In the United States, approaches to planning, control, supervision, commitment, motivation, scheduling, and deadlines are all influenced by the concept that individuals control their futures. Recall from that the United States cored highest Hofstede’s individualism scale. In cultures with some more collectivistic and fatalistic beliefs, these good business practices may be followed but concern for the final outcome is different. After all if one believes the future is determined by an uncontrollable higher order then what difference does individual effort really make?
The acceptance of the idea that independence enterprise is an instrument for social action is the fundamental concept of US Corporation. A corporation is recognized as an entity that has rules and continuity of existence, and is separate and vital social institution. This recognition can result in strong feelings of obligation to serve the company. Indeed the company may take precedence over family friends or activities that might detract from what is best for the company. This is in sharp contrast to the attitudes held by Mexicans, who feels strongly that personal relationships are more important in daily life than work ad the company and Chinese who consider a broader set of stakeholders as crucial
Consistent with the view that individuals control their own destinies is the belief that personnel election and reward must be made on merit. The selection, promotion, motivation or dismissal of personnel by US managers emphasizes the need to select the best qualified persons for jobs, retaining them as long as their performance meets standards of expectations and continuing the opportunity for upward mobility as long as those standards are met. In other cultures here friendship or family ties may be more important than the vitality of the organization, the criteria for selection, organization, and motivation re substantially different from those in US companies In some cultures, organizations expand to accommodate the maximum number of friends and relatives. If one knows that promotions are made on the basis of personal ties and friendships rather than on merit, fundamental motivating lever is lost. On the other hand, in many other cultures social pressures from one’s group often motivates strongly.
The very strong belief in the United States that business decisions are based on objects analysis and that managers strive to be scientific has a profound effect on the US manager’s attitudes toward objectivity in decision making and accuracy of data. While judgment and intuition are important criteria form making decisions, most US managers believe decisions must be supported and based on accurate and relevant information. Thus, in US business, great emphasis is placed on the collection and free flow of information to all levels within the organization and on frankness of expression in the evaluation of business opinions or decisions. In other cultures, such factual and rational support for decisions is not as important; the accuracy of data and even the proper reporting of data are not prime prerequisites. Further existing data frequently are for the eyes of a select few. The frankness of expression and openness in dealing with data characteristics of US businesses do not fit easily into some cultures.
Compatible with the views that one controls one’s own destiny and that advancement is based on merit is the prevailing idea of wide sharing in decision making. Although decision making is not a democratic process in US businesses, there is a strong belief that individuals in an organization require and, indeed need the responsibility of making decisions for continued development. Thus decisions are frequently decentralized and the ability as well as the responsibility for making decisions is pushed down to lower ranks of management. In many cultures decisions are highly centralized, in part because of the belief that only a few in the company have the right o the ability to make decisions. In the Middle East, for example only top executive make decisions.