Leadership – Page 8 – understand-culture

MacArthur vs. Nimitz

During World War II, the two American military leaders in charge of operations in the Pacific could not have been more different in their personalities and leadership styles. Both General Douglas MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz were in charge of two different sections of the Pacific, answering to no one but the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They both had incredible success, both in their individual and joint campaigns. Yet, only one of these men became an American celebrity, admired for his amazing leadership skills.

MacArthur was a showman, fond of strong gestures and motivating speeches. Occasionally accused of being a megalomaniac, Macarthur believed very strongly that the Pacific fleet should be united under his authority. He expected his officers to inform him about everything, and he expected his orders to be carried out precisely as he specified them. His opinions on his officers’ advice and reporting abilities are shown very clearly in two of his quotes:

“I realize that advice is worth what it costs – that is, nothing. Expect only five percent of an intelligence report to be accurate. The trick of a good commander is to isolate the five percent.”

On the other hand, Nimitz was said to be a team player, who relied on his staff’s expertise to successfully manage themselves and to provide useful advice when needed. Naval historian Robert Love wrote that Nimitz “had the ability to pick able subordinates and the courage to let them do their jobs without interference. He molded disparate personalities into an effective team.”

Nimitz was a German-Texan, born and raised in Fredericksburg, Texas.

The Allies and Mitbestimmung

“Herewith the establishment of works councils is permitted within all of Germany.”

German Mitbestimmung – co-determination, employee participation in high-level company decision making – is a tradition, law and an institution which most certainly is a source of headaches for American business partners and investors. At the same time the works councils are a source of great pride and self-understanding for all German labor unions as well as for many German citizens.

And although German Mitbestimmung had had a long tradition in Germany, it was the Western Allies, primarily the Americans and the British, who insisted immediately after World War II that the newly established West German state reinstitute it.

After their takeover of power in January 1933 the National Socialists had outlawed the Mitbestimmung, and forced all labor unions to be unified within the so-called Deutsche Arbeitsfront – literally German Workers Front. The goal was to prevent any potential resistance to the regime from among the working class.

With strikes in 1905 in the coal mining Ruhr region the unions had won the right to establish works councils. In the years thereafter the councils gain increasing influence. During the Weimar Republic these gains were written into law.

The works councils represented the economic and social interests of the workers over and against management. It was no surprise, therefore, that the Nazis saw in them potential opposition to their demand for absolute power. In 1934 the Nazis banned all independent unions and works councils.

It was no surprise, therefore, that what had been a thorn in the side of the Nazis was reinstated by the Allies. Kontrollratsgesetz Nr. 22 – Allied Law No. 22 – in the Spring of 1946 put works councils back in business.

Since then there has been no better instrument to prevent total control by management. Those who pick a fight with a works council go against the self-understanding and pride of the German movement for worker rights.

Political Consensus

Gerhard Schröder was chancellor of the red-green – Social Democrats plus Green Party – government from 1998 til 2002, and then after reelection from 2002 til 2005. In his first term the Social Democrats and the Greens had a majority in the Bundesrat, the Upper House, where the sixteen German states are represented to co-decide with the federal government on national policy. The Schröder government had little difficulty passing the legislation they had proposed during the election campaign.

In 2002 the situation began to change, however. Federal elections led to another majority for the Social Democrats and the Greens. But at the state level they lost their majority within a few years. The opposition – Christian Democrats and Free Democrats – had gained the majority in the Bundesrat and were able to block legislation proposed by the Schröder government.

Nonetheless, Schröder‘s coalition was able time and again to craft legislation in a way which served the interests of those state governments led by opposition parties. His government was able to compromise and collaborate with those critical German states led by the Christian Democrats and Free Democrats.

Mitbestimmung

Mitbestimmung: to determine with, to co-determine, co-decide; to be involved in a decision making process; representatives of blue and white collar workers having a seat at top management levels.

German law guarantees that employees have a say in all issues affecting the workplace, including internal rules and regulations, work conditions, personnel policy and those decisions determining the future of the company.

