Decision-Making – Page 10 – understand-culture

Nuclear energy? No thanks!

The German anti-nuclear-energy movement began as a social movement back in the 1970’s. It was directed against civilian consumption of nuclear energy. In comparison to other European countries, the movement has also received both the strongest and most continuous support in Germany. The anti-nuclear-energy movement is strongly connected to the environmentalist movement: Greenpeace, BUND and Robin Hood, for example, categorically reject the use of nuclear energy.

The accident on Three-Mile-Island in 1979 and the catastrophe at Chernobyl in 1986 provided the movement with new fuel. In 2000, the Schroeder-Fischer government began the process of phasing out the use of nuclear energy throughout the country.

While in 2010 the Kohl-government was gearing up for an extension of the run-time of the remaining nuclear plants, the German reaction to the nuclear incident in Fukushima in 2011 forced Chancellor Merkel, an advocate of nuclear energy, to reconsider this decision. Germany now plans to phase out nuclear energy completely by May 30th, 2022.

Fukushima ultimately resulted in an acceleration of the phasing-out of nuclear facilities in Germany. One year after Fukushima Chancellor Merkel defended her decision: “As we have witnessed, risks emerged in a highly developed industrial country, which we never would have considered to be possible. That is what convinced me that we should accelerate the phase-out”.

Meanwhile, Japan continues to invest in the nuclear industry. Great Britain is planning the construction of a new atomic plant. Even in France Fukushima could not slow the success of the nuclear industry. And in the USA, Fukushima also had no significant impact on opinions on nuclear energy held by the President and other politicians.

The German anti-nuclear energy movement and the nation’s response to Fukushima demonstrate the unique understanding that Germans have of risk.

Citizens exposed

Towards the end of 2014, the German Postbank conducted a study with the goal of identifying the good policies which Germans enforce with regard to their financial matters. The results were summarized in article titled When it comes to money, Germans are bureaucrats who are afraid to take risks:

“Like a pillar of economic wisdom, the desire to have a higher income looms above all other factors. The remaining results are actually more reflective of the ‘financial illiteracy’, which the Germans are already often credited with.

In this way, the study exposed the citizens as being fearful bureaucrats, who above all just want to increase their personal wealth through taxation, saving, and maintaining better control of their finances, rather than earn money through smart investing, or saving for retirement.”

Risikoscheu – A fear of risks: The attribute of a decision-maker to prefer the path of lesser risk – and thereby most minimal loss – when confronted with several alternatives which have an equal anticipated gain. This may mean waiting longer for the same reward, or even settling for a lesser gain, if the chances are greater that it will be received.

Process Rhythm

All processes have a rhythm, made up of the individual process steps, their sequence and the time allotted to them. Processes do not exist in a vacuum, however. Every process and its rhythm is subject to external factors.

Germans do their best to prevent external factors from influencing the rhythm of their processes, however. They believe that if a given decision making process has proven to be effective, if it has led to good decisions, it should not be interrupted or distracted.

If the decision is an important one, if the decision making process has proven to be robust, Germans will do their best to shield it from external factors.

Paragraph vs. Case

It is a well known fact that the German and the American legal systems have fundamental differences between them. The modern German legal system is based on ancient Roman law, combined with a bit of French and old Germanic law, but all of it follows the paragraph law structure.

The American system is derived from the English case law tradition, which follows the law as it was laid out by judicial verdicts in actual previous cases. Key cases providing precedence are reviewed to determine how to continue.

Justice (Gerechtigkeit) and judgement are closely connected in the American system. Not just the concrete facts of the case, but also the circumstances are considered to be crucial information for the deliberations and verdict. These then must be interpreted with regard to the complex nature of the human existence.

A task which only persons with sufficient experience with life as well as with people are capable of. This experience – or the wisdom that comes from such experience – is something which only older people can have.

This is why Americans are always astounded when they hear that in Germany relatively young people – in their early 30s – can become judges. Many of the district attorneys that they see on German television look as if they were fresh out of law school.

According to the American understanding of judicial power, paragraph laws play a minor part. Case law is so difficult precisely because it concerns situations which are not found in a German book of federal law.

This is why American judges must be older people who are truly good and wise. Their process too involves stringent scientific methods of analysis, not unlike German paragraph laws. These, from the American perspective, can not deliver more than just the pure facts.

The ability to take these facts and interpret them, to make sense of them, this is what they view as true good judgement. Knowledge of methodology and analytical processes may support one’s good judgement, but can never amount to the equivalent.

Intuition vs. Analysis

According to a report in the Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes by researchers from Boston College, George Mason University and Rice University: Intuition may be just as effective in decision-making as an analytical approach. And sometimes more efficient and effective, depending on the decision-maker’s level of expertise on the subject at hand.

“What we found demystifies a lot of the information out there that says intuition isn’t as effective as if you sat down and walked through an analytical approach.”

Testing intuition against analysis, the study found that people can trust their gut and rely on intuition when making a broad evaluation in an area where they have in-depth knowledge of the subject. As people move up in organizations, they’re often required to make judgments that may not be readily solved by rational analysis.

