Full Text(Pdf 673

Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27

An Exploration of the Contrasting Social Class and Workplace Expectations for Determining Chief Executive Officers in the United States vs the United Kingdom Scott Kenneth Campbell, Ph.D.1

Abstract Key words: Workplace Culture; This paper sought to improve upon the understanding of the social class and Social Class; Ivy League and workplace cultural expectations for the determination of Chief Executive CEO Promotion Officers in the United States vs the United Kingdom. The author found that workplace cultural expectations were very different for aspiring executives in the United States vs the United Kingdom. In addition, the author found strong indications of a potential social class barrier for aspiring executives in the Available online United Kingdom that was not evident in the United States. Workplace culture www.bmdynamics.com was determined by weekly hours worked by CEO’s vs typical executives in the ISSN: 2047-7031 United States and the United Kingdom. Social class was determined by the exploration of undergraduate alma maters and consideration of whether these schools would be considered “Ivy League” or not.

INTRODUCTION Public and academic fascination with CEO compensation, company performance, perceptions of excessive compensation and even considerations of CEO vs average worker compensation have existed for decades. However, this article will seek to address two considerations that are often overlooked in academic research, much less completely ignored in general publication articles. This article will consider the years of effort, possible excessive effort needed for individuals to work their way into the top offices of the largest corporations. In addition, this article will seek to compare the social and potential class barriers that successful CEO’s must strive to overcome. The author will explore the work expectations and social barriers the successful CEO’s of the 100 largest companies based in the United States of America have had to address. The author will then seek to compare and contrast the social and work expectations that the CEO’s of the 100 largest companies located in the United Kingdom have had to contend with during their climb to the top spot. It is anticipated that differences in working expectations as well as potential social and class barriers might be found between these two similar countries. Research for decades has focused on CEO compensation and looked at the corollary analysis with company performance. In general, these studies have found modest relationships between compensation and company performance. In addition, it is very easy to find articles and political figures railing against and condemning the often large compensation packages for American CEO’s. However, what is often overlooked amongst all the vindictive is the sheer amount of hard work that CEO’s do and have had to commit to for decades to reach the top of their fields.

UNITED STATES VS UNITED KINGDOM WORKING EXPECTATIONS Employees and executive officers from different countries have varying working cultural expectations that tend to vary depending on societal likes and dislikes. In addition, government laws and regulations, especially concerning non-exempt employees (those eligible for over-time pay), also play a significant role in the determination of workplace cultural expectations. Workers and managers are exposed to, and often develop these characteristics of working expectations during their early schooling years. In addition, managers especially are exposed to these expectations during their years of higher education. The differing cultural expectations between the United States and the United Kingdom are evident in the work expectations to obtain a 4-year college degree. In the United States, the course load expectations have increased in the past decades to such an extent that only 36% of students attending top-rated

1 The School of Arts and Sciences, Division of Business, History and Social Sciences, Gordon State College, 419 College Drive, Barnesville, Georgia 30204, United States of America

