Why understanding American employees isn't just cultural curiosity—it's strategic necessity. Here's what drives workplace behavior in your U.S. subsidiary.
Foreign executives leading U.S. operations often struggle to understand why management approaches that work effectively in their home countries fail to resonate with American employees. This disconnect stems not from competence gaps but from fundamental cultural differences that shape workplace expectations.
American employees operate from three distinct cultural foundations:
Understanding these cultural foundations is essential for foreign executives who wish to build high-performing U.S. teams. The most successful international leaders adapt their approach to align with these American expectations while preserving their organization's global strategic priorities.
IN MY WORK advising mid-market companies on international expansion, I've noticed a pattern among foreign CxOs entering the U.S. market. They meticulously prepare for financial complexity—tax structures, reporting requirements, legal frameworks—but are repeatedly blindsided by what happens next: unexpected friction with American employees.
This misalignment manifests in subtle ways at first: pushback during feedback sessions, quiet turnover despite competitive compensation, disengagement among otherwise talented teams. These aren't operational failures. They're leadership model mismatches that, left unaddressed, can quietly undermine your U.S. subsidiary's momentum.
American employees operate from a cultural foundation that differs fundamentally from what you may be accustomed to at home. Ignore these differences, and even well-funded subsidiaries can underperform—or quietly unravel. Understand and adapt to them, and you'll unlock a uniquely motivated, productive, and innovative workforce.
When working with mid-market companies entering the U.S., I've found three cultural frameworks consistently predict success or failure. Understanding these isn't academic—it's the difference between healthy growth and constant friction.
Power distance measures how employees relate to hierarchy and authority [1][2].
In the U.S. (low power distance):
In high power distance cultures (China, India, much of Latin America):
Leadership adjustment: Involve your American team in decision processes, not just outcomes. Create formal channels for feedback and explicitly invite constructive challenges to your thinking. Remember that American employees may disengage if they feel their input isn't valued—even when they respect your authority.
The most fundamental U.S. business cultural trait is explicit, low-context communication [3][4].
In the U.S. (lowest-context globally):
Leadership adjustment: Be more explicit and detailed in the U.S. than feels natural. What you consider clear direction may register to Americans as vague or incomplete. Follow up verbal communications with written summaries, and check for understanding with direct questions rather than assuming comprehension.
Americans follow an applications-first reasoning pattern that often frustrates leaders from principles-first cultures [4][5].
In the U.S. (applications-first):
In principles-first cultures (France, Germany, much of Latin America):
Leadership adjustment: When presenting to U.S. teams, lead with outcomes and examples, not conceptual frameworks. Start with "Here's what happened when we tried this approach," not "Here's our strategic thesis for the coming year."
These aren't just cultural curiosities—they're operational realities that determine whether your U.S. subsidiary thrives or struggles. When friction occurs, it's rarely about competence or commitment. It's about mismatched expectations for how work gets done, decisions get made, and leadership gets expressed.
Practical Application: Use this matrix as a leadership alignment tool with your international executive team. At your next cross-border planning session, walk through each row together, identifying where miscommunications typically occur. Have team members share examples from both sides of the matrix they've personally experienced. This exercise creates shared vocabulary for discussing cultural differences constructively rather than experiencing them as frustration.
To lead effectively in the U.S., you need to understand four deep-seated traits of the American work mindset—traits I've seen shape team dynamics repeatedly across industries:
Autonomy is expected. American employees believe they should influence how work is done—not just what's assigned.[6] This isn't entitlement; it's cultural conditioning. From elementary school onward, Americans are taught to question authority, express opinions, and take initiative. One German executive that I worked with was shocked when his entry-level American team members suggested process improvements during their first month. Where he expected deference, they expected participation. Large-scale research confirms this pattern: the GLOBE Study shows that the U.S. ranks low in power distance—employees expect to participate in decisions rather than simply follow orders.[1]
Clarity builds trust. In a low-context culture like the U.S., teams expect explicit direction, rationale, and structured feedback—not assumptions or ambiguity.[3] American employees are uncomfortable with implied messages. I once advised an executive in Argentina whose team was underperforming. His "subtle hints" about needed improvements (trying to be polite) were entirely missed by his American direct reports, who later expressed shock at their negative performance reviews.
Results matter. The GLOBE Study identifies the U.S. as high in performance orientation, meaning American employees expect recognition for achievements and measurable outcomes rather than effort or intention.[1] This creates a culture where individuals want to understand how their work contributes to larger objectives and how it will be evaluated.
