6

Societal Culture and Leadership in Germany

Felix C. Brodbeck
Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Michael Frese
University of Giessen, Germany, and London Business School

“The German Riddle: Is it Solvable?” is the title of the epilogue in the German 1991 translation of Hofstede's (1980) Culture's Consequences. In their epilogue, the translators point toward the potential usefulness of cross-cultural studies to overcome the typical difficulty of Germans in not being able to describe who they are: a difficulty, the French, the Italians or the Britons never had with their identity. Historians and authors, from Tacitus to Thomas Mann, have meticulously pondered the difficulties they had when attempting to describe Germany and the Germans—so had we! However, instead of pondering about the difficulties, we set out the present chapter to help solving the German riddle by using empirical cross-cultural studies.

We provide an analysis of culture and leadership in Germany based on the GLOBE study and relevant data from other sources. The first part describes the German societal culture by considering the German population, economy, political system, history, the reunification in 1990, and the GLOBE questionnaire survey (conducted in the second half of the 1990s) about societal cultural practices and values based on a total of N = 471 German middle managers in three different industries (food, finance, and telecommunications). The second section concentrates on leadership perceptions in Germany. It begins with a description of leadership practice and research in Germany. Then, leadership prototypes (i.e., culturally endorsed perceptions of outstanding leadership) are described, again on the basis of the German GLOBE questionnaire survey. In addition, results from content analyses of print media, semistructured interviews, focus group discussions, job-postings analyses, and biographical analysis of popular leaders in Germany are used to complete the picture. In the final section, commonalties and differences among East and West German societal culture and perceptions of excellent leadership are summarized and discussed. The chapter ends with an integrative account of culture and leadership in Germany, limitations of our studies, practical implications and suggestions for future research.

1.  CONTEMPORARY GERMANY

Contemporary Germany lies at the heart of Europe. With a population of 82 million citizens (80% West, 20% East Germany), it is the most populated country in Europe. Ninety percent of the population is German. About 28 million people belong to the Roman Catholic Church (predominantly inhabiting the southwest of Germany) and another 28 million follow the Protestant doctrine (predominantly inhabiting the northeast). The rest are Moslems and others, or with no confession.

Germany is heavily dependent on foreign trade due to a lack of natural resources. The strongest industrial sectors are automobiles, engineering, electronics, and chemicals. In the year 2000, Germany was the world's second largest exporter after the United States (World Economic Forum, 2000). That year the country's gross domestic product (GDP) amounts to over U.S.$2 trillion and its GDP per capita of U.S.$ 23,742 is one of the highest in the world.

Germany's Current Dilemma

Germany is the biggest economy in the European Union (EU). However, its economy, educational system, and social fabric are slipping. In 1990, the American economy was 3.7 times bigger than the German one, but in 2002 the American economy has become five times bigger than the German one (“An Uncertain Giant,” 2002). Following the postunification boom in 1994, growth has slowed averaging only 1.6% a year—the lowest rate in the EU (“An Uncertain Giant,” 2002). Hourly labor costs are higher than in the United States (13%) or Britain (43%) and productivity is reducing. “Germany has far too many rules and regulations” (“An Uncertain Giant,” 2002, p. 10). Germany spends more on pension than most other developed countries; its regulations of the labor market are stronger and more ossified than those of other countries.

Still, poverty is low and people live comfortably in modern Germany. In addition, companies are able to compete on the market. Much of Germany's strength is due to small and medium-size firms (Simon, 1996). Though managers of medium-sized firms are often complaining that government is not helping them, they still prove to be quite resilient even in bad times. “With so much to complain about, how do so many German firms still manage to do so well? The answer lies in good old-fashioned hard work, efficiency, attention to detail and precision, and high standards, particularly in engineering” (“An Uncertain Giant,” 2002, p. 10).

Germany's Social Market Economy

In Germany, as in the other Germanic countries of Austria and Switzerland (Szabo et al., 2002), the relationship between “labor” and “capital” is shaped by the fundamental assumption, enshrined in law, that economic prosperity and growth can be best attained through cooperation between labor and capital. The labor–management system is designed to give employees a “voice.” The doctrine of social market economy (“soziale Marktwirtschaft”) defines obligations of government, trade unions, and companies to maintain public welfare, social justice, and cooperative industrial relations. The free-market capitalist system is constrained by the principle of social responsibility, which is anchored in the German Constitution. An important element of the labor–management relations is codetermination. Regulated by law, it takes the form of a democratic management structure with presence of both the employer and the labor side on supervisory boards of large enterprises, which set corporate policies and approve major investments, mergers, expansion, and plant closures. The employer side can only overrule the resistance of the labor side in deadlock situations. Another important feature of the German system is the workers’ councils. These councils are elected by the employees and often have close union ties. They enjoy three types of rights: the right of information, the right of consultation, and the right of consent, depending on whether or not economic, social or personnel affairs are concerned. (For more information on these issues see Appendix A.)

In recent years, the social nature of the market economy has been subject to criticisms from within and outside Germany as being too cost intensive, idiosyncratic, and too constraining for management, thereby impeding Germany's economic development. Is the German culture prepared to cope with the necessary changes in the social welfare principle considering its current profile in societal values? Moreover, are German managers prepared for taking up leadership roles that support such a change from a state-granted social market to a private-initiative-based system? These are questions we address in the present chapter as well. For a deeper understanding of the answers suggested later in the chapter, a brief overview of the geo-cultural history of Germany is given.

2.  GEO-CULTURAL HISTORY OF GERMANY

Where Germans Live

Writers from the Roman Empire acknowledged Germania about 2,000 years ago; for example, Gaius Julius Caesar mentions the Germans in his book De bello gallico (51 BC) and Tacitus, the Roman historian, writes about the origin and habitat of the Germans in his book De origine et situ Germanorum (AD 98). The German words nowadays used to decipher German (Deutsch) and Germany or German Nation (Deutschland) underwent considerable semantic changes in history. Their changing meanings document the various roots of the idea of a German Nation (Berschin, 1993). In 786, theodiscus (German) is first documented to mean the language spoken by ordinary people in contrast to the Latin language spoken by the scholars at the court of Karl the Great. In 1090, diutischin liute (German People) is first documented to mean the German people that live in the East Franconian Empire. The idea of a singular German State appears quite late in history. In the 15th century, Germany and Austria became the Heiliges Roemisches Reich Deutscher Nation (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation). But this Empire is a lose federation of states that falls apart rapidly. Usually the plural form, “Deutsche Lande” (German Countries), is used. It means people of German language and the regions where they live. Until the nineteenth century, Deutschland (Germany) and Deutsche Nation (German Nation) meant the geographical area inhabited by German-speaking people. In combination with German the word Nation did not refer to the idea of a political unit or a singular state. It rather meant the cultural unity of German-speaking people in various central European states.

During the 19th century the cultural concept of German changed into a political one, partly because German territory was defended in the Napoleonic Wars and partly due to the German National Movement against feudalism that resulted in the Constitutional Convention in Frankfurt in 1848. The practical impossibility of a German Nation as a cultural and political unit became apparent when the German Empire was founded in 1871. Many people of German culture and language were not part of it (e.g., Germans in Switzerland or in Austria) and some people other than those of German culture and language formed ethnic minorities within the geographical boarders of the German Empire (e.g., French, Danish, and Polish minorities).

Figure 6.1 Germany with Central Europe, before 1945 (adapted from Schäfer, 1989)

During the first three decades of the 20th century, the concept of a German Nation was highly ambiguous and allowed for interpretations in various directions. First, it could mean the narrow German state that was enforced after World War I (Weimarer Republic, 1919–1932). Second, it could mean the territory of German culture, including the geographical areas that belonged to the German Empire before World War I. Third, it could mean the even greater territory inhabited by people of German language and cultural background, and fourth, it could mean the extended territory inhabited by people of German descent, a principle that became popular in the Wilhelmenian period of the German Empire (1890–1918). The ideal of an extended German nation became more and more popular when the ethnic and territorial interpretations of German were combined—“Ein Volk, ein Reich” (“One Nation, one Empire”). This became particularly virulent in the megalomaniac political program of the Third Reich promoted by the Austrian-born Adolf Hitler—Der Führer (The Leader)—which resulted in the Holocaust.

The strong geopolitical position of Germany in central Europe before 1945 is illustrated in Fig. 6.1. The state territory showed a regional unity in the west and a large extension toward the east, where German and Slavic populations mixed. The capital city, Berlin, was mainly oriented toward the east and southeast (Schäfer, 1989).

The 2,000 years of geo-cultural proximity of the “German people and culture” should have left its traces in the countries of today's Central Europe and indeed cross-cultural research from the 1960s to the late 1990s suggests the existence of a Germanic cultural cluster in Central Europe (Brodbeck, Frese et al., 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Jago et al., 1993; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985; Szabo et al., 2002), comprising Austria, former East and West Germany, Switzerland, and in some studies also the Netherlands. Even though cultural differences between these countries are identifiable, their citizens seem to share cultural characteristics, work attitudes, and leadership perceptions to a considerable extent, especially when compared to other cultural entities, so that they are distinguishable as a cultural cluster within Europe (Brodbeck, Frese et al., 2000) and worldwide (Gupta & Hanges, 2004; Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002).

Chronically Torn and Divided

We want to argue that Germany is a country that has been torn apart in history several times and, therefore, has a history of division. We think that one effect is that Germans tend to be anxious about the future, uncertainty avoidant, and uncomfortable with their identity. Some of the more powerful divisions were between uneducated barbarism and civilization, between Catholicism and Protestantism, between the eastern states and the western states, and between Romanticism and Rationality. Furthermore, Germany has been torn between an overenthusiastic Germanic identification to feelings of inferiority to the other large European countries— France and England.

Uneducated barbarism has existed beyond the Limes—a wall that the Romans built to keep the barbarian Germans out and to demarcate their empire (roughly the regions of Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Palatinate, and a large part of Hessia—farther north the border followed the Rhine—were part of the civilization of the Roman empire). The Limes went through the middle of what is Germany today. Some of the same divisions appear again and again between the eastern German states, which were less influenced by Western countries, particularly France and Britain. Therefore, it was mostly the western states that followed French revolutionary and democratic ideals and that led the revolt for democratic Germany in 1848 (and chose the western city of Frankfurt as their capital). The eastern states of Germany were less influenced by democratic and revolutionary ideas and idealized the state and its influence (particularly in Prussia).

Although there was an east–west divide in this sense, there was a north–south divide along the lines of Catholicism and Protestantism. After Luther started his revolt against the Pope, Protestantism became a powerful force. (Incidentally Luther also developed High-German as the language that he created to produce a German Bible; High-German would eventually be understood by all Germans.) Many states became Protestant (it was usually the decision by the ruler of the state who decided whether a state would be Protestant or Catholic). In 1618, the 30-year war started between the Catholics and Protestants; it was mainly fought on German soil with an influx of powerful forces from Spain, France and Scandinavia; the soldiers lived off the land through which they passed. Famines, killings, foraging, destruction, and the plague decimated and destroyed much of Germany during these 30 years—historians estimate that a third of the population was killed during this time. Those states most affected suffered tremendous causalities. Württemberg's population was reduced from 400,000 to 48,000; Palatinate lost four fifths, and Bohemia's 3 million were reduced to 780,000 people (Craig, 1991). German angst (anxiety) may well be related to this period of time, which left traces in many sayings, for example, “Schwedentrunk” (peasants were given boiling hot manure to drink until they divulged where they had hidden their money). This might also have contributed to a certain degree of xenophobia, which resulted in anxiety of other surrounding countries.

