Judgement Archives - Page 4 of 5

Caucus discipline

Members of the German Parliament are expected to vote with their party caucus. The term is Fraktionsdisziplin or caucus discipline.

Casting their individual votes in a unified way is the result of an internal process: party conventions define the political plattform; policy positions are worked out in detail; the parliamentary members are issued their guidelines for voting.

For in the end a party’s power and influence in the Bundestag is based on its ability think and act as a unified body.

Fraktionsdisziplin, however, does not mean Fraktionszwang – caucus coercion. On certain legislation Members of the Parliament can deviate from the party line.

They have what the Germans call the Prinzip des freien Mandats – principle of independent mandate, which on matters of conscience is greater than maintaining caucus discipline.

See the Christian Democrats in the Bundestag.

Driving in Germany

“From the German Autobahn to the US Interstate System, der Führerschein or driver’s license – over the past few years we have done a LOT of driving in both Germany and the United States.

Although the US Highway System was modeled after the German Autobahn, you might find some surprising differences. Come ride along with us as we roam the roads of both countries!”

Very helpful, and funny, comments. From Germans. Explaining their logic:

“Germany: The problem that you cannot see the traffic light clearly when you are in the front row is resolved by the fact that the car behind you immediately honks when you are not driving when the traffic light changes to green :-)”

“The main reason why traffic lights in Germany are on your side of the crossing is clarity. Germany with its old town centers has many very irregularly shaped crossings, and a traffic light at the opposite side can not easily be attributed to a certain lane or even a road. When the first traffic lights were introduced in the 1920s, Germany experimented with the placement of the traffic lights on the opposite side or hanging down from cables spanned across the crossing. In the 1950s, all those installations were removed due to constant confusion of drivers.”

“Turning right on red lights is not often used in Germany due to pedestrian and bicycling traffic. When you are waiting on a crossing, chances are high that you not only have to watch out for car traffic, but also for pedestrians and other traffic you don’t regularly have in the U.S.. Thus in Germany, turning right on red lights is decided on a case-by-case base.”

“My instructor in Germany told me early on: “You are behind the wheel, you are handling a weapon.” This stuck with me.”

“About the driver’s license: there is a 40% fail rate on both the theoretical and practical exams here in Germany, which says a lot about the quality of the drivers the government is striving for. As I tell my kids: Driving is easy. Being a driver is not.”

Want to know the why for a culture’s behavior? Simply ask them.

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.

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.

Führen im Auftrag – Quotes

“The mistakes of senior commanders are often rectified by the troops below.” Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian General, author of On War.

“In reality, the Germans owe their final victory to the enormous amount of independently-minded and innovative junior-officers in all positions all the way down to the very lowest ranks.” Russian General Woide on the Franco-Prussion War of 1870/71

“War demands iron discipline of troops and exceedingly tight coordination of forces. In the heat of battle, however, of highest importance are officers and soldiers trained to think and act independently and spontaneously.” Prussian officer training manual of 1906

“Führen mit Auftrag is an extraordinarily broad and involved term, which includes all-encompassing aspects of current doctrine concerning the essence of war, characteristics of leadership, tactics, the leadership of troops, the relationship of senior to junior officers to each other and to soldiers, as well as training and education. In addition, these aspects are formulated systematically in a way which allows them to both mutually support each other and to make them inseparable.” An American Officer (1987)

Führen mit Auftrag – Requirements

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 the following nine requirements.

1. Training: Führen mit Auftrag requires well-trained troops who ideally have been fighting together over a longer period of time. Soldiers should be viewed as masters of their craft. This includes not only expertise in using their weapons, but moreso their overall behaviour when in battle.

2. Self-confidence and cohesion: The entire group must possess a high degree of self-confidence. Every member, from enlisted soldier to the highest ranking officer, must view themselves as an expert at what they do. The officers should be proud to lead such troops. They should identify themselves with their troops and not have an eye on their next promotion.

