Germany Archives - Page 66 of 108

Anstupsen

anstupsen – to nudge, to prod.

In a January 2015 article in DIE ZEIT Tina Hildebrandt writes critically and with irony about the Merkel government engaging experts in order to study what makes the German people happy, and how to move them in that direction. Anstupsen is what the experts call their method.

The experts are developing kleine Entscheidungshilfen – little decision making aids – to prod German citizens in that direction. That is precisely the problem, Hildebrandt writes: “An administration should persuade, not nudge.”

The article demonstrates how quickly Germans get angry when one tries to push them in a certain direction even if only with the help of “little decision making aids.” The slightest suspicion that any action aims to get a decision is immediately counterproductive.

The Germans sense any form of nudge or prod as drängen – as pressure, as pushing. Germans want to be persuaded. And when they make a decision they reject any kind of outside influence.

Business failure is Personal Failure

The Handelsblatt Global Edition from April 23, 2015 reported: Philipp Gloeckler’s business idea was a failure, and he doesn’t mind admitting it. He had what he thought was the perfect concept, an impeccable business plan and great press coverage. Yet, his app, Whyownit, was a disaster.

This is how he found himself at the F***UpNight event in Berlin, a get-together where failed start-up entrepreneurs pick through the bones of their mistakes in the hope that they can do better next time.

“Business failure is often equated to personal failure in this country,” said Rolf Sternberg, a researcher at Leibniz University in Hanover, who recently co-authored a study on young entrepreneurs. “We would win a lot if we would accept failure as a new chance,” he added.

Other than SAP, the software giant founded in 1972, no German tech company has made it onto the global stage. Instead German entrepreneurs are better known for their pursuit of perfection, and finding success within established structures, such as the car industry.

“I am convinced we need to talk about mistakes,” said Béa Beste, whose toy app, which allowed users to subscribe to a toy delivery service for kids, collapsed with the loss of all her investor’s capital as well as her own €300,000 ($322,000). “The worst mistake is being afraid of mistakes,” Ms. Beste said.

Venture capital is scarce in Germany’s risk-averse, conservative economy, so entrepreneurs usually turn to bank loans for funding. But if their business fails and debts are called in, they must go through a lengthy insolvency process which can demand up to six years of “good conduct” before the slate is wiped clean.

Line between Strategy and Tactics

An Auftrag implies a certain distance between team lead (who issues the mission) and team member (who completes the mission). This distance is part of a shared logic. The focus is on the mission and less so on the relationship between team lead and team member. The team lead transfers responsibility for the mission‘s completion to the team member.

The team lead as Auftragserteiler – mission issuer – focuses primarily on issues at a higher level than on the particular missions of the team. The team member as Auftragserfüller – mission completer – is willing and capable of defining the how and completing the mission in the spirit of the Auftrag. The team member takes ownership of the mission, works independently, is in a sense more partner than employee of the team lead.

Naturally team leads and members are constantly adjusting the line between what is strategy (responsibility of the team lead) and what is tactics (responsibility of the team member). In the German context, however, this line is set rather high, meaning the team lead formulates the mission consciously in general, less specific terms. This gives the team member maximum freedom on the tactical level.

And although there will be variations in where German team leads and members draw that line between strategy and tactics – based on the people involved, their experience working together and the nature of the work – the logic remains constant:

The German lead purposely avoids adding to the mission statement any kind of recommendations or specifications about how the mission should be executed (tactics). The how is the responsibility of the team member. It is expected of her/him that they complete the mission independently and without unnecessarily drawing on the team lead‘s time and energy.

Root Cause Analysis

Root cause analysis is a problem solving method which identifies the original cause of error, as opposed to simply addressing the symptoms.

Root cause analysis is critical in those areas in Germany where sustainability is important, where seemingly minor mistakes can lead to major damage, where error occurs time and again, especially in technical areas. Every type of quality analysis relies on root cause analysis.

If products are returned as defective, roots cause analysis is employed immediately. Each and every form of research and development works at the root level. Where more is required than treating symptoms, root cause analysis comes into play.

Führen mit Auftrag

Führen mit Auftrag, a multifaceted leadership concept roughly translated as Leading by Mission, has been the foundational leadership principle in the German military over the last two hundred years. It has its roots in the famous Prussian Reforms of the early 19th Century when the Germans did a comprehensive root cause analysis of why they were so suddenly and thoroughly defeated by Napoleon‘s armies.

Führen mit Auftrag – leading by mission – is how Germans define Menschenführung or leadership of men. The officer issues to his troops a mission, a goal. It is generally formulated, includes a time component and an indication of forces required. It is then up to the next level to devise how they will complete the mission independent of their leadership.

Unique about Führen mit Auftrag is the degree of freedom on the tactical level given to those issued the mission. As long as they complete the overall mission, they decide independently which approach is best, including significant adjustments to possible changes in the situation. Required at the tactical level are flexibility, creativity and executing independent of next-level leadership.

Of critical importance to Führen mit Auftrag is that the tactical level understand clearly and thoroughly the strategic thinking of their commanding officer, and are trained to act independently of that commanding officer, yet in the spirit of his strategic intent.

Those on the tactical must also possess both good judgement and the will to make independent decisions. They must have a strong sense of responsibility and duty. The commanding officer, for his or her part, must make their strategic thinking clear, transparent and understandable for those on the tactical level.

