strategy and tactics

The Turbulent Times of Friedrich Merz

New York Times. December 15, 2026. By Jim Tankersley. Reporting from Munich, Berlin and the German chancellor’s aircraft.

“Mr. Merz’s approach is being severely tested. He has lost support at home since taking office in May. His courtship of Mr. Trump has mostly minimized damage to Europe on issues like trade and the war in Ukraine thus far.

But Mr. Merz remains the strongest leader standing among Europe’s major powers, especially now that President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain are faltering domestically. He is emerging as Europe’s indispensable leader — or at least, acting like it.

When Mr. Trump’s negotiators stunned Europe by reaching a Moscow-friendly agreement with Russia to end the war in Ukraine, Mr. Merz was the first continental leader to get Mr. Trump on the phone and push back.

Mr. Merz still believes he can coax Mr. Trump to break decisively from Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president.

‘I remain hopeful that we will permanently convince the United States and win them over to end this war together with us in Ukraine,” he told me. “That means we must support Ukraine until Russia can no longer continue this war economically. That is the only option we have.'”

Consensus via Dialogue

Precisely because it is so important to Germans to work in an independent, self-managing way, and because they usually have a clear picture in their mind of what the end result should look like, it is critical that customer and supplier reach as high a level of consensus as possible about what is to be achieved and how. All too often, however, the supplier simply asks for an okay from the customer about certain details.

When the details of collaboration need to be worked out, then colleagues from both sides sit down together and discuss them. Germans strive to work in integrated ways, including work processes. German customers and suppliers do their best to work as partners.

To clarify details is to address the how, whether it be a technical matter, how a given process is interpreted and lived, or how the organization is structured. Germans place great importance on clarifying as many details upfront as possible. They want to anticipate possible problems. Participating in and contributing to this upfront clarification process is critical to the success of customer-supplier relationships in Germany.

Abstimmen. Clarify, decide on, together; to decide based on voting; to bring things together, harmonize, agree on; to co-decide, to discuss with another person; to listen carefully and consider the other point of view, then find a joint solution; to establish consensus together.

Do it Yourself

Often German managers would rather complete a certain task themselves instead of passing it on to a team member. Many do repairs in their house, fix their cars, and some sit in their office at home until late into the night.

For those with limited financial resources, doing things yourself might be a question of economics. For others, there is a German reason: they often have a clear picture in their mind of how the final product should look. That they don‘t hand it off to a team member is not a sign of mistrust or lack of confidence.

Instead, Germans are skeptical that the other person will fully understand what is expected. By the time they have explained the task and how the final outcome should look, they most likely will have completed half of the work.

For the team member will create her own picture of the final product. Two pictures of what the work should look like. A dilemma for every customer-supplier relationship.

Americans, those leading as well as those being led, prefer specifically formulated, command oriented tasks. The command addresses both the what, and the how. Overall responsibility for the how is shared by both levels. Examples

Strategy and Tactics

Germans, those leading as well as those being led, prefer generally formulated, mission oriented tasks. The task addresses more the what and less the how. Responsibilitiy for the how lies with the implementer on the tactical level. Examples

Yea-sayer Nay-sayer

The Yea-sayer Nay-sayer is a so-called school-opera written by Bertolt Brecht, Elisabeth Hauptmann and Kurt Weill in 1930. Initially it was titled The Yea-sayer, and the plot revolved around the question of whether an individual must be agreeable to sacrificing themselves for the good of society.

In the first version of the piece a boy gives permission for his own execution. After a sting of discussions with students and workers Brecht’s The yea-sayer was modified into a second version, where the yea-sayer is presented in contrast to a nay-sayer.

This nay-sayer calls the blind obedience of the yea-sayer into question. The function of the yea-sayer has seen a variety of literary interpretations; perhaps the most common interpretation being that the character represents the expression of a false obedience with regard to authority and social norms.

Indeed, the term yea-sayer has a negative connotation in the German culture. To be a yea-sayer means to say amen to everything. Not to resist. To accept anything. Better to be a nay-sayer in this case.

Nay-sayers may be more complicated and unpleasant for those around them, but at least they stand up for their own beliefs. An (initial) no could simply be a way of expressing oneself first.

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.

Team Sports

How a society fundamentally defines the everyday working relationship between leader and led, is imbedded in how that society teaches its young people to compete in athletics. In its most popular sports. If that working relationship does not function well, the team loses.

It is no coincidence that the terms common to American teams sports are used time and again in the American business context. For the overwhelming majority of Americans have experience neither in the military nor in politics.

