Yea-sayer Nay-sayer

The Yea-sayer Nay-sayer is a so-called school-opera written by Bertold Brecht, Elisabeth Hauptmann and Kurt Weill in 1930. Initially it was titled The Yea-sayer, and the plot revolved around the question of whether an individual must be agreeable to sacrificing themselves for the good of society.

In the first version of the piece a boy gives permission for his own execution. After a sting of discussions with students and workers Brecht’s The yea-sayer was modified into a second version, where the yea-sayer is presented in contrast to a nay-sayer.

This nay-sayer calls the blind obedience of the yea-sayer into question. The function of the yea-sayer has seen a variety of literary interpretations; perhaps the most common interpretation being that the character represents the expression of a false obedience with regard to authority and social norms.

Indeed, the term yea-sayer has a negative connotation in the German culture. To be a yea-sayer means to say amen to everything. Not to resist. To accept anything. Better to be a nay-sayer in this case.

Nay-sayers may be more complicated and unpleasant for those around them, but at least they stand up for their own beliefs. An (initial) no could simply be a way of expressing oneself first.

Not literal-minded

Yes or no. They seem clear, digital, literal. Words. Unmistakable. Unmißverständlich. un-misunderstandable. Hard, definitive, immovable. Not just the German logic at play here. English as a foreign language, also. Sure, Germans speak English well, some very well, not a few exceptionally well.

But what about nuances? Language is not mathematics. It is far more complex. Kulturbedingt. Imbedded in, shaped by, determined by, understood through national culture. Germans are Germans. Americans are Americans. National culture is a harder fact than any mathematical one.

Many Germans speak English more literally, because it is for them a foreign language. Nuanced thinkers they are. In their language. Germans. They can be literal, but they are most certainly not literal-minded.

German civil servants

German bureaucracy is equally confusing to many Germans as it is to foreigners. This is why most major services have open office hours with personal counselors. However, even one of these personal consultations can result in you accidentally setting up a road-block for yourself.

How could this happen? Usually because you asked for something that was not possible on their part, or at least perceived to be that way. You could be asking the impossible of them without even being aware of it, or you could be asking for something that apparently extends beyond their job description. The majority of German civil servants are really not that touchy, but not being able to get around one who is can be extremely difficult.

German civil servants tend to put the structure of their organization ahead of their own part. Their tasks were given to them for a reason, and it is not in the interest of the organization to let small issues spread to the attention of other departments if not necessary. After all, even the smallest component of a system is necessary to keep the whole from falling apart.

Providing information is always in the job description of these counselors, and they are happy to give it to anyone who takes consideration of their busy schedule by coming in advance. Coming well prepared is critical, also. In most cases they will take care of all of your needs to the fullest possible extent right there and then.

Anger at German Nay-sayers

In October 2009 the newspaper Westfalenpost published an article titled Verärgerung über deutsche Neinsager – Anger about German Nay-sayers. It was about Germany’s role in foreign politics.

From the outsider perspective Germany is considered to be a difficult political partner. Anyone listening to the buzz around Washington, Paris, or Peking will encounter Germany being discussed in a critical, but also derisive tone, which suggest an inability of German politics to represent Germany as the most economically strongest and most populous country in Europe.

“The trademark ‘culture of restraint’ which once sufficed for German foreign policy, can no longer be viewed as an expression of modesty, but rather as failure. The capitals of the neighboring countries are reacting with increasing bitterness to the German ‘nay-sayers’, who simultaneously point a finger in the opposite direction and try to teach their partners a lesson.”

Check with Colleagues and Manager

Agreements of substance and importance have effects, ramifications, influence on the work of others. And since Americans work in teams, many of them in several teams at any given time, they are not inclined to enter fully into an agreement until they have checked out what those effects might be.

Why invest additional time discussing the details of a potential agreement, if one or two aspects of it are counter to their other responsibilities? Instead, Americans will check with key colleagues in those organizations potentially influenced by the agreement. In many cases, they will also briefly discuss the case with their direct manager.

This approach is often mistakenly interpreted as a sign that many Americans are either incapable or unwilling to make decisions on their own, without having to run to their boss for permission.

American team leads ultimately carry all responsibility for what occurs within their organization, and are therefore keenly interested in what obligations their team members make in their – the team leader’s – names.

