Germany – Page 41 – understand-culture

„How are you?“

When it comes to using highly complimentary words the Germans are very reserved. Excellent, brilliant, great are words seldom heard. When asked „How are you?“, the Germans rarely respond with the equivalent of great, super, fantastic. For them everything could be better, can be improved. Germans avoid any form of exaggeration. If anything they will exaggerate in the negative.

Jemanden auf den Arm nehmen. Literally to take someone by the arm: to lie, cheat, fool, trick. Because children can be taken by the arm and led astray due to their naiveté.

Sensationell. Sensational. Stefan Raab, Germany‘s most popular tv-entertainer, has made the use of the term acceptable in Germany by using it an ironic sense. Sensationell are those people, things, events which are implausible, laughable, ridiculous.

Hochstapler. A person who lies about their background, abilities, achievements in order to gain respect, position or advantage. Hoch, high. Stapeln, to load up or stack. A Gabelstapler, is a forklift. Gabel, fork.

Marcel Reich-Ranicki

German literature, film and theater critics are particularly critical. They view everything with skepsis and are therefore considered by Germans – a skeptical people in general – to be more serious, more reliable. One German literature critic labeled a new novel the most impressive of the year, but still gave it four out of a possible five stars.

Marcel Reich-Ranicki was considered the most influential literature critic in today‘s Germany. He was known to tear apart the works of contemporary German writers both in his written critiques and on his television show. Active until 92 years of age Reich-Ranicki remained the most read critic in Germany precisely because of his very high standards of excellence.

Thirty minutes of Reich-Ranicki criticizing books.

“Always room for improvement”

The political barometer of the German television station ZDF regularly gauges the country’s political sentiments. As a part of this, the country’s top ten politicians are shown with their approval ratings. The scale ranges from -5 to 5.

In July 2014, the political barometer was titled “After the World Championship: Angela Merkel sees highest approval ratings.” This clearly meant that amongst the persons polled, Angela Merkel, with a score of 2.8 took first place amongst the most important politicians.

2.8 out of a possible best of 5.0 points demonstrates how deflationary grades are given in Germany, even when one is quite satisfied with the overall performance.

As the Germans like to say: “Es gibt immer Luft nach oben” – “There is always room for improvement”.

German law school top honors

The grading system of German law schools is a discipline of its own. In total there are 18 points. Every three points are equal to one grade level (like a letter grade). Law schools, in addition to the usual levels of very good, good, satisfactory, acceptable, inadequate, and insufficient, also use the level entirely satisfactory.

Those who receive the grades of very good, good, or entirely satisfactory on their certification exam (comparable to the bar exam) graduate with distinction. A minimum of four points are required to pass the exam, and only 15% of students receive a score higher than eight.

To receive all eighteen points would give you a grade of very good plus. This practically never happens, becoming very clear when a lot of fuss is made over someone receiving a very good grade.

For example, Sonja Pelikan in 2010. She received 16.08 points, which was even worth an interview by a major German newspaper (Wie schafft man 16 Punkte? Süddeutsche Zeitung, May 10th, 2010).

Or Stefan Thönissen who was interviewed by the Baden news, because he received an evaluation of very good on his exam. The article emphasized: “In the field of law, 18 points is the magical maximum score, essentially unattainable.”

But why would one introduce a grading-scale in which it is impossible to reach the highest grade? Perhaps to convey the message: “It is always possible to do a little bit better, so put some effort into it!” Perhaps to keep the others “grounded to the facts”. Because nothing is worse than considering one’s self to be better than one really is.

„If you can‘t say anything positive”

Euphemism: The substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant: eliminate for kill; suboptimal for below standard; interesting for bad; issue or challenge for problem; career change, early retirement opportunity, career transition, involuntarily separation for being fired;

economically disadvantaged for poor; temporary negative cash flow for broke; substandard housing or economically depressed neighborhood for slum; collateral damage for deaths of women and children and old people; pre-owned vehicle for used car; adult beverages for alcohol.

Almost every American has at some point in their lives heard the statement „If you can‘t say anything positive, don‘t say anything at all.“ Americans are careful about giving negative feedback. Charles Schwab has been quoted: “I have yet to find the man, however exalted his station, who did not better work and put forth greater effort under a spirit of approval than under a spirit of criticism.”

