Leadership – Page 4 – understand-culture

Four Areas

Buzzword: an important-sounding, usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen; a voguish word or phrase.

Leadership. A buzzword. Not only management books, seminars and trainings profess their teaching of leadership skills. Universities, high schools and even some elementary schools have gotten into the act. Grouped under the heading of leadership is an array of topics, from communication to decision making to conflict resolution to business ethics. Leadership has become an umbrella-term for almost any skill considered to be critical to success.

But, we’re interested in the core meaning of leadership. In the specific, daily interaction between leader and led, between team lead and members. Even more specific, we want to understand how team lead and member together manage the line between strategy (the what) and tactics (the how).

To get a sense for the shared inner logic of that fundamental interaction in a given society, one needs to understand it in at least four areas essential to any functioning society: How a society defends itself (military); How a society organizes itself (government); How a society feeds itself (business); and how a society teaches and practices interactions analogous to each of those three areas (sports).

If a given society is stable, if it is flourishing, there will be a common leadership logic in each of those four areas. How could it be any other way? Can a well-functioning, stable, successful society have one leadership logic in the military sphere and another in the political or commercial sphere? Isn’t what a society teaches its young men and women in sports representative with how that society functions (or should function)?

We compare. The relationship between officer and soldier. Offizier und Soldat. Between president and cabinet. Kanzlerin und Kabinett. Between CEO and CFO, COO, CIO, etc. Vorstandsvorsitzender und Vorstandskollegen. Coach and player. Trainer und Spieler.

Stratēgia

Strategy: The science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war; the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions; a careful plan or method; the art of devising or employing plans toward a goal. From Greek stratēgia generalship, from stratēgos. First known use 1810.

Strategy is the goal, the mission, the end result, what is to be achieved by the team. It is a decision or a series of decisions. Tactics is the action taken to achieve that goal, to execute that decision. Strategy is the what. Tactics is the how.

Tactics: The science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat; the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end; a system or mode of procedure. New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikos of order, of tactics, fit for arranging, from tassein to arrange, place in battle formation. First known use 1626.

In American football, basketball or baseball the strategy of a team can be seen in the formation of their players on the field. The strategy of American companies, of their individual teams, can be seen in their organization structure. A political campaign strategy is explicit in their organizational set-up, in which states they deploy what people and resources.

Lead: To guide on a way especially by going in advance; to direct on a course or in a direction; to serve as a channel for; to go through; to direct the operations, activity, or performance of; to have charge of; to go at the head of; to be first in or among; to aim in front of. From Middle English leden, from Old English lǣdan; akin to Old High German leiten to lead, Old English līthan to go. First known use before 12th century

Manage: To handle or direct with a degree of skill; to make and keep compliant; to treat with care; to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of; to work upon or try to alter for a purpose; to succeed in accomplishing. From Italian maneggiare, from mano hand, from Latin manus. First known use 1579.

Administer: To manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of; to mete out; to give remedially. From Middle English administren, from Anglo-French administrer, from Latin administrare, from ad + ministrare to serve, from minister servant. First known use 14th century.

MBWA

Management by walking around (MBWA) was an idea made popular by the 1982 book „In Search of Excellence“ (Tom Peters, Robert Waterman) emphasizing the need for senior-level management get back in touch, or to be in closer touch, with their organizations.

MBWA recommended unscheduled visits by managers to their teams, in their operations, in order to ask questions, offer support, and to answer questions „at the ground level.“

Although thought by many readers of the book to be something new, MBWA, like so many other business management fads in the U.S., has been practiced by Americans in leadership positions for many generations.

Baseball and pitch-calling

Steve Krah of the Elkhart Truth (newspaper in Indiana) wrote online: „More and more, catchers at the college and high school levels are seen peeking — or even staring — in the dugout to get the sign from a coach.

While some programs let their pitchers and catchers manage their own games, many others — especially NCAA Division I schools — take that off the battery mates’ plates.

Notre Dame pitching coach Chuck Ristano calls nearly every pitch as well as pick-off tosses and pitch-outs and sets the defense for the Irish.

`I want (the pitcher and catcher) to have some element of ownership in the game, but the reality is we have access to a lot more information than the kids do (like tendency and hitter spray charts),’ Ristano said. `We just want them to focus on executing their pitch.`’

Notre Dame employs a numbers system that is flashed to the catcher, who then consults a wristband chart that suggests which pitch and part of the strike zone to throw the pitch.“

Signs That You’re a Micromanager

“Signs That You’re a Micromanager.” Muriel Wilkins. November 2014. Harvard Business Review.

