U.S. Refusal to Join the League of Nations (1919): After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson negotiated the Treaty of Versailles, which included the League of Nations. However, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty, and the United States never joined the League, demonstrating a reluctance to commit to binding international agreements that could limit national autonomy.
Paris Climate Agreement
Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement (2017): Although not in the search results, this modern example fits the pattern: the U.S. entered the Paris Agreement on climate change but later withdrew, asserting the right to exit when national interests were perceived to be at stake.
McDonald brothers
The Founder (2016). This film tells the story of Ray Kroc and the McDonald brothers. Kroc enters into an agreement with the brothers to franchise their restaurant, maintains constant contact as the business grows, but ultimately finds ways to change the terms and force the original owners out. The movie highlights how agreements can be transactional, with parties reserving the right to alter or exit arrangements when it suits their interests.
“that make us miserable”
June 16, 2025. Wall Street Journal. “Many of us feel compelled to say yes to things that make us miserable. Yes to work that is not our job. Yes to taking on jobs when we’re at home or on vacation. Yes to boring, unnecessary meetings or company dinners.”
Key Points: saying yes to unwanted tasks leads to unhappiness, while saying no, when done correctly, brings relief; evaluate requests by weighing their cost to you against the benefit to others before responding; base your “no” on personal principles, use empowered language, and reinforce with confident body language.
The author is Vanessa Patrick, associate dean of research and Bauer professor of marketing at the University of Houston’s C.T. Bauer College of Business. She is the author of “The Power of Saying No: The New Science of How to Say No That Puts You in Charge of Your Life.”
Some interesting comments on the article:
“Like so many things, it depends. In my experience, unless the corporate world has changed much more than I think it likely has, saying “no” to your boss is generally not a great career move.”
“Following this advice will result in getting you and your priorities fired! This article is written by an academic who clearly has no idea how large, fast organizations work. It’s incredibly arrogant to assume that one always knows the valid reason to do something that seems out of one’s lane. It assumes you work with the same knowledge/data as your boss. That’s rarely the case. The current environment is so ultra-competitive that missing even a slight competitive edge or event could mean the decisive difference. Do not listen to someone so entranced in academia (with tenure and no competition ) who is advising you to do.”
“I started reading this article, then quickly said, “No”.”
“The author clearly never worked at a consulting firm or any kind of matrix organization where there were many bosses with competing interests. However, she is publishing, and that’s important for academicians.”
“After moving 3 times in 4 years for my employer, he then asked me to move again after one year. Talked to my wife over the weekend and decided the family would stay while I listed conditions for accepting the move including weekend flights back home. On following Monday told the boss I would accept the assignment and handed him my written list of conditions. He said forget about it and asked me who he should give the assignment to. I stayed at the then current location for 6 years and moved to final location before retirement. Oh and got a another promotion along the way. Cannot just say no; must be strategic/political. Always do what is best for the company with caveats.”
serious ramifications
German dramas, especially those set in finance or corporate worlds, often emphasize the risks of acting on incomplete information. They reflect a cultural lesson: in German business culture, overlooking context is not just a minor error—it can have serious professional and personal ramifications.
Series like Bad Banks and select episodes of Tatort and Bad Cop: Kriminell gut illustrate that underestimating context in business can result in failed ventures, loss of reputation, or even legal trouble. These dramas reinforce the German business value of thorough preparation and contextual awareness before making commitments or decisions.
The Crime Scene Cleaner
Der Tatortreiniger (The Crime Scene Cleaner). Overview: This dark comedy follows Heiko “Schotty” Schotte, a crime scene cleaner who encounters a wide variety of people and situations. Each episode centers on Schotty’s interactions with clients and bystanders, exploring how personal backgrounds, social norms, and unspoken expectations affect communication and problem-solving in professional encounters. The show cleverly uses these encounters to highlight the importance of understanding context in any professional service role.
Lindenstraße
Lindenstraße. Overview: One of Germany’s longest-running soap operas, set on a fictional street in Munich. While not strictly a business show, Lindenstraße frequently explores workplace issues, social integration, and professional relationships. The show’s storylines demonstrate how social context—such as cultural background, community ties, and current events—directly impacts professional and personal interactions.
First check, then commit.
Erst prüfen, dann zusagen. Literal translation: First check, then commit. Meaning: Emphasizes the importance of thoroughly reviewing all information before making a commitment.
let him who binds himself
Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet. Literal translation: Therefore, let him who binds himself forever, first see whom he is binding himself to. Meaning: Originally from Friedrich Schiller, this phrase is often used to stress the importance of careful consideration and gathering context before making long-term commitments.
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.