Back out

Americans reserve the right to back out of an agreement at any time during its early stages. This sounds like a contradiction in terms, in the sense that once an agreement has been made, one should keep their word.

It is not. American agreements in their early stages are agreements in the making, they are under consideration, are conditional. Americans will do their best to deliver what they have agreed to, if they can, are permitted to, if time and resources enable them.

To go into too much detail of an agreement up front is a potential waste of time and effort. Americans want first the very basics of the agreement, in order to quickly assess whether they can and want to enter into it.

If the initial response is positive, they will enter further into the agreement, taking in more details, proceeding if they can, are permitted to, if time and resources enable them.

It is a step by step process, and not an all or nothing decision.

Yes Men

Yes-man: a person who agrees with everything that is said; especially one who endorses or supports without criticism every opinion or proposal of an associate or superior. First known use in 1912 by Freeman Tilden in Century Magazine.

In 1993, the American Economic Association published an article demonstrating how subjective performance evaluations, one of the popular methods of giving employees feedback and determining such things as pay raises, incentivized employees to become Yes Men.

The article also argued that because of the tendency to create Yes Men, these programs should be avoided. Nevertheless, subjective performance evaluations are still commonly used in American businesses. In fact, Yes Men are so common in American culture that in 2008 Warner Brothers released the British/American film Yes Man.

This film follows the life of Carl Allen, a very negative person who decides to change his life by answering “Yes!” to every opportunity, request, or invitation that presents itself to him, something which, despite a few mishaps, ultimately increases the quality of Allen’s life.

Tesla’s Bane

In 1885 Nikola Tesla, who had recently immigrated to the US from Serbia, told his employer Thomas Edison that he could redesign Edison’s direct current generators, greatly improving both their service and cost. Hearing this, Edison remarked: “There’s fifty thousand dollars in it for you if you can do it.”

Even though Edison’s company had a reputation for being tightfisted, Tesla took him at his word, and after he completed the task, Edison refused to pay him the money. Instead, Edison told Tesla that he was only joking, and offered him a $10 per week raise for his current $18 per week salary. Insulted, Tesla immediately resigned.

bane: death, destruction; woe; a source of harm or ruin, a curse. Middle English, from Old English, akin to Old High German death. First Known Use: before 12th century

tightfisted – parsimonious; stingy; tight; mean; miserly. Origin from 1835-45.

Litigation

Given their litigation-heavy culture, it may seem ironic that Americans are so quick to say yes to an agreement. After all, saying yes and then not following through should make it easier for the one party to file a lawsuit.

However, the reality is the opposite. By having a culturally soft yes Americans make it more difficult for others to successfully sue them. In the U.S. it takes far more than a simple yes to indicate an oral agreement, which offers Americans protection from legal claims.

Gianni vs. Russell Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1924 – Gianni, who owned a small store, claimed that his landlord told him that he could have the exclusive right to sell drinks in the building.

The landlord then rented another space in the building to a company that sold drinks, and Gianni attempted to sue. However, because Gianni had entered into a written lease, and there was no mention of this right in the lease, the oral contract was said to be nonexistent.

Power Entertainment Inc. v. National Football League Properties, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1998 – the plaintiff and defendant orally agreed that Power Entertainment would take over a licensing agreement between the NFL Properties and another company in exchange for Power Entertainment assuming the $800,000 debt between the two original companies. However, after the debt was paid, NFL Properties did not transfer the license, and the oral contract was found to be invalid.

Additionally, oral agreements in the US are sometimes called handshake deals. Although an actual handshake isn’t necessary to make the agreement binding, this still shows that it takes more than a ‘yes’ to enter into an agreement.

Conditional Yes

Commitments are, by definition, conditional due to factors beyond the control of the parties to an agreement. Next-level management may change their priorities. The customer could modify their requirements. Available resources – people, time, budgets – are often redeployed on short notice.

Caveat: is a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions or limitations. In law, a caveat is a notice that certain actions may not be taken without informing the person who gave the notice. “Caveat” originates in the mid 16th century and is derived from Latin, literally from “let a person beware.”

Contingency: Event (as an emergency that may, but is not certain to occur); trying to provide for every contingency; something liable to happen as an adjunct to or result of something else. From Latin contingent-, contingens: to have contact with, befall, from com- + tangere to touch; first Known Use: 14th century.