# American business culture 美國商業文化 Profiles of American culture have emphasized characteristics such as goal and achievement orientation, desire and passion for freedom, self-reliance, work orientation and competitiveness (see Table 3.1). 美國文化概況強調了目標和成就導向、對自由的渴望和熱情、自力更生、工作導向和競爭力等特徵（見表 3.1）。 A profile of American culture developed by Linowes was built around three fundamental characteristics: action, freedom and equality.176 Specific attitudes and behaviors associated with each of these characteristics included the following: 利諾維斯開發的美國文化概況是圍繞三個基本特徵建立的：行動、自由和平等。176 與這些特徵中的每一個相關的具體態度和行為包括以下內容： * Action: Man controlling nature, risk-taking, bold initiative, spontaneity, improvisation, outspokenness, critical thinking, logical reasoning, clarity and frankness, decisiveness * Freedom: Individuality, individual independence, legal safeguards, righteous indignation, being heard, chaotic anarchy, proving oneself * Equality: Level playing field, industrial competition, track record, rewarding performance, * 行動：人控制自然、敢於冒險、大膽主動、自發性、即興發揮、直言不諱、批判性思維、邏輯推理、清晰坦率、果斷 * 自由：個性、個人獨立、法律保障、義憤填膺、被傾聽、混亂無政府狀態、證明自己 * 平等：公平競爭環境、行業競爭、業績記錄、獎勵績效、 specialists, opportunities, autonomy, ambiguous/informal ranking, racial and gender equality As such, it is not surprising that American business culture has long exemplified, and glorified, a sort of “rugged individualism” that has evidenced itself in what are perceived as relatively high levels of tension and confrontation within and between companies and between the business community on the one hand and legislative and regulatory bodies on the other hand. 專家、機會、自主權、模棱兩可/非正式排名、種族和性別平等因此，美國商業文化長期以來一直體現並美化一種“粗獷的個人主義”也就不足為奇了，這種被感覺到相當高度的緊張和對抗的氛圍證實存在於公司內部和公司之間，以及一端是商界與他另一端是立法和監管機構之間。 There has been, in general, a marked level of distrust between business and government in the United States and this has often led to extensive attempts to regulate the activities of corporations in a number of areas including antitrust, consumer protection, securities regulation and, most recently, corporate governance. All this contrasts markedly with the close business-government relations in other parts of the world such as Europe and Asia that have often been criticized by US policymakers and endlessly debated in countless international forums on global trading matters.(177) 總的來說，美國企業和政府之間存在著明顯的不信任程度，這往往導致人們廣泛嘗試在多個領域監管企業的活動，包括反壟斷、消費者保護、證券監管以及最近的公司治理。 所有這些都與歐洲和亞洲等世界其他地區密切的工商政府關係形成鮮明對比，這些關係經常受到美國政策制定者的批評，並在無數關於全球貿易問題的國際論壇上進行無休止的辯論(177)。 175 Glunk et al. noted that “[[i]n order to provide a realistic picture of a national management style, one has to consider behavioral as well as institutional aspects of the business system”. V. Glunk, C. Wilderom and R. Ogilvie, “Finding the Key to German-Style Management”, International Studies of Management and Organization, 26(3) (1997), 93-108, 93 (citing R. Whitley, European Business Systems (London: Sage Publications, 1992); and R. Whitley, “Dominant Forms of Economic Organization in Market Economies”, Organization Studies, 15 (1994), 153-182). 176 R.G. Linowes, “The Japanese Manager’s Traumatic Entry into the United States: Understanding the American–Japanese Cultural Divide” The Academy of Management Executive, VII (4) (November 1993), 24. 