Intuition has long been viewed as a less effective approach to critical reasoning when compared to the merits of analytical thinking. Yet as society and businesses place a greater emphasis on the speed and effectiveness of decision-making, the intuitive approach has been identified as an increasingly important tool.

Analytic decisions are great for breaking things down into smaller parts, which is necessary for a math problem. But intuition is about looking at patterns and wholes.

Three inches high

Horst Brandstätter, the founder of Playmobil, dies at 81.

“Although a billionaire by the end of his life, he was a world champion in economizing, the younger Mr. Brandstätter (son Conny) said, citing as an example his father’s insistence on using cheap packs of cards for his favorite card game.

Mindful of his cash flow as the world oil crisis drove up the cost of plastics in the 1970s, Mr. Brandstätter summoned his chief designer and asked him to come up with toys that would use less plastic.

Mr. Beck came up with Playmobil, whose miniature models and environments are said to have been inspired by children’s drawings and the figurines of traditional Christmas crèches. At about 3 inches high, the figures have round faces, movable arms and legs, and hands that can grasp a pirate’s sword, a carpenter’s saw or a firefighter’s hose.”

Source: New York Times, June 11, 2015. By Alison Smale

“If worse comes to worst . . .”

There are several key phrases that Americans use when making quick, suboptimal decisions. Some of these include:

At the drop of a hat – without any hesitation, instantly; with the slightest provocation.

Back to the drawing board – when a decision fails and a new one needs to be made. First known use: 1941 in a cartoon in the New Yorker magazine.

Back to square one – when a decisions fails so completely that you have to go back to the beginning and start over.

Cross that bridge when you come to it – deal with a problem when it arises, not before. First known use: 1851 in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s The Golden Legend.

If worse comes to worst . . . – if the worst possible outcome of the bad decision occurs, the person saying it will do whatever he/she says next. First known use: 1596. Example: We’ll put this to market now, and if worse comes to worst we’ll refund our customers’ money.

Rash decision – a decision made without considering all of the details.

Frugal

Germans are very conservative with their resources. Waste is proof of poor and improper work, which has lost sight of what is important. This is why decision-making processes should incorporate a clear and well-defined plan for resource management.

The process of making a decision requires its own resources as well, (work, materials, time, etc.) and takes place in a context which is very much confined by the resources available, resources which must also be calculated into the process implementing the decision.

The German figure of speech ‘Not macht erfinderisch‘ – need makes one inventive – is a fitting: Being in need may lead one to become more creative and discover hidden connections, but it also enforces disciplined and effective use of available resources. These frugal tendencies strongly complement a process-oriented approach; both tendencies are different sides of the same coin.

A further important point of contrast becomes clear, when considering that the conservative use of resources also reflects a desire to keep things in balance. One doesn’t want to go rushing off in the wrong direction, ‘alles auf eine Karte setzen‘ – to bet it all on one card. Rather, one should always view important decisions within the economical context of labor and resources in its entirety. He or she who can ‘make more from less’ has successfully internalized this defensive principle.

Resource Comparison

If America represents a society of excess, then Germany can be viewed as representing one which may not have deficits, but knows its limits.

The U.S. has 15x as much natural gas, 5x as much crude oil, 4x as much coal, and 5x as many renewable water resources. And the list goes on.

In the year 2000, the annual use of gasoline per capita in the USA was 1,633 liters versus just 450 in Germany, electricity use was 13,672 versus 6,680 kwh.

As far as space is concerned, the numbers grow incomperable. With its 9.63 million km², the U.S. is 27x larger than Germany with its 357,000 km².

The state of Texas alone is nearly twice as large, having 678,000 km², California with 411,000 km² and Montana 381,000 km². My home state of Pennsylvania is already 1/3 the size of Germany with its 117,000 km².

All of this impacts the population density. In Germany, an average population density per km² is 231, in Northrhine-Westphalia, the most populous state, that number more than doubles to 530.

In the U.S., the figure lies at a mere 31. But let us examine the development o fthis number over the past 200 years: in 1800, there were 2.5 people per km², in 1850 3,5/km², 1900 8,0/km², and by 1950 still only 17 persons per km².

Decision-timid

Enscheidungsscheu – literally decision timid. In simple English: afraid to make a decision.

„Mit dem Kopf durch die Wand” – trying to go through the wall with their head. Impatience. „Die Hausaufgaben nicht gemacht” – haven’t done their homework. Aktionismus. Actionism. Cowboy mentality.

Germans see these as American tendancies, and believe that they are based on a lack of training, technical competence and methodology. “They simply have not learned these things,” is their explanation.

On the other hand, Americans view the German approach as time-consuming and academich-philosophical. German decision making can come across as decoupled from the goal which is to take. Germans, from the American perspective, take subjective factors too little into consideration. Their analysis is too complex, going well beyond the needs for making a decision.

Americans see their German colleagues as overly careful, far too scientific and schematic-tool oriented. They are reluctant to consider input based on experience and common sense.

Germans give the impression of striving to complete the perfect analysis, which in turn should be some kind of guaranty for the perfect, and therefore risk-free, decision. All of these are signs to Americans that their German colleagues in the end are simply afraid to make the tough decisions.