This combination makes U.S. teams productive—but also quick to disengage when leadership feels opaque, overreaching, or irrelevant.
You're not just managing employees. You're stewarding a culture that believes in individuality, agency, and impact. Align with these principles, and you gain their trust. Misalign, and you lose traction fast.
I've seen this dynamic play out repeatedly during periods of change or growth. Unlike workforces in many other countries, American employees respond negatively to unexplained directives—even when delivered by senior leaders. They expect to understand not just what to do, but why it matters. This isn't defiance; it's how innovation-driven cultures operate.
A fundamental misalignment I've observed among foreign executives in the U.S. involves trust-building strategies. In many relationship-based cultures (such as China, Brazil, or Saudi Arabia), trust develops through personal connections and shared experiences outside the workplace. Meals, social gatherings, and getting to know colleagues' families often precede substantive business collaboration.
The American approach is markedly different. The U.S. sits firmly on the task-based end of the trust spectrum [11]. Americans generally build professional trust through demonstrated competence, reliability, and transparent communication. This doesn't mean personal relationships aren't valued—they are, but they typically develop alongside or after professional credibility is established, not before.
As one French executive I advised put it: "In Paris, I would never present a major proposal without first establishing rapport over several lunches. In New York, my American team seemed impatient with social preliminaries and wanted to evaluate my ideas based on their merits, regardless of our personal connection."
This task-based approach extends to American communication patterns, which often strike foreign executives as oddly contradictory. Americans tend to be simultaneously:
For foreign executives, this can create confusion. The warm welcome and first-name basis typical in American workplaces doesn't necessarily indicate the deep relationship-based trust you might expect in other cultures. Trust in the U.S. must be earned primarily through professional delivery and transparent communication.
American employees don't just perform jobs—they actively shape them. Research by Wrzesniewski and Dutton reveals that Americans are particularly inclined toward "job crafting"—consciously modifying their roles to align with personal strengths, values, and aspirations [6].
This phenomenon reflects a distinctly American understanding of career development. While employees in many countries define success through loyalty to an organization or adherence to established career paths, Americans often view careers as self-directed journeys of continuous growth and reinvention.
From an executive perspective, this means American employees will naturally:
This career mindset explains why standardized global approaches to talent management often fail in the U.S. What appears as entitled behavior to foreign executives is often American employees exercising the agency they've been culturally conditioned to expect.
Understanding the American cultural foundation is only the starting point. Translating that understanding into effective leadership requires intentional shifts in approach. Based on my experience with successful foreign executives in the U.S., several adjustments consistently yield positive results:
From Theory to Practice
From Implicit to Explicit
From Control to Empowerment
From Position to Person
The most successful international leaders I've observed in the U.S. maintain a balance between adapting to American cultural expectations and preserving their organization's global standards. They recognize that American employees don't need special treatment—they need culturally intelligent leadership.
The foreign executives who thrive in the U.S. market recognize that understanding American work psychology isn't just a matter of smooth operations—it's a strategic advantage in talent acquisition, innovation, and market responsiveness.
As global competition for top talent intensifies, the ability to connect with and motivate American employees becomes increasingly valuable. By aligning leadership approaches with the cultural frameworks that shape U.S. work expectations, foreign executives can transform potential friction points into accelerators for growth.
The objective isn't to become "more American" in your leadership style, but rather to develop the cultural intelligence to adapt appropriately while remaining authentic to your own strengths and your organization's values. This balanced approach allows you to harness the distinctive strengths of American employees—their initiative, practicality, and results-orientation—while maintaining the strategic direction and cultural cohesion your global organization requires.
In my companion article, "The Five Mistakes That Undermine U.S. Subsidiaries," I explore specific leadership missteps that foreign executives commonly make with American teams and provide practical strategies for avoiding them.
[1] House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.
[2] Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[3] Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business (Ch. 1: Listening to the air – communicating across cultures). PublicAffairs.
[4] Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
[5] Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map (Ch. 3: Why versus how – The art of persuasion in a multicultural world). PublicAffairs.
[6] Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.
[7] Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 577–601.
[8] Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (2001). Unleash innovation in foreign subsidiaries. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 131–137.
[9] De Smet, A., Dowling, B., Mugayar-Baldocchi, M., & Schaninger, B. (2021). Great attrition or great attraction? The choice is yours. McKinsey & Company.
[10] Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization. Wiley.
[11] Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map (Ch. 6: The head or the heart – two types of trust and how they grow). PublicAffairs.