3. Acceptance: Officers should accept soldiers who take different approaches as long as the overall goal is reached. Officers should not get too involved on the tactical level, thus allowing soldiers to develop their skills. Too early, too much involvement on the tactical level frustrates self-leading soldiers.

4. Trust: Officers and soldiers need to trust each other. Officers cover for their soldiers when things go wrong. Mistakes are either not punished or at least not immediately. Common thinking and acting is critical. It is based on common training.

5. Information: Detailed information is important, especially explaining the strategic thinking behind individual missions. Soldiers need to understand the big picture, the broader context in which they are operating. Officers take seriously input provided by the tactical level, thereby encouraging soldiers to think and act independently.

6. Few orders: Commanding officers state only the mission, provide necessary resources and makes sure that participating organizations coordinate their activities. Everything else is left to the tactical level, which makes their own decisions about how to complete the mission. Leadership is decentralized.

7. Motivation: Commanders at the front know best the strengths and weaknesses of their troops, and can best judge the situation. Allowing for independent decision making and action strengthens motivation and morale among the troops. They identify more closely with the overall mission, view themselves as subjects and not objects to be commanded here and there.

8. Deviation from mission: If the situation on the ground has changed, it is expected of officers and their troops to make the necessary adjustments immediately, even without having informed their next level officer.

9. Situation analysis: Officers and soldiers at all levels are expected to constantly reassess the situation. What is our overall mission? What are we expected to achieve? Has the situation changed in any way which requires of us to modify our approach? If so, in what way and when?

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.

Mediation Process

On the website of the German National Association of Mediation one reads:

“The mediator directs the mediation process in angemessener (appropriate, reasonable, adequate) way and considering the unique aspects of the case, including an imbalance of power between the conflict parties, the rule of law, as well as any particular needs and wishes of the two parties, including the need to resolve the conflict in a timely manner.”

The conflict parties may modify the mediation process in line with current rules or otherwise, in agreement with the moderator. The mediator may conduct separate hearings with the conflict parties if she or he deems this to be helpful.”

Don‘t write it down

In Germany the written word has a higher level of binding character (commitment) than the spoken. Once a process – how the work is done – has been documented, and if done so in a detailed way, Germans feel obligated to work along that process in a strict way.

This reduces their freedom to deviate from the process, to improvize, based on the specifics of a given situation. For this reason, and a few other, Germans do their best to avoid documenting how they work.

The German self-understanding also comes into play. They often feel that it is simply not necessary to write down how they work. Germans are well-trained, tend to work in the same area for many years, are very familiar with formal and informal processes, can rely on the advice of their colleagues and management, and want always the freedom to work independently.

And German departments have a high level of institutional knowledge, which is passed on to younger colleagues. It is seldom necessary for colleagues sit down and document all of the things they do in order to produce good work results.

Richtlinie or guideline

Americans have a higher tolerance for deviating from processes. Americans see processes and procedures fundamentally as tools. Whereas a German colleague sees in a process a Richtlinie (order, instruction), his American counterpart often sees a guideline. The term guideline is often translated into Richtlinie. This translation is false and misleading.

Like their German colleagues, Americans seek that fine line between process-discipline and -flexibility. The moment a process makes unnecessary demands which do not serve the overall goals, that process is deemed rigid. Americans will deviate by reevaluating the most important factors: risk, resources, back-up contingencies, and the final value-added for the end-customer.

Results delivered in a timely fashion, even if the product of a process is not followed step-by-step, are preferred over results delivered too late, but the product of a process vs followed step-by-step. Americans, both as customers and suppliers, can “sleep at night” with the so-called 80%-solution, as long as the missing 20% is compensated by the advantage of speed, responsiveness or price (cost).

When to deviate: Americans are quick to deviate from steps within a process or procedure if: it does not add value, does not help, does not move their work forward; external forces demand it, such as schedule, budget or customer demands; after getting input from experienced colleagues and/or permission from their team lead or process owner; and as long as the deviation conforms (compliant) with laws and regulations.

Americans speak of taking a down and dirty approach, of doing whatever it takes to get the job done, of being pragmatic.