In the Workplace

Bosses and Subordinates

In the workplace, the equality value is probably most evident in the way bosses and subordinates relate to each other, and especially in the expectations each has of how the other should behave. This topic is discussed in detail elsewhere (see chapter 9, Of Bosses and Subordinates); suffice it to say here that bosses generally try to err on the side of treating subordinates as equals, not because boss and subordinate have equal power, authority, or responsibility ” for they do not ” but in the sense that having more of all those things doesn t automatically make a boss better than or somehow superior to his or her subordinates.

While bosses are expected to be relatively casual and informal with their subordinates, wearing their authority lightly, for their part subordinates tend to be slightly less casual and more formal with their bosses. Everyone understands that bosses are not just another member of the team, in other words, even though they may act as if they are. There s not an entirely separate code of conduct for bosses and for peers ” subordinates tend to be casual and informal with both ” but there are differences in degree. Subordinates treat bosses with more respect, for example, and are more careful of what they say around them. At the same time, it s important not to overdo it with one s boss, treating him or her with elaborate courtesy or deference; likewise, it s very important for a boss not to expect that kind of subservience. It is true, incidentally, that in the presence of outsiders or visitors , Americans tend to treat their bosses more formally .

No one, especially bosses, should ever act as if he or she is above any particular task, that there are certain things a person in a high-level position simply never does. As a practical matter, the division chief probably never does clean up the copy room, and the CEO doesn t serve coffee or move furniture. But for these people to act as if they should never do these things, as if they are somehow too good to do these things (as Americans would put it), this would be very bad form. If everybody s equal, then no one is too good for anything.

Equality in Action

In a related matter, non-Americans should always be sure to thank people who render them any kind of service, no matter how small, even if rendering that service is that person s job. Thanking someone for doing what they re supposed to do, for what they re paid to do, is not condescending or patronizing to an American; it s merely a tacit acknowledgment that no one is automatically owed or inherently deserving of any particular treatment. If people treat you politely or with respect, in other words, it s not because they have to; it s because they freely choose to, and saying thank you merely acknowledges this fact.

Americans thank the person who bags their groceries, who brings them their entr e, who cuts their hair, opens the door, parks their car, shines their shoes, empties their waste basket , and delivers their mail. They may pay for many of these services, but that doesn t mean they shouldn t show their gratitude. This phenomenon explains one of the most common cultural observations people from other cultures make about Americans: that they re always saying Thank you, often for the most trivial of reasons.

The equality norm also explains, at least in part, the American attitude toward titles. Americans don t put much stock in titles or use them very much because titles identify distinctions, whether in level of education or level of power, and Americans are uncomfortable with distinctions. Americans may be as proud of their achievements, their distinctions, as people from other cultures, but they re careful not to act proud, and they are likewise extremely quick to pick up on any lapse from humility . People who insist on using their title ” especially those who insist on other people using their title ” are ridiculed. Using titles appears to demand respect, and respect cannot be demanded from Americans; it can only be earned.

Fairness and Favoritism

Fairness is another bedrock value in the American workplace, and favoritism, which violates that value, is therefore one of the worst transgressions. Bosses are very concerned about being fair, and their subordinates are, if anything, even more concerned . Fairness is a national pastime, Robert Rosen, Patricia Digh, Marshall Singer, and Carl Phillips have written, and whole industries are built around protecting the under- dog (2000, 319). Fairness American-style means to be completely impartial, treating all subordinates the same regardless of circumstances or their position, applying rules and regulations equally, and judging everyone by the same standards.

Almost nothing undermines office morale and performance more quickly than favoritism. Whether it comes in the form of making exceptions or allowances for certain people or giving certain people preferential treatment, favoritism inevitably suggests that some people are somehow more equal than others, and this is anathema to most Americans. Bosses have favorites, of course, like everyone else, but they know better than to let it show, to appear to be letting personal preferences influence how they treat those who work for them.

Avoiding even the appearance of favoritism is especially important in selecting someone for a job or in awarding a contract. While the individual doing the selecting may have a personal preference, he or she will be careful to base the selection as much as possible on such nominally objective criteria as experience, skills, and professional background, creating what is sometimes referred to as a level playing field. In some organizations, particularly in the government sector, the names of job applicants are even removed from the application during the initial evaluation stage to enable a so-called blind evaluation of each person s credentials.

The fairness ethic extends beyond employees to embrace how the public in general is to be treated, such as clients or customers, vendors , and contractors. The main principle here once again is that businesses or organizations should treat everyone they deal with in the same manner, applying rules and regulations impartially, regardless of a person s rank, social status, personal relationship to the provider, connections, or any other criteria that could be deemed subjective or discriminatory. People who try to pull rank, demanding special treatment because of who they are, are looked down upon, and employees who give in to such requests will generally not be rewarded. The story is told of a quick-thinking airline employee who was checking in a flight when a man, ignoring the long line, rushed up to her and demanded to be served . When she told the man he would have to get in line, he shouted, Do you have any idea who I am? Whereupon the woman got on the public address system and calmly announced to the entire concourse that there was a man at gate B26 who didn t know who he was and asked anyone who could help identify him to please come forward.

