German Management: A Challenge to Anglo-American

Rosemary Stewart

A merican man- agement writing tends to be im-

perialistic. The generaliza- tions made from Ameri- can experience are often presented as universal truths, despite the strong cultural assumptions that underlie them. A two-year study by Stewart et al. (1994) of what another group of Western manag-

ers, the Germans, think is important in managing shows how different their assumptions are and hence how myopic the Anglo-American view of management can be. Although the study involved British managers, there are lessons for Americans as well, because of the two countries’ similar views on the nature of management.

The research, compiled over two years, com- pared what 30 British and 30 German middle managers thought about their jobs and how they actually worked. The aim was to examine middle managers in pairs of comparable firms. Compa- nies in brewing, insurance, and construction were chosen because they fitted the multiple selection criteria: nationally owned companies, spread over sectors, in industries that were com- parable in size and performance within the na- tional economies. Middle managers in jobs that were as nearly alike as possible in the British and German firms were interviewed and observed by both a British and a German researcher in order to offset the cultural bias of an observer from only one country. In the end, major differences were found between the two groups-differences that are well worth exploring.

52

What Matters In “Management”

The British middle managers were very conscious of being managers. They liked philosophizing about their views on the art of being a good manager, and argued that delegation was impor- tant and a good way of developing their subordi- nates. All emphasized the prime requirement of being a good “people” manager and striving to relate to people in other departments. For them, managing was seen very much as a social activ- ity. They spent more time than the German man- agers out of their own office and more time with other people.

The German managers, in contrast, talked much less about management per se. They saw themselves as the technical experts to whom their subordinates would come with technical problems. And unlike the British managers, they helped out with the actual work.

Nevertheless, there were also two main simi- larities. Both British and German middle manag- ers attached great importance to establishing a good working climate. And both groups spent a lot of time checking to see that the work was done properly, although their methods of doing so differed. The Germans, probably because of their more detailed technical knowledge. favored a more specific and technical approach to check- ing. The British, on the other hand, tended to check on the progress of the people rather than on the actual work itself, and to rely more on observation. The German managers expected their staff to bring them technical problems, whereas the British did not. For the British, to do so could be seen as reflecting adversely on the subordinates’ technical competence. Queries about staff problems were more acceptable.

Business Horizons i May-June 1996

What Makes For A Good Manager

Recruitment policies, career patterns, and views on how to develop managers are all based on assumptions about what makes a good manager. All three of these differ in the two countries stud- ied. The German view is that the proper technical training is an essential requirement for initial recruitment. Later the relevant technical experi- ence is a major requirement for promotion. Ca- reers are functionally based and promotion is slow, top managers often have higher educational qualifications. The British, in contrast, place more emphasis on staff skills in people management and, for senior posts, on experience in different aspects of the business.

The remarkable differences between the careers of our sample of British and German managers are confirmed by the much broader studies of Eberwein and Tholen (1990) and Wheatley (1992). German middle managers spend much longer in their jobs than do the Brit- ish: 20 of the 30 German managers studied had spent five or more years in the same job; six of these, in fact, had been in the same job for 20 years or more. In contrast, the British view, like that of Americans, is that a long time in the same job is likely to have-indeed, will have-a dead- ening effect.

Such long job tenure on the part of Germans is seen as building up desirable technical exper- tise. It also shows the remarkable structural sta- bility in the slim German companies studied.

Management As A Social Activity

The German managers worked very hard and left the job on time. There was a much sharper di- vide between work and private life than for the British managers. The latter worked less intently but often stayed late, taking work home and possibly dropping in over the weekend if there was shift work. Unlike their German counter- parts, they might socialize with their colleagues over lunch or have a beer with them after work.

The Germans were far more task oriented than the British, meaning that less attention had to be paid to individual personalities. It also led to what seemed like brusqueness from a British perspective: finishing a task before acknowledg- ing someone who came into the office, or rou- tinely omitting any preamble when phoning.

The British managers emphasized persuasion as a way of enlisting cooperation. Such an ap- proach entailed knowing enough about the other person to know what kind of arguments would appeal and hence to sell them successfully. The Germans, on the other hand, believed facts speak for themselves, and so convinced people by logi- cal argument. Credibility and technical knowledge

went together, so enlisting cooperation was con- sidered fairly straightforward.