©Society for Business and Management Dynamics Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27 colleges complete their degree in 4 years. That figure drops to only 19% when one is looking at 4-year graduation rates from lower-tier universities, with a more working-class student body. (Anschuetz, 2015). For students in the United States, a 4-year college degree generally takes 5 years to complete (NCES, 2019). In contrast, educational expectations are significantly less demanding not only in the United Kingdom, but across the European Union as well. In 1999, 29 countries in the European Union signed the Bologna Declaration restricting course requirements to allow for the awarding of a bachelor’s degree in three years. Therefore, even for students attending Oxford or Cambridge, a “4-year” degree only requires 3 years of study (Belasco, 2019). The cultural expectations for working hours in the United States are more than the working hours expected for employees in the United Kingdom. Employees in both countries report to work at approximately the same time. However, the amount of time spent at work is dramatically different between the two countries. A recent study by Sarah Berger in the Harvard Business Review has found that American executives will work an average of 44 hours per week. However, this same study also concluded that the average American CEO will work an average of 62.5 hours per week (Berger, 2018). In the United Kingdom, the average work week for an executive is very similar to their American counterparts at just 42.7 hours a week (Henrich, 2017). However, there is a significant difference in the working hours of British CEOs. In the United Kingdom, the average work week for a CEO is just 44.7 hours (Taneja, 2013). An even more telling difference, as if an extra 20 hours a week were not enough, is the times and hours spent working by CEOs of both countries. In the United Kingdom, just 13% of CEOs reported working some or regular hours over the weekends (Cartwright, 2010). This contrasts with the 79% of American CEOs who reported they worked an average of 3.9 hours a day for Saturday and Sunday (Berger, 2018). Even the length and utilization of vacation days are significantly different for American CEOs vs their counterparts in the United Kingdom. On average, American executives will take 16.2 days of vacation during the year. However, American CEOs generally take 5 days of vacation or less each year (Kelly, 2016). Even on vacation, American CEOs will typically spend 2.4 hours a day working (Berger, 2018). Unlike the United States which has no government required paid vacation leave, full-time employees in the United Kingdom are guaranteed 28 days of paid vacation per year. In sharp contrast to their American counterparts, executives in the United Kingdom, including the CEOs typically take most if not all of their allotted 28 days of vacation time (Taneja, 2013). In addition, coworkers in the United Kingdom have a cultural expectation of both encouraging and supporting those who are on their vacations (Tetlow, 2017). Even the expectations of behaviors during the typical working day contrasts between the United States and the United Kingdom. A recent study indicates that most employees in the United Kingdom report to work at 10:30 am and leave at 4:30 pm. Therefore, by 5 pm, everyone in the United Kingdom has left work and one can easily hear a pin drop to the floor (Jackson, & Sundaram, 2015). In contrast, executives in United States arrive at work early in the morning and generally leave after 5 pm (Davis, 2016). The schedule of work between executives working in the United Kingdom and those in the United States are also different. Executives in the United Kingdom have several breaks, both cultural and government mandated during the working hours. For instance, British employees are entitled to tea breaks at specific times as scheduled by the management and government regulations (Jackson, & Sundaram, 2015). In contrast, although non-exempt workers in the United States have government mandated breaks during the workday, American executives have no such cultural or government mandated breaks (Henrich, 2017). A prime example of the differences between executive work expectations between the United States and the United Kingdom would be the differences in lunch breaks. The American workers and aspiring executives in companies often have their lunch at their desks instead of going out for lunch. A standard fixture in many American corporate offices is the lunch service. Instead of going to eat at a restaurant, aspiring executives in the United States will order a sandwich, or similar meal that can be quickly consumed at their desk (Le Blanc, 2017). In contrast, aspiring executives in the United Kingdom tend to

©Society for Business and Management Dynamics Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27 go for lunch outside the company (Bond, 2014). Instead of the service providers bringing the meals to the British executive’s desks, they tend to leave and have their food in desired places. In addition to having lunch at one’s desk as opposed to having lunch outside the company, executives in the United States that do leave work for lunch also behave very differently than their counterparts in the United Kingdom. In the United States, workers and executives are often allotted an hour, and often only a half hour for their lunch breaks (Le Blanc, 2017). In addition, the consumption of alcohol during lunch breaks is discouraged if not outright forbidden. In contrast, workers and executives in the United Kingdom are guaranteed an hour for lunch, and executives often have lunches that extend closer to two hours. In addition, having lunch at a local pup, a restaurant or even a private club with the consumption of modest amounts of alcohol during the meal is frequently the norm for workers and executives in the United Kingdom (Bond, 2014). In the United States, companies have a strong organizational culture that requires the employees to have a strong attitude towards work. Therefore, employers do not have a hard time convincing the employees to remain longer for work or to report early when the work is demanding (Davis, 2016). In addition, supervision in the United States, both formal and informal is often very strict. Therefore, American executives are often pressured to focus their time more directly on their working requirements. Therefore, working time in the United States is thus respected and the executives and employees spend more time doing what is necessary in the workplace (Le Blanc, 2017). In contrast, In the United Kingdom employers have a much harder time convincing the workers to remain longer for work or even to report early. The workers do not want to have more work since they value their social life and want to be with friends and family (Bond, 2014). Even during the working hours, she supervision of employees, even executives in the United Kingdom is far less strict than supervision in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the executives and employees in the United Kingdom have more slack time to do other things not related to work during the working hours (Jackson, & Sundaram, 2015). Another aspect of CEO’s that is often overlooked is that in addition to the 60 – 70-hour weeks they have worked for decades to reach the top office, many CEO’s have had to address and overcome some social class expectations and barriers. In the United States, such barriers are much easier to overcome. Frankly, the results of this article would indicate that in general, successful CEO’s in the United States are far more likely to come from a more working-class social background. In contrast, successful CEO’s in the United Kingdom are more likely to have begun their lives as middle if not upper social class members.

