United States Archives - understand-culture

Willing to argue

The dictionary defines streitbar as follows: [constantly] prepared, having the will to, argue, with someone over something, to critically and activelydispute something; to fight for or about something, to take a stand for something or someone, a fighter; [older] prepared for battle; warrior-like, brave.

The adjective streitbar has a very positive connotation in the German language. In recalling famous persons one often reads the sentence Er war streitbar – he was streitbar.

Politicians are ever more frequently characterized as being streitbar. Streitbar does not mean that one seeks out conflicts in a negative sense. Rather, it means to stand up for ones beliefs, and not avoid serious confrontations.

Chicago Seven

The Trial of the Chicago Seven (1969–1970): This trial of anti-Vietnam War protesters was notable for its highly public, contentious hearings, with defendants, prosecutors, and witnesses confronting each other in court. The proceedings were widely covered and became a symbol of open, adversarial justice in the U.S..

Separate Hearings

German managers are trained to hold separate hearings with the conflict parties. The initial goal is to establish the root cause of the problem and to guage the intensity of the conflict. The German approach avoids a hearing involving both parties. Student mediators in German schools are taught the same method.

A hearing with both conflict parties present almost always leads to an escalation of tension. Emotions run high. Accusations and counter-accusations are made, often without any basis in fact. The mediator can quickly lose control of the situation.

That kind of a hearing only giesst Öl ins Feuer, literally pours oil into the fire; provoke another person; to push a difference of opinions into an open conflict.

The German term Herrschaftswissen, roughly translated as domination or control via better information, in the sense of knowledge is power, has a negative connotation. It signifies power of one over another based on the former‘s access to critical information.

German mediators strive to be better informed of all the details concerning a conflict than the conflict parties themselves. This not only prevents manipulation, it is the basis for resolving the problem.

Due Process

In the U.S. Constitution only one command is stated twice: in the 5th and 14th Amendments: „… or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ….“

This is known as the Due Process Clause, which guarantees that all levels of government in the U.S. must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.

The right of due process is deeply embedded in American thinking, and therefore in the thinking of Americans at the workplace. It is the promise, the guaranty, that a conflict will not be resolved without a process which is fair, transparent, and protects the rights of those involved in the conflict.

It is a question of fairness, of how Americans define what is just. Due Process. It’s what an American employee expects from their next-level management when that manager aims to resolve a conflict within the team.

Land of Lawyers

According to a recent survey, approximately 64% of American parents want their children to grow up to be lawyers. As a result, from a young age American children are taught to admire people who are skilled at presenting cases and winning arguments.

So much so that lawyer is the 14th most common answer that American children give to the question “What do you want to be when you grow up?” Lawyers defend their clients, especially in hearings

Conciliation

Conciliationis is an additional step proposed in the dispute resolution process.

The conciliator meets with the parties separately at a so-called pre-caucus. The purpose is to help each party release their pent up concerns enough to enable them to gain a broader perspective on the dispute.

The parties then meet together at a joint session, where they discuss directly with each other instead of through a mediator.

The conciliator is there to help the parties take responsibility for managing their own conflict, rather than to judge between the merits of the position of one party or the other.

Magistrate

The German State of Thüringen (Thuringia) analyzed aspects of its judicial system. It recommended that magistrates (judges) hold separate hearings with the parties in conflict. Separate hearings are considered to be “besonders hilfreich” – especially helpful.

Many attorneys were quoted praising the advantages of separate hearings: “loose, relaxed atmosphere; room to discuss matters other than the conflict itself; each side feels they are taken seriiously; an opportunity to present one’s viewpoint without the other party attacking it; creates a constructive communication climate.”

One of the magistrates underscored the value of holding separate hearings: “For me the most important part of the mediation is the hearing with each party separately. Points are made which are very important to the respective conflict party, points which helped me to better understand the nature of the conflict and which led us to a breakthrough.”

Sworn Testimony

During a hearing, called by their boss, Americans are careful, factual, cooperative. Most importantly they are discreet. Anger, impatience, any lack of self control is considered to be unprofessional.

The boss listens carefully to what each party to the conflict claims. In a formal hearing, within the legal system, parties providing testimony first swear that they will provide „the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.“

The consequences for lying – perjury – are serious: a felony which can lead to a prison sentence for up to five years.

Perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath; false swearing.

American managers take very seriously their obligation, duty, responsibility to resolve conflicts within their organizations. Any attempt by a conflict party to manipulate that process is punished quickly and severely.

Salem Witch Trials

The Salem Witch Trials (1692–1693): Over 200 people were accused of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, and brought before magistrates in public hearings. Accused individuals had to defend themselves directly against the charges, often in front of their accusers and the community. This event exemplifies the American tradition of confronting one’s accusers and making a public defense.

“It was me, but ….”

There are numerous cases brought to court in America each year. Some of these involve suspects who wish to clarify their misdeeds amongst public discourse. This is particularly prevalent in the current case regarding the suspect of the Boston Marathon Bombings.

The suspect in the case pleaded not guilty although his defense lawyer admits “it was him.” This brings about the right to appear in court to argue your side of the story and expect a fair hearing followed by a fair trial.