about working for a foreign or foreign-owned company?

In the majority of cases, they will feel no differently than if they were working for an American employer, provided that the opportunities for achievement and advancement are there. Some may not even be aware that their company, perhaps with a well recognized trademark or brand, is foreign-owned.

At more senior levels of management, however, they may have more apprehensions. They may be worried about being far from the centres of power, decision-making, and information. They may feel very uncomfortable as the “foreigners” in the group, something to which they are not at all accustomed, especially if they have spent most of their careers with American companies.

If you are recruiting Americans to key management positions, this question should be an important part of a selection interview. You can attract capable people by means of high pay, but you will have little chance of retaining them if their needs are not met.

“Lenore Madison” does not exist. Her profile, however, is neither caricature nor exaggeration. It is, in fact, a typical expression of the attitudes and expectations of job and career that your American colleagues, bosses, and partners carry throughout their working lives.

And she doesn’t work for free. . .

MOTIVATING AMERICANS – IS IT THE MONEY?

What sort of rewards or compensation does Lenore Madison expect for all her accomplishments and individual contribution. “Americans think only about money”, you may say, knowing that we probably think about other things too. Yet money is very important for some reasons common to many people around the world, and for other reasons particularly applicable to Americans.

Poverty is a bad idea

American attitudes towards money and wealth in general are based on four assumptions.

First, this large expansive country is regarded as a “land of opportunity”. This description is both mythical – for some have been excluded from this opportunity – and practical. Its positive tone implies that one’s goals are achievable, and that there is sufficient opportunity, in the form of freedom and resources, for all. This American world-view contrasts with that in many other parts of the world, which holds that the amount of “opportunity” is limited and needs to be distributed rather than created. Americans, on the other hand, believe that when a person enriches himself, that enrichment, in most cases, does not come at someone else’s expense. Put in simpler terms: “Just because I win, that does not mean that you or someone else loses.”

Entrepreneurialism has always been a good thing in America. Freed from Europe’s strict monopolistic guild systems and its class-based distribution of wealth, people in America have striven to enrich themselves, and by doing do, enrich others. Entrepreneurs have never been viewed as “cowboys” (an expression common to our British friends), as threats to the established order.

Second, wealth is still regarded as a reward for hard work, good ideas, and risk-taking – for entrepreneurialism if you like. Americans accept wide differences in salary level between junior clerk and vice president, provided those differences fairly reflect differences in contribution and responsibility. We also accept wide differences between people in their personal wealth, again provided that the difference is a function of the wealth they have created, responsibilities held, or value provided.

In the last couple of years, there has been concern expressed in America at levels of executive compensation, largely in response to financial accounting malpractices in several large companies. Yet Americans, compared to people in many other countries, do not complain constantly about “fat cats”. They neither admire nor resent the rich, nor do they assume that wealth means greed. An opinion poll in 1998 found that 50 percent of Americans believed that there was the “right amount” of rich people in the country. Twenty percent even felt that there were too few! Perhaps this attitude toward the rich reflects the average American’s optimism about the chances of joining them. When asked, in a different poll, “Do you think it is still possible to start out poor in this country, work hard, and become rich?” 84 percent said yes.(1)

Third, enriching oneself in America is to some extent a “social” responsibility, however paradoxical that may appear. At a basic level, Americans need money to pay for things that in other countries are provided by the state and funded through taxation, such as university education and medical insurance. To not look after yourself and your immediate family in this way is to make yourself a burden to the state, or to other members of your family. We should not exaggerate the vulnerability of Americans.

The government, at the federal and state levels, provides considerable social welfare and medical benefits to certain segments of the population, such as the poor or the elderly. More affluent Americans are able to take advantage of tax relief or other specific benefits as much as they can. If they are employees, they will certainly want to enjoy the benefits of their company’s medical insurance and retirement plan (if it is large enough to have one). The state pension (known as Social Security) is not likely to be sufficient for the lifestyle to which they look forward.

While Americans need to provide for themselves in this way, their wealth, or what remains after taxation, is normally reinvested in the economy, through home ownership and investments in stocks and shares.

Yet to an American money means far more than this basic foundation of sufficiency and protection. It means independence and greater control over one’s life, without which, individualism would, to an American, be meaningless. This leads us to the fourth factor in Americans’ views of wealth and enrichment: money brings with it the means to exercise choice.

A common situation of daily management may help to illustrate this.

If you answered (a), then be prepared for very different expectations in America.

Perhaps you answered (b) or (c), as indicative of the values of people in your part of the business world.

If the employee were American, he might do the same. This would depend of course on the individual’s needs. But while an American may talk a great deal about “work-life balance” (a) or “professional growth” (b) as important factors in job satisfaction, they would be more likely to choose the money. Why? Primarily because the money means that the person can then choose the end reward, the benefit that the money will bring. In America, there is abundant choice, and to many people, freedom means the freedom to choose. With the money, one can exercise that freedom. Neither the range nor the quality of the available alternatives is relevant. What is important is the feeling of control and independence that comes with having the choice.

The ‘bottom line’

So what does it take to motivate Americans? The first element is an opportunity to achieve, to build a track record, through the accomplishment of clear short-term objectives. The second is individual reward linked to performance. Lenore Madison will indeed be motivated by money, provided it is a fair individual reward for specific achievement. Current management jargon refers to this as “pay for performance”. It is not the whole answer to the question of compensation: fair basic salary policies, generous benefits, and group incentives are also important. But the “bottom line” is, “Pay me for what I achieve, not for who I am.”

At this stage, you may be asking yourself, “But how can such an individual ever work as part of a team, or fit into an organization?”

The short answer is: very willingly. Let us look more closely at the American way of teamwork, participation and management.