After the 30-year war, 300 sovereign states were to exist. The nobility reigned and the power of the commercial cities was reduced. Any threat to upset the order produced high anxiety in the populace because of the experience of the 30-year war. Obedience was, therefore, important to uphold social order. These 300 German states were powerless vis-à-vis their neighbors but a high degree of differentiated cultural development resulted from the competition between these states (e.g., many dukes employed their own orchestra or a composer). On the other hand, most of Germany was provincial with little knowledge about the world. It was against this background of backwardness that anti-Semitism flourished, supported by Luther's diatribes against the Jews.

Quite some time later and after many wars (particularly between Prussia in the northeast and Austria in the south) Germany started to become a nation. In 1866, Prussia defeated Austria, leading to the North German Confederation under Prussian control. In 1870, Prussia went to war with France, defeating her, leading to the declaration of the first German nation in 1871 (after the southern German states Barvaria, Würtemberg, Baden, and the Palatinate were cajoled and bribed into the new German Empire). Thus, national unity was achieved by the state with military might, not by popular will and revolt. Similarly, industrialization was set off, supported, and channeled by active interventions from the state. Though Germany had a free-market economy, the state's power was strong and influential in every area of industrial activities at a time, when industry was much freer in Britain and the United States. The state also subsidized newspapers, which made them dependent on state support. Similarly, the state organized schools and universities. Thus, there were few private initiatives that were not at least condoned by the state. Therefore, the general concept of the all-powerful state was developed and underpinned philosophically (e.g., by Hegel). We assume that the post-30-year-war importance of the local princes, the romantic notion of community, and the de facto importance of the modern (Prussian) state all reinforced a traditional power distance and institutionalized uncertainty avoidance.

Although Germany managed to develop its industry after the forced unification by Prussia, it was unsure of itself and its position in Europe. Up to Wilhelm II—the emperor who started World War I in 1918—Germany had the impression that it had come too late to get its rightful place as a part of Europe's imperialism (e.g., by accumulating colonies in other continents).

Another conflict issue was the tradition of Romanticism versus Rationalism. German literature, arts, and music were heavily romantic (e.g. in literature, early Goethe, Schlegel, Tieck, Brentano, the Grimm brothers, E. T. A Hoffmann, von Eichendorff). Romanticism emphasized the irrational, mystical, and emotional, the imaginative and the visionary. And it was directed against enlightenment and materialism. It was past oriented and against modernity (cf. the importance of fairy tales and German sagas). Romanticism was also related to nationalism in Germany. There were romantic notions of leadership and state (Hegel), which may have contributed to the acceptance of high power distance (and which were important for the development and rise of National Socialism in Germany). Romantic authors also used the German language systematically (instead of Latin or French) and started a literature for the normal population. Romanticism was in stark contrast to a rational approach, which was the basis of science and technology that bloomed during the same period of the 19th century. National Socialism has been described to make use of “high technology romanticism” (Thomas Mann).

The German readiness to romanticize the state and to be obedient to the state may look like collectivism but this is not correct. We follow Dumont (1994), who argues that Germany did not develop a modern concept of organized society because Germans were individualistic. However, their concept of the collective togetherness was one of Gemeinschaft (community). Thus, there was a romantic notion of togetherness that went alongside a keen interest in individual development and individual self-improvement. Luther's reformation strengthened individualism. A community was one that did not allow conflicts and that served as an immediate reference point to which one had to be subservient. The Nazis used this when they talked about the Volksgemeinschaft (people community). German culture was already integrated into this idea of community. The community developed spontaneously; it was not developed as a social contract. Thus, Germans are easily organizable: Dumont (1994, p. 41) quotes Troeltsch, “the liberty of the German is willed discipline, advancement and development of one's own self in a whole and for a whole” (the whole being the people community).

From this short historical introduction, we assume that German culture is state oriented and the default expectation of Germans is a high degree of activity by the state instead of individual activities (e.g., in the area of general welfare or entrepreneurial activities). This may translate into moderate to high power distance. The uncertainties and divisions may have increased and supported high uncertainty avoidance (to avoid anxiety) and high future orientation; that is, people save to be able to deal with future problems.

A discussion of Germany cannot be complete without pointing to the significance of Adolf Hitler, anti-Semitism, and World War II. Although the Second World War was of obvious significance for every German, Hitler and National Socialism was not really worked through until the 1960s in which the German youth revolt included a revolt against the elders’ obedience and “organizability” during the Third Reich. From foes and defenders alike, the 68-generation revolt is seen as a cultural watershed. In our view, it means that a Westernization has taken place, increasing individualism, reducing the romantic notions of community (however, keeping romantic notions of the changeability of humans), and increasing values of risk taking, innovation, cultural heterogeneity, and disobedience. Cultural changes are slow and, therefore, we expect to see smaller changes in the culture as it is perceived (societal culture “As Is”) but steeper changes in what people aspire to (societal culture “Should Be”).

The cultural revolution of the 1960s did not take place in East Germany, which in spite of the communist regime displayed a higher cultural continuity from Hitler's time to the late 1980s. All the more, was there a cultural break and shock when the Eastern part of Germany was integrated into the West in 1990. The shock waves of this reunification are still with Germany today.

Separated in 1949 and Reunited in 1990

The separation and the ready acceptance of separation into East and West was only the latest of the divisions of Germany. As a result of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War between the communist and the Western world, two German states emerged with different economic and political systems: the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, Bundesrepublick Deutschland, also called West Germany), embedded in the Western economic system and the NATO military alliance, and the German Democratic Republic (GDR, Deutsche Demokratische Republick, also called East Germany), embedded in the communist economic system (COMCON) and the Warsaw pact.

In 1949, both the Federal Republic of Germany (May 24, 1949) and the German Democratic Republic (October 7, 1949) were founded. Figure 6.2 illustrates to what extent the powerful geopolitical positioning of Germany within central Europe before 1945 (see Figure 6.1) had dramatically changed by 1949. A major geopolitical border, the “iron curtain” between East and West, separated Germany into two different states, which were part of very different geopolitical and economic systems.

Figure 6.2 Germany within Central Europe 1949–1990 (adapted from Schäfer, 1989)

In 1949, the goal to unite Germany again was made part of the West German Constitution. This constitutional law formed the legal basis of reunification (October 3, 1990), which was initiated by popular uprising and the highly symbolic act of the fall of the wall in Berlin (November 9, 1989). Since East Germany joined the West German Federal Republic, there has been little apparent change for West Germans, but dramatic changes for East Germans in their political, economical, and social environment. For a more detailed description of former West and East Germany and the German reunification process, see Appendixes A, B, and C, respectively.

We argue that East Germany did not have the same cultural developments and breaks in the 1960s as West Germany. The present chapter therefore also explores the extent to which differences in societal culture and leadership perceptions between former East and West German managers exist.

Still Carrying the Costs of Reunification

The process of rebuilding the economy in the eastern part, which has yet to be completed, has been very expensive and laborious (see Appendix C). Between 1990 and 2001, more than 800 billion euro (a trillion dollars; “An Uncertain Giant,” 2002) were transferred from the West to the new eastern states. The infrastructure was modernized, private-sector economy was established, and the West German health care and social welfare systems were installed in the East. It is now clear that the time frame and the costs of updating the collapsed former East German economy and social systems were initially drastically underestimated. Moreover, the West is still developing faster than the East. East German unemployment was between 18% and 22% with some areas higher than 30% at the end of 2002. Moreover, productivity was 70% of the West in 2002 (“Abbruch Ost,” 2003); GDP per person is 27,000 euros per person in the West and 16,500 euros in the East (“Europe Has a Problem,” 2002). Thus, improving the economy and reducing high unemployment rates in the East are set to be major challenges in the years to come.

It can be assumed that the unsettling times following German reunification based on Germany's comparatively high level of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980) contributed to cultural practices of consolidation, risk avoidance, and overregulation.

In the present chapter, characteristics of the societal culture, work attitudes, and leadership perceptions in contemporary Germany (East and West) are investigated on the basis of the GLOBE data and further sources.

3.  METHODS, SAMPLES, AND PROCEDURES

The empirical approach taken here is both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Quantitative data based on the GLOBE questionnaire survey (see chaps. 1 and 2, this volume; House, et al. 2004) are supplemented with qualitative data from content analyses of print media, jobpostings analyses, semistructured interviews, focus group discussions, biographical analysis of popular leaders in Germany, as well as from unobtrusive measures, participant observation, and reviewing the literature about German culture and leadership.

GLOBE Questionnaire Study in Germany

Samples from former East and West German territory were drawn during the years 1995 and 1996. Using the German companies by industries listing, a random sample of 500 organizations (including the 50 top organizations) was contacted by mail, fax, and telephone (in this sequence). Thirty organizations agreed to participate in the study. Eighteen of these delivered sufficient data for further analyses (see Table 6.1). Twelve companies continued to collaborate after results were available. They received written evaluation feedback about perceptions of culture and leadership concepts within their organization in relation to the aggregated results for Germany.

The sample of respondents comprises altogether 471 middle managers (East German: N = 54; West Germany N = 417, see Table 6.1). With 11.5% of the total sample, East German managers are somewhat underrepresented because the former East German population constitutes about 20% of the total population in contemporary Germany. All respondents are middle managers with substantial work experience (on the average about 22 years) and leadership experience (average about 11 years). The sample in former East Germany shows a higher average age (46 years) and a higher percentage of female managers (30% women) than the sample in former West Germany (43 years, 12% women). Although the East German managers sampled have more work experience (26 years) and more leadership experience (15 years) than their West German counterparts (21 years and 10 years respectively), the level of hierarchy and responsibility they had approached by the time of the study is somewhat lower (average levels to top = 1.3, average levels to bottom = .07, average number of reporting staff = 8.2, average size of unit = 106. 5) than for West German managers (see Table 6.1).

TABLE 6.1
Sample Characteristics of the GLOBE Questionnaire Study in Germany

Organizations in the Samplea	West Germany	East Germany	Total Germany
N in food industry	5	3	7
N in finance industry	6	1	6
N in telecom industry	5	1	5
Total N of organizations sampled	16	5	18
Individual respondentsbc	N = 417	N = 54	N = 471
Percent female**	12	30	14
Age (in years)*	42.6	45.6	42.9
Years education**	14.1	16.1	14.3
Years work experience**	21.0	25.6	21.6
Years as manager**	10.5	14.6	10.9
N of hierarchy levels to top	1.1	1.3	1.1
N of hierarchy levels to bottom*	1.2	0.7	1.1
N of direct reports	11.1	8.2	10.9
Average size of organizational units	131.1	106.5	128.3
Respondents stating that their	67 %	67 %	67 %
organization is multinational

Note. Significant differences between East and West Germany: ^*p < .05, ^**p < .01

^aIn each industry, one organization had subsidiaries in East and West Germany. Two organizations (both from the food industry) originated in East Germany. ^bAll West and East German respondents were born, socialized, and educated in West or East Germany respectively. A total of 75% of East German and 74% of West German respondents held leadership positions before the reunification in 1990. ^cWest German sample: highest N = 417, lowest N = 408; East German sample: highest N = 54, lowest N = 50, depending on variables analyzed.

There are several possible reasons for disparities in sample size and sample characteristics. Many East German companies were still in the process of being closed down after the German reunification in 1990. We encountered several instances in which the willingness to cooperate with the GLOBE program was signaled, however, top management felt that enduring collaboration may not be maintainable because negotiations with potential new owners were in progress and considerable redundancies had to be made—especially among the senior workforce. Further disparities in sample characteristics are partially due to differences in the formal education and career systems. Note that in the average, East German managers have 2 more years of formal education than West German managers. However, this does not fully account for the difference in work and leadership experience of about 5 and 4 years respectively. The remaining disparities are likely to be due to the higher promotion rates for West German as compared to East German managers. After the reunification mainly West German companies “took over” (see Appendix C), and the predominant assumption was that East German managers were not experienced enough with Western market economy principles. Hence their prospect for promotion was reduced. The gender difference described in Table 6.1 finds an explanation in the traditionally larger representation of the female workforce in East Germany as compared to West Germany.

