Leadership – Page 9 – understand-culture

No Standing Army

Up until the end of the Second World War the United States did not maintain a standing army. America‘s founding fathers warned about the dangers a standing army presents should it become the instrument of tyranny. The American military history is a series of mobilizations and demobilizations.

After the the First World War the U.S. reduced its forces to approximately 100,000 soldiers, equal to the limit imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. American mobilization after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 took up to an entire year.

Although American armed forces have been present in many countries since the end of the Second World War, it does not have a European-type tradition of officer corps and militias with long-standing doctrines, training and fighting methods.

In many ways, Americans have had to retrain themselves for the wars they fought – enlisting, training and managing young men at short notice and within short periods of time. It could also be argued that the average education level of the average American enlisted soldier is/was not as high as his counterpart in northern European countries.

These factors – a tradition of demobilization, the need to enlist and train rapidly, a broad spectrum of levels of education – may have forced the American military to develop leadership approaches which make necessary close management of personnel and operation.

How a society feeds 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 feeds itself. In companies engaged in commerce.

If that working relationship does not function well, if it fails, not only is the respective project in jeopardy, the ability of companies to meet the needs of their customers is at risk. Defining and managing the line between strategy and tactics is in the business context critical to the profitability of every team within every commercial enterprise.

The American business tradition in practice involves a close working relationship between leader and led, between team lead and team.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an American company, for example, is the leader of the company. He or she manages directly the other managing board members, such as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Chief Operations Officer (COO).

Command or Auftrag

A command, an order, an Auftrag are all forms in which military commanders communicate their intent. They are different in character, however. Commands and orders are strict, well defined, to be executed as stated. An Auftrag is the least strict in the sense of prescriptive, of defining the how as well as the what.

A command or order allows for little freedom in defining the how. A command defines the what and the how in detail. An Auftrag describes only the goal, thus allowing freedom to choose the best path to it. An Auftrag communicates intent, clearly and within the broader strategic context.

Depending on the situation, the line between an order and an Auftrag is in flux. The core of an Auftrag is the what. It can, though, include parameters such as the when and the where. The more detailed an Auftrag is about the how, the more it takes on the character of a command or order.

Parliamentary Democracy

In a parliamentary democracy the government is created out of and by the parliament. It is dependent on the support of the parliamentary party factions. The government, created by a majority coalition in the parliament, can also be deposed via a vote of Mißtrauen, mistrust. On the one side this gives the parliament a high degree of control over the government. On the other, however, the government can only govern by passing laws, which in turn requires strict discipline among the coalition parties in the parliament.

The presidential system is a different approach to democratic government. It‘s government – or administration, the executive branch of government – is elected directly by the people, and is therefore independent of the legislative branch, the Congress (Senate, House).

The United States is the most prominent example of the presidential system. There are also democratic forms of government which have aspects of both the parliamentary and presidential systems, such as France.

Germany is a classic parliamentary democracy. With one exception, federal elections have never produced a party with an absolute majority. Governments are always based on a coalition of two parties, who elect a chancellor to form a government. The chancellor then, in close negotiation with the coalition partners, chooses members for the cabinet. Traditionally these are the most powerful leaders of the coalition parties in the largest German states. They are power brokers in their own right and are considered to be capable of replacing the chancellor at any time.

Since all laws must be passed by a majority of the parliament, the government and its majority coalition in the parliament must work closely together. Any failure to pass a law is a clear signal of a possible break in the coalition.

Should the government, however, misuse its power over and against its colleagues in the parliament, the parliament can at any time dissolve the government via a vote of mistrust, which in turn leads to new elections. The government, should it not have the necessary support of parliament, has the same power to dissolve the parliament and force new elections.

In this sense, the chancellor‘s power is based on close cooperation not only with those cabinet members with their own independent political power base, but also with the influential factions in the parliament. The German chancellor is in the cabinet a primus inter pares, a first among equals.

German Kleinstaaterei

Klein, small. Staaterei, many states. From roughly 1650 until 1850 Germany consisted of some 350 independent states, most very small, with only a few kingdoms such as Prussia, Bavaria, and Saxony. The Kaiser had little direct power over this patchwork of states. His influence was reduced to that of a moderator.