A COMPARISON OF SOCIAL CLASS AND MOBILITY Considerations of wealth, family status, social expectations and social mobility have existed since time immemorial. Many researchers argue that in the modern world, social classes and mobility are now different from ancient social class expectations. However, there are also elements of social class and mobility that remain largely unchanged (Hey, Grimaldi-Christensen, & Savage, 2017). Researchers have discovered that everyone in the United Kingdom can be categorized into a certain class. However, it has proven to be quite challenging to explain the dynamics of the British class system. Although the class-system is certainly very prevalent in the United Kingdom, it has become easier to shift between different classes. Importantly, it is important to understand that being classified in a given class may differ depending on the people doing the classification (Domanski, Scatigna, & Zaba, 2016). Before the onset of the industrial revolution, people in the United Kingdom were given social classes to reflect their family affiliations. This is because these affiliations also determined their occupations. Very often, these social class affiliations also identified one’s political influence and social expectations. However, with the rise of an affluent middle class and especially the increasing access to advanced education, social mobility is becoming more available. This means that, now one does not necessarily have to be from a prominent family to become an upper-class individual. This increase in wealth and education and the subsequent social mobility has created several new categories in the class system in the United Kingdom (Edgington, 2016).

©Society for Business and Management Dynamics Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27

Types of Classes The lower class is generally known to be for those with the lowest status within society. This is so in both the United States as well as the United Kingdom. The class consists of people who are homeless, unemployed or generally experiencing the lowest living standards. People such as the street children, destitute and those who are experiencing challenges of meeting basic needs will be categorized in this class (Hey, Grimaldi-Christensen, & Savage, 2017). Semi-skilled and unskilled workers are in a slightly different class. This class, often called the Working Class, is also very prevalent in both the United States as well as the United Kingdom. Persons in this class generally do not have a college or university education. Casual laborers, factory workers, construction workers are some examples of those who will be put into this class. This class is not much respected and people in this class are not in a position to wear quality designer clothes (Edgington, 2016). The definition of what constitutes the Middle Class can often vary, depending on who is doing the classifying. However, the general consensus as that in both the United States and the United Kingdom most people consider themselves to be Middle Class. White-collar professionals, shop owners, nurses, journalists, and teachers are among those who consider themselves are in the middle-class white-collar professionals. However, those who are in the skilled trades may very well have incomes that match and, in many cases, exceed those of the white-collar middle class (Hill, 2017). Regardless of how one defines what it means to be Middle Class, in general this group has a relatively stable financial position (Hey, Grimaldi-Christensen, & Savage, 2017). In both the United States as well as the United Kingdom, most consider themselves as members of the working class or the middle class. Around 60 percent indicate that they are part of the working class, while almost 40 percent state that they consider themselves middle class (Domanski, Scatigna, & Zaba, 2016). This is attributed to the confusion between the boundaries between the two classes. About 47% of those in professional and managerial positions regard themselves to be in the working class. Generally, society has been viewing classes as of the small advantaged and large unprivileged groups (Hey, Grimaldi-Christensen, & Savage, 2017). This causes difference in perceptions that people have concerning people who are either in the middle or working class. Such ideologies have confused in understanding the two classes by some individuals. In both the United States as well as the United Kingdom, we have the upper class which is considered as to comprise of people who are living the most expensive lifestyles. Upper-class individuals have command in the market due to their ability to afford even the most expensive assets. Company leaders and certainly the CEO of a large company will certainly fall under this category. In the United States especially, a CEO of a Fortune 500 company will definitely have an income that places them well into the top 1% (Domanski, Scatigna, & Zaba, 2016). Finally, and far more prevalent in the United Kingdom, we have the class of the Aristocrats. People in this class generally come from titled families (Dukes, Earls etc.) as well as members of the Royal Family. In the United States, we have old aristocratic families, often descendants of early settlers or industrial barons (Think Lowells, Cabots and Rockefellers etc.) In general, Aristocrats have access to money, opportunities and positions as a consequence of their family heritage as opposed to their own efforts and work (Hey, Grimaldi-Christensen, & Savage, 2017).

