Germans strive to be sachlich or objective, business-like, factual, to the point, matter of fact. To be sachlich means to focus on the matter while leaving emotions out. A sachlich report, critique, comment, argument, judgement. Sachlich also means to leave out superfluous or gratuitous language. To be sachlich is to get to the point.
Little Bell
Mid-1990s. University of Bonn. Professor Dr. Schmidt enters the classroom with books and papers under his arm, and his little bell. The topic: Game Theory in the Context of International Politics.
A graduate student moves to the front of the room to give his presentation. Hardly a minute into it a shrill ding-a-ling pierces the air. The students don’t dare move a muscle. “Ladies and gentleman. Time and again I simply must impress upon you the need to define the terms you use. You cannot simply throw complex terms around the room without having first clearly defined them!“
A few students risk rolling their eyes. The presenter sweats, squirms and stammers his way through his material. Professor Dr. Schmidt sits down in his chair, his left arm on his desk, in his hand his little friend the bell– ready to get shrill at a moment’s notice.
Fern der Politik
Joachim Sauer is a quantum- and physio-chemist. He is a professor of physical and theoretical chemistry at the Humboldt University of Berlin. He is also the husband of Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel.
The election of his wife to the most powerful governmental position in all of Germany had no impact on his career. They seldom appear together in public. He declines to answer any interview questions that do not have to do with his own research. In federal elections his part is irrelevant.
Public life is clearly separated from private life. The home-life scene is irrelevant in determining political success. This same pattern can also be seen in the careers of Joschka Fischer (former German Foreign Minister) and Gerhard Schröder (Merkel’s predecessor as Chancellor). Both were married several times.
You not you
For “you” the German language has both and an informal word: Sie and Du. It is typical for German colleagues, even those who work well together and have known each other for many years to use the Sie-Form. The Knigge – Germany’s best known books on proper behavior, first pubished in 1788 by Baron Adolph Knigge – recommends the Sie-Form in the work context.
Knigge considers it appropriate to reject the offer of the Du-Form from a work colleague if one feels surprised or thrown off balance. For accepting the informal Du is a commitment to a level of personal friendship and trust one may not wish. Knigge recommends a polite response: “Your offer honors me. Thank you. However, I feel more comfortable using the Sie-Form, and prefer to continue using it, also out of respect for you (Sie).“
Maintaining a certain respectful distance to others is considered a sign of respect in the German culture. A famous example is the relationship between two of the best-known soccer tv-commentators, Günter Netzer (a former star German soccer player) and Gerhard Delling (a respected tv sports journalist).
Their conversational-type commentaries during half-time and after games are enjoyed by millions due to both their expert analysis and relaxed interaction. Yet, on camera they address each other with the formal Sie, even though Netzer was a groomsman (witness) in Delling’s.
Oliver F.
A German. Consultant. Expertise in several areas. Primarily in change management. This guy is very experienced and very good. The following statement is on the landing page of his website:
“My great strength is putting my finger in the wound. And I consider it to be the right, effective, honest, professional thing to do. To say what I think. I enjoy pointing it out to people when the king is wearing no clothes, especially when his clothes are being praised by the people.
I do this with folks both at the top and the bottom in organizations. From C-Suite, to middle management, to colleagues in sales, all the way down to folks working on the factory line. In each case I do so in the language they speak and understand, and making sure that directness and truth take center stage.”
Respected in Germany
Robert H. Goddard, now considered the American father of modern rocketry, was often mocked and ridiculed by his fellow Americans during his lifetime, but was well-respected in Germany, largely because of his persuasive techniques.
Early in his rocketry research, Goddard funded his own testing, but as his work grew in scope he began to seek outside funding. However, as a publicity-shy man who tried to keep media-focus on his work instead of himself, most of his attempts to solicit financial assistance failed, with the exception of the Smithsonian Institution, which agreed to grant Goddard modest funding.
In 1917, Goddard made several proposals to the U.S. Army and Navy about the possibility of his rocket research being used in the military. Although both organizations were interested, the only one of Goddard’s proposals that he was allowed to develop was his idea for a tube-based rocket launcher to be used as a light infantry weapon. This launcher became the precursor to the bazooka.