While England and France were well advanced in becoming unified centralized states, Germany remained a country of loosely affiliated independent territories. And although many of these territories developed their own modern governmental bodies, there was little progress made to coordinate or integrate them at the national level.

One of the causes of the German Kleinstaaterei was the German tradition of inheritance which divided up possessions among all male heirs, and not the just the oldest. This led to more and smaller states. Complicating matters was the tradition of dividing up the inheritance equally. This led to the creation of non-contiguous states with en- and exclaves.

Although two large states were formed – Prussia led by the Hohenzollern dynasty and Austria-Hungary led by the Hapsburg dynasty – both had non-contiguous territories which made it difficult for Germany to consolidate as a nation-state similar to England and France.

The German Bund – created after the Napoleonic Wars – reduced the Kleinstaaterei to just under 40 independent states. But it wasn‘t until 1871 when Germany finally became a nation-state in the modern sense after Prussia defeated France and declared itself a Reich. In the years before the Franco-Prussian War, Prussia had consolidated most of the German states via war.

Soccer Teacher

In order to coach at the highest level of German professional soccer one needs a license, which is obtained after completing rigorous theoretical and practical training. Once obtained, the professional soccer coach is granted the official title of Fussballlehrer, literally soccer teacher. Not coach. Instead teacher.

Like a school teacher who has given a test, the soccer teacher (the Germans use the term Trainer) has very few levers during the match to influence its outcome. He must hope that his players apply during the match all that they learned and practiced.

The coach (formally Fussballlehrer, informally Trainer) and his staff work with their players on technique, practice specific strategies and set plays, try out different formations. But once the match begins the coach can make only three player substitutions, can to a limited degree yell certain instructions to the players, has only a few minutes at halftime to provide instruction. In the end, therefore, it is the players who have to know how to react to the opposing team.

The coach is practically a bystander. In fact, the rules of soccer prevent too much communication between coach and players during the match. Again, the coach is like a school teacher, who can only hope that his students have paid attention in the classroom, have done their homework conscientiously, and will apply during the examination what was taught to them.

Article 65, German Basic Law

Germany‘s Grundgesetz or Basic Law is the equivalent of a constitution. Artikel 65 of the Grundgesetz defines the working relationship between the Chancellor and the cabinet:

„The Federal Chancellor defines and is responsible for the overall political goals of the government. Within the framework of these goals each cabinet member is responsible for leading their department independently.”

It continues:

“Differences of opinion among cabinet members are clarified by the Chancellor and the other cabinet members. The Chancellor leads the government based on a political platform formulated by the Chancellor and the cabinet, and which has been approved of by the Federal President.“

Vorstandsvorsitzender and Vorstand

Germans companies have a Vorstand, or managing board. The Vorstandsvorsitzender is the head of the Vorstand, but not in the sense of a CEO, rather as a primus inter pares or first among equals. The CEO-principle is an Anglo-American construct.

German law governing publicly traded companies requires the naming of a Vorstand or managing board, but not of a Vorstandsvorsitzender. §77/78 AktG expects joint management and joint representation of the company. German law does not recognize the title of Vorstandsvorsitzender, chairman or head of the managing board or CEO. The law can, however, be interpreted to accept a company internal set-up allowing for a Vorstandsvorsitzender.

BMW: The formation of a managing board and its compensation – The managing board consists of several people and has a Vorsitzenden. Company governance directives define the cooperation within the managing board, in particular the roles and responsibilities of the various departments or divisions as represented by their individual board member.

BASF: The managing board. §7 Members. Members of the managing board are selected and deselected by the supervisory board. The managing board has at least two members. The supervisory board can name further managing board members. The supervisory board can select a managing board member to be the Vorsitzender, as well as another to be the Vice-Vorsitzender.

ThyssenKrupp: §3 – Vorsitzender of the managing board. The Vorsitzender is responsible for coordinating all of the areas represented in the managing board, and maintaining a cohesive approach to reaching the goals set by the managing board. The Vorsitzender can at any time request information from other managing board members pertaining to their area of the company. The Vorsitzender should be informed at the earliest possible time about any important decisions made by the other members of the managing board.

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?

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)