How One Gets Classified A question may arise on what criteria used to decide how a particular person will be said as to fit in a certain class. Family background, education, occupation and wealth are all used in varying degrees to help determine a person’s social class. In the United Kingdom, family background can be a huge determinant to a person’s social class. A titled family, land ownership, traceable ancestry are all social elements that are still prevalent in the United Kingdom. Although wealth can certainly be a factor in helping a person climb the social ladder as it were, the social barriers are still fairly evident in the United Kingdom. This means that upper class status is often defined by a person’s origins rather than wealth. However, it is vital to understand that a class is not a sure metric of riches, hence it might not define the boundary between the poor and rich (Hill, 2017).

©Society for Business and Management Dynamics Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27

However, even in the United Kingdom, class definition and social mobility has been changing. The increasing access to higher education has allowed individuals in the middle and working classes to upgrade their social class by gaining an education. In addition, professional attainment has also become an acceptable method for improving one’s social class in the United Kingdom (Hey, Grimaldi- Christensen, & Savage, 2017). Increasingly, discipline, hard work and corporate career success has also begun to be accepted as improving a person’s social class. It has been recorded that the wealth of a parent can determine how their child will define their class. For instance, a rich parent will be in a position to have their child pursue quality higher education. This means a good salary can determine the class of not only the owner but a beneficiary (Alvaredo, Atkinson, & Morelli, 2018).

METHODOLOGY The author has chosen to gather biographical data about the CEO’s of the 100 largest United States based companies. The author has likewise gathered biographical data about the CEO’s of the 100 largest United Kingdom based companies. Specifically, the author was interested in where each of these executives had pursued their undergraduate college degree. The author specifically chose undergraduate college alma maters as opposed to any graduate studies as it is common practice for corporations to send their executives to highly visible and expensive executive graduate programs for which the company foots the bill. In contrast, the choice and location of a CEO’s past undergraduate studies would have been influenced by the financial realities of the CEO’s parents at the time of their studies. One of the key factors that was readily apparent during the gathering of the biographical data was that very few of the United States CEO’s had an undergraduate degree from what would be considered an “Ivy League” University. For this study, the author has restricted the definition of “Ivy League” to Harvard University, Princeton University or Yale University. Although there are some additional schools that are often considered “Ivy League” the author has restricted the definition to these three schools for the simple reason that their status is clear. Harvard, Princeton and Yale do not have to try to convince others that they are “Ivy League” too. Their position is clear. Likewise, the author has restricted consideration to United Kingdom CEO’s who pursued their undergraduate degrees at either The University of Oxford or The University of Cambridge. Again, the United Kingdom has many well regarded, and highly ranked universities. However, Oxford and Cambridge sit alone at the top of the list. In neither country did the author explore nor attempt to consider the “Quality” of the education when considering which schools to consider for inclusion as “Ivy League”. These five universities exist at the top of their respective country’s perceptions of top universities.

©Society for Business and Management Dynamics Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27

United States CEO’s and Undergraduate Alma Mater Undergrade Alma Mater CEO Name Company Name Harvard University Michael L. Corbat Citigroup Harvard University Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Harvard University Roger W. Ferguson Jr. TIAA Princeton University Charles F. Lowrey Prudential Financial Princeton University Jeffrey P. Bezos Amazon.com Yale University Frederick W. Smith FedEx

No College A. James Teague Enterprise Products Partners No College Randall T. Jones Sr. Publix Super Markets

Albion College W. Douglas Parker American Airlines Group Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Albert Bourla Pfizer Auburn University Timothy D. Cook Apple Baylor University Michael Neeb HCA Healthcare Baylor University Mark V. Hurd Oracle Bemidji State University Noel White Tyson Foods Boston College Ernie L. Herrman TJX Brown University Brian T. Moynihan Bank of America California University of Pennsylvania Thomas M. Rutledge Charter Communications College of Saint Benedict Corie Barry Best Buy Dartmouth College Gail K. Boudreaux Anthem Delta State University David P. Abney United Parcel Service Duke University C. Allen Parker Wells Fargo Duke University David S. Taylor Procter & Gamble ESADE Business School Ramon L. Laguarta PepsiCo Georgia Institute of Technology Vivek Sankaran Albertsons Hamilton College David M. Solomon Goldman Sachs Group Hartwick College David H. Long Liberty Mutual Insurance Group Illinois State University David S. Wichmann UnitedHealth Group Illinois State University Susan Patricia Griffith Progressive Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires Juan R. Luciano Archer Daniels Midland Iowa State University Dennis A. Muilenburg Boeing Ithaca College Robert A. Iger Walt Disney Kettering University Mary T. Barra General Motors