Mitbestimmung has its roots in the 19th century, when workers associations were established to improve work conditions and to check the unlimited power of management. The associations evolved into labor unions, which by the end of the 19th century had the legal right to represent workers over and against management.

The creation of labor unions was supported politically not only for ethical reasons, to protect the interests of the worker. Both sides – labor and capital – wanted to establish mechanisms to balance out the interests of both in ways which would avoid stikes, protests and social unrest. This is the spirit behind Mitbestimmung.

Betriebsrat. Works council. Any company with five or more employees must by law allow the formation of a works council. These are elected democratically and represent the interests of all employees – both white collar (non-labor) and blue collar (labor). If management and the works council cannot agree on certain issue, the law requires that a neutral third party mediator be involved.

The interaction between management and works council can be either positive or negative. Well run companies have a very cooperative relationship, which contributes to company success. In other companies the relationship is contentious, especially in those struggling in the market. The works council can often block management attempts to downsize the workforce, close down plants or otherwise restructure in ways negative for the (white collar workforce) employees.

Gewerkschaften. Labor unions in Germany unite employees of one industrial sector. They mostly represent their members in wage negotiations which are obligatory for the whole sector (labor agreement). They have the right to strike, an instrument they use only when negotiations have broken down and after serious deliberation.

Bürgermeister and more

Governors in the German states are called Ministerpräsident or Minister President or Premier. They are president of those ministers, who run the various departments of a state. The state parliaments have the same structure as the Bundestag, Germany‘s national parliament.

The minister president is a colleague among the members of the state parliament‘s largest elected faction and is elected by his or her colleagues to form a government, typically a coalition of two parties.

The minister presidents, like the chancellor, manage and coordinate the work of the ministers, who, however, lead their departments independently. The minister president is a primus inter pares, a first among equals.

Like the ministers at the federal level, the ministers at the state level are powerful political figures from the regions of the state. Each is capable, and in most cases willing, to become minister president. The acting minister president, therefore, has to balance out carefully the interests of these power brokers.

Germans mayors are called Bürgermeister. Again, like the chancellor and the minister presidents, the Bürgermeisters are selected by their colleagues in the largest elected party in their city councils. They form a city government, typically a coalition of two parties.

And like the chancellor and the minister presidents, the mayor is a primus inter pares, managing powerful local politians who head up the city‘s most important departments.

Signs That You’re a Micromanager

“Signs That You’re a Micromanager.” Muriel Wilkins. November 2014. Harvard Business Review.

“Absolutely no one likes to be micromanaged. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and demotivating. Yet, some managers can’t seem to help themselves. The signs are clear:

You’re never quite satisfied with deliverables. You’re often frustrated because you would’ve gone about the task differently. You laser in on the details and take great pride in making corrections. You constantly want to know where all your team members are and what they’re working on. You ask for frequent updates on where things stand. You prefer to be cc’d on emails.

Wilkins suggest four things to reduce micromanaging:

Get over yourself. We can all rationalize why we do what we do and the same holds true for micromanagers.

Let it go. The difference between managing and micromanaging is the focus on the micro. Let go of the minutia.

Give the what, not the how. There’s a difference between sharing that expectation and dictating how to get to that result.

Expect to win. Be clear on what success looks like. Provide the resources, information, and support needed to meet those conditions. Give credit where credit is due.

How a society organizes itself

How a society fundamentally defines the everyday working relationship between leader and led – between two levels of hierarchy – is imbedded in how that society makes decisions. In its political system.

If that working relationship does not function well, if it fails, not only are the political policies of those elected to office in jeopardy, the direction of the country, state, city or municipality is at risk. Defining and managing the line between strategy and tactics is in the political context a matter of moving forward or backward as a society.

The American political tradition involves a close working relationship between president and cabinet, between governor and mayor and their respective cabinets, between all holders of public office and their direct reports.