177 The discussion of American business culture in this section is adapted from Humes, Managing the Multinational: Confronting the Global-Local Dilemma (Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd., Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire UK, 1993), 113-116. * 175 Glunk 等人指出，“為了提供國家管理風格的現實圖景，必須考慮商業系統的行為和制度方面”。V. Glunk、C. Wilderom 和 R. Ogilvie，“尋找德國式管理的關鍵”，國際管理與組織研究，26（3） （1997），93-108,93（引用 R. Whitley，歐洲商業系統（倫敦：Sage Publications，1992 年）;和 R. Whitley，“市場經濟中經濟組織的主導形式”，組織研究，15 （1994），153-182）。 * 176 R.G. Linowes，“日本經理人進入美國的創傷性入境：了解美日文化鴻溝”，管理高階主管學院，VII （4） （1993 年 11 月），24。177 本節對美國商業文化的討論改編自 Humes， Managing the Multinational： Confronting the Global-Local Dilemma （Prentice Hall International （UK） Ltd.， Hemel Hempstead， Hertfordshire UK， 1993）， 113-116。 For discussion of business-government relations in the US, see R. Porter, Government-Business Relations in the United States, Paper for Transatlantic Perspectives. Interestingly, while “rugged individualism” is definitely part of the overall business environment in the US, the traditional model for designing the organization structure of American businesses has been quite formalistic and relies heavily on hierarchical structure, standards and systems and focused specialization among workers. 有關美國工商關係的討論，請參見 R. Porter，美國的政府與企業關係，跨大西洋觀點論文。 有趣的是，雖然「粗獷的個人主義」絕對是美國整體商業環境的一部分，但設計美國企業組織結構的傳統模式卻相當形式化，嚴重依賴等級結構、標準和系統以及工人的專注專業化。 In what almost seems to be a concerted effort to regulate “individualism” in the workplace US companies have generally been more likely than their counterparts in foreign countries to create formal and defined organizational structures, prepare detailed written job descriptions, promulgate and monitor quantifiable performance standards and issue lengthy policies and manuals covering all aspects of operational activities carried out within the company. 在幾乎是協調一致的努力中，規範工作場所的“個人主義”，美國公司通常比外國同行更有可能創建正式和明確的組織結構，準備詳細的書面職位描述，頒布和監控可量化的績效標準，並發布涵蓋公司內部運營活動各個方面的冗長政策和手冊。 American public companies, as well as privately-held emerging companies with professional investors such as venture capitalists, have also emphasized short-term financial performance as the key measure of how their strategies and structures are working. This pre-occupation with “making the numbers” on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis, and demonstrating continuous improvements in growth and profitability, has been fostered by several other American institutional factors—the demands of US financial markets and investors for quick returns and impatience with investment projects that have long “payout” periods and the greater emphasis that has traditionally been placed on quantitative analysis in US business schools as they train the future managers of US companies. 美國上市公司以及擁有風險投資家等專業投資者的私營新興公司也強調短期財務業績是衡量其戰略和結構如何運作的關鍵指標。這種對每月、每季度和每年“做出數字”的關注，以及表現出增長和盈利能力的持續改善，是由其他幾個美國機構因素助長的——美國金融市場和投資者對快速回報的要求和對“支付”期較長的投資項目的不耐煩，以及美國商學院在培訓美國公司未來管理者時傳統上更加重視定量分析。 