©Society for Business and Management Dynamics Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27

United States CEO’s and Undergraduate Alma Mater Undergrade Alma Mater CEO Name Company Name Manhattan College Stephen J. Squeri American Express Manipal Institute of Technology Satya Nadella Microsoft Michigan State University Craig A. Menear Home Depot Michigan State University Darius E. Adamczyk Honeywell International Monash University Dion J. Weisler HP National Technological University of Argentina Antonio Neri Hewlett Packard Enterprise New Hampshire Technical Institute Christopher M. Crane Exelon Northwestern University Virginia M. Rometty IBM Ohio Northern University Michael C. Kaufmann Cardinal Health Pennsylvania State University Kenneth C. Frazier Merck Pennsylvania State University Richard T. Hume Tech Data Polytechnic University of Milan Stefano Pessina Walgreens Boots Alliance Purdue University Gregory J. Hayes United Technologies Purdue University Samuel R. Allen Deere Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology D. James Umpleby III Caterpillar Saint Joseph's University Brian Duperreault AIG San Diego State University W. Craig Jelinek Costco Wholesale Smith College Phebe N. Novakovic General Dynamics St. Bonaventure University Edward H. Bastian Delta Air Lines Stanford University Theodore A. Mathas New York Life Insurance Stanford University Richard D. Fairbank Capital One Financial Stanford University Miles D. White Abbott Laboratories State University of New York at Plattsburgh Michael J. Kasbar World Fuel Services Syracuse University Michel A. Khalaf MetLife Texas A&M University Darren W. Woods Exxon Mobil Texas A&M University Greg C. Garland Phillips 66 Texas A&M University Bruce D. Broussard Humana Texas A&M University David M. Cordani Cigna The Pennsylvania State University Mark G. Parker Nike Tiffin University Gary R. Heminger Marathon Petroleum Tuffs University James Dimon JPMorgan Chase U.S. Military Academy at West Point Alex Gorsky Johnson & Johnson

©Society for Business and Management Dynamics Business Management Dynamics Vol.9, No.04, Oct 2019, pp.15-27

United States CEO’s and Undergraduate Alma Mater Undergrade Alma Mater CEO Name Company Name Univeristy of Oklahoma Randall L. Stephenson AT&T University of Alabama Marillyn A. Hewson Lockheed Martin University of Arkansas C. Douglas McMillon Walmart University of Buffalo Robert H. Swan Intel University of California Berkeley Marc Doyle DuPont de Nemours University of California Berkeley Sanjay Mehrotra Micron Technology University of California Davis John S. Watson Chevron University of California Los Angeles Brian C. Cornell Target University of California Santa Cruz Brian S. Tyler McKesson University of Houston Richard A. Gonzalez AbbVie University of Iowa Stephen S. Rasmussen Nationwide University of Kansas Thomas L. Bene Sysco University of Kentucky W. Rodney McMullen Kroger University of Liverpool James R. Quincey Coca-Cola University of Melbourne James P. Gorman Morgan Stanley University of Memphis Marvin R. Ellison Lowe's University of Michigan James P. Hackett Ford Motor University of Michigan Larry Page Alphabet University of Michigan Thomas J. Wilson Allstate University of Minnesota Michael F. Roman 3M University of Missouri Joseph W. Gorder Valero Energy University of Montana Ryan M. Lance ConocoPhillips University of Nebraska Warren E. Buffett Berkshire Hathaway University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Charles H. Robbins Cisco Systems University of North Dakota Jay D. Debertin CHS University of Pennsylvania Brian L. Roberts Comcast University of Pittsburgh Larry J. Merlo CVS Health University of Southern California Oscar Munoz United Continental Holdings University of Texas at Arlington Kelcy L. Warren Energy Transfer University of Texas at Austin Michael S. Dell Dell Technologies University of Vermont Roger W. Crandall Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance University of Witwatersrand Steven H. Collis AmerisourceBergen Uppsala University Hans E. Vestberg Verizon Communications Washington College H. Lawrence Culp Jr. General Electric Washington University Michael F. Neidorff Centene Wesleyan University in Bloomington Michael L. Tipsord State Farm Insurance