The American president is the head of the executive branch of government. The president‘s cabinet – the next level of management within the executive – reports directly to him or her and does not possess any domestic political power which could challenge the president‘s authority. Members of the Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President, who may dismiss them or reappoint them to other posts at will.

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President can require „the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.“ The Constitution did not then establish the names (or list or limit the number) of Cabinet departments. Those details were left to the Congress to determine.

There is no explicit definition of the term „cabinet“ in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. However, there are occasional references to „cabinet-level officers“ or „secretaries“, which when viewed in context appear to refer to the head of the „executive departments“ as listed in 5 U.S.C. §101.

The President’s Cabinet is an institution whose existence rests upon custom rather than law. Presidents have differed in their opinions as to the utility of the Cabinet, but all have found some political and administrative strengths in its continuance.

The Cabinet is retained because it provides to the President: political and managerial advice; a forum for interdepartmental conflict resolution; a location where he can address most of the executive branch and thereby enhance administrative coherence; and a source of political support for his programs and policies.

The Cabinet is not now, and is not likely to become, a body with collective responsibility. Presidents cannot appropriately share their legal authority or responsibilities with the Cabinet. The Cabinet, its members, and its sub-groups provide the President with an adaptive resource with which to manage the executive branch of government. (from CRS Report for Congress. The President’s Cabinet: Evolution, Alternatives, and Proposals for Change, September 12, 2000).

Stratēgia

Strategy: The science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war; the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions; a careful plan or method; the art of devising or employing plans toward a goal. From Greek stratēgia generalship, from stratēgos. First known use 1810.

Strategy is the goal, the mission, the end result, what is to be achieved by the team. It is a decision or a series of decisions. Tactics is the action taken to achieve that goal, to execute that decision. Strategy is the what. Tactics is the how.

Tactics: The science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat; the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end; a system or mode of procedure. New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikos of order, of tactics, fit for arranging, from tassein to arrange, place in battle formation. First known use 1626.

In American football, basketball or baseball the strategy of a team can be seen in the formation of their players on the field. The strategy of American companies, of their individual teams, can be seen in their organization structure. A political campaign strategy is explicit in their organizational set-up, in which states they deploy what people and resources.

Lead: To guide on a way especially by going in advance; to direct on a course or in a direction; to serve as a channel for; to go through; to direct the operations, activity, or performance of; to have charge of; to go at the head of; to be first in or among; to aim in front of. From Middle English leden, from Old English lǣdan; akin to Old High German leiten to lead, Old English līthan to go. First known use before 12th century

Manage: To handle or direct with a degree of skill; to make and keep compliant; to treat with care; to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of; to work upon or try to alter for a purpose; to succeed in accomplishing. From Italian maneggiare, from mano hand, from Latin manus. First known use 1579.

Administer: To manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of; to mete out; to give remedially. From Middle English administren, from Anglo-French administrer, from Latin administrare, from ad + ministrare to serve, from minister servant. First known use 14th century.

Team Sports

How a society fundamentally defines the everyday working relationship between leader and led, is imbedded in how that society teaches its young people to compete in athletics. In its most popular sports. If that working relationship does not function well, the team loses.

It is no coincidence that the terms common to American teams sports are used time and again in the American business context. For the overwhelming majority of Americans have experience neither in the military nor in politics.

Other than being a member of a family, participating in team sports is the most common experience Americans, especially youths, have in a team context. And for those whose days of playing in a team are past, most remain fans of those sports. Teams sports in America form how Americans work in teams. The relationship between coaches and players is very much the model, or the mold, for the relationship between team lead and team.

The American sports tradition involves a close working relationship between leader and led, between the coaching staff and the players.

The coach and coaching staff in American football are the dominant actors during the game without stepping onto the field. They determine not only the strategy, but also the tactics. Both they can change quickly.

The rules of the game limit in no way when, how often, which and how many players they can substitute. Nor are there any restrictions on team formations on the field.

The coaching staff in almost all circumstances calls the individual offensive and defensive plays via direct communication with designated players: the quarterback on offense, the middle linebacker or safety on defense.

