I think it’s a combination of entitlement/ego/narcissism (on the part of executives) and fear (on the part of the employees). The fact that the boss is responsible for the existence of your paycheck – ultimately your means of surviving – isn’t trivial. Try to pay the rent/mortgage and feed yourself/your family on no income. Hence, not many people want to piss off the narcissist.
And American culture, for whatever reason, seems to have this unique ability to churn out narcissists and people with an extremely over-inflated sense of entitlement by the tons. I’m not saying that no one across the pond has a big ego; but it does seem like we’ve got significantly more of them in our population over here.
This is still relatively common. In investment banks in London, I have heard people ask ‘who does he think he is?’ about staff who dress ‘above their station’. In relatively subtle ways, too - we’re talking about the quality of ties etc.
Years ago in the US, it was how everyone knew his place (“his,” since all “her’s” already knew their place was at the bottom).
Anyone above you was addressed as “Mr. Lastname.”
Anyone beneath you was addressed or referred to as “Lastname” (which was demeaning, but was still better than when an underling was addressed or referred to as “Mr. Lastmane:” a clear signal of contempt.)
Equals could establish their equality by refering to those above by only “Lastname” out of earshot, but those slightly elevated would establish their elevation by not tolerating such a reference by the lesser-elevated.
Equals in a clique could both address and refer to each other by first name, but not simply after they had been elevated to their level administratively, but had also passed their own clique’s hazing ritual.
(this all still survives in the US military, BTW)
As much as I hate the current pseudo-friendliness where “Jerry” or “Bill” or whomever calls “Slithy” into his office to tell me he’s “sorry that he has to let me go,” it’s still an improvment of the old days of "Jetson! You’re fired!"
I am English and in all the places I’ve worked people have addressed each other by their first names. Bosses, proles, whoever. That goes back a lot more than 15 years.
I do occasionally have to deal with a German company, and I notice that they are more formal and tend to use Herr this and Frau that, at least at first. I have to remember to refer to people as “Mr Smith” or whatever in emails, when I am dealing with them.
But the OP mentioned that it was not his boss who requested the whiteboard, but the VP’s assistant. He therefore let down his boss, without giving her an opportunity to rectify the problem. Rule of thumb - never let your boss look bad.
My experience with investment banks in London has been different. Also, our corporate culture is to call each other by first names, from entry-level staff all the way up to the CEO. And we do take note of a person’s title – not out of reverence, but because it helps set priorities. If I have two requests come in at the same time, chances are the global head of finance is going to get her answer before the temp in accounts payable.
Maybe the OP was having a bad day. The VP who came to visit could leave with one of two impressions: positive or negative. (Indifferent counts as negative.) Why not maximize the chances of having the boss leave with a positive impression?
It’s not being sycophantic to take care of logistics (food, meeting rooms, presentation equipment, etc.) for visitors; it’s being professional.
Some people see their job as just a way to kill the time between paychecks. Others take a longer view. Guess which kind is more likely to climb the company ladder?
Not in Silicon Valley, but I work for a company based in San Francisco. It’s a technology company working on a product that has mostly early adopters, and is trying to get into the mainstream. It’s an interesting place - but I won’t digress. All of our offices are open space. None of our execs have offices - including our CEO. There is still a sense of distance, but not as badly as I have seen with other
Twenty five years ago I’ve worked in IT at the New Zealand corporate office of a British Multinational company and first names were universal. I never heard anyone called Mr or Ms. Even when the bigwigs from Australia or biggerwigs from the UK visited they were all first names after being introduced. This was a company that had been around for a hundred years or so.
The CEO of Intel has a cube like everyone else. Slightly bigger, with a conference room nearby, but still a cube. I used to work a few floors above him, but never got around to going down to visit.
On the other hand I interviewed at a Silicon Arm of a defense contractor in Orange County. They had cubes for the peons and offices along the walls for the managers. One of the many, many reasons I didn’t like the place.