Networking does exist among German man- agers, particularly at more senior levels. But it is a much larger part of the Anglo-American man- agement experience, as evidenced in the litera- ture. Kotter (1982), for example, describes how much time and importance the general managers he studied spent on networking.

Similarly, the British managers studied devel- oped a wide range of contacts to get the coop- erative support they needed. A great deal of time was spent on developing and keeping warm contacts who could be helpful.

There seemed to be four reasons for this difference in networking between the British and German managers:

1. The German managers had been in their jobs so much longer that the contacts they needed were long established.

2. For the Germans, factual arguments were sufficient to establish the needs of the task; the British felt they needed to be able to tailor their arguments to the individual, and networking was a way of learning about individuals.

3. The British collected all sorts of tangential information that could be helpful in understand- ing current organizational politics.

4. The British managers, like the American educational administrators studied by Hannaway (19891, needed to ensure that they were noticed favorably. In Germany, however, where reputa- tion rests mainly on technical expertise, such self- promotion may be unnecessary.

Individual Achievement And Rewards

The German managers attached great importance to team spirit, harmonious cooperation, mutual support, and the avoidance of conflict among colleagues. The British managers took the indi- vidual as their starting point when talking about job satisfaction and job priorities. They wanted freedom to adopt their own approach to the job. And they liked a job that gave them a personal sense of accomplishment. This is in line with Hofstede’s (1980) contention that Germans have a more collectivist approach-subordinating indi- vidual interests to the common good-than Brit- ish or Americans.

IMPLICATIONS

T

wo opposing views can be taken of the differences described between British and

1 German managers and hence of the pos- sible lessons for British-and American-manag- ers. One view is that each approach suits the respective groups’ particular background and therefore they have nothing to learn from each

German Management: A Challenge to Anglo-American Managerial Assumptions

other. Management effectiveness is a reflection of the culture.

The other view is that the differences are greater than is desirable for effective international management and so there are indeed lessons to be drawn from managers in another country. The success of Japanese managers in working with American and British staff supports the second view, as does the lessons that have been successfuly applied from Japan.

A possible lesson for American managers, as for the British, is to ask themselves whether their emphasis on managing is overdone. It may 1~ that more involvement in, and more knowledge of, operations would make for greater effective- ness, although this would require changes in education and approaches to tnanagerial careers. The following common Anglo-American views may need examining and their cultural specificity recognized. They are not management universals:

l Chalzge is productive and stimuluting. New people can turn a situation around; frequent job hopping is developmental, whereas too long in the same jot-, leads to stagnation and a decline in performance; transforming the organization is a major ingredient of a change program. These views are so ingrained in our way of thinking about management that it is hard to believe they are not universally true. But evidence to the con- trary in successful German companies. in a coun- tly where technical qualifications and experience are treated as much more important, shows they are not.

. ~Vetu?orking and perszrasiou ure esseu tial aspects of manugeme~lt, even though they may reflect a failure to accept the value of a task ori- entation. The virtues of ~1 manager who scores equally highly on task and people orientation are ;1 cultural assumption. The emphasis on network- ing may also show the felt need for self-promo- tion, where credibility does not depend on tech- nical expertise.

l Successji~l management has a strong indi- viduul aspect to it, which should be recognized b-y individual(y bused reuulzls. This individualistic tradition makes cooperation and successful team working harder than in a culture where more importance is paid to collective needs.

I f we can recognize that our views do not reflect universals but have a strong culturd bias, then we can ask ourselves whether

other approaches offer us potentially useful les- sons. The answer may be no because we neither wish nor are able to change the assumptions we make about the nature of management. Yet in these days of multiple linkages with companies in other countries, it helps to recognize how and why other managers see the tasks of manage- ment differently from the way we do. 0

References

Geert Hofstede, (;idtwei Comeq74crzce.s (Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. 1980.)

Rosemary Stewart, Jean-Louis Barsoux, Alfred Kieser, Hans-Dieter Ganter. :lnd Peter Walgerhch. A4amrgin~q irz Un’tai~l MIZ~ Gwmutzy (London: Macmillan Press: New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).

Rosemary Stewart is Emeritus Fellow in Orga- nizational Behavior, Templeton College, University of Oxford, England. The two-year joint Anglo-German study on which this article is based was funded in Britain by the Anglo-German Foundation and in Germany by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim.

54