history

A Connecticut Yankee

In A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain, the main character, a head superintendent from Hartford, Connecticut in the 19th century, finds himself lost in 6th century England. At first the Yankee is sentenced to die, but he manages to use a solar eclipse to his advantage, and is eventually knighted. Having been raised in America, the Yankee believes that the best way to gain the respect of his new people is by taking a leadership position, and as a result the title that he chooses for his knighthood is “Sir Boss.”

Boss – a protuberant part or body, a raised ornamentation, an ornamental projecting block used in architecture; a soft pad used in ceramics and glassmaking; the hub of a propeller; to ornament with bosses, emboss; a person who exercises control or authority; specifically one who directs or supervises workers; a politician who controls votes in a party organization or dictates appointments or legislative measures; excellent, first-rate; to give usually arbitrary orders to; cow, calf. First known use in the 14th century. First known use for the “leader” definition in 1653.

“Teutonic Obsession“?

The British newspaper The Telegraph published an article by Jeremy Warner about the geopolitics of the European Central Bank and the Euro-Crisis. The fact that the bank had only now started the process of quantitative easing was in large part due to Germany’s previous efforts to resist this.

However, the German’s resistance against these measures taken by the ECB was not due to the German’s experiences with hyperinflation during the time of the Weimar Republic, but rather traces back to much profounder factors found deep within the German psyche: the ancient Teutonic obsession with legality and rules.

Could this also be the reason why the German response to proposals for money-saving measures, bail-outs, and troika made by the Greeks is a always the same resounding statement: “The Greeks must stick to the rules”?

But where do rules become necessary, in order to assure reliability, stability and continuity, and where must one deviate from them due to changes in circumstance? Does not every change in strategy incorporate breaking the rules of a time gone-by?

Is Jeremy Warner’s statement about a so-called ancient Teutonic obsession with legality and rules even historically accurate?

The Buck Stops Here

The saying “the buck stops here” is used to refer to the person who takes responsibility. It is derived from the expression “pass the buck” which means to pass responsibility from one person to another. 

The phrase “pass the buck” comes from the game of poker, in which a marker, called a buck, was used to indicate the dealer. When changing dealers, the first dealer would “pass the buck” to the new one, thus passing responsibility.

During his presidency, Harry Truman kept a sign on his desk, which read “The Buck Stops Here.” It was his way of showing that, as the leader of the United States, he was responsible for anything that happened in the nation. 

He also made several references to this quote during his public statements, and in his farewell address, President Truman said “The President – whoever he is – has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.”

Mitbestimmung is Controversial

Although Mitbestimmung – codetermination: the legal right of workers to be represented at the highest levels of management – is foundational to the German social market economy, its merits are debated constantly.

Business (companies and their associations) believes that Mitbestimmung has been taken too far. The many different interests represented makes it too difficult to find consensus. It is an inefficient way to run profitable companies.

In October 2004 Germany’s two largest chambers of commerce (BDI and BDA) demanded reform of the Mitbestimmung. Their main argument was the pressures due to increasing internationalization of their companies. They referred to Mitbestimmung as an historical mistake.

There exists in Germany, however, a cultural and political consensus favoring Mitbestimmung. Germans believe that it provides for stability in companies. Employees identify themselves with them. Productivity is kept at high levels.

An historical mistake?

The Allies and Mitbestimmung

“Herewith the establishment of works councils is permitted within all of Germany.”

German Mitbestimmung – co-determination, employee participation in high-level company decision making – is a tradition, law and an institution which most certainly is a source of headaches for American business partners and investors. At the same time the works councils are a source of great pride and self-understanding for all German labor unions as well as for many German citizens.

And although German Mitbestimmung had had a long tradition in Germany, it was the Western Allies, primarily the Americans and the British, who insisted immediately after World War II that the newly established West German state reinstitute it.

After their takeover of power in January 1933 the National Socialists had outlawed the Mitbestimmung, and forced all labor unions to be unified within the so-called Deutsche Arbeitsfront – literally German Workers Front. The goal was to prevent any potential resistance to the regime from among the working class.

With strikes in 1905 in the coal mining Ruhr region the unions had won the right to establish works councils. In the years thereafter the councils gain increasing influence. During the Weimar Republic these gains were written into law.

The works councils represented the economic and social interests of the workers over and against management. It was no surprise, therefore, that the Nazis saw in them potential opposition to their  demand for absolute power. In 1934 the Nazis banned all independent unions and works councils.

It was no surprise, therefore, that what had been a thorn in the side of the Nazis was reinstated by the Allies. Kontrollratsgesetz Nr. 22 – Allied Law No. 22 – in the Spring of 1946 put works councils back in business.

Since then there has been no better instrument to prevent total control by management. Those who pick a fight with a works council go against the self-understanding and pride of the German movement for worker rights.

Presidents and Cabinets

President Lincoln held Cabinet meetings on Tuesdays and Fridays. These meetings were informal gatherings of equals with no formal structure or assigned seats. The President, however, preferred to deal with matters directly with individual members rather than have discussions with the full group.

Lincoln was deeply involved in the day-to-day affairs of the War Department. According to the diary of Gideon Welles, the president went to the War Department three to four times per day to look over communications in the telegraph office. Lincoln was known for his deliberative style, patiently listening to what his Cabinet members had to say before making a decision.

President Obama did not convene frequent Cabinet meetings during his first term. The meeting held in July 2012 was only the eighteenth. Obama does, however, hold daily meetings with White House advisors in which they discuss specific policies. The president reportedly prefers to understand problems with a high degree of detail. Some have criticized him for micromanaging his staff.

Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are considered to be the classic examples of delegators. Both brought a broad, bold vision of the role of government to the White House, and each relied heavily upon staff, executive agencies, and cabinet heads to implement their policies. Not coincidentally, both were largely successful in advancing their agendas, though at opposite ends of the political spectrum. In the first two years of his presidency, George W. Bush had exhibited many of the leadership traits of Reagan and Roosevelt.

Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter were known as micromanagers. As a former Senate majority leader, Johnson took an unusually active role in Congressional affairs, and was fond of monitoring the minutiae of the legislative process. He took a similar approach to managing the Vietnam War, picking many of the bombing targets himself during late-night strategy sessions with his generals.

Although Jimmy Carter campaigned as an outsider to the political system (having served one term as the governor of Georgia), he quickly developed a reputation as a “policy wonk” and micromanager. He was faulted for lacking the grand vision of previous presidents, and for obsessing over the administrative details of the office at the expense of seeing the big picture. It was reported that Carter once took time to resolve a scheduling dispute between staffers over the use of the White House tennis courts.

Richard Nixon’s leadership style has been described as “keeping his own counsel.” The thirty-seventh president had few advisors that he trusted, and rarely sought out dissenting opinions or advice from others. It is believed that Nixon’s mistrust of virtually everyone around him contributed to his downfall following the Watergate break-in.

No Standing Army

Up until the end of the Second World War the United States did not maintain a standing army. America‘s founding fathers warned about the dangers a standing army presents should it become the instrument of tyranny. The American military history is a series of mobilizations and demobilizations.

After the the First World War the U.S. reduced its forces to approximately 100,000 soldiers, equal to the limit imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. American mobilization after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 took up to an entire year.

Although American armed forces have been present in many countries since the end of the Second World War, it does not have a European-type tradition of officer corps and militias with long-standing doctrines, training and fighting methods.

In many ways, Americans have had to retrain themselves for the wars they fought – enlisting, training and managing young men at short notice and within short periods of time. It could also be argued that the average education level of the average American enlisted soldier is/was not as high as his counterpart in northern European countries.

These factors – a tradition of demobilization, the need to enlist and train rapidly, a broad spectrum of levels of education – may have forced the American military to develop leadership approaches which make necessary close management of personnel and operation.

German Kleinstaaterei

Klein, small. Staaterei, many states. From roughly 1650 until 1850 Germany consisted of some 350 independent states, most very small, with only a few kingdoms such as Prussia, Bavaria, and Saxony. The Kaiser had little direct power over this patchwork of states. His influence was reduced to that of a moderator.

While England and France were well advanced in becoming unified centralized states, Germany remained a country of loosely affiliated independent territories. And although many of these territories developed their own modern governmental bodies, there was little progress made to coordinate or integrate them at the national level.

One of the causes of the German Kleinstaaterei was the German tradition of inheritance which divided up possessions among all male heirs, and not the just the oldest. This led to more and smaller states. Complicating matters was the tradition of dividing up the inheritance equally. This led to the creation of non-contiguous states with en- and exclaves.

Although two large states were formed – Prussia led by the Hohenzollern dynasty and Austria-Hungary led by the Hapsburg dynasty – both had non-contiguous territories which made it difficult for Germany to consolidate as a nation-state similar to England and France.

The German Bund – created after the Napoleonic Wars – reduced the Kleinstaaterei to just under 40 independent states. But it wasn‘t until 1871 when Germany finally became a nation-state in the modern sense after Prussia defeated France and declared itself a Reich. In the years before the Franco-Prussian War, Prussia had consolidated most of the German states via war.

Führen im Auftrag – Quotes

„The mistakes of senior commanders are often rectified by the troops below.“ Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian General, author of On War.

In reality, the Germans owe their final victory to the enormous amount of independently-minded and innovative junior-officers in all positions all the way down to the very lowest ranks.“ Russian General Woide on the Franco-Prussion War of 1870/71

„War demands iron discipline of troops and exceedingly tight coordination of forces. In the heat of battle, however, of highest importance are officers and soldiers trained to think and act independently and spontaneously.“ Prussian officer training manual of 1906

„Führen mit Auftrag is an extraordinarily broad and involved term, which includes all-encompassing aspects of current doctrine concerning the essence of war, characteristics of leadership, tactics, the leadership of troops, the relationship of senior to junior officers to each other and to soldiers, as well as training and education. In addition, these aspects are formulated systematically in a way which allows them to both mutually support each other and to make them inseparable.“ An American Officer (1987)

Führen mit Auftrag

Führen mit Auftrag, a multifaceted leadership concept roughly translated as Leading by Mission, has been the foundational leadership principle in the German military over the last two hundred years. It has its roots in the famous Prussian Reforms of the early 19th Century when the Germans did a comprehensive root cause analysis of why they were so suddenly and thoroughly defeated by Napoleon‘s armies.

Führen mit Auftrag – leading by mission – is how Germans define Menschenführung or leadership of men. The officer issues to his troops a mission, a goal. It is generally formulated, includes a time component and an indication of forces required. It is then up to the next level to devise how they will complete the mission independent of their leadership.

Unique about Führen mit Auftrag is the degree of freedom on the tactical level given to those issued the mission. As long as they complete the overall mission, they decide independently which approach is best, including significant adjustments to possible changes in the situation. Required at the tactical level are flexibility, creativity and executing independent of next-level leadership.

Of critical importance to Führen mit Auftrag is that the tactical level understand clearly and thoroughly the strategic thinking of their commanding officer, and are trained to act independently of that commanding officer, yet in the spirit of his strategic intent.

Those on the tactical must also possess both good judgement and the will to make independent decisions. They must have a strong sense of responsibility and duty. The commanding officer, for his or her part, must make their strategic thinking clear, transparent and understandable for those on the tactical level.