One specific characteristic of American business that has an important impact on organizational structure is the historical emphasis on specialization. As noted above, US companies have typically relied heavily on specific job descriptions and settling welldefined responsibilities for managers and employees at all levels within the company. This approach parallels the development of education, training and certification in the US and one can easily recognize the importance and prevalence of professional and technical specialties and specialized educational programs in accounting, finance, law, engineering and the sciences that are accompanied by extensive post-graduate networking that reinforce the specialty connections. Many American managers began their careers as specialists, as opposed to “general management,” and usually spend their formative years in the corporate world working in fairly narrow functional areas and responsibilities. In general, American companies looking to bring on new recruits will populate their offices by reference to specialist needs as opposed to selecting persons who may not have the currently required background yet is more likely to emerge as a leader in the future. The focus on specialization also means that US companies are usually comfortable with recruiting and hiring from outside the current worker population if necessary to access particular specialist skills. 美國企業對組織結構有重要影響的一個具體特徵是歷史上對專業化的重視。如上所述，美國公司通常嚴重依賴特定的職位描述，並為公司內各級經理和員工確定明確的職責。 這種方法與美國教育、培訓和認證的發展並行，人們很容易認識到會計、金融、法律、工程和科學領域的專業和技術專業以及專業教育計劃的重要性和普遍性，並伴隨著廣泛的研究生網絡，加強了專業聯繫。許多美國經理人的職業生涯始於專家，而不是“一般管理”，並且通常在企業界度過他們的成長歲月，從事相當狹窄的職能領域和職責。 一般來說，希望招聘新員工的美國公司會參考專業需求來填充其辦公室，而不是選擇可能不具備當前所需背景但更有可能在未來成為領導者的人員。對專業化的關注也意味著美國公司通常願意在必要時從現有工人群體之外招聘和僱用以獲得特定的專業技能。 American business is also well-known for its emphasis and fascination with the concept of “professional management”. As evidenced by the respect afforded graduate management training, the “MBA” in particular, US companies have generally accepted the idea that corporations and other for-profit and not-for-profit organizations can be effectively managed through the application of generic concepts and techniques. 美國商業也以其對「專業管理」概念的重視和迷戀而聞名。 正如對研究生管理培訓（尤其是“MBA”）的尊重所證明的那樣，美國公司普遍接受了這樣一種觀點，即公司和其他營利性和非營利組織可以通過對通用概念和技術的應用進行有效管理。 US-EU Economic Relations: Convergence, Conflict and Cooperation at Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government (April 8, 2002). This belief has fostered the development of a whole cottage industry of constantly changing management techniques that are delivered and disseminated by countless management consultants and “gurus”. Through the magical use of mass-marketing techniques American managers have been bombarded with a continuous stream of new tools and ideas to fulfill their responsibilities including calls for commitment to vague and general concepts such as “excellence,” “quality,” “innovation,” “customer satisfaction,” and “culture.” In fact, much of the discussion regarding organizational structure and design has been updated to incorporate buzzwords such as “value chains,” “strategic business units,” “diversification,” and “portfolio management”. While some of this information has been interesting, topical and innovative, there are numerous examples of “new theories” that are simply recycled versions of