Criticism in Front of Colleagues

Criticism of an individual team member in the presence of the team is an accepted way in which Germans make that individual aware of a weakness or reoccuring error and request that it be addressed. Not only management, but also colleagues, are authorized – and expected – to voice open criticism, to point out what is not working. This kind of open criticism is not considered to be negative.

Open criticism of colleagues is considered negative, however, if it is not aimed at improving performance, but instead in gaining advantage within the team at the expense of that individual colleague.

rügen. To upbraid, to criticize, to admonish; to point out a weakness or failure; to set someone straight.

Jemanden zur Schnecke machen. Figuratively to make some into a snail. To complain to and about someone, to put down harshly, to set someone straight in a direct and harsh way.

Discretion. To hold something private, secret; to be entrusted; to be tactful, considerate, reserved; not pushy.

Pranger. Pillory. A stone column located in the middle of the village to which individuals are chained for a period of time as a form of punishment for a petty crime. Townspeople would often slap or hit them, throw trash at them, or otherwise humiliate them. To put someone on the Pranger means to criticize, even embarrass them in front of the organization.

Prussian Civil Service

Civil Service Reforms (18th–19th Century). The Prussian state is famous for pioneering a professional, merit-based civil service. Reforms under Frederick the Great and later administrators emphasized: objectivity and efficiency in evaluating officials; performance-based promotions and appointments, not personal connections; a culture where professional conduct and results mattered more than personal feelings or relationships. Civil servants were expected to perform their duties impartially, and feedback on their work was formal, standardized, and focused strictly on results.

“I won’t accept this prize“

In 2008 leading literary pundit Marcel Reich-Ranicki was supposed to receive the German television award for his life’s work. Reich-Ranicki also came to the awards show and listened to the laudation by Thomas Gottschalk. However, in his thank-you address he had little thanks left for the award that he a just been presented with.

Instead, he explained, that he had already received many important prizes in his life, and that it had never been difficult for him to say thank you. But today, he was “in a very horrible situation“, as he was forced to “somehow react” to the prize which he had received, and was asked to be “not too harsh”.

“I don’t want to offend anyone. No, I don‘t want to do that. But I would just like to come out and say that I will not accept this prize. If the prize had come with money I would have given the money back, but it didn’t come with money. I can only fling this object […] away from me, or throw it at someone’s feet. I cannot accept it! And I also found it terrible to have to suffer this event for five hours.”

Reich-Ranicki’s speech left his audience perplexed. During his speech the cameras continued to capture shocked expressions amongst the members of the audience, here and there and embarrassed grin, a few laughs. Reich-Raniki was bold enough to call the German Television award, which many of the attending actors and producers used to sing their own praises, ‘rubbish’. Freely and without restraint. Controversial. Typical Reich-Ranicki.

Be wary. Be happy.

Germans strive to remain clear-headed, to avoid incrementally inflated euphoria, to avoid a step-by-step distancing from a sober assessment of reality. For Germans it’s not “Don’t worry. Be Happy.” But instead “Be wary. Be happy.”

Wary: marked by keen caution, cunning, and watchfulness, especially in detecting and escaping danger.

“Escaping danger.” Dangerous can be thinking too highly of oneself. Dangerous can be misreading a situation. Dangerous is unjustified happy, euphoric.

But, there is another reason to “be wary.” Neid, envy. The Germans themselves speak of their Neidgesellschaft, “society of envy”, of their Neider, the envious.

Public recognition can lead to envy within the team. Envy threatens cohesion. Germans are not comfortable with “stars” or “rainmakers” in their organizations. Neid is one reason. The other is purely rational.

In complex organizations, especially those which are highly matrixed, how can individuals or individual teams be cited as especially successful? As clearly better than others? How can that be measured?

“We want negative feedback”

Statement made by a German working in the U.S.: “It bothers us Germans when our American bosses give is inflated feedback, meaning too positive. Negative feedback keeps us oriented on avoiding mistakes, and it sharpens our ability to remain self-critical.

How is someone supposed to remain clear-headed and self-critical if all they ever hear is great and super. Performance which is clearly suboptimal should not be sugar-coated. Management loses credibility that way.

And feedback loses its key purpose, which is to address primarily things that aren’t working well. At some point this will hurt us. The quality of our work will suffer.”