After WWI, Goddard returned to researching rockets, and in 1919 he published a book titled A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. As part of this book, he mentioned the possibility of sending rockets to the moon. At the time, this was considered an outlandish and impossible suggestion. Although this was only a small part of the book, Goddard was soon subjected to what David Lasser, the co-founder of the American Rocket Society, called the “most violent attacks.”
In 1926, Goddard successfully launched the world’s first liquid-fueled rocket. Partly due to Goddard’s poor reputation and partly due to his media-shyness, this launch was largely unnoticed. In 1929, following one of Goddard’s rocket launches, a local newspaper mockingly printed the headline “Moon rocket misses target by 238,799.5 miles”
Although Goddard had difficulty convincing Americans that his ideas were useful, his work was very persuasive to Germans, and it wasn’t long after his book was published that Goddard began receiving queries from German engineers asking about his work. Initially Goddard answered these queries (his help is even acknowledged in Hermann Oberth’s 1923 book Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen) , however, increasing aggression from Germany began to worry him, and by 1940 he had stopped responding to the engineers’ questions.
Realizing that he may have inadvertently assisted in German development of long-range missiles, Goddard attempted to warn the U.S. Army and Navy about a potential German threat from rockets. Although Goddard was not able to sell his idea that long-range missiles were a possibility (both organizations considered his warnings too far-fetched to be worth contemplation), he was able to sell himself well enough that between 1942 and 1945 the Navy employed him as Director of Research in the Bureau of Aeronautics, where he worked developing experimental engines.
Ambivalence
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ambivalence as “simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action; continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite); uncertainty as to which approach to follow.”
Attraction and repulsion. Germans are attracted by logical, well-researched and -argued statements. But they are also attracted by personal appeal, by a speaker who is both appealing and appealing to. Appealing to as in reaching out to.
Germans are repulsed by an imbalance between rational (objective) and personal (subjective) appeal. Mehr Schein als Sein, which translates into more appearance than substance, is a severe criticism. But they are also repulsed, perhaps moreso, by a sophisticated and effective appeal to emotions, to the less rational.
Germans are also capable of persuading by placing themselves front and center, by establishing a personal connection, by appealing to emotions. They choose not to, however. They choose not to teach, train or reinforce it. Ambivalence. They can and often want to, but are wary of the negative effects. Instead, Germans feel the need, the obligation, to constrain themselves, to not go there.
Why? Partly it is their strong scientific, rational, intellectually rigorous approach. Partly it is their belief that persuasion should not be deceptive. Appealing to human emotions – pushing all of the right buttons without the listener being aware of it – is a form of manipulation.
For if the listener is not aware that their thinking is being steered by their emotions, she is not in a position to freely choose to accept or reject the arguments presented. That person is reduced from subject to object. Deception. Manipulation.
Methodology
German academic training focuses on methodology. The quality of results – whether in the natural sciences or in the humanities – is determined by the quality of methodology. German students are taught that the person applying the methodolgy, but not the methodology itself, is interchangeable:
“… the conclusions verifiable; the starting point and operating assumptions logical and understandable; the individual steps taken re-traceable; so that the same results are arrived at by anyone taking the same path of inquiry.”
The academic (scholar, scientist, inquirer) is fully detached from the topic substance, both in the execution of the inquiry and in the presentation of results. Message and messenger are kept separate.
Under the hood
German products focus on the technical. German advertising focuses on the technical. Cars are often presented without the driver, wristwatches without the wrist, newspapers without reader or author. Quality should speak for itself.
German tabloids may personalize the news by displaying large-format photos. Serious publications do not. Content should speak for itself. For Germans it is self-stated that a good product or service aims to serve people. A view under the hood of the car is, therefore, more persuasive than a happy face behind a steering wheel.
Unimportant who presents
Germans believe that it is unimportant who actually presents the arguments as long as the topic has been understood in both its depth and breadth, analyzed with stringent methods, leads to a logical and actionable conclusion, and is communicated in a structured and clear way. The presenter could be a junior member of the team.