United Kingdom CEO’s and Undergraduate Alma Mater Undergraduate Degree CEO Name Company Name University of Cambridge Charles Woodburn BAE Systems University of Cambridge Gerald Corbett Segro University of Cambridge Robert James MacLeod Johnson Matthey University of Cambridge - New Hall Olivia Ruth Garfield Severn Trent University of Cambridge - Pembroke College Peter Jackson Flutter Entertainment University of Cambridge - St Catharine's College Alistair Phillips-Davies SSE plc University of Cambridge - Trinity College David Joseph Duffy Cybg University of Cambridge - Trinity College Simon Adam Wolfson Next plc University of Cambridge - Trinity College Michael William Romsey Dobson Schroders University of Cambridge - Trinity College Adrian Montague Aviva University of Cambridge - Trinity College Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere Daily Mail & General Trust University of Cambridge - Trinity College Chris Grigg British Land University of Cambridge - Trinity College Ivan M. Menezes Diageo University of Oxford Emma N. Walmsley GlaxoSmithKline University of Oxford Steve Rowe Marks & Spencer University of Oxford Kevin Loosemore Micro Focus University of Oxford Clive Christopher Roger Bannister Phoenix Group University of Oxford Sir Ian Davis Rolls-Royce Holdings University of Oxford Stephen Alan Hester RSA Insurance Group University of Oxford James Anderson Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust University of Oxford David G. Stevens Admiral Group University of Oxford Frank Andre van Zanten Bunzl University of Oxford Dominic Blakemore Compass Group University of Oxford Greg Barker, Baron Barker of Battle En+ Group Plc University of Oxford - Keble College Chris Hill Hargreaves Lansdown University of Oxford - New College George Garfield Weston Associated British Foods University of Oxford - Worcester College Alexander Baldock Dixons Carphone Yale University David Adam Schwimmer London Stock Exchange Group

United Kingdom CEO’s and Undergraduate Alma Mater Undergraduate Degree CEO Name Company Name Aberystwyth University Geoffrey Drabble Ashtead Group American University Marco Gobbetti Burberry Aston University Robert Charles Grenville Perrins Berkeley Group Holdings Bangor University Paul W. Feeney Quilter Birla Institute of Technology and Science Rakesh Kapoor Reckitt Benckiser Birmingham University Andrew Williams Halma Bowdoin College James E. Staley Barclays Bristol University Alison J. Cooper Imperial Brands Cardiff University John Mark Pettigrew National Grid plc Catholic University of Portugal António Horta-Osório Lloyds Banking Group Delft University of Technology Ben van Beurden Royal Dutch Shell École Centrale Paris Jean-Sébastien Jacques Rio Tinto Group École nationale vétérinaire d'Alfort Pascal Soriot AstraZeneca ESCP Europe Andre Lacroix Intertek European Business Schools Hubertus M. Mühlhäuser CNH plc HEC Paris Damian Paul Gammell Coca-Cola HBC Imperial College London Iain C. Conn Centrica Imperial College London John Walley Martin Ferguson plc Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México Alberto Baillères Fresnillo plc Kansas State University Gregory C. Case Aon Landfermann University Friedrich Joussen TUI Liverpool University Steve Hare Sage Group London South Bank University Michael Mark Manley Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Manchester Metropolitan University David T. Potts William Morrison Supermarkets Manchester Metropolitan University Nick Read Vodafone Group Massey University Ross Maxwell McEwan Royal Bank of Scotland Group Middlesex University Stefan Bomhard Inchcape Nottingham Trent University Dave J. Lewis Tesco Portsmouth Polytechnic John Flint HSBC Queen Elizabeth College Steven Lewis Mogford United Utilities Queen Mary University of London Simon A. Borrows 3i Reading University Robert Montague Noel Land Securities Simon Fraser University Lance Darrell Uggla IHS Markit Stockholm School of Economics Johan Peter Lundgren EasyJet Stockholm School of Economics Erik N. Engstrom RELX Tameside College David T. Potts Morrisons The University of Edinburgh Alan W. Jope Unilever The University of Southampton Trevor Mather Auto Trader Group The University of Southampton Andy Ransom Rentokil Initial The University of Southampton Andrew Martin Croft St. James's Place plc