Evaluating Employees

Treating everyone the same explains in part why performance, and especially results, is practically the sole measure Americans use to evaluate an employee s worth and determine who gets retained and promoted and who does not (see chapter 5 for more on this topic). If everyone is equal, the fairest way to distinguish among equals is to use the most objective, quantifiable, and transparent criterion possible, and for most workplaces that s performance. So it is that Americans go to great, sometimes even comic lengths (at least outwardly) to avoid applying any other criteria, anything that could be perceived as subjective ” such as attitude, work habits, interpersonal skills ” in evaluating employees. In the process, of course, employees who have nothing but results to recom- mend them ” and any number of less encouraging, albeit intangible strikes against them ” often fare rather better than colleagues who have, in the vernacular, somewhat less to show for themselves .

Whether it s altogether fair or not, limiting the criteria for employee evaluation in this way is often the safest and most prudent course in what is, after all, the world s most litigious society. You can t argue with results, Americans like to say, and one can t help but wonder if the great emphasis and faith Americans place on results are not driven as much by a desire to avoid the argument as to reward the performance.

This same phenomenon, evaluating and rewarding employees primarily on the basis of objective, quantifiable criteria, may also explain why the people who move up and become managers in America so of ten lack the skills they need to be good leaders . Many of these leader- ship skills, after all ” vision, charisma, communication skills, people skills ” are just the kind of fuzzy, subjective indicators Americans try to stay away from.

These statements are something of an oversimplification, of course; it s not that Americans do not value the workplace intangibles, anything that can t be measured or quantified , or that they don t take into account or reward anything except results. Americans understand that an employee s worth and contribution to an organization comes in many forms, and they appreciate all of them. But it is true that they tend to err in favor of rewarding results more than people in many other cultures, and the reason, at least in part, is the fear of making what might appear to be arbitrary distinctions among people who are, after all, inherently equal.

For the record we should note that while Americans generally believe in and aspire to a fair, favoritism-free workplace, they don t always pull it off. Some people do get treated better than others in the United States; who you know is important and the playing field is not always perfectly level. The point is not so much that people in other countries play favorites and Americans do not, but rather that Americans know better than to play favorites and feel bad when they do. It s also a matter of degree; while there is certainly favoritism in the American workplace, there is probably less than in many other cultures (especially the so-called particularist cultures described in the following section).

How Americans See Others

As noted at the beginning of this section, Americans have a very good nose for people who act superior, who seem to violate in any way the notion that we re all equal. Managers and bosses have to be watched especially carefully in this regard, and non-American bosses who expect to be treated with elaborate courtesy or deference may come across as pompous or arrogant . Certainly anyone, boss or otherwise , who acts as if he or she is somehow too important or above doing certain office tasks , especially more menial jobs that a person might feel are below his or her station, will not be respected.

Americans do not respond well to being treated unfairly (according to their definition of fairness), and they will be especially upset if one person, one contractor, one vendor is given preferential treatment over another. They react quite unfavorably to what they call a double standard or situational ethics, by which they mean applying one set of standards in one situation (involving,say,a family member) and another set in another situation (involving someone they don t know or are not beholden to). Americans believe the same standards should be applied in all situations; that s why it s called a standard!

It is for this reason that Americans have a very hard time with socalled particularist cultures, where people distinguish clearly between and have entirely different standards for treating their ingroup (extended family and very close friends ) and their outgroup (everybody else), taking very good care of members of the former and having no obligations to or responsibilities for members of the latter (who have their own ingroup to look after them). In such societies , being objective and impartial have no place; everyone knows life isn t fair, and people don t expect to be treated equally. What they do expect is to be treated very well by everyone in their ingroup, to be given preferential treatment, to have exceptions made for them, and generally to be accorded every advantage possible over outgroup members.

In a study done in Ghana, civil servants were asked what they would do if they reported to work one morning and found a relative among the group of people waiting to be served. Eighty percent said they would feel obliged to serve their relative first, and 92.6 percent said that this is what the relative would expect. The study noted that the

civil servants who replied were inclined to feel that in such situations their relatives would not understand the formal requirements of their job and would be likely to see them as bad, hard-hearted, and generally selfish and uncaring if they did not help their family. (Hickson and Pugh 1995, 238)

For Americans this kind of behavior borders on nepotism, which is frowned upon in the workplace and even considered unethical by some. Right is right, Americans are fond of saying, whatever the circumstances (universalism). Needless to say, particularists find the American habit of not making exceptions or allowances for family members, of not looking after one s own, as callous and disloyal. Indeed, by particularist logic, it s the epitome of unfairness!

Finally, Americans used to being rewarded and promoted primarily for their performance may be surprised when people from other cultures apply a wider range of criteria in evaluating employees. They may wonder, for example, how someone who s not very efficient, not a high achiever, or simply too nice ever got into an authority position or why such a nonperformer, whether promoted or not, is retained in the organization or division. And Americans may likewise be surprised when their own results are not by themselves enough to enable them to advance. If they are judged by their attitude, for example, or by their work habits, or according to whether or not they get along well with their coworkers ” if they are judged by these intangibles and/or see others being judged in this way, they may not understand and, in their own case, they may even object.

Quick Tips: Advice for Working with Americans

• If you re a boss, don t play favorites, obviously treating some subordinates better than others.

• Don t expect people to use your title or insist that they do.

• Try to judge everyone by the same standards, which should be as objective and transparent as possible (such as results or performance).

• Always thank people when they render you a service, even if they re just doing their job.

• Never act superior, as if you are too important or above doing something.