USA – Page 2 – understand-culture

To judge

Judge: To form an opinion through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises; to sit in judgement of, to try; to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation; to govern, rule; to form an estimate or evaluation of; to form an opinion; to decide as a judge. Middle English juggen, from Anglo-French juger, from Latin judicare.

Mediate: Occupying a middle position; acting through an intervening agency; exhibiting indirect causation, connection, or relation. From Late Latin mediatus intermediate.

Fact: A thing done; the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality. From Latin factum.

Witness: Attestation of a fact or event; one that gives evidence; specifically: one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal; one asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place; one who has personal knowledge of something; something serving as evidence or proof; public affirmation by word or example of usually religious faith or conviction. Middle English witnesse, from Old English witnes knowledge, testimony, witness, from wit.

Testimony: The tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law, the ark containing the tablets; a divine decree attested in the Scriptures; firsthand authentication of a fact; a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official; an open acknowledgment. Middle English testimonie, Latin testimonium, from testis witness.

References

Conflict in a team affects its people. People have personal perspectives. Subjective, not objective. Both real and a factor. Opinion counts, for it is among the fundamental drivers of behavior.

Americans value as evidence both facts and personal opinion. See an American curriculum vitae (resumé). It always either cites or offers references. See the sales/marketing efforts of any American company. They always either cite or offer a customer list. See the American judicial system. It always allows for supporting witness testimony.

Ask employees

In 2013 there was a lot of controversy regarding allegations of abuse against several members of the Miami Dolphins professional football team. As part of the NFL (National Football League) investigation into these claims, a report was put together analyzing the behavior of the players. This report was primarily based on emails, text messages, and more than a hundred interviews conducted with the Dolphins personnel.

In 2002 the founders of Google attempted to set up an organizational system without managers. After just a few months, however, their system fell apart. Following this, the founders decided to use the failed experiment to determine which characteristics are the most important for strong leaders.

To find these characteristics, the founders considered not only the factual details from the failed system, but they also relied heavily on such things as employee surveys and double-blind interviews.

In dubio pro reo

In German conflict situations, such as criminal law, the general rule “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, for the accused) applies. During the examination of a conflict and in reconstruction of the facts, it is requird that the judiciary be extremely accurate.

This means among other things, that subjective evidence, such as taking testimonies on the basis of assumptions (even though they might be accurate), are not sufficient indications of the facts. This protects the German defendants from unlawful decisions.

However, this also means that even if the subjective evidence is convincing, the prosecutor does not have the right to use it, unless and until objective evidence (e.g. reviewed testimonies, video- or tape recordings, images) verifies it.

If the prosecutor is not able to find such evidence and tries to support his argument by using subjective testimony, he still carries the burden of proof.

Let’s take the example of a prosecutor whose house was graffitied. The prosecutor does not know with certainty that the graffiti was actually done by the defendant, but he has a strong subjective presumption since the defendant is a well-known graffiti artist in the neighborhood.

The prosecutor carries the burden of proof. Relying only on subjective reasoning will lead to the lawsuit being rejected due to lack of conclusiveness.