United Kingdom CEO’s and Undergraduate Alma Mater Undergraduate Degree CEO Name Company Name Trinity College Dublin Brian Cassin Experian Trinity College Dublin Willie Walsh International Airlines Group Universidad Adolfo Ibanez Iván Arriagada Herrera Antofagasta University College Cardiff Philip Jansen BT Group University College Dublin Donal Murphy DCC plc University of Aberdeen Stephen Andrew Carter Informa University of Adelaide Namal Nawana Smith & Nephew University of Bath Penny James Direct Line Group University of Birmingham Michael Coupe Sainsbury's University of Bristol Miles W. Roberts Smith, D.S. University of Essex Nigel D. Wilson Legal & General University of Hull Peter Cowgill JD Sports University of Hull John Fallon Pearson plc University of Illinois Robert W. Dudley BP University of Kent Carolyn McCall ITV plc University of Manchester Tim Steiner Ocado University of New South Wales Michael Cannon-Brookes Atlassian University of Newcastle Peter Brooks-Johnson Rightmove University of St Andrews Andrew Stewart Mackenzie BHP University of St. Gallen Peter Fankhauser Thomas Cook Group University of Stirling Alison Jane Brittain Whitbread University of Strathclyde David Fraser Thomas Barratt Developments University of Sussex Keith Skeoch Standard Life Aberdeen University of the Witwatersrand Ivan Glasenberg Glencore University of Vienna Peter Josef Oswald Mondi University of Warwick Peter Redfern Taylor Wimpey University of Witwatersrand Stephen Koseff Investec University of Wollongong Mark Cutifani Anglo American plc University of York Steve E. Foots Croda International Washington University Arnold W. Donald Carnival Corporation & plc Washington University Ben Walter Hiscox York Technical College Jeff Fairburn Persimmon plc

RESULTS Several aspects are readily apparent when one reviews the charts. In the United Kingdom, fully 28 out of 100 CEO’s of the largest companies have an undergraduate degree from either Oxford, Cambridge and one even went to Yale University in the United States. In contrast, only 6 out of the 100 CEO’s of the largest companies based in the United States have an Ivy League undergraduate degree. Going deeper, there are also some elements that future distinguishes the undergraduate experience for United Kingdom vs United States CEOs. For example, 12 of the 28 United Kingdom CEOs attended Eton College for High School finishing and 6 additional United Kingdom CEO’s attended other finishing schools. In contrast, only one of the six American CEO’s, Citibank’s Michael L. Corbat who went to Choate Rosemary Hall, attended a finishing school prior to being admitted to an Ivy League College. Even though 6 American Chief Executives have an Ivy League undergraduate degree, only Michael Corbat seems to come from an upper-class social status. Prudential’s CEO, Charles F. Lowrey who was the 6th out of 7 children seems to be more representative of the 5 non upper-class CEO’s who attended Ivy League universities in the United States. In addition, two American CEO’s, Enterprise Products Partners CEO A. James Teague and Publix Super Markets CEO, Randall T. Jones Sr. do not seem to have attended college at all. The author found no instance of a United Kingdom based CEO who did not hold an undergraduate college degree.