In order to protect the GLOBE results from potential sampling bias, the previously described differences in demographic variables were taken into account in our statistical analyses. First, the respective variables were used as covariates when comparing questionnaire data from East and West. Second, a West German twin sample was drawn by matching West German with East German managers one by one on the basis of the aforementioned variables. As is shown in the results section, all comparative results remain stable after the demographic differences were taken into account.

Industry (finance, telecommunication, food) had no significant effects on the GLOBE results neither for societal culture, nor for organizational culture and leadership in Germany. On the one side, this increases our confidence in the sample to represent the perceptions and values of German middle managers fairly well, and on the other side, it makes it obsolete to engage in detailed subgroup analysis with respect to industry and organizational culture. The reader who is interested in overall relationships between industry, societal culture, and organizational cultures (organizational culture mainly is predicted by societal culture) may find the respective GLOBE results informative that are reported by Brodbeck, Hanges, Dickson, Gupta, and Dorfman (2004). The case of how societal and organizational culture are linked in contemporary Germany has recently been addressed empirically by Armbrüster (2005).

The GLOBE standard questionnaire was used (cf. House et. al., 2004; see also chap. 1, this volume). Note that for evaluating perceptions of societal culture, respondents were asked to rate the GLOBE questionnaire items about societal culture by considering the reunited contemporary Germany and not with reference to either of the two former German states alone. In our interpretations of the results this peculiarity is taken into account.

Content Analysis of Print Media

East and West German print media were analyzed during the 25th and 29th week of 1996. The following print media were chosen: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (daily newspaper, mainly West German staff), Bild Zeitung (daily popular press, mainly West German staff), Die Zeit (weekly newspaper, mainly West German staff), Wirtschaftswoche (weekly business magazine, mainly West German staff), Handelsblatt (weekly business paper, mainly West German staff), Wochenpost (weekly newspaper, mainly East German staff), and Freie Presse Chemnitzer Zeitung (daily newspaper, mainly East German staff). The sections of news, politics, economy, society, comments, and so on, were used for content analysis. Sports, travel, theater, cinema, and foreign issues were disregarded. Job advertisements for executives were analyzed separately (see next subsection). Every article's headline was read and classified whether leadership issues were mentioned. Texts concerning either business leadership or political leadership were selected. The selected articles were read and central phrases that contained information about what leaders “should do” or “should be like” or about leader attributes and actions that were identifiably as an “accepted standard” were typed into a data file. A list of all phrases was created, and to each phrase the central verb or adjective, representing the predominant leadership attribute, was added. Beginning with the list of phrases from East German print media (N = 189) categories were inductively generated. The same was done for the West German sample (N = 360 phrases). Most of the categories were found in both samples, so that a common category system could be employed comprising altogether 13 categories (see Appendix D). Two trained individuals (the first author and a postgraduate student) independently rated all 549 phrases according to the 13 categories resulting in high reliability coefficients (Cohen's κappa: East Germany = .96; West Germany = .98).¹

Job Advertisement Analysis

Leadership requirements for German managers in 1981 and 1996 were compared by using content analysis data from executive-level job postings published in three major German print media (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit, and Handelsblatt). For the year 1996, we used the print media that were text analyzed (see previous subsection). For the year 1981, issues from the same weeks (25th and 29th) as in 1996 were chosen. Comparison with East German print media in 1981 and 1996 were not possible. In 1981, job offerings for executives were not announced in public print media, and in 1996 the number of identifiably East German job advertisements was too small. The comparison of 1981 and 1996 allows establishing the degree of stability and change in job requirements over a period of 15 years in West Germany. Only advertisements from domestic companies offering an executive position in Germany were selected. Up to 20 advertisements per print media were randomly chosen so that an approximately equal sample size could be drawn for the years 1981 and 1996. Analyses were conducted by a group of postgraduate students in the social science department (Institute of Psychology) at the University of Munich. They attended a course in cross-cultural research methods conducted by the first author. The students were unaware of the GLOBE dimensions and hypotheses at the time of conducting the study. On their own, they developed a categorization system to classify the total of N = 402 executive job requirements obtained. Sixteen categories emerged (see Appendix E).²

Interviews and Focus Groups

Six semistructured interviews with West German managers (two female, four male) from various branches and two focus group discussions involving nine experienced managers and consultants from different West German companies and branches were conducted. It was intended to use the contacts to East German managers that develop during the course of the acquisition of organizations in former East Germany to set up interviews and focus groups with East German managers as well. However, it was not possible to obtain a satisfactory number of cooperating managers within the set time window for the GLOBE study.

The interviews and focus groups were conducted to evaluate expectations about unusually effective leaders versus average managers. Heterogeneity among respondents, for example, in organizational background, gender, and age, was purposefully maximized. This decreased the likelihood that prototypical attributes for excellent leadership overlap among respondents due to similar background. Written protocols from the tape-recorded interviews were analyzed and interpreted by an ethnologist who was unaware of the GLOBE dimensions and hypotheses.³ Her task was to identify and categorize characteristic attributes for an unusually effective leader versus an average manager. Group discussions were tape-recorded and all attributes and examples given were listed and subsequently classified according to the categorical system developed on the basis of the interviews.

Bibliographical Data About Popular Leaders

Twelve persons (West Germans) of various ages, gender, and social and educational background were interviewed in 1998 to create a list of unusually effective and commonly known leaders in politics and business from the end of World War II until today. For three approximate time periods (from 1945 to mid-1960s, from mid-1960s to early 1980s, and from the mid1980s to the 1990s) the most often mentioned leaders were selected for biographical analysis. Biographical books and articles were used to derive predominant leadership attributes commonly attributed to these persons. ⁴Note that the process of generating the list of popular leaders is based on West Germans’ perspectives. Therefore, the results are not meant to represent East German views in any way.

4.  SOCIETAL CULTURAL PRACTICES AND VALUES IN GERMANY

Box-plot statistics are used to show the distributions of societal cultural practices scores (“As Is,” Fig. 6.3) and societal cultural values scores (“Should Be,” Fig. 6.4) for all GLOBE countries (see Appendix F and chap. 1 and 2 of this volume for more detailed descriptions of the GLOBE dimensions; cf. House et al., 2004). Differences between societal cultural practices scores (Fig. 6.3, “As Is”) and values scores (Fig. 6.4, “Should Be”) reflect the discrepancy between the perceived (“real”) societal culture and the desired (“ideal”) societal culture.

Each figure allows for a direct comparison of East and West Germany's societal culture scores with the distribution of scores within the GLOBE sample of countries. In the cylinder-shaped box-plots, four quartiles are distinguished (lowest 25%, low 25%, high 25%, highest 25%) and the median is given (vertical black bar indicating the midpoint of the distribution with 50% above and 50% below). The range of country scores is represented by the total length of the cylinders. In cases where societal cultural practices are similarly perceived by East and West German managers, an oval-shaped blimp is shown for Germany, as in the case of Uncertainty Avoidance cultural practices (see Fig. 6.3). Here East and West Germany rank among the top 25% of all countries. In cases of differences between East and West (e.g., Future Orientation, Fig. 6.3), the blimp's thick end represents the perceptions of West German managers (80% of the total population) and the blimp's thin end represents the perceptions of East German managers. Country scores, test banding positions, and ranks for Germany East and West are given in Table 6.2.

Power Distance in Decline

The GLOBE results on Power Distance point to an interesting overall finding: The “As Is” cylinder (Range 3.9–5.8, Fig. 6.3) and the “Should Be” cylinder (Range 2.0–3.7, Fig. 6.4) don't overlap at all. Quite understandably middle managers in all GLOBE countries seem to prefer lower levels of power distance than they actually experience. Germany's moderate to high ranking on Power Distance “As Is” (above the median of box-plot in Fig. 6.3) is in line with our historical analysis in which it was assumed that the post-30-year-war importance of the local princes, the romantic notion of community, and the de facto importance of the modern (Prussian) state all reinforced a strong state orientation with traditional power distance. However, the noticeably low positioning on Power Distance “Should Be” (below the median of box-plot in Fig. 6.4) seems to indicate that there is a preference for a more egalitarian approach to status in the modern German society, which is more pronounced than the global trend. The desire for less privilege for people in position of power is reflected in a report in the February 22, 2001, issue of Business Week that discusses the sudden departure of BMW's CEO and the no. 2 executive:

Figure 6.3 East and West Germany's societal culture, “As Is” dimensions, within box-plot distributions of 61 GLOBE countries (Brodbeck, Frese & Javidan,2002, p. 18. Reprinted with permission from Academy of Management).

Figure 6.4 East and West Germany's societal culture, “Should Be” dimensions, within box-plot distributions of 61 GLOBE countries (Brodbeck, Frese & Javidan, 2002, p. 19. Reprinted with permission from Academy of Management)

TABLE 6.2
Country Means for Societal Culture Dimensions “As Is” And “Should Be”

^aBands A > B > C > D are determined by calculating the grand mean and standard deviations across all society “As Is” and “Should Be” scales respectively for the GLOBE sample of countries. These means and standard deviations are than used to calculate low, medium, and high bands of countries (GLOBE standard procedure, cf. Hanges, Dickson, & Sipe, 2004).

^bSymbols “>” or “<” indicate the direction of significant differences between Germany East and West (one-sided test, p < .05) obtained by MANOVA and MANCOVA (i.e., differences in demographics are statistically controlled for) and for sibling samples (samples with equal distributions in demographics are used). Symbols “>>” or “<<” indicate a match in significant differences between East versus West and differences in bands.

High Uncertainty Avoidance in Decline

Germany's scores for societal culture practices (“As Is”) are particularly high on the dimensions Uncertainty Avoidance (Fig. 6.3). West Germany ranks fifth highest and East Germany seventh highest in Uncertainty Avoidance among the 61 GLOBE countries (see Table 6.2). These findings are higher than what Hofstede (1980) reports. In his study, West Germany ranks only 29th among 53 nations. The GLOBE findings for Uncertainty Avoidance “As Is” are in line with our assumption that Germany's long history of many divisions may have increased and supported high Uncertainty Avoidance (to avoid anxiety), which contributed to cultural practices of consolidation, risk avoidance, and overregulation. Furthermore, the traditionally Prussian state orientation, resulting in formalization and institutionalization, constitutes a means of reducing uncertainty through structures. Similarly, Warner and Campbell (1993) conclude that Germany's “desire to be grounded in clear and unambiguous principles may be seen as a cultural response to the uncertainties which have characterized German history” (p. 91). Contemporary Germany is again facing uncertainties due to the unsettling times following German reunification and increasing globalization.

High Uncertainty Avoidance means that Germans prefer their lives to be structured, well organized, and secure. They rely on rules and institutionalized procedures to reduce stress and anxiety when facing ambiguity and uncertainty. These findings are quite consistent with other studies. In its comparative study of 59 countries, the World Economic Forum (2000) ranked Germany 43rd (the higher the number the more pronounced the issue) in terms of burdensome regulations, 49th in terms of the negative impact of the tax system on business investment, 48th in terms of inflexibility of employment rules, and second to last in terms of employer discretion in hiring and firing decisions. The country is ranked 42nd for its low flexibility and adaptability.

Interestingly, in the GLOBE sample, although Germany ranks among the highest 25% on Uncertainty Avoidance “As Is” (Fig. 6.3), it ranks among the lowest 25% on Uncertainty Avoidance “Should Be” (Fig. 6.4). In other words, compared to the GLOBE sample as a whole, German managers would like to get rid of the many rules, regulations, and constraints. The stark differences between “As Is” and “Should Be” are an example of the divergence between the traditional culture and recent changes in cultural aspirations. The meaning of a disparity between “As Is” and “Should be” country scores is further discussed in chapter*** (i.e. the final Chapter Brodbeck, Chhokar, House, in this Volume).

