The Berlin Conference (1884–1885). Context: Major European powers, including Germany, convened in Berlin to formalize territorial claims in Africa. The conference lasted several months, with extensive negotiations and careful consideration of complex interests before any decisions were finalized. The process was deliberate and patient, reflecting the German preference for thorough analysis rather than rushed conclusions.
history
Imperial Reforms (1493–1519)
The Holy Roman Empire underwent significant reforms, including the establishment of supreme courts and the Imperial Diet as a key decision-making body. These reforms unfolded over decades and required patient negotiation and compromise between the emperor and the estates. The slow, consultative process exemplified the German belief that important decisions should not be rushed and must be given the time their complexity demands.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact exemplifies several core German decision-making strategies, particularly the emphasis on strategic patience, pragmatic calculation, and allowing the nature of the decision-not external pressures-to dictate timing and terms.
Deliberate Negotiation and Timing:
The pact was the result of extended negotiations between Germany and the Soviet Union, following the breakdown of talks between the Soviets, Britain, and France. German leaders did not rush into an agreement but instead waited for the optimal moment-after other diplomatic options had failed-to secure a deal that would best serve their interests. This patience allowed Germany to negotiate from a position of strength and maximize its strategic advantage.
Pragmatic, Interest-Driven Approach:
Despite deep ideological differences, Germany prioritized practical considerations over ideology, focusing on immediate military and territorial objectives. The pact included secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence, demonstrating a willingness to set aside personal or political animosities in favor of concrete, performance-based outcomes.
Control Over Decision Pace:
Germany resisted external pressures-such as the urgency from Britain and France to form an anti-German alliance-and instead set the tempo of negotiations to align with its own strategic timetable. This approach reflects the German logic that the time allotted to a decision should be determined by its complexity and importance, not by outside urgency.
Patience in Execution and Adjustment:
After the pact was signed, Germany continued to renegotiate and adjust its terms, as seen in subsequent agreements modifying borders and managing resource exchanges with the Soviet Union. This ongoing, patient adjustment process ensured that decisions remained aligned with evolving strategic needs.
In summary, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact demonstrates German decision-making strategies through measured, pragmatic negotiation; patience in timing and execution; and a consistent focus on achieving well-defined, interest-driven objectives, regardless of external pressure or ideological differences.
Deutschland 83
This award-winning spy thriller follows a young East German soldier recruited as a spy in West Germany during the Cold War. The series highlights the slow, strategic nature of intelligence work, where decisions are made only after extensive analysis, weighing risks, and considering long-term consequences rather than yielding to immediate political or military pressures.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Truman fires MacArthur
The History channel online describes well „perhaps the most famous civilian-military confrontation in the history of the United States.“
In April 1951 President Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur. On April 11 Truman addressed the nation. He defended his overall policy in Korea. “It is right for us to be in Korea.” Nevertheless, he explained, it “would be wrong—tragically wrong—for us to take the initiative in extending the war… Our aim is to avoid the spread of the conflict.”
MacArthur returned to the United States to a hero’s welcome. Parades were held in his honor, and he was asked to speak before Congress. Public opinion was strongly against Truman’s actions, but the president stuck to his decision without regret or apology.
Eventually, the American people began to understand that his policies and recommendations might have led to a massively expanded war in Asia.
Going on Operations
U.S. military leaders have a long tradition of showcasing themselves as both capable decision makers at the strategic level and capable soldiers at the tactical level. One famous example is a widely published photograph of General Douglas MacArthur charging through the ocean surf during a World War II beach landing in the Philippines. This scene depicts him as a leader who leads from the front.
Equally famous from World War II involved General Dwight Eisenhower, later U.S. President. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, Eisenhower went to meet with paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division who would be leading the airborne assault.
In his book My Three Years with Eisenhower Captain Harry C. Butcher writes, “We saw hundreds of paratroopers with blackened and grotesque faces, packing up for the big hop and jump. Ike wandered through them, stepping over, packs, guns, and a variety of equipment such as only paratroop people can devise, chinning with this and that one. All were put at ease.“
A contemporary example of a strategic-level leader is General Stanley McChrystal. In June 2006 McChrystal’s team successfully hunted down Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, one of the most wanted men in Iraq. McChrystal reportedly accompanied his men on the mission to retrieve al-Zarqawi’s body. He frequently accompanied soldiers under his leadership on operations.