DISCUSSION Clearly the cultural and workplace expectations and avenues for success are vastly different for Chief Executive Officers in the United States as opposed to their counterparts in the United Kingdom. In the United States, there is a very clear expectation for aspiring executives to work what can possibly be considered excessive hours in order to have any real chance of advancement to the upper-executive levels. In contrast, executives in the United Kingdom typically work almost 20 hours a week less than their American counterparts. The question then quickly becomes, how do the different country and workplace cultures help shape and determine whom among the thousands of working executives are able to advance to the upper levels of an organization. Anyone who has spent time with even second or third-tier executives in either country will quickly determine that anyone who has gotten into the top levels will have sufficient intelligence for the positions they hold. In addition, success is always a factor in having achieved promotion, and again anyone in the top tiers will have had some success during their career. However, ability and success really can only take an executive so far. Mentoring is critical for aspiring executives, and it would appear to be who and why someone is mentored that might hold the real difference in advancement between the United States and the United Kingdom. For aspiring executives in the United States, there really is little overlap in where these future executives where raised and educated. The only common factor they seem to share would be the willingness to work 60+ hours a week for decades in both the hope and expectation of being noticed and therefore earning their promotions to the top tier. American CEO’s will work an average of 62.5 hours per week, which is almost 20 hours a week longer than the 44 hours a week that is typical for a normal American executive (Berger, 2018). Obviously, an aspiring executive who is willing to work almost 50% harder, year after year for 20 years will have earned their recognition and mentoring. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, there appears to be a strong social class element that must be considered when trying to determine why and how some executives have been able to maneuver into the top-tier offices. Top British executives work almost the same hours as any other executive, 44.7 hours a week for a British CEO vs 42.7 hours a week for a normal British executive (Taneja, 2013). Then the question becomes how were potential top-tier executives in the United Kingdom identified and mentored during the twenty years of their professional working life? There appears to be a strong social-class difference, and the acceptance of a social glass ceiling that offers the strongest contrast, and therefore potential explanation for what criteria might be used to determine which executives are targeted, mentored and eventually promoted into the top-tiers. In the United States, the wide diversity of undergraduate alma maters and the near dearth of upper-class backgrounds, coupled with the evidence of decades working 60+ hour work weeks to attain success would strongly suggest that CEO’s in the United States have both the option, and the obligation to work for their chance for upper-tier positions. In contrast, 28% of the CEO’s of the largest companies in the United Kingdom went to either Oxford or Cambridge University. In addition, at least 12 went to Eton College for High School. Clearly there is the potential, if not the clear reality that social-class background and school ties are a critical component for recognition and mentoring for aspiring British Executives. Given that there is little difference between the working hours of top-tier vs general British Executives, and therefore little expectation of extra work hours for advancement, the question has to be asked, how do aspiring British executives get noticed and mentored? Clearly, the “right” background and school ties have to be considered.

REFERENCES Alvaredo, F., Atkinson, A. B., & Morelli, S. (2018). “Top wealth shares in the UK over more than a century.” Journal of Public Economics, 162, 26-47. Anschuetz, N. (2015). “Breaking the 4-year myth: Why students are taking longer to graduate. USA Today, December 16, 2015. Belasco, A. (2019). “Five reasons to consider going to college in the U.K.” College Transitions, January 8, 2019.

Berger, S. (2018). “Here’s what CEOs actually do all day.” Harvard Business Review, June 20, 2018. Bond, S. (2014). “Organizational culture and work-life conflict in the UK.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(12), 1-24. Cartwright, S. (2010). “Taking the pulse of executive health in the U.K.” The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14. Num. 2. Davis, M. (2016). “Why the US working class is different.” New Left Review, 123(1). Domanski, D., Scatigna, M., & Zabai, A. (2016). “Wealth inequality and monetary policy.” BIS Quarterly Review March. Durrans, A. (2017). Where do the world’s top CEOs go to university?” Times Higher Education, January 18, 2017. Edgington, U. (2016). “Performativity and accountability in the UK education system: a case for humanness.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(2), 307-312. Henrich, J. (2017). “The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter.” Princeton University Press. Hess, A. (2018). “University of Wisconsin produced the most current Fortune 500 CEOs – Here’s how 29 other schools stack up.” CNBC.com Hey, A. P., Grimaldi-Christensen, A., & Savage, M. (2017). “Elites in the UK: New approaches to contemporary class divisions”. Tempo Social, 29(3), 161-179. Hill, D. (2017). “Social class and education.” In Considering Class: Theory, Culture and the Media in the 21st Century (pp. 31-50). Brill. Jackson, C., & Sundaram, V. (2015). “Is ‘lad culture a problem in higher education? Exploring the perspectives of staff working in UK universities.” Final report, Society for Research into Higher Education. https://www.srhe.ac.uk/downloads/JacksonSundaramLadCulture.pdf. Kelly, R. (2016). “When it comes to vacations, CEOs have some hard work to do.” Chief Executive, September 19, 2016. Le Blanc, P. (2017). “A Short History of the US Working Class: From Colonial Times to the Twenty-first Century (revolutionary Studies).” Haymarket Books. Moody, J. (2019). “Where the top fortune 500 CEO’s attended College.” U.S. News and World Report, June 11, 2019. Moshinsky, B. (2016). The 9 British universities that produce the most CEOs.” The Independent, February 29, 2016. NCES. (2019). “Time to degree.” United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) September 25, 2019. Taneja, S. (2013). “Sustaining work schedules: Balancing leisure and work.” Academy of Management Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, Num. 2. Tetlow, M. (2017). “Time off for good behavior: Vacation cultures in the U.K. vs U.S.” Frontlines Critical Medicine, November 9, 2017.