High Assertiveness in Decline

Germany shows a high degree of Assertiveness, which is similar to Hofstede's (1980) finding of high masculinity in Germany. East Germany is the 4th highest and West Germany the 10th highest amongst the 61 GLOBE countries (see Table 6.2). Note that the GLOBE empirical data suggests partitioning Hofstede's masculinity dimension into Assertiveness and Gender Egalitarianism (House et al., 2004). Apparently, there is a high degree of stability of assertiveness from Hofstede's study time to GLOBE. High Assertiveness means that Germans are more confrontational in their relationships with others than members of most other societies. Interpersonal interactions at work tend to be aggressive and assertive. The language tends to be straightforward and stern. This also means that conflict and confrontational debate are acceptable approaches at work. There is a story of Siemens CEO, Dr. Henrich von Pierer, who yelled at his teammate in a tennis match: “You have to hate your opponent!” (The Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2001). It seems that open verbal aggression and confrontational behavior is tolerated in German society more than in many others.

On the “Should Be” Assertiveness dimension, Germany ranks very low (Fig. 6.4), which is considerably lower than the respective “As Is” score for cultural practices (Fig. 6.3). The downward trend from “As Is” (top quartile) to “Should Be” Assertiveness (bottom quartile) is considerably stronger than the global trend. This may reflect a strong desire for a less confrontational approach to interpersonal relations in Germany. It seems that German managers wish to abandon the traditional “tough on the person” approach.

Zeitgeist of Consolidation

Traditionally, high Performance Orientation has been seen as an “ideal” in Germany society. This view is still reflected by the highest score for Performance Orientation “Should Be” compared to the scores of all other cultural dimensions in Germany (see Fig. 6.4). However, Germany ranks around the median in Performance Orientation “As Is” (see Fig. 6.3). It seems to be no longer or (not yet again) a leading country in that respect. Middle managers in Germany perceive the current “real” society to be lower in Performance Orientation than it “Should Be.”

West Germany's Future Orientation “As Is” ranks among the highest 25%, whereas the “Should Be” score ranks within the lowest 25% of all GLOBE countries. This trend is actually opposite to the global trend of a higher “ideal” than “real” future orientation (the range of the future orientation “Should Be” cylinder shown in Fig. 6.4 is placed considerably higher on the scale than the range of the “As Is” cylinder in Fig. 6.3). It seems that middle managers in West Germany believe that a nonrisky attitude of delayed gratification, planning, and investment into the future should be reduced. Interestingly, East German managers perceive less Future Orientation “As Is” and more Future Orientation “Should Be” than West German managers. In German history, many uncertainties and divisions have supported an ideal of high future orientation, which was most prominent during the post–World War II period. The current discrepancy between high “As Is” and low “Should Be” scores on Future Orientation, which is against the trend among all GLOBE countries, suggests a culture of hesitation and consolidation that is rather recent in nature, possibly a consequence of the post-reunification period (see Appendix C).

Individualism With Collectivistic Elements

Germany's comparatively low ranking on In-Group Collectivism and low to moderate ranking on Institutionalized Collectivism speak to a mainly individualistic society. Differences between cultural practices (Fig. 6.3) and values (Fig. 6.4) on these dimensions are not particularly pronounced. The Institutionalized Collectivism “Should Be” score for West Germany, which is slightly above the median, relates well to the ideal of a “Gemeinschaft” and the social welfare state in Germany (see earlier discussion and Appendix A, respectively). Low scores on collectivism scales are typical for highly developed Western societies, such as the United States or the UK. Individualism means that resources and rewards tend to be distributed on the basis of individual rather than collective achievements, that individuals express pride in their individual achievements rather than in group achievements, and that they value individual self-esteem higher than group loyalty, cohesiveness, or group viability.

Advancement of the Female Workforce

A comparison between this dimension's cylinders in Figs. 6.3 and 6.4 reveals an interesting global trend. Gender Egalitarianism is more highly valued than actually practiced in almost all societies studied. The “As Is” cylinder in Fig. 6.3 is positioned at the lower end of the scale whereas the “Should Be” cylinder in Fig. 6.4 is positioned considerably higher. Germany's “Should Be” Gender Egalitarianism ranks in the highest 25% of all countries whereas the “As Is” score ranks in the low 25%. The difference between “ideal” and “real” for Gender Egalitarianism in Germany exceeds the magnitude of the global trend. German middle managers seem to be particularly strongly in favor of a society that is more equal in opportunities for men and women than it currently is, perhaps favoring a degree of reverse discrimination. Thus, in the decades to come women will probably experience a steeper social advance in Germany than in most of the other GLOBE countries. This seems timely because although the first female leader in a German parliament appeared in 1919 (seventh rank among the GLOBE countries), there are only 5% female representatives in German government today (50th rank among GLOBE countries). Perhaps it is a case in point, that about 8 years after the GLOBE data was sampled, the Germans voted a political constellation into parliament in September 2005, which resulted in a female Bundeskanzlerin (chancellor or premier) for the first time in Germany's history.

Lowest on Compassion

Germany ranks surprisingly low on Humane Orientation “As Is” (see Fig. 6.3, West Germany being the lowest among the 61 countries) and not higher than moderate on Humane Orientation “Should Be.” A more detailed inspection of what “Humane Orientation” actually means seems appropriate. The GLOBE concept of Humane Orientation measures the degree to which a society is perceived (“As Is”) and expected (“Should Be”) to encourage individuals to be fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others. The items in the GLOBE scale address mainly prosocial behavior in interpersonal situations (e.g., concern about others, tolerance of errors, being generous, being friendly, and being sensitive toward others). Social interaction in German companies tends to be more task oriented, straightforward, and less “kind” than in many other countries. Germans tend to be perceived by other countries as being driven by abstract principles. The principles are used as (often absolute) guidelines that need to be executed even if individual cases merit another treatment. This decreases a flexible approach toward personnel issues. The low level of humane orientation is in line with the high Assertiveness cultural practices reported for Germany earlier. Getting the task done, minimizing errors, and achieving high-quality standards seem to be more important at work than compassion and interpersonal consideration.

The Paradox of Low Compassion and Social Welfare

The findings here seem to present a paradox. On the one hand, Germany scores low on interpersonal humane orientation and compassion at work. On the other hand, Germany enjoys institutions and legal practices, tracing back to the pioneering social welfare laws introduced in the late 19th century, that take care of people's social welfare to a much larger extent than in many other countries (see previous discussion and Appendix A). The German approach to humane orientation seems to be manifested in institutionalized societal caring for people (Solidargemeinschaft, or solidarity community), especially the working class and the disadvantaged, rather than in the nature of interpersonal relations at work. The strong tendency to avoid uncertainty in people's lives may have prompted the development of very elaborate institutionalized social systems to take care of people and to reduce risks to individuals and institutions (e.g., the country ranked second in the world in terms of total expenditures on health as a percentage of GDP in 2000). Apparently, there is an institutionalization of altruism, generosity, and caring in Germany that in other countries tend to be taken care of on an interpersonal level. In Germany, humane orientation is seen to be taken care of by state institutions (as part of the Solidargemeinschaft) and it seems that therefore, humane orientation on an interpersonal level is perceived (and “Should Be”) of lesser importance.

East Meets West

Overall, the societal cultural similarities found in this study of East and West German managers outweigh the differences. Only a few significant differences were found (see Table 6.2). As compared to West German managers, East German managers perceive the reunited German culture to be significantly higher in Power Distance “As Is,” In-group Collectivism “As Is,” Uncertainty Avoidance “Should Be,” Future Orientation “Should Be,” and significantly lower in Future Orientation “As Is.”

When interpreting these differences, we should keep in mind that both East and West German managers were asked to evaluate the culture in contemporary Germany as a whole and not the respective subcultures (East or West German, respectively) they were part of at the time of the study. This leaves us with some ambiguity for interpretation.

The differences in perceptions of Power Distance may be related to historical East–West differences; for example, the (Prussian) East has traditionally shown a higher degree of Power Distance than the West. Moreover the differences may be due to the fact that a cultural change toward Western ideals of liberty and self-actualization took place only in West Germany in the 1960s which, for example, reduced Power Distance. A third reason for differences may be related to current perceptions of discrimination on the part of the East Germans as a consequence of the inequalities of the reunification. East Germans receive lower wages, and many of the East German leaders were not promoted or were even downgraded and many were facing unemployment at the time of the GLOBE study. Obviously, we cannot test these different hypotheses with our data set. However, we think that the first two reasons are more likely to explain sustained cultural differences between East and West Germany than the third.

The same three reasons may have contributed to differences of In-Group Collectivism leading to higher “As Is” scores in the East. Note that no differences were found for In-Group Collectivism “Should Be.”

We assume that differences in the “As Is” dimensions are probably based on long-term differences in culture (either because of culture change of the 1960s or because of historical East–West differences) whereas differences in the “Should Be” category are more likely to be related to current issues of East–West relations after the reunification. Thus, the higher “Should Be” Uncertainty Avoidance in the East may be the result of the higher objective economic uncertainty that affects East Germans and has contributed to higher levels of anxiety. Higher “Should Be” Future Orientation in the East may similarly be related to higher anxiety levels, as planning for the future (e.g., differed gratification) is one way to reduce anxiety and uncertainty.

Finally, a specific methodological dilemma of a comparison of East and West German managers (still in office) has to be pointed out. Managers from former East Germany, who where still active after the reunification (and thus responded to the GLOBE questionnaire), may not be representative for the typical East German manager before reunification (because many Communist Party members among the managers were fired or demoted—and many of them were party members), whereas the post-reunification West German managers are most likely to be representative of the West German management before reunification.

Overall, the substantial societal cultural overlap found for the East and West German samples investigated by our study is in line with the Germanic cultural cluster that has been consistently reported in cross-cultural studies from the early 1960s to the late 1990s (e.g., Gupta et al., 2002; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985; Szabo et al., 2002). Therefore we feel confident in saying that the contemporary East and West German societal cultures are strikingly similar despite 40 years of separation into rather different economical and political spheres.

The Paradox of Germany's Twin Accomplishments in the Past

The paradox of West Germany's twin accomplishment in the second half of the past century, high economic success and high standards in social welfare, may be related to the paradox of low interpersonal compassion at work and high institutionalized social welfare described earlier. It is quite possible that West Germany's past economic success resulted from high performance orientation and assertiveness paired with low interpersonal compassion at work. This combination allows for higher levels of conflict and controversy at work and such task-focused conflict is likely to contribute to high performance and quality. It is known that, if constructively used, task conflict is productive and does not turn into dysfunctional relationship conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000), especially when mutual trust is maintained, in Germany, for example, via the institutionalized cooperative capital–labor relationships. Anxiety and stress, usually resulting from interpersonal conflict and controversy, should not have surfaced in Germany to the expected extent because it is counteracted by the institutionalized social welfare systems and labor protection laws, which satisfy personal needs for security and job safety in Germany's high Uncertainty Avoidance culture.

An interesting question is whether Germany can reproduce its historic twin accomplishment in the future. Since the late 1990s, Germany has received much criticism from many corners. Otmar Issing, the European central bank's chief economist, has criticized German policymakers for their failure to tackle the overly generous welfare system. The magazine the Economist identified the causes of Germany's recent economic malaise as “a Byzantine and inefficient tax system, a bloated welfare system, and excessive labor costs” (“The Sick Man of the Euro,” 1999, p. 21). The report also complained about the country's excessive regulations: “Germany is still smothered in regulations that crimp markets. Many prices are regulated and consumers remain ‘protected’ in bizarre ways” (p. 21). Similarly, the World Economic Forum reported the German tax system and regulations as a major source of competitive disadvantage for German firms. The Economist’s recipe: “In the longer term, … it is still more vital that Germany, along with most of Europe, attack the high taxes, over-generous welfare benefits, onerous labor market restrictions and red tape that are choking growth in output and jobs” (p. 21).

