Leadership – Page 8 – understand-culture

The Allies and Mitbestimmung

“Herewith the establishment of works councils is permitted within all of Germany.”

German Mitbestimmung – co-determination, employee participation in high-level company decision making – is a tradition, law and an institution which most certainly is a source of headaches for American business partners and investors. At the same time the works councils are a source of great pride and self-understanding for all German labor unions as well as for many German citizens.

And although German Mitbestimmung had had a long tradition in Germany, it was the Western Allies, primarily the Americans and the British, who insisted immediately after World War II that the newly established West German state reinstitute it.

After their takeover of power in January 1933 the National Socialists had outlawed the Mitbestimmung, and forced all labor unions to be unified within the so-called Deutsche Arbeitsfront – literally German Workers Front. The goal was to prevent any potential resistance to the regime from among the working class.

With strikes in 1905 in the coal mining Ruhr region the unions had won the right to establish works councils. In the years thereafter the councils gain increasing influence. During the Weimar Republic these gains were written into law.

The works councils represented the economic and social interests of the workers over and against management. It was no surprise, therefore, that the Nazis saw in them potential opposition to their demand for absolute power. In 1934 the Nazis banned all independent unions and works councils.

It was no surprise, therefore, that what had been a thorn in the side of the Nazis was reinstated by the Allies. Kontrollratsgesetz Nr. 22 – Allied Law No. 22 – in the Spring of 1946 put works councils back in business.

Since then there has been no better instrument to prevent total control by management. Those who pick a fight with a works council go against the self-understanding and pride of the German movement for worker rights.

Deviation from mission

In the German military context, independent deviation from the Auftrag – mission – is permitted and expected, if the situation on the ground has changed, demands a rapid response, and the commanding officer cannot be reached.

The overall mission, however, may not be re-interpreted. The tactical approach is always subject to modification. This presupposes that the junior officers and their troops are fully informed of the overall strategy which the mission serves, allowing them to choose the best path to the goal.

Those considering deviation need to ask themselves: „How would I as the commanding officer react to the changes on the ground?“ Critical is acting in accordance to the spirit of the Auftrag, the mission.

Telegraph as Threat

„The most unfortunate officer in the field, is the one who is distracted by headquarters with daily, even hourly requests for reports on his strategy, tactics and intentions, quite often from an overly self-important junior staff officer with access to a telegraph line.“ General Helmuth von Moltke, Head of the Prussian General Staff

Flexibility and Independence

Under the title “What American universities can learn from German universities,” Mark Roche, Professor of German studies at the University of Notre Dame, writes:

“Intellectual independence, knowledge as an end in itself, high regard for the humanities: the German university system could serve as a model for the United States in many ways.

What can the United States learn? First, student flexibility and independence, both characteristics of the German university tradition, are important principles of learning. Students learn more when they have to demonstrate independence and initiative.

Before the reform of European universities (the so-called Bologna Process), German students had the freedom to devote themselves to intellectual questions in an organic way, in a manner quite different from the student mentality at most American universities.

There (in American universities), students are given a lot of homework that does not encourage them to delve deeper into a topic for its own sake or to pursue further questions arising from their studies on their own initiative.

Thanks to their education in independence, the best German students proved to be highly motivated and responsible. Self-education requires freedom.”

Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 13, 2015.

MacArthur vs. Nimitz

During World War II, the two American military leaders in charge of operations in the Pacific could not have been more different in their personalities and leadership styles. Both General Douglas MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz were in charge of two different sections of the Pacific, answering to no one but the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They both had incredible success, both in their individual and joint campaigns. Yet, only one of these men became an American celebrity, admired for his amazing leadership skills.

MacArthur was a showman, fond of strong gestures and motivating speeches. Occasionally accused of being a megalomaniac, Macarthur believed very strongly that the Pacific fleet should be united under his authority. He expected his officers to inform him about everything, and he expected his orders to be carried out precisely as he specified them. His opinions on his officers’ advice and reporting abilities are shown very clearly in two of his quotes:

“I realize that advice is worth what it costs – that is, nothing. Expect only five percent of an intelligence report to be accurate. The trick of a good commander is to isolate the five percent.”

