Leadership Archives - Page 9 of 11

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.

Plumber, Electrician, Banker

In German companies the head of a department or project team assigns tasks to the team and to individual members, who carry them out ideally without any supervision. This logic is also at play in business relationships between customer and supplier.

When a German contracts a craftsman or mechanic – plumber, electrician, handyman – to do a job, he or she does not go beyond explaining the problem which needs to be solved. Everything else is left up to the person contracted to completed the job. The German customer expects the job to get done without any more input or oversight from them.

It‘s the same approach when one goes to the bank. The customer explains their financial situation, states their goals and then expects the financial advisor to do the rest, meaning come up with a financial plan. The bank employee, like the plumber, only contacts the customer if it is absolutely necessary.

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.

Telegraph as Threat

„The most unfortunate officer in the field, is the one who is distracted by headquarters with daily, even hourly requests for reports on his strategy, tactics and intentions, quite often from an overly self-important junior staff officer with access to a telegraph line.“ General Helmuth von Moltke, Head of the Prussian General Staff

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.

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.

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.

Working independently

Many job advertisements will promise their employees the opportunity to work independently. An independent work environment, without constant oversight or having someone ‘looking over your shoulder’, is viewed very positively.

This is also an indicator of trust. Constant check-ins with one’s boss about the status of a project are neither necessary nor desired. In the German workplace, too many check-ins suggests an over-dependence on guidance on the part of the employee. Such ‘needy’ employees require a lot of ‘hand-holding’ – something which no German employer feels like doing.

More praise, please!

An international employee survey by the Geva-Institute of Munich from 2009 demonstrated the differences by country in the expectations of employees from their supervisors.

80% of German employees expected their boss to be good at making decisions and able to execute their plans.

Besides this, German employees prefer to take responsibility for their own work. Accordingly, three out of four people who were surveyed stated that a supervisor should provide enough freedom to their employees with regard to making their own decisions and taking action.

Nevertheless, the typical German office could use some more dolling out of praise: only half of German employees felt that their work is sufficiently appreciated.

“Teutonic Obsession“?

The British newspaper The Telegraph published an article by Jeremy Warner about the geopolitics of the European Central Bank and the Euro-Crisis. The fact that the bank had only now started the process of quantitative easing was in large part due to Germany’s previous efforts to resist this.

However, the German’s resistance against these measures taken by the ECB was not due to the German’s experiences with hyperinflation during the time of the Weimar Republic, but rather traces back to much profounder factors found deep within the German psyche: the ancient Teutonic obsession with legality and rules.

Could this also be the reason why the German response to proposals for money-saving measures, bail-outs, and troika made by the Greeks is a always the same resounding statement: “The Greeks must stick to the rules”?

But where do rules become necessary, in order to assure reliability, stability and continuity, and where must one deviate from them due to changes in circumstance? Does not every change in strategy incorporate breaking the rules of a time gone-by?

Is Jeremy Warner’s statement about a so-called ancient Teutonic obsession with legality and rules even historically accurate?