Is the German culture prepared to cope with the necessary changes in the social welfare principle considering its current profile in societal values? The GLOBE societal culture findings presented here support the conclusion that the Economist’s recipe may not be easy to implement in Germany. Underpinning the high taxes, the excessive regulations, the high labor costs, and the expensive social safety net is a set of cultural values and practices (e.g., high uncertainty avoidance, high assertiveness, low interpersonal humane orientation, high institutionalized social welfare, and strong labor representation). These cultural practices and values have not changed very much over the last four decades. Even more important, these characteristics of the German culture may have actually contributed to Germany's economic and social success in the past, in close interaction with factors such as high performance orientation and high tolerance for conflict and controversy among the workforce.

The apparent trends in Germany's societal culture “Should Be,” the declining Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Assertiveness, and the advancement of the female workforce and interpersonal Humane Orientation justify some optimism. However, Germany's traditional high Performance and Future Orientation have declined in the 1990s and the previously described cultural practices and values, still endorsed in contemporary Germany, show a better fit in stable times dominated by large industrial companies and labor unions and a stable environment. How will German firms compete in a faster changing global environment? Even more important, is the German leadership culture prepared to promote the necessary changes?

5.  LEADERSHIP IN GERMANY

A direct translation of the English term leader into the German word Führer is inadequate (see also the respective discussion in chap. 5, this volume). The word Führer is very negatively connoted in German-speaking countries, and worldwide, because it is associated with Hitler and the Nazi regime in World War II. Interestingly, today there are many German words used in business that contain Führung (“leadership,” the depersonalized version of Führer) and are positively connoted, for example, Führungskraft (someone who leads), Führungseigenschaften (leadership characteristics), Führungsanspruch (attempting to lead), or Führungsposition (leadership position). Moreover, German citizens who receive a good Führungszeugnis (official document stating that a person had not been in conflict with the law) can hope to be hired as a state employee, and German prisoners who have shown gute Führung (good conduct) can hope for an early release to liberty. As Brodbeck (2004) has pointed out, leadership terminology that uses the depersonalized and deindividualized term Führung is favored in Germany over the simple word Führer, which is semantically the most precise word for a person who leads. Does this mean that “Leadership Made in Germany” is seen as less personal and less interpersonal and more institutionalized and more depersonalized then leadership elsewhere in the world? The GLOBE results can give an answer to this question.

Before we address the respective GLOBE results, we reflect on what the literature has to say about German leadership practice and research, which can be classified according to three phases of economic and cultural development in Germany: (a) the classic period of economical growth and strength in the 1950s, for West Germany as one of the leading economies in the world and for East Germany as a leading economy in the COMCON, (b) the rise of post-materialistic values and the intake of Anglo-American management philosophies in West Germany with the early 1970s, as compared to no detectable developments with respect to leadership in East Germany, (c) the period of a perceived mismatch between East and West German approaches to work and leadership after the reunification in 1990.

The Post War Period

Research about the relationship between leader attributes and leadership effectiveness was not as strongly endorsed within Germany (Müller, 1995) as, for example, in the United States (e.g., Yukl, 2005). Wunderer explains this with reference to the existence of a Führerallergie, which means that German management plays down the positive impact of the leader (cited in Martin et al., 2004, p. 47). This is in contrast, for example, to British and Americans who praise leaders for “single-handedly turning around a company's fortunes” (Stewart, Barsoux, Kieser, Ganter, & Walgenbach, 1994, p. 187). Such a perspective must be seen within its historical context. Since the Holocaust, the term Führer (leader) has a negative connotation— worldwide and especially in Germany.

The stereotypical German business leader of postwar Germany is described as a person with a formal interpersonal style and straightforward behavior, technically skilled, a specialist rather than a generalist, neither bureaucratic nor authoritarian, and one who emphasizes Technik (i.e., technical excellence) as both means and ends. He or she is a believer in the motto that “well-made products will be eagerly bought” (Lawrence, 1994).

Westernization of Management Principles in the 1970s and 1980s

Since the mid-1970s, concepts like interpersonal skills, delegation, participation, inspiration, and empowerment have become popular among German managers (Wiendick, 1990), which reflects the broader changes in West German attitudes from materialistic to postmaterialistic values and their consequences for leadership practice. The more traditional work values, for example, the fulfillment of materialistic needs, discipline, and orderliness declined and values such as self-fulfillment, life satisfaction, and personal growth became more popular (Maier, 1990; von Rosenstiel, 1995; Zander, 1995). Also apparent is the acceptance of more generalist “Anglo-American” competencies in management, such as social competency, delegation, and participation, together with a focus on motivating and inspiring followers (Lawrence, 1994; Regnet, 1995; Wiendick, 1990).

Post-Reunification Leadership Research

Despite these developments, post-reunification German management style has lately been characterized by the “competence first” principle again (Glunk, Wilderom, & Ogilvie, 1997). Similarly, Hammer (1999) reports on the basis of case studies of German and Swiss managers in which emphasis is still put on the technical expertise of leaders and the bureaucratic rule-setting role of management, than on the communicative and interactive processes of people-oriented leadership.

The importance of participation through systems such as codetermination is emphasized in the German leadership literature. For the whole Germanic cluster (Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, East and West Germany), Szabo et al. (2001) report acceptance of the fact that participation “serves as a good means to achieve individual and organizational goals” (p. 239). In Reber, Jago, Auer-Rizzi, and Szabo's (2000) multicountry comparison, participation is identified as a central attribute of German leadership style. Bass (1990) suggests that West German participative leadership is based on the subordinates’ expectation to be consulted about decisions. Once the leader makes the decision, subordinates prefer to carry it out autonomously to the best of their ability. This is consistent with the negatively perceived Führerprinzip (Bass, 1990, p. 786), and also with the subordinates’ preference for high autonomy. German employees are relatively autonomous in carrying out work and have comparatively high job discretion (Glunk et al., 1997; Warner & Campbell, 1993), which is matched with their usually high levels of education, knowledge, and skill.

The centrality of technical competence seems to go hand in hand with a wide span of control in German management, which provides both leaders and subordinates with the level of autonomy necessary to bring technical competency to bear on the task. The principle of participation seems to play a central role in that it delivers the means by which autonomous and technically competent leaders and followers negotiate their contributions to performing the tasks at hand to the highest standards possible.

Empirical research of East German leadership prior to German reunification is difficult to retrieve (cf. Andersch-Niestedt & Lilge, 1981) and to West Germans even more difficult to interpret. Independent leadership research was suspended by the East German SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland, or the Socialist Unitary Party of Germany) in 1971, because leadership was perceived to be an intimate and exclusive task of the SED (Zwarg, 1995). The difficulty in appropriately contextualizing the meaning of “business leadership” in former East Germany becomes apparent when considering its political role. The major requirement for East German “leaders” was educating the work force in the political-ideological (SED) doctrines of a socialistic society (Andersch-Niested & Lilge, 1981; Hiebsch & Vorwerg, 1978; Zwarg, 1995). Hiebsch and Vorwerg report empirical data that are in line with this view. Based on factor analyses of leadership functions, they identify three major leadership tasks: “interpersonal cooperative tasks,” “technical cooperative tasks,” and “political-ideological maturity.” The first two factors match with the classic dimensions of “consideration” (people orientation) and “initiating structure” (task orientation) that were popular within the behavior-oriented tradition of Anglo-American leadership research (for a review, see Yukl, 2005). The third factor implies the willingness to indoctrinate others into socialist principles. It may be an intriguing research program to explore the Western capitalistic counterpart to socialist “political-ideological maturity.” It probably would focus on Western leaders’ willingness to indoctrinate others into capitalist principles.

In general, research about leadership values and practices in former East Germany is difficult to interpret from a West German perspective. We therefore point out a few highlights about pre-and post-reunification research comparing East and West German leadership that seem valid because they are derived from multiple sources, part of which are from East German and non-German scholars.

Overall, it seems that within the East German system, leadership tasks were more concerned with maintenance and implementation as opposed to initiation and goal setting, which is more predominant within market-economy-driven organizations. Lawrence (1994) describes the former East German ethos as one of “bureaucratic inefficiency,” and Warner and Campbell (1993) write of a culture that was “bureaucratic, disciplined and oriented toward control” (p. 90).

In the post-reunification years, some research has focused on comparisons between East and West German work attitudes and leadership styles. The literature seems to converge on only a few characteristics that distinguish East and West German leadership. The majority of findings are in line with the previously described influx of Anglo-American management principles into West Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. Generalist competencies such as motivating followers were considered more important leadership attributes by West German as compared to East German respondents (e.g., Wuppertaler Kreis, 1992). Schulz-Gambard and Altschuh (1993) report higher authority orientation and lower levels of competition among East German managers. Frese, Kring, Soose, and Zempel (1996) show in a longitudinal study that personal initiative and organizational spontaneity are lower among the former East German workforce, providing evidence that bureaucratic socialism can produce work conditions that constrain the development of personal initiative.

More interestingly, a number of studies (Boehnke, Dettenhorn, Horstmann, & Schwartz, 1994; Heyse, 1994; Macharzina, 1993) have demonstrated that East and West German work attitudes and value systems are surprisingly similar in spite of the strong polarization between the East and West evident during the 1990s. Very shortly after the reunification in 1990, the Wuppertaler Kreis (1992) conducted an interview study with N = 95 managers from 10 East German organizations near Magdeburg (mean age 47, in occupation 27 years, leadership functions 16 years) and N = 104 managers from 35 organizations in North-Rhine-Westphalia (mean age 45, in occupation 23 years, leadership functions 14 years). They reported technical competency and task orientation to be leadership values dominating both East and West German companies. This is in line with recent characterizations of German leadership as being guided by the “competence first” principle (cf. Glunk et al., 1997).

In summary, contemporary leadership research in Germany indicates the enduring importance of technical competence and a strong task/product commitment. Although there seem to be some differences between East and West German leadership values, the principle of participative leadership seems to unite the Germanic cultural cluster in Central Europe, which includes former East and West Germany. What we see within Germany is an institutionalization of leadership, with the existence of systems and structures for participation to depersonalize leadership (Martin, Keating, & Brodbeck, 2004).

In the following, we present the findings from the GLOBE quantitative and qualitative studies about leadership perceptions and prototypes in East and West Germany that were conducted in the second half of the 1990s.

Figure 6.5 East and West Germany on second-order GLOBE leadership dimensions (Brodbeck, Frese & Javidan, 2002, p. 23. Reprinted with permission from Academy of Management)

The Six Second-Order Leadership Dimensions From GLOBE

Figure 6.5 shows the box-plot cylinders representing the scores of all GLOBE countries for the six-second order leadership dimensions. Germany's scores are again represented as blimps (see note to Fig. 6.3). In all GLOBE countries, Charismatic/Value Based and Team Oriented leadership are perceived as clearly facilitating outstanding leadership. And these dimensions are rated highest in Germany as well. However, Germany ranks just below the median in Charismatic/Value Based leadership (low 25%) and even lower on Team Oriented leadership (lowest 25%). The latter finding corresponds with the comparatively high individualistic societal cultural values in Germany.