earlier ideas. Moreover, the American bias toward short-term results often leads to poorly thought out decisions to quickly embrace a new “fad” without carefully analyzing the underlying foundations and determining whether it is best suited to the activities and culture of the specific organization. It is not surprising that “one-minute managing” found a welcome audience among managers of US companies. It should be noted that, in general, managers outside the US view these new management theories and ideas as interesting background reading and something to ponder as opposed to a specific blueprint that needs to be implemented immediately. 這種信念促進了整個家庭手工業的發展，這些管理技術不斷變化，由無數管理顧問和“大師”提供和傳播。透過神奇地使用大眾行銷技術，美國經理人受到源源不斷的新工具和想法的轟炸，以履行他們的職責，包括呼籲致力於模糊和籠統的概念，例如「卓越」、「品質」、「創新」、「客戶滿意度」和「文化」。事實上，許多關於組織結構和設計的討論已經更新，納入了諸如“價值鏈”、“戰略業務部門”、“多元化”和“投資組合管理”等流行詞。雖然其中一些信息很有趣、具有時事性和創新性，但有許多“新理論”的例子只是早期想法的回收版本。此外，美國人對短期結果的偏見往往導致考慮不周的決定，迅速擁抱一種新的“時尚”，而沒有仔細分析潛在的基礎並確定它是否最適合特定組織的活動和文化。「一分鐘管理」在美國公司的經理中受到歡迎也就不足為奇了。應該指出的是，一般來說，美國以外的經理人將這些新的管理理論和想法視為有趣的背景讀物和值得思考的東西，而不是需要立即實施的特定藍圖。 For all of the generalizations made above about American businesses, it is only fair to note that one can still find tremendous diversity with respect to the cultures that have been adopted in successful US corporations. Certainly there are numerous examples of corporations that have interpreted “rugged individualism” to mean that managers and other employees must continuously compete internally for resources and assignments and that the spoils will go only to those that prove to be the “fittest.” On the other hand, confrontation and internal competition is tempered in many companies by attempts to cultivate a sense of “family” and belonging through training and other human resources programs designed to assist and support managers and employees in their efforts to improve and contribute to the company on a long-term basis. Some companies measure performance, and distribute rewards, strictly “by the numbers,” while other make a great effort to identify and reward more intangible contributions such as “creativity” and “innovation.” Dominant management styles also vary—“hierarchical” at one end to “participative” at the other end—and studies of organizational culture within emerging companies have noted the significant role that founders play in defining and establishing a management culture for their firms that remains in place long after the founders have been replaced by professional managers who were not involved in the initial launch of the company. Even more challenging is the attempt by many larger organizations with diverse business lines to allow for cultures and management approaches to vary from division to division as necessary to achieve strategic objectives (i.e., “intrapreneuring”). Table 3.1 Harris and Moran’s Profile of American Culture Harris and Moran provided a profile of the societal context for US business culture which included the following elements or characteristics: * Goal and achievement oriented: Americans think they can accomplish just about anything, given enough time, money, and technology. * Highly organized and institutionally minded: Americans