Back when I worked for NWNL (since absorbed by Reliastar, who got swallowed by ING) in the late 80’s, they had a point based system for how big of an office or cube you were allowed and what you were allowed to have in it. Although I was heavily involved with interfacing with end-users, because I was a mere Programmer-Analyst, I was NOT entitled to have a second chair in my cube. This was vigorously enforced on several occassions. Managers and Directors would zealously prosecute violations and grab whatever they were allowed under the point system. Such as when my director got some kind of increase in points and was thus entitled to a curved panel on his cube with a clear plexiglass panel in it AND a wooden table rather than the veneer table he had before.
When our VP got bumped upstairs, she measured her new window office overlooking the river (which had been the former VP’s office) and found it to be too small. So they came in, tore down one of the walls and moved it out ONE FOOT.
Never seen anyplace that insane over minor shit like that.
When I worked for another insurance company about 6 years later, all of the male IT employees were required to wear a suit at all times, and to be wearing their suit coats any time they stepped away from their desks. Female employees were given vague guidelines which pretty much enabled them to wear any damned thing they wanted. I was the ONLY male in IT who did not wear a suit. I was a consultant, and refused to wear one. The Director had known me from a previous job and never held me accountable, even though it was pointed out to him on more than one occassion by other managers or executives. (Of course, he was eventually fired for sexually harassing the female CFO. What a dumbass idea that was!)
The BellSouth (now AT&T) tower in Atlanta is designed such that there are no corner offices. Period. You can easily see this from the outside… if you always wondered why the buiding looks like a prison, this is part of the reason. (The other part is that all the windows are recessed such that the building looks like a large bank of telephone jacks).
I have no idea whether this was intentional, but having worked there I certainly would not put it past the upper management. After all, Scott Adams (Dilbert) did cut his teeth on observational humor at Pac Bell, from what I understand.
There are logical reasons for this. The higher up you go, the more confidential conversations you have regularly. But offices for everyone are very expensive to build and maintain. Properly implemented, the cube/office system is a pretty good one at balancing cost with exposure risk (and the associated liability, confidential leakage, etc.)
I’m a cube employee but years ago was working on analyzing a project that, if implemented, would lay off most of my coworkers. For the period of time I did that work, I was in an office with the door closed. We didn’t choose to implement, but we didn’t need someone wandering into my cube to talk to me and seeing the project on my computer, or overhearing my phone calls.
Now, granted, measuring windows and moving them, fighting over the “best” office, having to move walls because the office is two square feet to small (or too large), having to paint or specialty decorate (and I’ve worked for companies that were bad with this too - Pillsbury was bad), that’s just stupid kowtowing to execs.
Only partners get offices where I work. And when they are away, their offices are used as conference rooms. The senior managers (the level above me and right below partner) seem like they have the worst of all. I at least get my own cubical out with the “resources” or “staff”. They are crammed 3 to an office.
Intel is famous for being paranoid about protecting secrets, so I don’t buy the need for a dual system. We had something like 20 conference rooms of various sizes per floor, for when something confidential had to be done. The place I work now has 100% offices. I like it a lot better, since it is easier to concentrate with the door closed when working on something I need to focus on. But I think your case demonstrates that need for privacy and rank are not necessarily correlated.
There is always some seniority. In Intel, cube sizes were proportional to your rank, as was distance to a window. In my current place I merit an office with a window (overlooking a parking lot, so no big deal.) Probably good to give people something to aspire to.
You can, instead have multiple conference rooms. That works - its a newish thing and doesn’t retrofit to older buildings without a lot of expense.
Intel is different than a lot of companies in that almost everyone is working on highly confidential information. I work in the same industry and we aren’t big in our engineering facilities on walls for execs. Everyone is exposed to confidential information, walls aren’t your weak point. However, in non-engineering facilities and our older buildings (pre 1980s) we have walls.