European workers aren't chuffed with US-style management practices
Based on long working hours, increased monitoring, and a culture of urgency, US-style management can be a direct threat to well-being at work. (Envato Elements pic)
PARIS : Flexibility at all costs, productivity as a guiding principle, and employees always on hand – US-style management, long seen as a model of efficiency, now seems divisive.
Behind the promises of performance and responsiveness, more and more voices are being raised to denounce practices deemed too intrusive and incompatible with worker expectations in Europe.
And while this research is focused on the Old Continent, it serves as a reminder for organisations worldwide that the adoption of management models from elsewhere cannot be undertaken without prior reflection.
So, what exactly is 'American-style management'? It's based on individual performance, increased monitoring, long working hours, low tolerance for absenteeism, and a culture of urgency. While some see it as a way of boosting responsiveness and initiative, others see it as a direct threat to well-being at work.
A survey conducted by recruitment platform Zety reveals that 86% of the 1,000 French, British, Spanish, Italian and German employees questioned believe the influence of US corporate culture has intensified in Europe. And for many, this isn't the right direction.
Close to eight out of 10 respondents fear the adoption of US management practices will lead to a weakening of labour laws, fewer vacations, and a deterioration in work-life balance.
America's 'always-on' work culture is of particular concern: 76% of employees believe it would be detrimental to their mental health.
Different perceptions of work
Workers in Europe do not welcome this gradual shift. For 68% of them, there is an urgent need to strengthen social safeguards to prevent any abusive practices.
Some 20% of survey respondents look unfavourably upon the push to return to the office. (Envato Elements pic)
A third are worried about increased surveillance in the office and constant monitoring of productivity, while one in five are concerned about possible reductions in remote working. These reflect a lack of confidence in a model perceived as too intrusive.
At the heart of the matter lies a different vision of work. Indeed, 95% of employees emphasise the importance of keeping European labour laws independent of US corporate influence, while 59% feel that protecting labour laws from this influence must become a priority.
When it comes to the details, there are very concrete trends around which fears are centred: 43% worry about widespread emphasis on long working hours and the cult of performance; 33% fear waves of mass layoffs in tech; 30% point to the impact of AI on employment; and 20% take a dim view of the push to return to the office.
In a strong sign, 48% of workers surveyed said they might go so far as to quit their jobs if their work-life balance were compromised by such practices. This figure highlights the growing reluctance to import management methods considered too exacting.
It's a wake-up call for companies that may be looking to Silicon Valley for inspiration, without taking local expectations into account. The ability to switch off, and respect for personal time, appear to be lines employees elsewhere do not want crossed.
Despite this, certain aspects of the US model still hold a certain appeal. For example, higher salaries and merit-based bonuses, cited by 42% of those surveyed, remain incentives. Just over a quarter also point to the prospects offered by innovative sectors, which are seen as promising and stimulating.
But these economic incentives are not enough to mask a profound difference in values. Individual success – which is at the heart of US corporate culture – holds less appeal, for instance.
Only 22% of those surveyed favoured this focus on individual achievement, reflecting a certain attachment to a different relationship with work, based on solidarity, life balance, and teamwork.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Zara parent Inditex flags slower summer start, Q1 revenue misses estimates
MADRID, June 11 — Zara owner Inditex missed expectations for its first-quarter sales today, adding to doubts about the ability of the fast-fashion retailer to keep delivering strong sales growth in an uncertain economic environment. Inditex also reported a slower start to its summer sales, with revenue growth of 6 per cent from May 1 to June 9, compared to a 12 per cent growth in the same period a year ago. The company reported revenues of €8.27 billion (RM40 billion) for its first quarter ending April 30, missing analysts' average estimate of €8.36 billion, according to an LSEG poll. Fears of resurgent inflation and an economic slowdown triggered by tariffs have already dampened consumers' enthusiasm for shopping in the United States and elsewhere. Cooler weather in Spain, which accounts for 15 per cent of Inditex's global sales, has also probably hurt the retailer's performance, according to Bernstein analysts. — Reuters
Malay Mail
7 hours ago
- Malay Mail
France's Mistral unveils ‘thinking' AI model aimed at complex reasoning
