Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). This Supreme Court case addressed whether journalists could refuse to testify about confidential sources. The Court considered both the objective need for evidence in criminal cases and the subjective arguments about press freedom. The majority opinion emphasized that courts must balance these interests on a case-by-case basis, reviewing both facts and testimony to reach a fair outcome. The case illustrates the American approach of acting as a judge—considering all available evidence and subjective claims before making a ruling.
evidence
legal tradition
American managers’ approaches to conflict resolution reflect historical legal precedents by emphasizing structured, evidence-based processes rooted in the country’s adversarial legal tradition. This tradition prioritizes the careful weighing of both objective facts and subjective testimony, mirroring the way courts operate in the United States.
Adversarial Process and the Role of the Judge. The American legal system is built on an adversarial model, where opposing sides present evidence and testimony before a neutral judge or jury, who then makes a binding decision. American managers, drawing from this model, often see themselves more as judges than mediators: they listen to all parties, consider documentation and witness statements, and then render a decision.
Integration of Objective and Subjective Evidence. Just as courts balance physical evidence with personal testimony, managers in American businesses are trained to gather both factual data (e.g., records, emails, policies) and subjective input (e.g., employee perspectives, witness accounts) before resolving disputes. This dual approach ensures that decisions are both fair and defensible.
Inluence of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Legal precedents such as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (established by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947) and the rise of arbitration and mediation in the late 20th century have influenced corporate practices. Many American companies now utilize mediation, arbitration, and other ADR mechanisms, reflecting the legal system’s endorsement of structured, evidence-based conflict resolution outside of court.
Emphasis on Documentation and Process. Legal history in the U.S. underscores the importance of process, documentation, and transparency. Managers are expected to document conflicts, follow established procedures, and provide clear rationales for their decisions—practices modeled after legal standards and reinforced by court rulings on due process and fairness.
Precedent and Consistency. Just as legal precedent guides future court decisions, American managers often look to company policy, past cases, and industry standards to ensure consistency and fairness in conflict resolution.
Atticus Finch
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. The novel centers on the trial of Tom Robinson, an African American man falsely accused of rape. Atticus Finch, acting as his defense attorney, embodies the judge-like approach: he carefully examines objective evidence (or the lack thereof) and cross-examines subjective witness testimony in court. The narrative shows how American justice seeks to balance hard facts with personal accounts, and how the process of judgment is shaped by both.
analysis, truth, causes
German literary themes often mirror the country’s approach to conflict resolution by emphasizing rational analysis, the search for truth, and a deep engagement with the causes and consequences of conflict. This is evident in several ways:
1. Analytical and Evidence-Based Narratives: German literature frequently adopts a methodical, almost investigative approach to conflict. Works often reconstruct the origins and dynamics of disputes, reflecting a cultural preference for understanding “why” something happened rather than simply assigning blame. This mirrors the German mediator’s focus on reconstructing causes and seeking objective evidence.
2. Focus on Structural Causes and Complexity. German literary works tend to explore not just individual conflicts, but also the broader structural, historical, and societal factors that give rise to them. For example, literature from the post-Cold War era and after World War II often grapples with the legacy of violence, the trauma of war, and the processes of reconciliation and rebuilding. This reflects a systemic approach to conflict resolution, where understanding the underlying structures is key to lasting peace.
3. Didactic and Reflective Elements. Many German literary texts serve a didactic purpose, encouraging readers to reflect critically on conflict, violence, and their own roles in society. This aligns with the German tradition of using literature as a tool for public conscience and collective learning, fostering dialogue and self-examination as part of the resolution process.
4. Emphasis on Dialogue and Multiple Perspectives. German literature often presents conflicts through multiple viewpoints, highlighting the importance of dialogue, empathy, and understanding different sides. This narrative strategy supports the idea that resolving conflict requires not just evidence, but also the integration of subjective experiences and perspectives.
5. Transformation and Peacebuilding. Themes of transformation—both personal and societal—are central in German literature. Works frequently depict the journey from conflict to reconciliation, emphasizing the possibility of change through understanding, evidence, and dialogue. This reflects the German peacebuilding approach, which seeks to address root causes and foster sustainable solutions.
Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose: This classic play (and its film adaptation) focuses on a jury deliberating the fate of a young defendant. The jurors must sift through the facts of the case and the credibility of witness statements, debating until they reach a unanimous verdict. The story is a direct metaphor for the American conflict resolution style: careful, collective weighing of evidence and testimony before rendering judgment.
Judge Judy
Judge Judy (and other courtroom reality shows). Real-life small claims cases are presented before Judge Judy Sheindlin, who listens to both parties, examines evidence, and cross-examines witnesses before issuing a binding verdict. Judge Judy’s approach epitomizes the American manager-as-judge logic: she considers both objective facts (documents, receipts, contracts) and subjective testimony (personal accounts, explanations) before making a decision.
Rules of Mediation
The first rule is that the conflict resolution process is not the equivalent of a court case. The goal is not to judge either of the conflict parties, but to jointly find a solution to the problem.
Goodwill. It is expected of all parties involved that they act in good faith and are willing to compromise. The mediator should do no more than guide the discussion and help the conflict parties to recognize common ground. The conflict parties are asked to find a solution together. Only when that cannot be achieved, is the moderator expected to make concrete suggestions.
The mediator. Germans expect the moderator to be neutral, to listen patiently to both sides of the conflict, and to support the resolution process in a way which does not damage either party. Neither blame nor guilt should be attributed to either of the conflict parties. Instead, the mediator focuses on reconstructing events and describing the problem.
Heiner Geissler, a former high-ranking member of the Christian Democratic Party, is the most prominent of German mediator. Geißler has been brought in numerous times since 1997 to help resolve conflicts between companies and unions. He was in the national spotlight over the last few years in his attempt to help resolve a major political conflict in the state of Baden-Württemberg concerning a the reconstruction of the Stuttgart main train station.
both sides
“Let’s hear both sides of the story.” Emphasizes the importance of considering all perspectives—objective facts and subjective witness accounts—before making a decision.
auf den Grund gehen
Den Dingen auf den Grund gehen. Translation: Get to the bottom of things. Meaning: Investigate thoroughly to understand the real reasons behind a conflict or problem.
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.