prefer a society that is institutionally strong, secure, and tidy or well kept. * Freedom-loving and self-reliant: Americans fought a revolution and subsequent wars to preserve their concept of democracy, so they resent too much control or interference, especially by government or external forces. They also idealize the self-made person who rises from poverty and adversity, and think they can influence and create their own futures. Americans think, for the most part, that with determination and initiative, one can achieve whatever one sets out to do and thus, fulfill one’s individual human potential. * Work oriented and efficient: Americans possess a strong work ethic, though they are learning in the present generation to constructively enjoy leisure time. They are conscious of time and efficient in doing things. They tinker with gadgets and technological systems, always searching for easier, better, more efficient ways to accomplish tasks. * Friendly and informal: Americans reject the traditional privileges of royalty and class but defer to those with affluence and power. Although informal in greeting and dress, they are a noncontact culture (e.g., usually avoid embracing in public) and maintain a certain physical/psychological distance with others (e.g., about 2 feet). * Competitive and aggressive: Americans in play or business generally are so oriented because of their drives to achieve and succeed. This is partially traced to their heritage of having to overcome a wilderness and hostile elements in their environment. * Values in transition: Traditional American values of family loyalty, respect and care of the aged, marriage and the nuclear family, patriotism, material acquisition, forthrightness, and the like are undergoing profound reevaluation as people search for new meanings. * Generosity: Although Americans seemingly emphasize material values, they are a sharing people. They tend to be altruistic and some would say naive as a people. Source: Adapted from P. Harris and R. Moran, Managing Cultural Differences (5th Ed) (Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Company, 2000). 對於上述對美國企業所做的所有概括，公平地指出，人們仍然可以發現成功的美國公司所採用的文化存在巨大的多樣性。 當然，有許多公司的例子將“粗獷的個人主義”解釋為經理和其他員工必須不斷地在內部競爭資源和任務，而戰利品只會流向那些被證明是“適者”的人。 另一方面，許多公司試圖通過培訓和其他人力資源計劃來培養“家庭”和歸屬感，從而緩和對抗和內部競爭，這些計劃旨在協助和支持經理和員工努力改善公司並為公司做出長期貢獻。 一些公司嚴格“按數字”衡量績效並分配獎勵，而另一些公司則努力識別和獎勵更多無形的貢獻，例如“創造力”和“創新”。 主導的管理風格也各不相同——一端是“等級”，另一端是“參與式”——對新興公司內部組織文化的研究指出，創始人在定義和建立公司管理文化方面發揮著重要作用，這種文化在創始人被未參與公司最初成立的職業經理人取代後很長一段時間內仍然存在。 更具挑戰性的是，許多擁有不同業務線的大型組織試圖允許文化和管理方法根據需要因部門而異，以實現戰略目標（即“內部創業”）。 表 3.1 哈里斯和莫蘭的美國文化概況哈里斯和莫蘭提供了美國商業文化的社會背景概況，其中包括以下要素或特徵： * 以目標和成就為導向：美國人認為，只要有足夠的時間、金錢和技術，他們幾乎可以完成任何事情。 * 高度組織化和制度意識：美國人更喜歡一個制度強大、安全、整潔或維護良好的社會。 * 熱愛自由和自力更生：美國人為了維護他們的民主觀念而進行了革命和隨後的戰爭，因此他們厭惡過多的控制或乾擾，尤其是來自政府或外部勢力的干預。 他們也理想化了從貧困和逆境中崛起的白手起家的人，並認為自己可以影響和創造自己的未來。 美國人大多認為，只要有決心和主動性，一個人就可以實現自己打算做的任何事情，從而發揮個人的人類潛力。 * 以工作為導向且高效：美國人擁有強烈的職業道德，儘管他們正在學習在當代人中建設性地享受休閒時間。他們注重時間，做事效率高。他們修補小工具和技術系統，總是尋找更簡單、更好、更有效率的方法來完成任務。 * 友好和非正式：美國人拒絕皇室和階級的傳統特權，但服從那些擁有富裕和權力的人。雖然在問候和著裝上是非正式的，但他們是一種非接觸文化（例如，通常避免在公共場合擁抱），並與他人保持一定的身體/心理距離（例如，大約 2 英尺）。 * 競爭性和侵略性：美國人在遊戲或商業中通常如此導向，因為他們渴望實現和成功。這部分可以追溯到他們必須克服荒野和環境中敵對因素的傳統。 * 轉型中的價值觀：隨著人們尋找新的意義，家庭忠誠、尊重和照顧老年人、婚姻和核心家庭、愛國主義、物質獲取、直率等美國傳統價值觀正在經歷深刻的重新評估。 * 慷慨：儘管美國人看似強調物質價值，但他們是一個分享的民族。他們往往是無私的，有些人會說作為一個民族很天真。 資料來源：改編自 P. Harris 和 R. Moran，《管理文化差異（第 5 版）（德克薩斯州休斯頓：海灣出版公司，2000 年）。 The dramatic and well-publicized successes and failures among companies in Silicon Valley have captured the interest of legions of researchers and consultants interested in defining and understanding the management styles deployed in those companies. In the 1980s, Rogers and Larsen found that the primary reason for the failure of high technology companies in Silicon Valley was poor management, as opposed to lack of capital, technical difficulties with products or poor human resources. In turn, the successful firms were those in which senior management delegated authority and closely monitored all products and systems.178 矽谷公司戲劇性且廣為人知的成功和失敗引起了大量研究人員和顧問的興趣，他們有興趣定義和理解這些公司部署的管理風格。 在1980年代，羅傑斯和拉森發現，矽谷高科技公司失敗的主要原因是管理不善，而不是缺乏資本、產品技術困難或人力資源不足。 反過來，成功的公司是那些高級管理層下放權力並密切監控所有產品和系統的公司。 Many books and articles have traced the development of the “Silicon Valley approach” to management and the stories generally begin back in the 1940s and 1950s with iconic firms such as Varian Associates and Hewlett Packard (“HP”). Important managerial characteristics of these companies included the removal of restrictions on pursuit of new ideas and innovations; employee participation in the company’s successes through the use of stock options, a strategy intended to foster cooperation and enthusiasm throughout the workforce; emphasis on teamwork; and the ability to manage rapid change. A famous story, often retold, about the beginnings of Silicon Valley focuses on the decision in 1957 of eight employees of Shockley Labs to abandon the firm led by William Shockley, a Nobel Prize-winning co-inventor of the transistor, to form Fairchild Semiconductor to escape Shockley’s intense micromanagement and forge their own company based on “open communications, laissez-faire management styles, flat organizational structures, and generous distributions of stock options”.179 Bernshteyn argued for the proposition that successful Silicon Valley firms operated under a nontraditional management style that fostered growth, creativity, innovation and employee retention and relied on a “bottom-up” approach that began with finding and hiring the brightest and most nimble managers and employees, finding the right place in the organizational structure to maximize their strengths and empowering those employees by avoiding excessive direction and rulemaking from the top.180 E. Rogers and J. Larsen, Silicon Valley: Fever-Growth of High Technology Culture (1984). 許多書籍和文章都追溯了「矽谷方法」在管理方面的發展，這些故事通常可以追溯到 1940 年代和 1950 年代，瓦里安和惠普 （“HP”） 等標誌性公司。這些公司的重要管理特徵包括取消對追求新想法和創新的限制; 員工通過使用股票期權參與公司的成功，這一戰略旨在促進整個員工的合作和熱情; 強調團隊合作; 以及管理快速變化的能力。關於矽谷起源的一個著名故事，經常被重述，重點關注 1957 年肖克利實驗室的八名員工決定放棄由諾貝爾獎獲得者威廉·肖克利（William Shockley）領導的公司，他是晶體管的共同發明者，成立了仙童半導體公司，以逃避肖克利嚴格的微觀管理，並基於“開放的溝通、自由放任的管理風格、扁平化的組織結構和慷慨的股票期權分配”打造自己的公司。179 伯恩斯hteyn主張這樣的主張：成功的矽谷公司採用非傳統管理風格，促進成長、創造力、創新和員工保留，並依賴於「自下而上」的方法，首先是尋找和僱用最聰明、最靈活的經理和員工，在組織結構中找到合適的位置，以最大限度地發揮他們的優勢，並透過避免高層的過度指導和規則制定來賦予這些員工權力180。 E. Rogers 和 J. Larsen，矽谷：高科技文化的狂熱增長 （1984）。 