[siruncledrew]

There's this tendency, particularly in U.S. management, to put off bad news as long as possible and then try to avoid acknowledging the bad news during a generic-sounding announcement like a third-party wrote it.

I think it's better to announce the bad news on the horizon before it arrives - if possible. People are more likely to find solutions to problems when the problem are laid out. If the CEO comes out and says, "Our Q1 numbers really plummeted in 2020, and we need to innovate if we want to make it past Q3 intact", then sure it will get reactions of "I should update my CV", but it also gets people in the problem-solving mindset and willing to put in effort if they have a stake in the outcome.

As opposed to delivering the bad news when nothing left can be done, at which point it seems like all the recent work was in vain, and people are 'slapped in the face' with the news. Saying "This ship's sailing great! ... as long as we throw half the crew overboard" isn't the most motivating speech.

- On an aside: This also relates to the "announcer's" personal skills as a leader/manager. Some people hate giving bad news because they think it means they will be negatively received, and some leaders/managers are just very bad at taking criticism. It's a tough job, but it comes with the territory, and denying bad news is a reality is just "blissful ignorance".

[ChuckMcM]

I hadn't considered this a "US" or "American" thing but since I really don't have very much experience dealing with non-US management I recognize it very well may be.

My experience with bad news especially is that too many managers have linked their self worth to their company's success and so bad news equates to them being bad and thus avoided.

I was remarkably fortunate to take a job at Intel as my first job out of college during the Andy Grove years. While there are arguments to made on the pluses and minuses of "constructive criticism", the leadership culture under Andy was that problems were there to provide something for the rest of us to work on. When they came up they got pounced on as they were often how people were measured in their reviews.

I did not realize at the time this was different than other companies in the valley. Intel focused on the people who saw the problems, came up with solutions or workarounds, and kept moving. As opposed to the people who "simply" delivered their milestones on time.

It was much later in my career when I found myself in a company that was actively ignoring problems. That struck me as so foreign I had a hard time dealing with it.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

This is because management only cares about how things look.

If I had a dollar for every time I got flak for telling people exactly what issues are, I'd have a decent sized home in the midwest.

[Someone1234]

I've also worked in the UK, and that was my takeaway too.

In the UK there is this "pessimistic honesty" whereas in the US everyone tries to maintain a positive veneer, even when things are going south and letting more people in could help.

I find the "looks over substance" thing makes management in the US categorically worse from both ends, but obviously a pessimistic outlook has its limitations/problems too (particularly when things are going well).

But the older I get, the more I see that most management decisions aren't based on facts/logic/reason, and instead most people just shoot from the hip and then figure out facts/logic/reason that fit whatever decision they were going to make anyway (or "Confirmation Bias" as they call it).

For example late last year the CEO decided Telecommuting was banned. Why? They themselves don't know and or cannot articulate it. Something about productivity/communications? They read an article? Then COVID happened, and they had to re-spin which made similarly as little sense. Now they're re-spinning again to get everyone back in the office/re-ban telecommuting, all with little justification or explanation.

[thatfrenchguy]

Americans systematically avoid hard discussions, to preserve that "everyone is happy" feeling.

[stronglikedan]

> Americans systematically avoid

I'd be surprised if you could quantify that as being an American thing, any more so than anywhere else.

[nickff]

Perhaps not uniquely American, but definitely different from the stereotypical dour Russian.

[mateo411]

I agree that this might be a problem, but I'd rather not talk about it.

[BariumBlue]

Bit of speculation here... The US has a cultural emphasis on delivering results, more so than other cultures. I think there tends to not be a lot of focus on how things are done, or on the process behind things, but instead more on how people perceive the end result.

The US still has a very individualistic culture and I don't think people put as much emphasis on reputation as more collectivist folks, but I think Americans glamorize success (or the appearance thereof) in and of itself more than other cultures.

Essentially, as long as you LOOK successful, you ARE successful, because that's all that people care about!

Again, not 100% on this analysis, but that's the overall impression I get as an American

[SuoDuanDao]

This reminds me of an interview with Donald Trump in which he said that his net worth fluctuates wildly from day to day, because it depends so much on who is willing to lend him money.

I suppose there's a reason he was chosen as a representative of America, and why so many Americans were uncomfortable with the implications.

[asdf333]

i've gotta say though, its much worse in Japan. By those standards the US is a paragon of transparency and dealing with issues openly.