On the other hand, Nimitz was said to be a team player, who relied on his staff’s expertise to successfully manage themselves and to provide useful advice when needed. Naval historian Robert Love wrote that Nimitz “had the ability to pick able subordinates and the courage to let them do their jobs without interference. He molded disparate personalities into an effective team.”

Nimitz was a German-Texan, born and raised in Fredericksburg, Texas.

When not to obey

„Sir, the King of Prussia has made you an officer of the Prussian Army, so that you know when not to obey an order!“ Prince Friedrich Karl to a Major in the Prussian Army (1870)

„ … in those cases, in which the junior-officer comes to the conclusion that his commander is no longer in a position to judge the situation, and where his order has been rendered inadequate by events, it is the expressed responsibility and duty of that junior-officer to either redefine or ignore the order.“ Prussian officer training manual of 1906

“… when not to obey”

Here are two famous quotes illustrating the German/Prussian military tradition emphasizing the need for officers to exercise judgment even if it means disobeying orders:

The first historic anecdote involves Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz, a Prussian cavalry commander, who reportedly told his king during the Battle of Zorndorf (1758): “Tell the King that after the battle my head is at his disposal, but meanwhile I will make use of it.” This reflects the attitude that obedience alone is not enough; an officer must think critically and may need to disobey orders for the greater good.

Another related quote references a Prussian officer being told by Prince Frederick Charles (1868-1940): “His Majesty made you a Major because he believed you would know when not to obey his orders.“ This illustrates the principle that obedience has limits and military leaders must sometimes disobey orders based on the situation.

These quotes capture the essence of Auftragstaktik, the Prussian concept of mission-type orders, where the officer is entrusted with the freedom to decide the best way to achieve the goal.

The Switch Operator

Dr. Sigrid Evelyn Nikutta is the head of Berlin’s public transportation authority, and is considered one of Germany’s top managers. Named Manager of the Year in 2012, she is known for her democratic and employee-focused leadership style.

Nikutta characterizes herself as consistent, consequent and cooperative: “Employees are my colleagues. I seen them as people. That is no contradiction to an ambitious leadership style which sets clear goals. Involvement of all key people, on all levels, is critical, in order to make clear and fast decisions, whose results are followed closely.”

Nikutta’s management approach is not only effective, but moreso very popular among today’s German workers. Especially the younger generations prefer a boss who is more of a partner and who communicates transparently.

Successful leadership leads to motivation and results. The head of Berlin’s public transportation authority is a model for successful, consensus-oriented management.

Working independently

Many job advertisements will promise their employees the opportunity to work independently. An independent work environment, without constant oversight or having someone ‘looking over your shoulder’, is viewed very positively.

This is also an indicator of trust. Constant check-ins with one’s boss about the status of a project are neither necessary nor desired. In the German workplace, too many check-ins suggests an over-dependence on guidance on the part of the employee. Such ‘needy’ employees require a lot of ‘hand-holding’ – something which no German employer feels like doing.

Check with Colleagues and Manager

Agreements of substance and importance have effects, ramifications, influence on the work of others. And since Americans work in teams, many of them in several teams at any given time, they are not inclined to enter fully into an agreement until they have checked out what those effects might be.

Why invest additional time discussing the details of a potential agreement, if one or two aspects of it are counter to their other responsibilities? Instead, Americans will check with key colleagues in those organizations potentially influenced by the agreement. In many cases, they will also briefly discuss the case with their direct manager.

This approach is often mistakenly interpreted as a sign that many Americans are either incapable or unwilling to make decisions on their own, without having to run to their boss for permission.

American team leads ultimately carry all responsibility for what occurs within their organization, and are therefore keenly interested in what obligations their team members make in their – the team leader’s – names.