Ihr Urteil (Terror, 2016). This courtroom drama, adapted from a stage play, explores the trial of a Luftwaffe officer. While the film includes a trial, it is notably less theatrical and more procedural than American counterparts, emphasizing legal process over direct emotional confrontation.
investigation and mediation
German movies stand in contrast to the more adversarial and theatrical style of American legal dramas, instead illustrating the German cultural and procedural logic of managing conflict by minimizing direct confrontation and focusing on thorough, impartial investigation and mediation.
Scopes “Monkey” Trial
The Scopes “Monkey” Trial (1925): In this landmark case, teacher John Scopes was tried for teaching evolution in Tennessee. The trial featured direct, public debate between the defense and prosecution, and became a national spectacle, reinforcing the American expectation that all sides be heard openly and directly.
“Everybody is police”
An Iranian in Berlin complains about being told not to ride his bicycle on the sidewalk. “Everbody in Germany is a police.”
YouTube comments:
“‘Are you hobbylos?’ Only Germans say that.” … “Great way to catch a stick in the spokes, Mate.” … “Is he evidently unaware of traffic rules and in dire need of this reprimand?” … “That’s just called pedestrian safety. Stay on the bike lane or the street.”
For those people tending to sympathize with this guy complaining about Germany and the Germans, see below how traffic is organized in Iran:
Are Germans Too Direct?
Learn German with our street interviews: In this episode we deal with a common prejudice, namely: Germans are always very direct! We find out for you on the streets of Berlin whether this is actually always true and in which situations in particular.
YouTube comments:
“I’ll never forget when visiting a friend in Germany for the first time: He was with another friend and they saw a mutual acquaintance at a cafe. ‘We know that man, we went to school together.’ ‘Want to go over and say hello?’ ‘No. Later he became stupid, so we don’t talk to him anymore.’ I loved the blunt honesty.”
“I like how a lot of the people who said no said it very directly, and emphatically. Lol, I have German heritage, and it feels right.”
“Honestly, the directness in Germany as a precise way to tell things that need to be fastly adressed, instead of running in circles (or plainly just not speaking) to avoid offending someone like we in other coubtries do, makes my life easier as in my hometown in Latin America, in that way I find social rules way simpler, gets problems solved faster. On the other side, sometimes people (the least of them) confuse directness with plain aggression, there are things that simply are not needed to be told.”
“Stop Being Micromanaged”
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.”
“Stop sugarcoating”
November 12, 2024. Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer, reports on the company’s progress. A video with the title “90 days in 90 seconds.”
However, many Germans were not convinced. Not because Germans are mean people. Not because Germans are negative, destructive, or pessimistic. But instead, because they have a different approach to persuasion. How they persuade. How they allow themselves to be persuaded.
See the Anderson-video and the comments on LinkedIn. Here are some of the German comments:
“Dear Bill Anderson: I know that you have a difficult job, and I don’t want to blame you for the mistakes of your predecessors. Nevertheless, you should be able to honestly tell employees, shareholders and the German public, how things are going at Bayer. Your above statement is in my point of view misleading and irresponsible.
Bayer’s existence is threatened and you and the top management (seem) have not yet understood this. Stop being the Olaf Scholz (German Chancellor) of the German industry and please switch from Disney Land mentality to the necessary crisis mode. If you and management are unable to recognize, communicate and resolve the realities, please clear the way for leaders who can. And please stop sugarcoating terrifying realities ASAP!!!”
The commenter is a Ph.D. university professor in Pathology and Immunology. And the commenter is a German who has also become an American citizen.
Another comment from a German on LinkedIn: “‘We’re making great progress in some areas.”‘ You cannot be serious! The share price is at a 20-years low. It is true that you cannot be blamed for your predecessors’ mistakes, but where was the share price at, when you started as CEO at Bayer?”
And this from a Bayer-employee: “With this performance and a drop of more than 10% in share price today, I would be surprised if you survive another year as CEO. Be honest and inform the public that the Bayer Monsanto merger is a huge insolvency risk. It is time for a rescue plan to save at least parts of the company.” The commenter is German.
“Give them a fair hearing.”
“Give them a fair hearing.”Means to listen to each side’s arguments or explanations openly and impartially.
Sacco and Vanzetti
The Sacco and Vanzetti trial had a profound influence on American perceptions of conflict resolution by exposing the limitations and vulnerabilities of the open hearing system when prejudice and social tensions are present.
Public Hearing as a Double-Edged Sword: The trial was highly public, with both defendants and accusers present, embodying the American expectation that justice is served through open hearings where all sides confront each other. However, the proceedings revealed how such openness could be compromised by widespread nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment, leading to a process where the accused were judged as much for their background and beliefs as for the actual evidence against them.
Exposure of Systemic Bias: The case became an emblem of injustice, demonstrating that even in a system designed for fairness through open confrontation, outcomes could be deeply affected by societal prejudice. The trial and its aftermath showed that “who you are and, in this instance, what you believe, has an enormous amount to do with how you’re treated by the judicial system”.
Catalyst for Reform and Debate: The public outcry and international attention the case generated led to calls for legal reforms, such as changes in Massachusetts law to allow the Supreme Court to review facts in death penalty cases, rather than only procedural matters. The trial forced Americans to confront foundational questions about equality, fairness, and the role of bias in conflict resolution.
Symbol of Ongoing Debate: Sacco and Vanzetti’s case turned into a rallying point for those seeking to combat injustice and prejudice, and it remains a touchstone in debates about the American justice system, open hearings, and the treatment of minorities and dissenters.
In summary, the Sacco and Vanzetti trial revealed both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the American approach to conflict resolution through open hearings, highlighting that true justice requires not only procedural openness but also vigilance against bias and prejudice within the system.
Without context, no agreement.
Ohne Kontext keine Zustimmung. Literal translation: Without context, no agreement. Meaning: Stresses that agreement is only possible when all relevant information is available.