Playbooks are extensive descriptions of what each player does in a given play. They are detailed and prescriptive in nature. Depending on the position there is no to little room for variation.

During breaks in play, as well as changes in ball possession, the coaching staffs instruct directly their players on the details of execution. In other words, teaching occurs during the game.

American football is a very tightly managed and scripted sport, in many ways a sophisticated chess match between opposing coaching staffs. The television and radio commentators refer time and again to what decisions the coaches are making during the game: strategy, tactics, player substitutions, play-calling, time management.

Basketball – invented in 1891 by James Naismith, a Canadian-American, while teaching physical education in Springfield, Massachusetts – is also a sport dominated by the coaches. It has all of the characteristics of American football.

The teams of five players are smaller. The lines of communication between coaches and players are shorter and more direct. Although there are fewer set plays memorized from a playbook, the coaches can determine more directly how their team plays.

The chess match character is particularly evident during the final minutes of close games with coaches standing on the side of the court directing their players in real time, substituting players rapidly based on ball possession, and calling timeouts in order to give them explicit instructions.

Although baseball is in many ways a different kind of sport than American football and basketball, its rules and how the sport is played very much echoes the coach-player relationships in football and basketball.

It is the coaching staff who decides who pitches the ball, what pitches are chosen, when they are pitched. The coaching staff also instructs to a certain degree the batter on when to swing at which pitches. When players are on base as runners, they too are given instructions on when or when not to attempt to steal a base.

American colleges recruit their athletes from high schools across the nation. The athletes are often offered full tuition scholarships to play a sport at a university. Top basketball players are identified as early as in their 8th or 9th grade. The best players will be recruited during their junior year of high school.

This is a very personal process which consists of a dialogue between the university‘s head coach and player during his or her lasts one pr two years. Although there are many deciding factors in where a player decides which school to attend, the personal relationship with the coach is one of the most important.

Presidents and Cabinets

President Lincoln held Cabinet meetings on Tuesdays and Fridays. These meetings were informal gatherings of equals with no formal structure or assigned seats. The President, however, preferred to deal with matters directly with individual members rather than have discussions with the full group.

Lincoln was deeply involved in the day-to-day affairs of the War Department. According to the diary of Gideon Welles, the president went to the War Department three to four times per day to look over communications in the telegraph office. Lincoln was known for his deliberative style, patiently listening to what his Cabinet members had to say before making a decision.

President Obama did not convene frequent Cabinet meetings during his first term. The meeting held in July 2012 was only the eighteenth. Obama does, however, hold daily meetings with White House advisors in which they discuss specific policies. The president reportedly prefers to understand problems with a high degree of detail. Some have criticized him for micromanaging his staff.

Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are considered to be the classic examples of delegators. Both brought a broad, bold vision of the role of government to the White House, and each relied heavily upon staff, executive agencies, and cabinet heads to implement their policies. Not coincidentally, both were largely successful in advancing their agendas, though at opposite ends of the political spectrum. In the first two years of his presidency, George W. Bush had exhibited many of the leadership traits of Reagan and Roosevelt.

Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter were known as micromanagers. As a former Senate majority leader, Johnson took an unusually active role in Congressional affairs, and was fond of monitoring the minutiae of the legislative process. He took a similar approach to managing the Vietnam War, picking many of the bombing targets himself during late-night strategy sessions with his generals.

Although Jimmy Carter campaigned as an outsider to the political system (having served one term as the governor of Georgia), he quickly developed a reputation as a “policy wonk” and micromanager. He was faulted for lacking the grand vision of previous presidents, and for obsessing over the administrative details of the office at the expense of seeing the big picture. It was reported that Carter once took time to resolve a scheduling dispute between staffers over the use of the White House tennis courts.

Richard Nixon’s leadership style has been described as “keeping his own counsel.” The thirty-seventh president had few advisors that he trusted, and rarely sought out dissenting opinions or advice from others. It is believed that Nixon’s mistrust of virtually everyone around him contributed to his downfall following the Watergate break-in.