“Sitting out“

Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was often innaccurately portrayed as the master of Aussitzen (sitting out) by journalists and political elites alike. Instead of approaching a problem directly, it was said that he would wait until it would either resolve itself or people would lose interest in it.

But even with Kohl’s retirement from politics,“sitting out“ political issues supposedly has not gone out of style. At least according to Stern maganzine, which claims that Angela Merkel has become the new representative of this style of governing. As Wochenmagazin wrote in March 2010: “Angela Kohl – wait it out, weigh it out, sit it out. Chancellor Merkel reveals herself ever more strongly to be an adept pupil of the greatest sitter-outer Helmut Kohl”.

More accurate is that Kohl was and Merkel is a master of thinking things through, patience, and building consensus.

Führen mit Auftrag – Elements

Führen mit Auftrag – very loosely translated as leading by mission – is the foundational leadership principle in the German armed forces, and has been since the early 1800s. It has six key elements:

1. Decision making: Those with the most expertise should be involved. The team analyzes the Auftrag (mission), the parameters of the situation, and the possible options to complete the mission. This is the basis for making the optimal decision and for maintaining motivation and morale within the team.

2. The Auftrag describes the goal: The core task of military leadership is to issue well-defined Aufträge, missions. The focus is on defining the end state, not the specific action taken to reach it. Define the goal clearly, allow as much tactical freedom as possible. The path to the goal is best defined by those at the front. A clear Auftrag allows the tactical level to make necessary adjustments due to situational changes independent of their leadership.

3. Context and boundary conditions: The Auftrag includes a description of the mission‘s boundary conditions. The tactical level needs to understand how its mission fits into the broader strategic picture. They should be informed and understand the strategic thinking two level above their own. This allows the tactical level to make independent decisions should next-level leadership not be reachable.

4. Resources: Critical to mission completion is providing the tactical level with all necessary resources. Anything less is not only unfair, it threatens team morale and the mission itself. Capable commanders do their best to prevent a gap between mission and resources.

5. Coordination of forces: If the Auftrag requires action by several units, disciplines, organizations, then it is critical to clarify lines of authority and of communication. Overlaps should be avoided, areas of integrated approaches well defined.

6. Communications and reporting: Information flow needs to be set both on the tactical level and between the tactical and strategic levels. Progress reports are critical not only within military units, but also between the military and their civilian commanders.

74 Billion Dollars

On May 7th, 1998 Jürgen Schrempp, CEO of Daimler, and Bob Eaton, CEO of Chrysler appeared together at a press conference in London to announce a merger between the two companies. It was emphasized that this was not a takeover by one company of the other, but rather a fusion between equal parties. Schrempp deemed the merger of Daimler and Chrysler “a match made in heaven”.

After two years, Co-chairman Eaton announced his resignation, leaving Schrempp to be the sole head. In 2006 Schrempp passed this position on to Dieter Zetsche. By March 2007 the first speculations began to emerge that DaimlerChrysler would sell the ChryslerGroup.

Since the merger, Chrysler had reduced its net worth by 35 billion Euros, while the net worth of DaimlerChrysler has been reduced by another 50 billion by the end of Schrempp’s resignation in 2005. On May 14th, 2007 the sale of ChryslerGroup to Cerberus was announced. During a special general assembly on October 4th, 2007 it was officially decided to rename the company Daimler AG.

For Mercedes-Benz this merger to DaimlerChrysler AG seriously damaged the company’s image, which many attribute to quality issues and cost-cutting. The leading role which Daimler-Benz AG once had in the auto industry has still not been completely restored.

A study conducted by the consulting firm McKinsey estimated that the company’s value had dropped during Schrempp’s reign by 74 billion dollars.

Better a bird in the hand

“Besser den Spatz in der Hand als die Taube auf dem Dach” – better a sparrow in the hand than a dove on the roof – is a popular German saying expressing the German aversion to risk.

Aversion to risk and conservativeness go hand-in-hand. Never want too much, be satisfied with what you have.“ Den Mund nicht voll nehmen.” – Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

Only 13 percent of Germans invested in stocks and shares during 2014. Despite rock-bottom interest rates, the majority of savers continued putting their money into trusted bank savings accounts and fixed-return financial products.

Think first. Then act.

Germans often have the impression that their American colleagues gather too little information before making a decision. Valuable information sources are not tapped into. Comparisons are made “on thin ice.” Early indications based on subjective sources are not questioned critically.

All these reservations go against the German belief in erst denken, dann handeln – think first, then act. For richtig denken – literally right or correct thinking, in the German context means holding down (controlling) the natural impulse to act until the situation has been analyzed and the consequences of actions thought through.

It should be of no surprise, therefore, that Germans often see American analysis as insuffiently stringent. They see a narrow and incomplete focus on only certain aspects of the decision to be made. They fear that the Americans overestimate their ability to do a sauber – clean analysis.

This is underlined by what the Germans believe is an American tendancy to take subjective information too strongly into consideration. They are surprised when their counterparts do not use those tools and standards which have proven to be successful.

In the end Germans see their Americans colleagues as too pragmatic, too inaxact. Insufficient results are accepted too quickly. This is very difficult for Germans to accept as a people which places so much emphasis on avoiding errors via accepted tools and standards, errors which could be the source of a Systemzusammenbruch – literally system collapse. Germans see themselves sliding into danger which can only be stopped through analysis performed twice or even three times over.