Formal presentations are rarely the final step in a German decision making process. Rarely do German managers make a critical decision shortly after having listened to the presentation of various options.
Instead they will take time to reflect, discuss with their direct reports, get additional input from subject area experts, use colleagues at different management levels as sounding boards.
The act of persuasion in the German business context is seldom aimed at getting a specific decision. Truly persuasive argumentation seeks to influence, steer, route the thinking to or in the direction of a desired decision.
On May 7th, 1998 Jürgen Schrempp, CEO of Daimler, and Bob Eaton, CEO of Chrysler appeared together at a press conference in London to announce a merger between the two companies. It was emphasized that this was not a takeover by one company of the other, but rather a fusion between equal parties. Schrempp deemed the merger of Daimler and Chrysler “a match made in heaven”.
After two years, Co-chairman Eaton announced his resignation, leaving Schrempp to be the sole head. In 2006 Schrempp passed this position on to Dieter Zetsche. By March 2007 the first speculations began to emerge that DaimlerChrysler would sell the ChryslerGroup.
Since the merger, Chrysler had reduced its net worth by 35 billion Euros, while the net worth of DaimlerChrysler has been reduced by another 50 billion by the end of Schrempp’s resignation in 2005. On May 14th, 2007 the sale of ChryslerGroup to Cerberus was announced. During a special general assembly on October 4th, 2007 it was officially decided to rename the company Daimler AG.
For Mercedes-Benz this merger to DaimlerChrysler AG seriously damaged the company’s image, which many attribute to quality issues and cost-cutting. The leading role which Daimler-Benz AG once had in the auto industry has still not been completely restored.
A study conducted by the consulting firm McKinsey estimated that the company’s value had dropped during Schrempp’s reign by 74 billion dollars.
In the U.S. business environment, managers expect to be kept informed of even small developments in projects under their supervision. In practice this means that managers are often cc’ed on routine emails relating to the „nuts and bolts“ of a project, even if the content of the email does not require input from the manager. This practice is done to ensure that the manager has situational awareness of his team members’ work.
The All-Employee Meeting – also called All-Hands or Town Hall Meeting – is an effective and important forum American management uses to communicate directly with their entire organization. Its goal is not so much to go into the details of the organization‘s strategy, but instead to lay out its broad lines.
The AEM also allows for a question and answer period which gives both management and employees a forum to spontaneously address topics of particular concern. In addition, the AEM serves the purpose of motivating the team to work harder, faster, smarter.
“Signs That You’re a Micromanager.” Muriel Wilkins. November 2014. Harvard Business Review.
“Absolutely no one likes to be micromanaged. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and demotivating. Yet, some managers can’t seem to help themselves. The signs are clear:
You’re never quite satisfied with deliverables. You’re often frustrated because you would’ve gone about the task differently. You laser in on the details and take great pride in making corrections. You constantly want to know where all your team members are and what they’re working on. You ask for frequent updates on where things stand. You prefer to be cc’d on emails.
Wilkins suggest four things to reduce micromanaging:
Get over yourself. We can all rationalize why we do what we do and the same holds true for micromanagers.
Let it go. The difference between managing and micromanaging is the focus on the micro. Let go of the minutia.
Give the what, not the how. There’s a difference between sharing that expectation and dictating how to get to that result.
Expect to win. Be clear on what success looks like. Provide the resources, information, and support needed to meet those conditions. Give credit where credit is due.
In many job postings German employers promise eigenständiges Arbeiten – literally independent work, meaning the freedom to do the work with little influence from next-level management. Selbständiges Arbeiten – self-managing work without constant status checks, without anyone “looking over your shoulder”, is highly attractive to German employees and job-seekers.
It is a sign of trust in the person’s ability. Constant feedback to the boss on the progress of work is neither necessary nor desired. Too much communication between levels of hierarchy is in the German context a sign of Unselbständigkeit – inability to work independently, self-managing. They need to be “taken by the hand” (hand-holding). And noone in Germany, neither team lead nor member, wants to waste time doing that.
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).
Here we go, another misreading of German leadership logic. See correction in ( … ):
“In Germany there is a clear chain of command in each department, and information and instructions are passed down from the top. (no, it goes in both directions) This does not mean, however, that German management is exclusively autocratic (not only not exclusively, not autocratic at all): while the vertical structure in each department is clear, considerable value is placed on consensus.
Equally, the German striving for perfection in systems and procedures carries with it the implication that the manager who vigorously applies and monitors these is showing faith in a framework that has proved successful for all.
Accordingly, German managers motivate staff by showing solidarity with them in following procedures. They work long hours (wrong), obey the rules (a cliché, often Germans will go against or ignore a process or procedure) and, though expecting immediate obedience (a terrible cliché, as if Germans were dogs), insist on fair play. For their part, German employees welcome close instruction (actually it’s the opposite, they want generally-formulated tasks, and not specifically/detailed-formulate orders): they know where they stand and what they are expected to do.”
In the German military context, independent deviation from the Auftrag – mission – is permitted and expected, if the situation on the ground has changed, demands a rapid response, and the commanding officer cannot be reached.
The overall mission, however, may not be re-interpreted. The tactical approach is always subject to modification. This presupposes that the junior officers and their troops are fully informed of the overall strategy which the mission serves, allowing them to choose the best path to the goal.
Those considering deviation need to ask themselves: „How would I as the commanding officer react to the changes on the ground?“ Critical is acting in accordance to the spirit of the Auftrag, the mission.
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.