The relatively high ranking on Participative leadership sets German leadership cultures apart from most other countries. This finding corresponds with prior research about the Germanic cultural cluster as was described earlier. Participation can be seen as a leadership style that responds to high individualism on the one hand (by making negotiations between high-autonomy parties manageable), and to the institutionalized systems of social justice and labor representation giving employees a “voice,” on the other hand. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (“Boss Talk,” 2001), in response to the question, “What aspects of the American business model would you say are not worth adopting?” Dr. Von Pierer, the CEO of Siemens responded:

On Humane Oriented leadership Germany ranks comparatively low (lowest 25%) whereas on Autonomy it ranks particularly high (highest 25%). This pattern corresponds very well with the high levels on assertiveness and the low levels on humane orientation reported earlier for Germany's societal cultures. Self-Protective leadership is perceived to clearly inhibit effective leadership in Germany. High self-protective behavior of a leader would inhibit open conflict and controversy (to the benefit of saving face), and thus would also undermine true participation. Interestingly, East German managers (they rank around the median) seem to be somewhat more lenient toward Self-Protective leadership attributes than West German managers are (they rank in the lowest 25%). This is probably a consequence of the East Germans not having been exposed to institutionalized codetermination and participation. Interestingly, Self-Protective leadership attributes (e.g., face saving) are overall more popular among (former) planned economy systems within East European countries (and also in, e.g., China, see chap. 24, this volume) than they are in market economy systems within Western European countries (Brodbeck, Frese et al., 2000) and others (e.g., the United States, Canada, etc.).

In summary, in line with the global trend, effective and outstanding leadership in Germany is perceived to be charismatic/value based, which includes high performance orientation and decisiveness. What sets the German business leadership culture apart from the leadership cultures in most of the other GLOBE countries is the combination of high participation, high autonomy, and low self-protection along with relatively low interpersonal humane orientation. Altogether, the German profile of attributes and behaviors associated with ideal leadership matches substantially with the profiles of societal culture in Germany. Hallmarks of German cultural practices are high levels of performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, and assertiveness, along with low levels of interpersonal humane orientation, all soothed by institutionalized participation and social welfare. Compassion is low and interpersonal relations are straightforward and stern—not only at work. It seems that conflict and controversy moderated by institutionalized participation and social welfare are part and parcel of the German societal and leadership cultures.

The 21 First-Order Leadership Dimensions From GLOBE

Differences between East and West German leadership concepts emerge only when a detailed analysis based on the 21 first-order GLOBE leadership dimensions is undertaken (see Table 6.3). Note that the 21 leadership scales formed the basis for the six second-order leadership dimensions (cf. House et al., 2004).

In a two-step process, we established the basis for comparing the samples of East and West German managers on these 21 scales by using individual-level variance.⁵ First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (individual level of analysis) in order to establish scale reliability and construct validity for the leadership scales across the East and West German subsamples. Sixteen out of the 21 GLOBE leadership scales were retained (indicated by superscript a in Table 6.3) because their reliabilities and factor loadings were satisfactory (see Appendix F). Second, we compared East and West German scores on these 16 scales by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for comparing the original East and West German samples, a multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) (statistically accounting for the demographic differences between the two samples reported in Table 6.1), and an ANOVA based on the original East German sample plus the West German twin sample of similar size, in which West German respondents were matched with East German respondents on the basis of the previously identified demographic variables that differed between the two samples (see Appendix G).

Note that the GLOBE scales were designed to measure organizational or societal level variability (Hanges & Dickson, 2004). The scales were not intended to meaningfully differentiate among individuals within a particular society. However, even though the scales were not constructed to provide such information, in some cases it is interesting to assess whether similar factors differentiate individuals within a society especially when subcultures are assumed to exist. However, it should be noted, that because of the within-society restriction of the GLOBE scales true-score variability (which was based on between-society differences) the loadings of the GLOBE scale's items on within society factors should be lower than between societies (cf. Hanges & Dickson, 2004). Furthermore, one should not interpret the within-society factor analyses as replications of the GLOBE factor structure. And the absence of a GLOBE factor within a society should not be automatically interpreted as the factor being irrelevant to the people in that country. Rather, a factor may fail to emerge within a society even when that theme is extremely critical, because there was no variability in how the individuals from a single society rated the items (e.g., they all rated the items a 7). Factor analysis requires variability and so a factor could fail to emerge because it is extremely critical or completely irrelevant to the people within a society.

TABLE 6.3
Country Means and Ranks for First- and Second-Order GLOBE Leadership Dimensions

	Mean: Germany		Rank: Germany
Dimensions Subdimensions	West	East	West	East
Charismatic/Value Based	5.84	5.87	42	39
Performance Orientationa	6.11	6.33	26	12
Visionarya	5.99	5.86	43	47
Inspirationala	6.15	6.10	31	34
Integritya	6.12	6.11	30	32
Self-Sacrificial	4.87	5.08	41	26
Decisive	5.78	5.81	37	34
Team Oriented	5.49	5.51	56	55
Team Integratora	5.05	5.08	57	56
Collaborative Team Orienteda	5.48	5.37	53	56
Administratively Competenta	5.51 W < E	5.74	48	34
Diplomatic	5.08	5.10	57	56
Malevolenta	1.68	1.71	38	34
Self-Protective	2.96	3.32	53	38
Self-Centereda	2.10 W < E	2.20	31	24
Status-Consciousa	3.72 W << E	4.45	49	27
Conflict Inducer	3.59	4.14	48	26
Face-Saver	2.36	2.46	53	48
Procedurala	3.00 W << E	3.40	58	50
Participative	5.88	5.70	9	14
Autocratica	1.95	2.06	57	55
Nonparticipativea	2.28	2.53	51	35
Humane	4.44	4.60	53	49
Humanea	4.27	4.36	49	48
Modestya	4.61	4.81	49	41
Autonomous	4.30	4.35	10	8
Autonomousa	4.30	4.35	10	8

^aIndicates the first-order scales that were found to be reliable and valid on the individual level of analysis of the German sample (see Appendix F). >/< indicate the direction of significant differences between Germany East and West obtained by MANOVA, MANCOVA, twin sample (see Appendix G). >> /<< indicate a match in significant differences between East and West and respective differences in ranks and test bands.

The most significant difference (effect size η² > .03) is that East German managers perceive outstanding leadership to be more positively associated with Status Consciousness than do West German managers. Three further significant differences of weaker effect sizes (η² range between .01 and .02) were identified: East German managers perceive outstanding leadership to be more positively associated with attributes of Administrative Competency, Self-Centeredness, and Procedural leadership (see Appendix G). All four significant differences relate to an officious leadership concept in the sense of Max Weber's bureaucratic organization, which matches other reports about leadership in East Germany (e.g., control orientation, Warner & Campbell, 1993; authority orientation, Schulz-Gambardt & Altschuh, 1993).

The here established differences between East and West German leadership perceptions are also in line with GLOBE findings across 22 European countries. There, bureaucratic-type leadership attributes (administrative skill, face saving, procedural, status consciousness) are more positively perceived in Eastern European (formerly planned economy) countries, than in Western European market economy countries (Brodbeck et al., 2000). This is indicative of a specific divide in leadership perceptions at the interface between East and West Europe where Germany is located.

Overall, however, the GLOBE results for Germany demonstrate that the leadership prototypes of contemporary East and West German managers are highly similar to each other. This is in line with several other post-reunification studies of leadership and work values in Germany (Boehnke et al., 1994; Heyse, 1994; Macharzina, 1993; Wuppertaler Kreis, 1992). According to the GLOBE results, in both parts of Germany middle managers perceive outstanding leadership as high in Performance Orientation, high in Autonomy, and high in Participation, as well as medium in Team Orientation, and low in Self-Protection and Compassion.

Profiles of Leadership Types in East and West Germany

In order to better understand particular types of leadership within Germany, we undertook further analyses. On the basis of the 16 leadership scales that were identified to be reliable and valid within the total German sample, profiles of leadership types were empirically formed by using a combination of multidimensional scaling (MDS) and cluster analysis (e.g., Brodbeck et al., 2000; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996). First, MDS was conducted with the 16 scales for each of the two German samples. A two-dimensional structure with an almost perfect fit was obtained for East Germany (R² = .998) and for West Germany (R² = .996). The MDS results for East and West Germany are nearly identical (see Appendix H). Dimension 1, termed “Positive vs. Negative,” represents the extent to which leadership attributes are perceived to facilitate or inhibit outstanding leadership. Dimension 2, termed “High Independence vs. Low Independence,” represents the extent to which leadership attributes are related to social independence on the one side (autonomy, individualistic, independent, unique), and to sociability on the other side (concern about others, tolerance, generous and sensitive toward others). Second, a cluster analysis (average linkage method) was performed to identify groups of leadership scales that are related to each other and distinct from those in other clusters.

Each circled cluster in Fig. 6.6 represents a leadership type for West Germany. Altogether five leadership types are distinguishable. We termed them (from right to left in Figure 6 Charismatic, Humble Collaborator, Individualist, Bureaucrat, and Oppressive leadership.

In Fig. 6.7, the clusters and their interrelationships for East Germany are displayed. These differ from the West German clusters in three particular respects: (a) the link between Status-Conscious leadership and the Humble Collaborator cluster, (b) the link between Procedural leadership and the Oppressive Leader cluster, and (c) the Bureaucratic Leader is not perceived as a distinct leadership type among East German managers. They connote Status Consciousness (note it resembles “class consciousness” in communist societies) more positively than West German managers do.

Figure 6.6 West German leadership types (Brodbeck, Frese & Jaqvidan, 2002, p. 25. Reprinted with permission from Academy of Management).

Figure 6.7 East German leadership types (Brodbeck, Frese & Javidan, 2002, p. 25. Reprinted with permission from Academy of Management)

The Charismatic Leader

The most positive leadership type in East and West Germany comprises the attributes of integrity, inspiration, performance orientation, vision, administrative competence, and team integration. We termed this type charismatic because three of the attributes listed are described in various theories of transformational and charismatic leadership (inspirational, visionary, performance orientation; e.g., Bass, 1985; an overview is given in Yukl, 2005). The respective clusters shown in Fig. 6.6 (West Germany) and Fig. 6.7 (East Germany) seem to represent a particularly German version of charismatic leadership, which incorporates administrative competence and team-integrative behaviors. As was pointed out by Martin et al. (2004), the importance of these attributes links in with Gurowitz's (1998) assertion of a lingering presence of notions such as authority and position within German society, which are incompatible with newer Anglo-American concepts of leadership that focus on inspiring others via an appealing vision. Another explanation of the administrative and team-oriented blend of charismatic leadership in Germany can be derived from Stewart et al.’s (1994) assertion that—compared with its British and American counterparts—German management downplays the leader's impact. This may be due to the historically negative associations of the concept of Führer (a dark charismatic with an evil vision). The consequence is a marked absence of truly charismatic business leaders in contemporary Germany. This was put in clear terms by Swatch founder Nicholas Hayek: “We have too many managers, in other words, people who can conduct a good orchestra and play Mozart or Beethoven clinically and without emotion. However, we no longer have any Mozarts or Beethovens” (Gurowitz, 1998, p. 135, translated by Martin et al., 2004). There seems to be deep fear and constant suspicion in Germany that a visionary leader may turn out to be a dark charismatic.

The Humble Collaborator

The second and also positively perceived leadership type comprises collaborative orientation, modesty, and humane orientation as its central attributes. We termed this type humble collaborator because the attributes emphasize leadership on an equal basis with followers, be it in team collaborative work (e.g., group oriented, loyalty, fraternal, consultative, mediator), in personal temperament (modesty, self-effacing, patient), or in interpersonal humane orientation (concern about others, tolerance, generous, sensitive toward others). In contrast to West Germans, East German managers perceive status consciousness to be a positive leadership attribute and they perceive it to be part of the humble collaborator cluster (see Fig. 6.7).

