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.

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.

„Show good judgement“

All parents in all cultures strive to teach their children how to show or exercize good judgement. They want to prepare them for difficult situations in life, in which they will have to make difficult decisions, without the benefit of parental help. American parents will, time and again, advise their children to show good judgement.

Judges – team leads – base their judgement on three sources: on any existing laws, regulations, statutes, rules, regulations; on precedents, meaning how those laws, regulations, etc. have been previously applied; and on the specific circumstances of the conflict. Good – fair – judgement balances the influence of all three.

The higher in the American legal system one looks, the older the average age is of the judges. Americans equate judgement with wisdom. And wisdom is based on intelligence and experience. It is defined as: Accumulated philosophic or scientific learning; ability to discern inner qualities and relationships, insight; good sense; generally accepted belief; a wise attitude, belief, or course of action; the teachings of the ancient wise men. Middle English, from Old English wīsdōm, from wīs wise. First known use before 12th century

A judge conducts a trial in an open court. The judge is impartial. Judges hear witnesses and any other evidence presented by the conflict parties. Judges assess the credibility and arguments of the parties, then issue a ruling based on their interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some cases, the judge’s powers may be shared with a jury.

Americans expect their managers to resolve a conflict the way a judge would rule on a case: impartially, considering all of the facts and witness testimony (if any), using their own common sense and experience, but not in any way sharing their responsibility to „make the call“ with other members of management (no jury).

Reconstructing Memories

“The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. 

On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” 

Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.”

From: “Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts”, Hal Arkowitz and Scott Lilienfeld. Scientific American magazine, January 8, 2009.

Didactics

Many German literary texts have a didactic element, aiming to educate readers about the dangers of unchecked conflict and the value of peace. They often present conflict as a process that can be understood, analyzed, and, ultimately, transformed. This aligns with the German peacebuilding approach, which emphasizes interest reconciliation, addressing structural causes, and creating conditions for sustainable, peaceful development.

Law & Order

Law & Order (and spin-offs): Each episode follows the investigation of a crime (gathering evidence) and the subsequent prosecution in court, where lawyers and judges weigh facts and witness statements. The series consistently shows the process of building a case with hard evidence while also scrutinizing the credibility and motives of witnesses, mirroring the American business approach to resolving disputes.

Rekonstruktion

Rekonstruktion. Reconstruction. To rebuild; to explain an event, situation, thing as it once was; a work of art, music, literature, a physical thing such as a building or the behavior of people, an historical development.

Sich ein eigenes Bild von etwas machen. Literally to make for oneself a picture of something; to look at something with one‘s own eyes; to inform oneself at the scene.

Wahrheit. Truth; as it is, was; what is true, is lasting; what was truly the case, what is accurate.

Umstand. That which is present, literally standing around; what was present and influenced an event; contextual factors; an important, critical factor or influence.

Einordnen. To put into order, to fit in; to put in place within a system; to judge; to fit into an existing pattern or set-up; to size someone up, to get a read on.

Beweismaterial. Evidence; information relevant to a court case; to gather, secure, proof, destroy, hide evidence.

Schlichter

The process of Schlichtung – arbitration, mediation, conciliation – is a bit different in every case. To get a sense for the process it is helpful to take a look at the Mediationsgesetz – mediation law, for there is actually a law in Germany supporting out-of-court arbitration.

The law states clearly that the Schlichter takes a neutral position during the mediation. She or he is to lead the conflict parties to a consensual (both agree freely) resolution of the conflict, so as to avoid the need for a court case.

The Schlichter speaks with each party separately in order to reconstruct the conflict as objectively as possible. But what does “objective” actually mean? The mediation law does not answer that question. It is the job of the Schlichter, typically via a long process, to find the truth.

The one conflict party tries to prove the guilt of the other party. That party, in turn, does their best to prove lack of guilt. The mediator does her best to get as objective a picture of the situation as possible. 

Watergate

Public Inquiries and Congressional Hearings. Example: Watergate Hearings (1973–1974). Congressional hearings into the Watergate scandal involved the systematic collection of documents, tapes, and extensive witness testimony. Lawmakers acted as judges, weighing both types of evidence to determine wrongdoing and recommend action.

understand-culture
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.