Other than being a member of a family, participating in team sports is the most common experience Americans, especially youths, have in a team context. And for those whose days of playing in a team are past, most remain fans of those sports. Teams sports in America form how Americans work in teams. The relationship between coaches and players is very much the model, or the mold, for the relationship between team lead and team.

The American sports tradition involves a close working relationship between leader and led, between the coaching staff and the players.

The coach and coaching staff in American football are the dominant actors during the game without stepping onto the field. They determine not only the strategy, but also the tactics. Both they can change quickly.

The rules of the game limit in no way when, how often, which and how many players they can substitute. Nor are there any restrictions on team formations on the field.

The coaching staff in almost all circumstances calls the individual offensive and defensive plays via direct communication with designated players: the quarterback on offense, the middle linebacker or safety on defense.

Playbooks are extensive descriptions of what each player does in a given play. They are detailed and prescriptive in nature. Depending on the position there is no to little room for variation.

During breaks in play, as well as changes in ball possession, the coaching staffs instruct directly their players on the details of execution. In other words, teaching occurs during the game.

American football is a very tightly managed and scripted sport, in many ways a sophisticated chess match between opposing coaching staffs. The television and radio commentators refer time and again to what decisions the coaches are making during the game: strategy, tactics, player substitutions, play-calling, time management.

Basketball – invented in 1891 by James Naismith, a Canadian-American, while teaching physical education in Springfield, Massachusetts – is also a sport dominated by the coaches. It has all of the characteristics of American football.

The teams of five players are smaller. The lines of communication between coaches and players are shorter and more direct. Although there are fewer set plays memorized from a playbook, the coaches can determine more directly how their team plays.

The chess match character is particularly evident during the final minutes of close games with coaches standing on the side of the court directing their players in real time, substituting players rapidly based on ball possession, and calling timeouts in order to give them explicit instructions.

Although baseball is in many ways a different kind of sport than American football and basketball, its rules and how the sport is played very much echoes the coach-player relationships in football and basketball.

It is the coaching staff who decides who pitches the ball, what pitches are chosen, when they are pitched. The coaching staff also instructs to a certain degree the batter on when to swing at which pitches. When players are on base as runners, they too are given instructions on when or when not to attempt to steal a base.

American colleges recruit their athletes from high schools across the nation. The athletes are often offered full tuition scholarships to play a sport at a university. Top basketball players are identified as early as in their 8th or 9th grade. The best players will be recruited during their junior year of high school.

This is a very personal process which consists of a dialogue between the university‘s head coach and player during his or her lasts one pr two years. Although there are many deciding factors in where a player decides which school to attend, the personal relationship with the coach is one of the most important.

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.

How a society organizes itself

How a society fundamentally defines the everyday working relationship between leader and led – between two levels of hierarchy – is imbedded in how that society makes decisions. In its political system.

If that working relationship does not function well, if it fails, not only are the political policies of those elected to office in jeopardy, the direction of the country, state, city or municipality is at risk. Defining and managing the line between strategy and tactics is in the political context a matter of moving forward or backward as a society.

The American political tradition involves a close working relationship between president and cabinet, between governor and mayor and their respective cabinets, between all holders of public office and their direct reports.

The American president is the head of the executive branch of government. The president‘s cabinet – the next level of management within the executive – reports directly to him or her and does not possess any domestic political power which could challenge the president‘s authority. Members of the Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President, who may dismiss them or reappoint them to other posts at will.

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President can require „the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.“ The Constitution did not then establish the names (or list or limit the number) of Cabinet departments. Those details were left to the Congress to determine.

There is no explicit definition of the term „cabinet“ in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. However, there are occasional references to „cabinet-level officers“ or „secretaries“, which when viewed in context appear to refer to the head of the „executive departments“ as listed in 5 U.S.C. §101.

The President’s Cabinet is an institution whose existence rests upon custom rather than law. Presidents have differed in their opinions as to the utility of the Cabinet, but all have found some political and administrative strengths in its continuance.

The Cabinet is retained because it provides to the President: political and managerial advice; a forum for interdepartmental conflict resolution; a location where he can address most of the executive branch and thereby enhance administrative coherence; and a source of political support for his programs and policies.

The Cabinet is not now, and is not likely to become, a body with collective responsibility. Presidents cannot appropriately share their legal authority or responsibilities with the Cabinet. The Cabinet, its members, and its sub-groups provide the President with an adaptive resource with which to manage the executive branch of government. (from CRS Report for Congress. The President’s Cabinet: Evolution, Alternatives, and Proposals for Change, September 12, 2000).