Although the humble collaborator leader is not as positively perceived as the charismatic leader, this type is clearly desirable in Germany. The perceived importance of humility and collaboration reflects the German value of participation. A humble collaborator leader encourages participation and collaboration in organizations. It is noteworthy that attributes of Humane Orientation are the least positive in this leadership type (they are positioned nearest to the midpoint of the positive–negative scale in Figs. 6.6 and 6.7). This can be seen as reflecting the low scores on Humane Orientation in Germany's societal culture (see Table 6.2) and second-order leadership dimensions (cf. Fig. 6.5 and Table 6.3).

The low endorsement of humane orientation as compared to high performance orientation indicates that among German managers, task orientation is still perceived to be more important than people orientation. This does not mean that inhumane leadership behavior is tolerated. It rather means that Germans treat interpersonal relationships at work in a distanced and institutionalized way. A strong task orientation does not necessarily denote an eschewal of human relations. As Stewart et al. (1994) have pointed out, in Germany a different approach to motivating workers is taken. If employees hold the same assumptions about interpersonal conduct then “no one feels hard done by when feelings take second place to task” (p. 185). We have already pointed out the positive aspects of low levels of interpersonal compassion at work. For example, task conflict is less likely to turn into dysfunctional relationship conflict. If constructively handled, task conflict is likely to result in high quality and efficiency at work. The humble collaborator seems to be the perfect leadership type for managing such a process in German culture.

The Individualist

Not surprisingly, individualistic leadership (autonomous, individualistic, independent, unique) ranks highest on the independence scale. Despite the fact that the individualist prototype is opposite the previous type of the humble collaborator, it is still viewed somewhat positively by West German managers and even more so by East German managers. It represents the unique, independent, and individualistic manager who stays apart from the crowd. A typical representative of an individualist leader can be seen in Alfred Herrhausen, former president of the Deutsche Bank, who was murdered in 1989 by German terrorists (he was also named as one of the most prototypical German business leaders; see Table 6.8). His impressive career began in 1970 when he became a member of the board of directors. In biographies and the public press reports of his time, he is described as a courageous risk taker, rational in thinking and straightforward, energetic, enforcing, and purposive in temperament, with high performance and power orientation. Most prominently, he was described as an individualist, an outsider, often reserved and distanced with a high need for recognition. Interestingly, he claimed to waive the debt for the poorest developing countries, which was, in his time, for a banker, a quite exceptional position that stood against popular views.

The positive endorsement of autonomous leadership in both parts of Germany is in line with individualism (opposite of collectivism) as a marker of German societal culture (see Table 6.2). On the surface, it seems to conflict with the strong endorsement of participation in the German (work) culture. However, as was noted earlier, institutionalized participation offers a mechanism to attain individual and group goals while monitoring leaders’ actions closely (thus allowing for more autonomy) and giving employees a voice in the process (the principle of codetermination). The emphasis on technical competence leads to a wider control span and greater autonomy on part of the employees. However, as Warner and Campbell (1993) note, professionalization on all levels within German organizations reflects (and requires) a considerable degree of self-discipline and self-programming. Independence within agreed-on parameters characterizes the preferred mode of working or managing in Germany (cf. Warner & Campbell, 1993, pp. 99–100). Thus, autonomy granted for leaders in Germany finds its counterpart in the expectation that autonomy is also granted for employees. Institutionalized participation, technically competent personnel, and low self-protection on part of the leaders (and followers) seem to be necessary ingredients to make autonomous leadership (and followership) work effectively in Germany.

The Bureaucrat

The bureaucratic leader, comprising the attributes of status consciousness and procedural (ritualistic, formal, habitual, and cautious), seems to exist as a leadership type only among West German managers. East Germans perceive, on the one side, procedural leadership nearer to the oppressive leader and on the other side, status consciousness as part of the humble collaborator. The bureaucratic leader is perceived by West German managers to slightly inhibit outstanding leadership. This leadership type scores in the middle of the independence scale. Leaders who are visibly attracted to status and privilege, and are focused on rules and procedures, are seen neither as outstanding, nor as particularly ineffective in West Germany. In contrast, status and privilege seems to be part of a more positive leadership image among East German managers. The dislike for procedural leaders in both East and West Germany seems to be rooted in the strong desire for performance orientation and the desire for reduced prevalence and intrusion of rules and procedures that is apparent in the low Uncertainty Avoidance societal cultural values (“Should Be,” see Table 6.2).

The Oppressive Leader

The oppressive leader unifies the attributes of a German leader who is neither trusted nor loved by the followers. An oppressive leader tends to be nonparticipative, a micromanager, autocratic, elitist, vindictive, cynical, and hostile, among other attributes. The oppressive leader does not recognize the followers’ views or contributions, partly due to his or her complete self-absorption, and partly because of his or her cynical and malevolent views toward others. Oppressive leaders are disliked by followers partly because of a negative impact on their emotional well-being and partly because they are the ultimate representations of high self-protection and low participation.

Mixed Leadership Types

The GLOBE data about leadership cannot give direct evidence for actual prevalence rates of these leadership types in Germany (or any other country) because the managers’ ratings in the GLOBE questionnaire focused on “outstanding leadership”; that is, they described “very effective” leaders, not necessarily “average” leaders. A perceived “outstanding” leadership style fits the implicit leadership concepts held by followers. Leadership is most effective when the fit between attributes of a leader and the followers’ leadership concepts is high because followers are more motivated and committed when their leadership expectations are met and misunderstandings and reluctance against influence attempts are less likely (cf. Lord & Maher, 1991).

For Germany, the charismatic leader (also administrative competent and team integrative) and the humble collaborator (also encouraging participation and compassion) seem to fit the leadership concepts held by middle managers best. However, leadership types are seldom found in purity. They overlap with each other and their relationships to societal cultural values are of particular relevance to predicting which leadership style will be successful—even if not all too positively valued.

For example, some of the oppressive leader's attributes resemble attributes of an individualistic leader (e.g., loner, asocial). The latter is perceived to contribute to outstanding leadership; the former is not. However, oppressive leaders can gain some emotional and motivational commitment from followers due to the conceptual overlap with individualistic leadership. This overlap can raise the likelihood that East and West German middle managers are tolerant toward oppressive leaders. In contrast, this conceptual overlap can also lead to unjustified intolerance toward individualistic leadership styles (e.g., misperceived as dark charismatic).

For another example, a person with high Assertiveness and low Humane Orientation may still be perceived as a charismatic leader in East and West Germany (and may get away with poor interpersonal behavior) because interpersonal humane orientation is less highly valued in German society and organizations than, for example, performance orientation and decisiveness. In other countries, where humane orientation is more highly valued than in Germany, a manager displaying a lack of compassion will never be perceived a charismatic leader.

Leadership Perceptions in East and West German Print Media

Altogether 13 categories were used (see Appendix D) to analyze leadership perceptions evident in a sample of German print media in 1996 (for details, see section 3 in this chapter). The relative frequencies and rankings per category for business leaders in West and East German print media are presented in Table 6.4.

In the predominant West German print media, the three attributes described most often for business leaders are “determined” (13.1%), “high integrity” (9.6%), and “future orientation” (8.8%). For East German print media the three highest ranking categories are “evaluating” (14.0%), “rational” (11.6%), and “confronting” (11.6%). Values and behaviors of business leaders that imply personality characteristics of determination, assertiveness, and masculinity (altogether 21.9%) are about four times more often expressed in West German than in East German print media (altogether 4.7%). In contrast, values and behaviors that imply rationality, evaluation, and opinion expression (altogether 34.9%) are about two times more often expressed in East German than in West German print media (altogether 14.4%). It seems that prototypes for business leadership in West German print media are expressed in terms of personal characteristics referring to high task commitment (e.g., leaders are determined, assertive, masculine). In East German print media, business leadership seems to be more a matter of interpersonal exchange and rationality (e.g., leaders express their opinions, evaluate the opinions of others, and confront others with their views).

TABLE 6.4
Relative Frequencies and Rankings of Leadership Attributes (in 13 Categories) From West and East German Print Media (Business Leaders)

	West Germany		East Germany
Characteristics	%	Rank	%	Rank
Determined	13.1	1	4.7	9
High Integrity	9.6	2	9.3	4
Future Oriented	8.8	3	7.0	7
Firm	6.4	6	0.0	13
Communicating	6.4	6	9.6	4
Confronting	6.4	6	11.3	3
Rational	6.4	6	11.6	2
Evaluating	5.6	8	14.0	1
Visionary	5.6	8	2.3	10
Collaborating	4.0	10	7.0	7
Optimistic	3.2	11	0.0	13
Opinion Expression	2.4	12	9.3	4
Masculine	2.4	12	0.0	13
Total %	80.3		85.5
N Phrases	(125)		(43)

West German print media portrait business leaders as individuals with high task commitment and determination (cf. charismatic leader); East German print media portray business leaders as individuals who express opinions within certain contexts of interaction (cf. humble collaborator). The latter can also be related to the significantly stronger endorsement of status consciousness in East as compared to West German leadership prototypes. East German print media seem to be more inclined to attribute leadership to an ascribed status, a position within a social system, rather than to a self-determined individual. On the part of the West German press, the results indicate a partial neglect of the dialectical nature of exchanging opinions in search for higher levels of rationality in business. On the part of the East German press, the results indicate a partial neglect of the business leader as a self-determined person.

For political leadership (see Table 6.5) the differences between East and West German print media are less pronounced. Political leaders are most often described to be “Confronting” (West 18.6%; East 13.6%) and “Determined” (West: 13.6%; East: 12.7%), followed by “Communicating” (9.0%) and “Collaborating” (8.1%) in West German print media, and by “Collaborating” (12.7%), and “Evaluating” (12.7%) in East German print media. The higher commonality of East and West German print media in describing political leadership as compared to business leadership may be due to the fact that the leaders being described were most often federal politicians of predominantly West German descent, whereas the business leaders were more likely to be of regional origin. It is also possible that in the public arena of politics task commitment (i.e., determination) and the exchange of ideas in search for better solutions (e.g., confronting) are more evidently displayed for both East and West German print media than in the business arena.

TABLE 6.5
Relative Frequencies and Rankings of Leadership Attributes (in 13 Categories) From West and East German Print Media (Political Leaders)

	Political leaders
	West German		East German
Category	%	Rank	%	Rank
Confronting	18.6	1	13.6	1
Determined	13.6	2	12.7	2
Communicating	9.0	3	3.4	8
Collaborating	8.1	4	12.7	2
High Integrity	8.1	4	5.1	6
Firm	7.2	6	1.7	10
Evaluating	5.4	7	12.7	2
Future Oriented	5.0	8	1.7	10
Rational	4.5	9	7.6	5
Masculine	4.1	10	1.7	10
Opinion Expression	3.6	11	4.2	7
Visionary	1.8	12	3.4	8
Optimistic	0.9	13	0.0	13
Total percent	92.4		80.5
Total N	(221)		(118)

Leaders Versus Managers in West Germany: Interviews

On the basis of content analyses of interview transcripts (see Section 3 for details) altogether eight categories were derived that describe outstanding leaders (left-hand column in Table 6.5) and eight categories that describe average managers (right-hand column in Table 6.6). The two halves of the table read like the “do” and “don't do” of leadership because respondents were asked to contrast attributes of leaders to attributes of managers. The latter turned out to be uniformly seen as “average” and the former as outstanding in at least some respect (as is reflected in the column headlines of Table 6.6).

