An article on Jony Ive, the head of design at Apple Computer, in the New Yorker Magazine from February 23, 2105 touches on how the late Steve Jobs gave constructive feedback:
“Jobs’s taste for merciless criticism was notorious. Ive recalled that, years ago, after seeing colleagues crushed, he protested. Jobs replied, ‘Why would you be vague?,’ arguing that ambiguity was a form of selfishness: ‘You don’t care about how they feel! You’re being vain, you want them to like you.’
Ive was furious, but came to agree. ‘It’s really demeaning to think that, in this deep desire to be liked, you’ve compromised giving clear, unambiguous feedback,’ he said. He lamented that there were ‘so many anecdotes’ about Jobs’s acerbity: ‘His intention, and motivation, wasn’t to be hurtful.'”
Americans expect to be coached by their team lead. If the team lead has accurately identified weaknesses in a team member, and has communicated them clearly, fairly and diplomatically in a feedback talk, then it is expected that the team lead then coach her „player.“
Just as a basketball coach will take extra time with a player after practice to work on dribbling or shooting skills, so too a good manager in the American business context will take the time to explain to the employee how to perform certain tasks better: give presentations, write reports, perform calculations, attach the part to the machine, handle customer issues, work with external suppliers, and manager their own team. The list is endless.
If the team lead, however, is not in a position to coach her player directly – due to time constraints or perhaps she is not a master of the skill herself – then she should, at a minimum, know where to send that team member in order to be coached, taught, instructed, advised.
Coach. Player. Americans want to be coached. American sports coaches are deeply involved in how their players play.
In feedback discussions the Germans focus on what isn‘t working. This is a shared logic. Both team lead and team members address primarily weaknesses. The Germans waste little time discussing what is working, instead taking direct aim at deficits.
This problem-orientation is considered positive, constructive and future-oriented. It is a proven approach to assessing suboptimal work results and laying the foundation for improvement. Germans are very pragmatic about reducing mistakes. They often say: „That was good work, but ….“
Every German hears at a young age the statement: Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Schritt zur Besserung, self-critique is the first step towards improvement. Critique of others and of oneself is legitimate and necessary in order to improve. Germans believe that the individual needs first to admit their own weaknesses before being able to eliminate them.
The Germans consider education, and continuing education, to be the foundation of their economy. Their companies, large and small, set aside generous budgets to continuously broaden and deepen the skill sets of their employees.
Training organizations, management consultants, subject area experts all market their expertise in helping companies to reduce errors and to optimize work processes. The key from the German perspective is anticipating and preventing problems.
Roughly 45% of all German employees participate in continuing education sponsored by their employer. 25% of those programs run for several months. 60% of all continuing education in Germany takes place within companies. The Germans are keenly aware of the important role knowledge and skills play in their economic future.
The 2014 Soccer World Championship. Prelims. Germany vs. Algeria. It’s a nerve wracking game, but in the end Germany wins 2:1. It was a tough game for the German team, but in the end they prevailed. Grounds to celebrate, one would think.
Boris Büchler, however, the ZDF television reporter who interviewed center back Per Mertesacker directly after the game, saw things differently. After a short “congratulations” he went straight to his criticisms: “What made the German players so sluggish and vulnerable?”
Mertesacker, already slightly annoyed, emphatically stated that the victory is all that matters: “I don’t give a ****. We’re in the final eight and that’s what counts.”
But Büchler won’t back down: “But this cannot possibly be the level of playing at which you expected to enter the quarter-final? I think the need for improvement must be clear to you as well.”
Mertesacker can no longer keep his cool: “What do you want from me? What do you want, right now, immediately after the game? I don’t understand.” But Büchler stays firm, and repeats his criticism: “Firstly, I congratulate you, and then I wanted to ask why the defensive plays and turnovers did not go as well as one would have liked. That’s all.”
Mertesacker: “Do you think think there is a carnival-troupe (meaning a bunch of clowns) amongst the final 16 teams or something? They made it really hard for us for 120 minutes, and we fought until the very end to prove ourselves. It was a real back-and forth Of course we allowed a lot from them. But in the end our victory was well deserved…”
Mertesacker once again emphasizes how the German team won, in spite of his concession that not everything went as one might have hoped.