HP is often held out as the premier example of the original Silicon Valley management style and the management philosophy articulated by the founders of HP, Bill Hewlett and David Packard, became known as the “HP Way” and included respect and trust for the individual, hiring the best people and matching them to the right job; contribution to the customer and the community, integrity, teamwork, innovation and continuous learning with the help of customer feedback.181 Carly Fiorina revised and updated the HP Way as the “Rules of the Garage” in 1999 and admonished HP employees to believe they could change the world; work quickly, keep their tools unlocked and work whenever; know when to work alone and when to work together; share tools and ideas and trust their colleagues; set aside politics and bureaucracy; accept that it is the customer that defines a job well done; acknowledge that radical ideas are not bad ideas; invent different ways of working; make a contribution every day; and believe that together HP employees could do anything. 惠普經常被認為是最初矽谷管理風格的典範，惠普創始人比爾·休利特和大衛·帕卡德闡述的管理理念被稱為“惠普之道”，包括對個人的尊重和信任，僱用最優秀的人才並將他們與合適的工作相匹配;在客戶反饋的幫助下，對客戶和社區的貢獻、誠信、團隊合作、創新和持續學習。181 Carly Fiorina 於 1999 年修訂並更新了 HP Way 作為“車庫規則”，並告誡惠普員工相信他們可以改變世界;快速工作，解鎖工具並隨時隨地工作;知道何時單獨工作，何時一起工作;分享工具和想法並信任同事;拋開政治和官僚主義;接受客戶定義了出色完成的工作;承認激進的想法不是壞主意;發明不同的工作方式;每天做出貢獻;並相信惠普員工可以一起做任何事情。 While the Silicon Valley management style has been widely praised, and attempts to emulate it have proliferated around the world, some have expressed concerns about some of the consequences of focusing too much on managing change through flexibility and embracing “lean and mean” resources management strategies. Pfeffer, for example, began with the premise that the model of Silicon Valley management that had emerged by the early 2000s was based on four basic ideas: a “free agent” model of employment that demanded that employees look out for themselves and be prepared and willing to move on—change jobs—at a moment’s notice; extensive reliance on teams of outside contractors that could be expanded or reduced quickly and efficiently; use of stock options as an important element of compensation; and the belief that value to the organization was measured by the number of hours worked (i.e., working long hours was the norm).182 He noted that companies built on these principles would presumably be well positioned to pivot quickly as their environments shifted; however, he suggested that the free agent mentality created excessively high turnover that was actually quite costly to companies in terms of having to recruit and train new staff, manage and minimize disruption to relationships with customers and other strategic partners and worry about whether former employees were using their ideas in new jobs with competitors. Pfeffer also questioned whether outsourcing was conducive to building a sustained competitive advantage since a large portion of the knowledge generated during outsourcing arrangements resided outside of the company. 雖然矽谷的管理風格受到廣泛讚揚，效仿它的嘗試在世界各地激增，但一些人對過度關注通過靈活性和管理變革和採用“精益和平均”資源管理策略的一些後果表示擔憂。例如，Pfeffer 的前提是，到 2000 年代初期出現的矽谷管理模式基於四個基本思想：“自由代理人”就業模式，要求員工照顧自己，做好準備並願意立即繼續前進 -- 換工作; 廣泛依賴可以快速有效地擴大或減少的外部承包商團隊; 使用股票期權作為薪酬的重要要素; 並相信對組織的價值是通過工作時間來衡量的（即長時間工作是常態）。