The West Point honor code reads: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” The last clause was added formally only in 1970.
In 1976 more than 800 cadets took a take-home engineering exam, and a cheating scandal followed. A commission led by Frank Borman found that “many individuals are reluctant to place duty to community over loyalty to friends.” In a 1974 survey, 73 percent of cadets had said they would not report a good friend.
Directly Responsible Individual. Apple’s internal practice attaches a single name to every item on a meeting agenda, and the name is visible to everyone. American project management more broadly insists on one accountable person per item, and the phrase single throat to choke is used without embarrassment.
Product owner. Process owner. Account owner. Risk owner. Problem owner. American organizations name roles after possession of the thing rather than responsibility for a function, and the word carries the expectation that the owner acts without being asked.
The American meeting produces action items, and a meeting that produces none is described as having gone nowhere. Not conclusions, not understandings, not positions. Items — countable, assigned, with a name next to each.
That’s Mike’s project. She owns the redesign. He built that. Her numbers. American workplace speech attaches work to a named person as a matter of routine, in praise and in criticism alike. The attribution is automatic, and it runs both ways.
The following dialogue was posted on ask(dot)metafilter(dot)com in March 2011. It gives insight into how Americans view follow-up.
Question: “What is the best way to word my persistent e-mail follow-ups with non-responsive colleagues?”
I work for an agency that employs about 180 people and the agency’s role is to regulate a technical sector. My role is to respond to the general public’s enquiries. I have to get exact legal/technical wording from other staff. I find staff will sometimes not reply to my enquiries for days and weeks. I’m near the bottom of the pile at the organization and so I have no authority to order anyone to help me.
I send my enquiries to staff over e-mail and need to continue to do so. I am not looking for suggestions about stopping into people’s offices in person or talking over the phone. The nature of the work doesn’t really allow for this option.
How frequently should I follow-up with people for their responses? How should I word my 2nd, 3rd and 4th e-mail follow-ups? What has worked for you when your work depends on the actions of a higher-up colleague, but you don’t want to be a pest?”
Responses:
“If you can’t make phone calls or drop by the office, can you IM them? If you can’t IM, what I’ve found starts getting attention is cc’ing various people if the initial person doesn’t respond.”
“I’d send a follow up daily. Perhaps at different times of the day. Maybe people get swamped first thing in the morning and might respond better in the afternoon.”
“Every follow up after the first, cc additional people that might be able to respond or get things moving (whether it’s a supervisor or not). This will almost always get SOMEONE involved. But don’t cc a bunch of people from the beginning because often people will think someone else will take care of it if it’s sent to a ton of people.”
“Phone calling just really gets people’s attention. It will be more embarrassing for the person and demonstrate your seriousness and persistence in the way one email in a giant inbox with hundreds of emails on a non-urgent (to them) matter never can.”
“I have a colleague who isn’t shy about bolding key lines in a severe email, like ‘This is my third request. This response is needed by Friday at the latest.’ You can try this, but even so, it’s easier to ignore than a voice or face communicating directly with you.”
WBS stands for work breakdown structure. Wikipedia defines it as: „A hierarchical and incremental decomposition of the project into phases, deliverables and work packages. It is a tree structure, which shows a subdivision of effort required to achieve an objective; for example a program, project, and contract.
In a project, the WBS is developed by starting with the end objective and successively subdividing it into manageable components in terms of size, duration, and responsibility (e.g., systems, subsystems, components, tasks, subtasks, and work packages) which include all steps necessary to achieve the objective.“
Wikipedia goes on to claim that WBS was developed by the United States Department of Defense and was introduced by the U.S. Navy in 1957 to support the development of the Polaris missile program.
Breaking down complexity into its component parts in order to focus on what is truly critical is hardly a development of any human organization of the 20th Century. Surely it is has been fundamental to human thinking for quite some time.
When two colleagues meet and the one asks the other what they do in the company, it is typical for Americans to state who their boss is: „Oh, I work for Mary Smith.“ The next statement might be: „in the new product marketing“ or „in global supply chain“ or „in corporate finance.“
Americans work outwards from their work, their team, the organization in which the team is imbedded, and so on. It is also common in the U.S. to hear the statement that „your most important customer is your boss.“
American team leads have influence and power over their team: strategy, organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, and, of course, compensation and professional development. The relationship with the team lead is for the team member a very important one. It influences them very personally.
That working relationship, however, can also be one which extends beyond the workplace to their private lives. It‘s common for American colleagues to be friends, close friends, friends who do things together, whose spouses and children know each other. Americans mix their work and private lives. This can include the boss.
In fact, many Americans would say that the ideal team is made up of capable people, who work hard, support each other, reach their business goals, but in addition know and like each other outside of work. Colleague and friend. Boss and friend.
This is a comment on a Wall Street Journal article vom March 17, 2025 entitled: “Job Seekers Hit Wall of Salary Deflation – The salary bump that people who switch jobs used to command has vanished.”
“Going for the money as the big motivator for a job has not been the best personal career choice. Location and challenging work are much better career decision criteria. Constantly providing extra value to your manager and your manager’s managers is always a strong career strategy.”
If you ask most Americans who they work for, they will name their immediate boss. If you ask a German they will name their company. If you ask that German to be more specific they will name the division. Ask further and they will say the department. Rarely would they name their immediate boss or anyone in management.