“Absolutely no one likes to be micromanaged. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and demotivating. Yet, some managers can’t seem to help themselves. The signs are clear:

You’re never quite satisfied with deliverables. You’re often frustrated because you would’ve gone about the task differently. You laser in on the details and take great pride in making corrections. You constantly want to know where all your team members are and what they’re working on. You ask for frequent updates on where things stand. You prefer to be cc’d on emails.

Wilkins suggest four things to reduce micromanaging:

Get over yourself. We can all rationalize why we do what we do and the same holds true for micromanagers.

Let it go. The difference between managing and micromanaging is the focus on the micro. Let go of the minutia.

Give the what, not the how. There’s a difference between sharing that expectation and dictating how to get to that result.

Expect to win. Be clear on what success looks like. Provide the resources, information, and support needed to meet those conditions. Give credit where credit is due.

Too Much Coffee

In the American movie Jungle-2-Jungle, a prominent business leader goes to the jungle, and while there he sends a message to his employee to sell all of his coffee shares. However, his battery dies before he manages to confirm that he wants to sell the coffee.

His employee, unwilling to act without confirmation, doesn’t sell the shares, and much of the movie revolves around the two men attempting to sell the coffee shares that are quickly diminishing in value.

Meetings

One way to get a sense for the importance of short lines of communications within an American team is to observe those lines. Team meetings: How often are they scheduled? How long do they last? Who takes part in them? What topics are addressed? How much detail do they go into?

Team or staff meetings play an important role in American teams. They help management and the team maintain an overview of their most important work. Information flow is supported. Current developments, problems, complexities can be addressed immediately. If well run, staff meetings can be motivating. Management remains „in touch“ with the team.

Frequent meetings are standard practice in the American business culture. According to the National Statistics Council, 37% of managers and white collar worker time is spent in meetings. Other data indicate there are 11 million business meetings every day or roughly 3 billion meetings per year. According to a Verizon study, „Busy professionals attend over 60 meetings each month. However, most say they cannot attend all meetings to which they are invited due to the tremendous demands on their time.“

The Verizon study found that “different meeting types were characterized by different patterns of meeting purposes. On average, in-person meetings are more likely to be sales-related, video conferences are more likely to be centered around updates and information-sharing, and audio conferences tend to consist of updates, brainstorming, and strategy development.”

According to a study done by the University of Tulsa and the University of Arizona, about 25 percent of American business meetings were between 31 and 61 minutes long. “The average time participants spend to prepare for, travel to, and attend an in-person meeting involving five people is 53 hours and 24 minutes. This is more than three times the time involved in an audio or video conference meeting.”

When meetings are required somebody must decide who should be invited and who should be excluded. One researcher found that “not having the ‘right’ people is one of the leading causes of unproductive meetings.” More than a third (34%) of 3M Study participants report only some (30%) relevant people attended meetings.

A common complaint from American businesspeople is that key decision makers are not present at meetings. Therefore, much time is wasted discussing topics that no one at the table has the authority to make decisions about.

However, another study encourages meeting planners to exclude senior-level leadership if at all possible. “Avoid and resist senior managers and directors attending your meetings unless you can be sure that their presence will be positive, and certainly not intimidating. Senior people are often quick to criticize and pressurize without knowing the facts, which can damage team relationships, morale, motivation and trust.”

“Stop micromanaging”

Harvard Business Review. “Stop Being Micromanaged.” Amy Gallo, September 22, 2011.

There are managers who have very high standards who like some degree of control. They pay a great deal of attention to detail and exercise some degree of control, but they don’t stifle those who work for them.

Then there are pathological micromanagers who need to make it clear to themselves and others that they are in charge. These are the bosses that give you little to no autonomy, insist they be involved in every detail of your work, and are more concerned about specifics, such as font size, rather than the big picture.”

It is counterproductive to fight against micromanagement. Gallo suggests: “Make upfront agreements. Talk to your boss before a project starts about how she will be involved. Try to agree on standards and basic approach.

Explain what you think the ideal plan of action is and then ask for her input. Be sure you understand upfront what the guiding principles are for the work, not just the tactical elements. These principles are what you should be discussing with your boss.

The author recommends: “Remind your boss that she is better off not getting involved in the minutiae because her time and effort are more valuable to the big picture. And keep your boss in the loop.”

“value to your manager”

This is a comment on a Wall Street Journal article vom March 17, 2025 entitled: “Job Seekers Hit Wall of Salary Deflation – The salary bump that people who switch jobs used to command has vanished.”

“Going for the money as the big motivator for a job has not been the best personal career choice. Location and challenging work are much better career decision criteria. Constantly providing extra value to your manager and your manager’s managers is always a strong career strategy.”

If you ask most Americans who they work for, they will name their immediate boss. If you ask a German they will name their company. If you ask that German to be more specific they will name the division. Ask further and they will say the department. Rarely would they name their immediate boss or anyone in management.