182 他指出，建立在這些原則之上的公司可能會處於有利地位，隨著環境的變化而快速轉型; 然而，他認為自由球員心態造成了過高的流動率，這實際上對公司來說成本相當高，因為必須招聘和培訓新員工，管理和盡量減少對與客戶和其他戰略合作夥伴的關係的干擾，並擔心前員工是否在與競爭對手的新工作中使用他們的想法。Pfeffer 還質疑外包是否有利於建立持續的競爭優勢，因為外包安排期間產生的大部分知識都位於公司外部。 179 L. Berlin, “How the Valley Start-Up was Invented: William Shockley Drove His Team Nuts”, San Jose Mercury News (September 2, 2005), http://leslieberlinauthor.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/HowtheValleyStart-UpwasInvented.pdf 180 D. Travios, “The Secret Sauce of Silicon Valley”, Forbes (June 15, 2012). 181 S. Towers, The Silicon Valley Management Style (2002), http://www.itstime.com/apr2002.htm 182 J. Pfeffer, “What's Wrong With Management Practices in Silicon Valley? A Lot”, Sloan Management Review (Spring 2001), http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/whats-wrong-with-management-practices-insilicon-valley-a-lot/ 59 Comparative Management Studies -------------------------------------------- 美國文化概況強調了目標和成就導向、對自由的渴望和熱情、自力更生、工作導向和競爭力等特徵（見表 3.1）。 利諾維斯開發的美國文化概況圍繞著三個基本特徵建立：行動、自由和平等。176 與這些特徵中的每一個相關的具體態度和行為包括以下內容： * 行動：人控制自然、冒險、大膽主動、自發性、即興創作、直言不諱、批判性思維、邏輯推理、清晰和坦率、果斷 * 自由：個性、個人獨立、法律保障、正義憤慨、被傾聽、混亂的無政府狀態、證明自己 * 平等：公平的競爭環境、行業競爭、業績記錄、獎勵績效、專家、機會、自主權、模棱兩可/非正式排名、種族和性別平等 因此，美國商業文化長期以來一直體現並美化一種“粗獷的個人主義”也就不足為奇了，這種個人主義在公司內部和公司之間，公司群組織間被認為是相對高度的緊張和對抗，另一方面也體現在商界與立法和監管機構之間。 總體而言，美國企業和政府之間存在明顯的不信任程度，這往往導致人們廣泛嘗試在多個領域監管企業的活動，包括反壟斷、消費者保護、證券監管以及最近的公司治理。 所有這些都與歐洲和亞洲等世界其他地區密切的工商政府關係形成鮮明對比，這些關係經常受到美國政策制定者的批評，並在無數關於全球貿易問題的國際論壇上進行無休止的辯論。177 175 Glunk 等人指出，“為了提供國家管理風格的現實圖景，人們必須考慮商業系統的行為和制度方面“。 V. Glunk， C. Wilderom and R. Ogilvie， “Finding the Key to German-Style Management”， International Studies of Management and Organization， 26（3） （1997）， 93-108， 93 （引用 R. Whitley， European Business Systems （London： Sage Publications， 1992）;和 R. Whitley， “Maminant Forms of Economic Organization in Market Economies”， Organization Studies， 15 （1994）， 153-182）。 176 R.G. Linowes，“日本經理人進入美國的創傷：了解美國-日本文化鴻溝”，管理行政學院，VII （4）（1993 年 11 月），24。 177 本節對美國商業文化的討論改編自 Humes， Managing the Multinational： Confronting the Global-Local Dilemma （Prentice Hall International （UK） Ltd.， Hemel Hempstead， Hertfordshire UK， 1993）， 113-116。 有關美國工商關係的討論，請參見 R. Porter， Government-Business Relations in the United States， Paper for Transatlantic Perspectives 有趣地，雖然「粗獷的個人主義」絕對是美國整體商業環境的一部分，但設計美國企業組織結構的傳統模式卻相當形式主義，嚴重依賴等級結構， 標準和系統以及工人的重點專業化。 在幾乎是協調一致的努力中，規範工作場所的“個人主義”，美國公司通常比外國同行更有可能創建正式和明確的組織結構，準備詳細的書面職位描述，頒布和監控可量化的績效標準，並發布涵蓋公司內部運營活動各個方面的冗長政策和手冊。 美國上市公司，以及擁有風險投資家等專業投資者的私營新興公司，也強調短期財務表現是衡量其戰略和結構如何運作的關鍵指標。 這種對每月、每季度和每年“製造數字”的關注，以及表現出增長和盈利能力的持續改善，是由其他幾個美國機構因素助長的——美國金融市場和投資者對快速回報的要求和對具有較長“支付”期的投資項目的不耐煩，以及美國商學院在培訓未來時傳統上更加重視定量分析美國公司的經理。美國企業對組織結構有重要影響的一個具體特徵是歷史上對專業化的重視。 如上所述，美國公司通常嚴重依賴特定的職位描述，並為公司內各級經理和員工確定明確的職責。這種方法與美國教育、培訓和認證的發展並行，人們很容易認識到會計、金融、法律、工程和科學領域的專業和技術專業以及專業教育計劃的重要性和普遍性，並伴隨著廣泛的研究生網絡，加強了專業聯繫。許多美國經理人的職業生涯始於專家，而不是“一般管理”，並且通常在企業界度過他們的成長歲月，從事相當狹窄的職能領域和職責。一般來說，希望招聘新員工的美國公司會參考專業需求來填充其辦公室，而不是選擇可能不具備當前所需背景但更有可能在未來成為領導者的人員。對專業化的關注也意味著美國公司通常願意在必要時從現有員工群體之外招聘和僱用以獲得特定的專業技能。美國商業也以其對「專業管理」概念的重視和迷戀而聞名。正如對研究生管理培訓，特別是“MBA”的尊重所證明的那樣，美國公司普遍接受了公司和其他營利和非營利組織可以成為美歐經濟關係：融合、衝突與合作的想法，哈佛大學約翰·肯尼迪政府學院（2002 年 4 月 8 日）。