What is American Management?

AMERICAN MANAGEMENT

American management style can be described as individualistic in approach, in so far as managers are accountable for the decisions made within their areas of responsibility.

Although important decisions might be discussed in open forum, the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of the decision lies with the boss — support or seeming consensus will evaporate when things go wrong.

The up side of this accountability is, of course, the American dream that outstanding success will inevitably bring outstanding rewards.

Therefore, American managers are more likely to disregard the opinions of subordinates than managers in other, more consensus or compromise- oriented cultures. This can obviously lead to frustrations, which can sometimes seem to boil over in meeting situations.

Titles can be very confusing within American organizations with a bewildering array of enormously important-sounding job descriptors on offer (Second Vice-President etc.). Titles, in any case, tend to be a poor reflection of the relative importance of an individual within a company.

Importance is linked to power, which could be determined by a number of factors such as head-count responsibility, profitability of sector or strategic importance to the organization at that point in time.

It is widely recognized that Indian, Japanese and American styles of business management practice differ broadly across the range of supervisory style, decision-making, communications, management controls, and interdepartmental relations.

These specific distinctions are rooted in the contrast between Japanese paternalism, which has sometimes been characterized as giving rise to “industrial feudalism,” and American individualism, which might more accurately be characterized as personalism.

It is proposed that the underlying factor in all of these distinctions is the Japanese group orientation, in which an individual’s self-esteem is based upon group perceptions, or what has sometimes been called “saving face.” The Japanese manager sees himself as a samurai, having duties and loyalties running up and down.

In contrast, American managers’ self-perceptions are far more internalized, and less shaped by the reactions of colleagues. The lone cowboy, reliant only on himself, is the underlying American business ideal, and his obligations to others are ultimately secondary to his duty to himself.

Japanese managers tend to stay with one company for their entire work career. So when they are transferred overseas, they go to a company affiliate and continue working there until they are transferred to another affiliate or brought home.

Their experience are limited in that they only know how their firm works, but the managers also gain a solid understanding of the inner workings of the firm’s international operations.

American managers, on the other hand, often use their overseas experience as basis for moving to another company that is looking to strengthen its international position.

Another interesting contrast is loyalty to the firm. Many Japanese managers stay with the firm because they believe it is wrong to accept a position with anyone else. They feel a strong bond of commitment to the company. American managers tend to have stronger loyalty to themselves than to the firm, and if a better job comes along they will take it.