But not even this was enough for Büchler: “An absolute show of strength. A high-power performance. Do you think that we will see the same sort of wow-effects again that we saw in the 2010 World Championship, so that the team’s game will improve?”
Mertesacker: “What do you want? Do you want a successful World Championship, or should we just step down and call it a game already? I just don’t understand all of these questions.”
Germany won 2:1. But there will always be something left to criticize. In this case: Just because you won does not mean that you played the game well.
mobil. Magazine of the German Rail. December 2017. An interview with the actor Diane Krüger. Question: “Colleagues for your earlier years claim that you were extremely ambitious. Is it true?”
Krüger: “When I was a little girl my mother never said to me: ‘You’re the best, the greatest, the most beautiful’. Instead all she ever said was: ‘Work harder. You can do better.'”
The Germans communicate directly, transparently, honestly. They speak their mind freely. Especially when it concerns critical feedback the Germans try to be clear and straightforward. They avoid the use of euphemisms. Germans reject any kind of smooth-talking. Aalglatte, literally eel-smooth or eel-slippery people are viewed as having questionable character. They are not honest enough to state their opinion openly.
Das Kind beim Namen nennen. To call the child by its name. To describe a situation as it is, directly, in no uncertain terms; without flowery, positive language; to avoid describing a situation indirectly; to communicate clearly; to get to the point.
Kein Blatt vor den Mund nehmen. Literally to not put a handheld fan in front of one‘s mouth. To address a subject directly, to state one‘s opinion; from the early days of theater when members of the audience held a type of fan in front of the lower half of their face in order to shout out comments of the play without others attributing the statements to them.
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.”
An American woman. Married to a German man. How her husband is very direct. And about how Americans learn to be indirect, especially when giving negative feedback.
Warning ! This woman is a youtuber. And an American on top. So, she is more than a bit animated. And frankly, she could have made her points in about two minutes instead of seven and a half.
In his book A Fiery Peace in a Cold War: Bernard Schriever and the Ultimate Weapon (2010) author Neil Sheehan describes the life and work of Bernard Schriever, who is considered to be the father of the American nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Schriever and his military and civilian colleagues believed firmly that if both the United States and the Soviet Union possessed these weapons of mass destruction the probability of them being used actually would be decreased.
Schriever had to overcome strong institutional resistance within the U.S. Air Force whose leadership was convinced that manned aircraft﹣strategic long-range bombers﹣was the only way to maintain a credible deterrent against the Soviet Union.
Through telling the story of Bernard Schriever and the development of the American ballistic missile program from the end of Second World War up to the mid-1960s Sheehan tells the history of the Cold War, which would last up until the 1990s with the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of West and East Germany, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, and the freedom of Eastern Europe from Russian domination.
In a 2010 television interview (Booknotes on C-SPAN) Sheehan contrasted Schriever with his American-born military colleagues, Generals Paul Harkins and William Westmoreland, both who had overall command of U.S. forces in the Vietnam War.
Schriever would tell his subordinates that he would never fire anyone for failing, but instead for failing to inform him immediately of problems. For Schriever, as stated by Sheehan, success would take care of itself if one focused on solving the problems at hand. Go to minutes 25:10 to 26:50.
Sheehan had been a young war correspondent in Vietnam for United Press International (UPI), later with the New York Times. As told in his book A Bright Shining Lie (1989), which won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, the American generalship during the Vietnam War was unwilling to accept that America was losing that war.
General Schriever, according to Sheehan‘s research, made clear time and again to the members of this organization, whether military or civilian, that he wanted timely and accurate reports on the problems the program was experiencing, and was far less interested in the progress made.
So-called progress reports had become common within the U.S. military after the Second World War, and according to Sheehan, symptomatic for an institution unwilling to face what was not working.
Bernard Adolph Schriever was born in 1910 in the German port city of Bremen. His father was an engineer. They immigrated to the U.S. only months before the U.S. entered the First World War in 1917.
Schriever grew up in New Braunfels, Texas, an area mostly populated by German immigrants. Read about his fascinating life in Wikipedia