PARIS, June 11 — French artificial intelligence startup Mistral yesterday announced a so-called 'reasoning' model it said was capable of working through complex problems, following in the footsteps of top US developers. Available immediately on the company's platforms as well as the AI platform Hugging Face, the Magistral 'is designed to think things through — in ways familiar to us,' Mistral said in a blog post. The AI was designed for 'general purpose use requiring longer thought processing and better accuracy' than its previous generations of large language models (LLMs), the company added. Like other 'reasoning' models, Magistral displays a so-called 'chain of thought' that purports to show how the system is approaching a problem given to it in natural language. This means users in fields like law, finance, healthcare and government would receive 'traceable reasoning that meets compliance requirements' as 'every conclusion can be traced back through its logical steps', Mistral said. The company's claim gestures towards the challenge of so-called 'interpretability' — working out how AI systems arrive at a given response. Since they are 'trained' on gigantic corpuses of data rather than directly programmed by humans, much behaviour by AI systems remains impenetrable even to their creators. Mistral also vaunted improved performance in software coding and creative writing by Magistral. Competing 'reasoning' models include OpenAI's o3, some versions of Google's Gemini and Anthropic's Claude, or Chinese challenger DeepSeek's R1. The idea that AIs can 'reason' was called into question this week by Apple — the tech giant that has struggled to match achievements by leaders in the field. Several Apple researchers published a paper called 'The Illusion of Thinking' that claimed to find 'fundamental limitations in current models' which 'fail to develop generalizable reasoning capabilities beyond certain complexity thresholds'. — AFP
Malay Mail
7 hours ago
- Malay Mail
When the powerful fear justice — Che Ran
JUNE 11 — It's always the same playbook. When justice starts sniffing too close to the men with blood under their fingernails, they don't argue facts. They don't invite transparency. They threaten. They bully. They pick up the phone and speak slowly, like they're doing you a favour by not tearing the whole thing down. And that's exactly what David Cameron did. The former Prime Minister—Britain's once-chosen steward of democracy and human rights—called the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and told him that holding Israeli leaders accountable for alleged war crimes would be like 'dropping a hydrogen bomb.' Let that sink in. Not a court ruling. Not a verdict. A bomb. This wasn't diplomacy. This was a warning shot dressed up in a suit and tie. What Cameron said wasn't just inappropriate—it was an act of sabotage. A deliberate attempt to undermine the last scraps of credibility that international law still clings to. Because if the ICC can't investigate crimes when the accused are politically powerful or deemed 'friends' of the West, then what's the point of any of it? Why have a court at all if the people who need to be judged the most are immune? There is a deeper sickness here. A double standard so naked, it burns. When the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, the Western world applauded. Justice, finally. Accountability, finally. But when the same court looked toward Tel Aviv, everything changed. Suddenly, the court became 'unhelpful,' 'biased,' 'a threat to peace.' The same nations that trumpet the rule of law from their podiums at the UN started hurling stones at the very institution they once helped build. You cannot cherry-pick justice. You cannot hold it high when it suits you, and gut it when it challenges your allies. That isn't justice—it's empire in drag. It's colonialism wrapped in legalese. And it's killing any hope that the law can protect the weak from the strong. The story doesn't end with Cameron. He was just the loudest voice on the line. Across the Atlantic, American lawmakers have been snarling too. Threats of sanctions, visa bans, financial strangulation—all aimed at shutting down an investigation into Israeli actions in Gaza. And behind the scenes, there are reports of intimidation, surveillance, even smear campaigns against court officials. A full-scale assault, not just on the investigation, but on the very idea that no one is above the law. The International Criminal Court building is seen in The Hague, Netherlands, January 16, 2019. — Reuters pic It should chill us to the bone. Because once justice becomes conditional—once we allow politics to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't—we are no longer in a world of law. We are back in the jungle, clawing and snarling, where might is right and innocence is irrelevant. And still, amid this storm, one man stood his ground. Karim Khan, the British prosecutor at the ICC, didn't back down. He didn't cave. He didn't roll over for the threats of former prime ministers or the pressure of global superpowers. He just said, calmly: 'I don't like being threatened.' In that moment, something rare happened. A flicker of integrity, flickering stubbornly in the dark. But flickers don't last forever. They need fuel. They need public outrage. They need people to care. Because if we let this go—if we let the Camerons of the world silence investigations with threats and handshakes—then we are saying, loud and clear, that war crimes only matter when poor men commit them. That starving civilians, bombing hospitals, or reducing entire neighbourhoods to ash is forgivable, so long as the pilot's accent is Western and the missiles are paid for in dollars or sterling. We cannot let this stand. If international law means anything, it must mean something when it's hard. It must mean something when the accused are rich, powerful, and uncomfortably close. Otherwise, it's just theatre. And we've all seen enough performances. What Cameron did was not a slip. It was not a moment of poor judgment. It was a deliberate act to protect power from accountability. And we must call it what it is: an assault on justice. Because the moment we start excusing the inexcusable, the moment we let politics decide who gets to face the scales and who walks free—we lose something essential. Not just as nations. Not just as institutions. But as human beings. We lose our claim to conscience. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