Outstanding leaders are expected to develop and attain higher order goals (visionary). In comparison, average managers are expected to attain proximate or small goals set by others (administrative). Leaders are described to be convinced and convincing (inspirational), managers to hide (or not act in accord with) their personal convictions (procedural). Usually high personal integrity of leaders can be contrasted to self-centered motives and behaviors ascribed to managers (self-protective). The remaining contrasting categories are: collaborative team orientation versus autocratic and power orientation, self-critical versus face saving, and consideration versus task orientation. So far, all the categories associated with leadership match well with the leadership dimensions GLOBE has identified throughout the world (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). Note that, in the interviews, no category was evident for interpersonal Humane Orientation, comprising attributes like generous, compassionate, or being fair, altruistic, caring, or kind to others. This is in line with the GLOBE questionnaire results according to which interpersonal humane orientation is not particularly strongly associated with outstanding leadership in Germany.

Two categories were identified that have not been used in the overall GLOBE study: high transparency (which includes straightforwardness, open communication, and explaining decisions) and a broad knowledge base, for example, knowing the essentials or a wide mental and educational horizon. Both can be related to the central role of autonomy, technical competency (also not part of the GLOBE leadership dimensions), and participation in German organizations, which requires low self-protection (i.e., straightforwardness, transparency, and open communication) and high professionalism (knowing the essentials of the job and a broad knowledge and education).

When asked for publicly known persons who exemplify excellent leadership in their domain, some personal characteristics (e.g., future oriented, visionary, disciplined) and many interpersonal behaviors (e.g., inspirational, motivating, transparency, straightforward, social welfare orientated) were mentioned. When asked for critical incidents from the respondents’ personal experience, leadership attributes that are relevant to interpersonal relationships were most often given, for example, open-mindedness, combines job and private life well, motivating, sensitive, convinces others, overcoming hierarchy, trusting, and showing weakness and errors.

TABLE 6.6 Attributes of Outstanding Versus Average Leaders—Interviews

Outstanding Leader	Average Manager
Visionary	Administrative
•  attains higher order goals	•  attains proximate goals
•  has personal convictions & charisma	•  has small goals and plans in mind
•  knows a lot about recent trends	•  sticks to rules and traditions
•  sensitive for new developments	•  passes the pressure from above to his or her employees
•  can abandon old structures and secure paths
Inspirational &motivating	Procedural
•  convincing, shows and gives security	•  not really convinced about goals
•  supports employee identification	•  doesn't display personal convictions
•  raises intrinsic motivation	•  problems in own decision making
•  presents him or herself positively to others
High integrity	Self-centered
•  stable self-concept, calm, self-possessed	•  emotionally unstable
•  sure of him or herself, not fearful	•  insensitive, superficial, inflexible
•  modesty, high integrity, trustworthy	•  switches “chief”/“companion” role
•  a strong soul and mind	•  tries to attribute responsibility for errors to others
•  disciplined in work and private
Collaborative and team oriented	Personal power oriented
•  delegates responsibility	•  no critique of higher management
•  participative	•  leads by command, status oriented
•  able to compromise	•  doesn't or can't delegate
•  empowering	•  non-participate, feels as a “king”
•  social responsibility	•  wants to do by him or herself
•  solves conflicts win/win	•  no trust in others doing job right
Critical about him or herself	Face saving
•  can take criticism, shows weakness	•  hides errors
•  admits errors or deficiencies	•  changes direction without explicitly telling, is indirect
•  knows his or her limits
Considerate of people	Task oriented on cost of people
•  committed to his or her employees	•  seldom time to talk to employees
•  doesn't give employees a feeling of being used for something	•  instrumentalizes employees
•  defines attainable goals	•  puts pressure on employees
•  backs one up, caring, sensible, open
•  personal interest, sympathy, respect
Transparency	Unclear
•  clear communicator, explains decisions	•  doesn't explain decisions/motive
•  straight forward, relentless when necessary	•  unclear, distanced
•  openly communicates task criteria and controlling mechanisms	•  keeps information secret
•  displays the paths to the goal clearly	•  low on feedback
	•  actions not clear to understand
Broad knowledge	Specialized knowledge
•  high competence in field of expertise	•  knows much about company
•  knows the essentials right away	•  knows much about market
•  wide mental and educational horizon
•  talented, genius

Leaders Versus Managers in West Germany: Focus Groups

The attributes of leaders versus managers from two focus group discussions are described in Table 6.7 (details about the procedures are described in Section 3). They were categorized using the schema that was developed on the basis of the semi-structured interviews described previously. The average manager is perceived as a somewhat autocratic, task-oriented specialist who controls a complex system by attaining the goals specified (“does things right”). A leader is mainly perceived to be “more” than a competent manager, by being wise and visionary (“doing the right thing”), by dealing especially well with people (considerate, empowering), and by being an outstanding person in character (integrity, authentic), in dedication and vision (enthusiastic, innovative), and in education (broad knowledge). These results are very much in line with the results found in the semistructured interviews.

Overall, the focus group discussions resulted in a somewhat narrower range of attributes than in the semistructured interviews. Also, fewer negatively valued attributes of an average manager were given. In particular, negative attributes of interpersonal relations, for example, self-centeredness, being unclear, face saving, and personal power orientation, were more often reported in the “private” context of the semistructured interviews than in the somewhat more “public” context of the focus group discussions. In the focus group setting, the average manager was described to be basically a good person who is trying to do things right, who is personally responsible for the correct procedure, but who does not feel personally responsible to develop a vision of what the right things are (and forms no aspirations that contradict higher management). In the interview setting, the average manager was mainly described as a person who is “doing things right,” however, also as a person of questionable personal characteristics (e.g., self-centered, emotionally unstable) and of questionable interpersonal qualities (e.g., nonparticipative, using others for own purpose), that is, not treating people particularly well.

Particular care should be taken when interpreting findings elicited by just one qualitative evaluation method. For example, we contrast findings from the interviews and the focus groups. One can distinguish all attributes found into two broad categories: intra personal or personality characteristics like traits or abilities, and inter personal characteristics, like social competency, motivating others or being considerate of others. By counting the number of attributes per category, a ratio of about 60% interpersonal attributes to 40% intrapersonal attributes resulted from the interview setting. In the focus groups, the ratio was the reverse: 40% interpersonal and 60% personality attributes. It seems that personal and interpersonal attributes of leaders are differentially salient depending on the social setting imposed by the evaluation method. To go one step further, we also computed the relative frequencies of interpersonal (e.g., communicating, collaborating) and intrapersonal categories (e.g., rational, optimistic) from the results of the print media analysis. A ratio of about 35% to 65% respectively was found. Thus, interpersonal aspects of leadership seem to be least salient in print media (35%) and less salient in focus group discussions (40%) than in semistructured interviews (60%). The more intimate (or the less public) the social setting the more likely it is that interpersonal attributes of leaders are reflected and discussed.

In summary, the interview and focus group data, which was categorized by individuals naive to the GLOBE hypotheses, replicate nearly all GLOBE dimensions for Germany. Interestingly, Humane Orientation did not emerge as a category in the qualitative analyses, which is probably due to the comparatively low salience of interpersonal conduct at work in Germany. Some further categories for outstanding leadership, namely high transparency and broad knowledge base, were found. High transparency fits well with the ideal of participation and constructive conflict and broad knowledge base fits well with the ideal of autonomy requiring professionalism and high task competency. When asked to describe public leaders or leaders the respondents have firsthand experience with, interpersonal attributes dominate over personal attributes. They comprise aspects of charismatic leadership, high transparency in communication, and humane orientation (e.g., inspirational, motivating, open communicator, straight forwardness, social welfare orientated). Differences in relative proportions of intrapersonal versus interpersonal attributes seem to be a result of the evaluation method used. The more direct and face-to-face the evaluation method is (print media–focus group–personal interview), the more interpersonal attributes for describing leaders are elicited.

TABLE 6.7
Attributes of Outstanding Versus Average Leaders—Focus Groups

Outstanding Leader	Average Manager
Visionary	Administrative
•  clear vision	•  organizes and commands
•  knows about new trends	•  encourages new ideas but not against the higher management
Inspirational & motivating	Procedural
•  enthusiasti	•  keeps things going
•  charismatic	•  controls a complex system
High integrity
•  trustworthy, authentic, modest
•  high discipline
•  can deal with chaos while not being chaotic
•  brave
•  non-materialistic orientation
Collaborative and team oriented	Personal power oriented
•  delegates by task and not by formal procedures	•  dominating
•  doesn't rely on formal power	•  a person who wants power
•  cnflict resolving
•  a servant of the company
•  teamwork competency
•  empowers others
•  committed to others
Considerate of people	Task oriented on cost of people
•  sensitive	•  some social competency
•  supports ideas of employees	•  delegates
•  trusting employees	•  not very good in criticizing
•  loyal toward employees	•  flexible
•  open, tolerant, and fair
•  communicative
Transparency
•  shares vision with others
Broad knowledge	Specialized knowledge
•  broad education	•  specific knowledge
• creative	•  specialist
•  multiculturally oriented but not other cultures	•  knows his or her own culture quite well
•  wise
•  spirited when it becomes difficult
Does the right thing	Does things right

Job Requirements for Executive Positions in West Germany

Table 6.8 lists the relative frequencies of job requirements published in job advertisements in West German print media for the 16 categories identified (see Appendix E, for details about the procedures used, see Section 3). From 1981 to 1996, the average number of attributes listed per advertisement increased from 2.57 to 3.84. Despite this quantitative increase, the relative frequencies and rankings are remarkably stable. In 1981 and 1996, West German leaders are mainly expected to take initiative (13.5%, 11.8%), to be purposive (12.8%, 12.2%), and to communicate effectively (11.5%, 10.2%). The demand for collaborative qualities has increased significantly, from the fifth position in 1981 (7.7%) to the first position (14.2%) in 1996. In contrast, “responsibility” is less often listed in 1996 (2.0%) than in 1981 (6.4%). A similar negative trend exists for administrative skills (1981: 9.6%; 1996: 7.7%).

It seems that the old-fashioned leadership ideal of individual responsibility within a clear hierarchy (bureaucratic, administrative orientation) is changing toward a leadership ideal of interpersonal competencies and team orientation. Furthermore, “firmness” and “future orientation” are listed nearly twice as often today (6.5% and 6.9%) than 15 years ago (3.8% and 3.8%). Finally, “willingness to learn” (2%) has emerged as a new characteristic that was not listed in 1981.

Commonly Known Leaders in West Germany

Sixteen outstanding business leaders were suggested by a convenient sample of 14 West German respondents (basically random people on the street). Table 6.9 (right-hand side) describes the three most frequently suggested persons, Axel Springer (for the postwar period and somewhat later), Alfred Herrhausen (for the 1970s to late 1980s), and Leo Kirch (for the mid-1980s to the late 1990s—his company went bankrupt in 2002 several years after the GLOBE evaluation took place). Twelve outstanding political leaders were mentioned.

Table 6.9 (left-hand side) describes the predominant attributes for the three most frequently mentioned political leaders: Ludwig Erhard (for the postwar period), Willi Brandt (for the 1970s to early 1980s) and Helmut Kohl (for the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s; at the time of evaluation he served as Bundeskanzler, i.e., chancellor or premier).

The leadership attributes described in Table 8 cannot be viewed as representative; however, each person seems to exemplify a “Gestalt” of an outstanding leader in a certain historical and contemporary period of Germany.

With the exception of Alfred Herrhausen (see the subsection Individualist Leader), all leaders in politics and business were reported to have a vision. The vision was either very appealing to all (“combining economic growth and social justice” by Ludwig Erhard, or the “ideal of peace and reconciliation” by Willy Brandt, or “supporting social economy” by Axel Springer), or it was appealing to a very large proportion of the public (e.g., “reunification of Germany and its integration in Europe,” by Helmut Kohl), or it was a vision of some self-grandiosity (“creating a media monopoly in Germany,” by Leo Kirch) that provoked distrust and harsh criticism from various groups in society. All leaders were admired or at least respected for mainly three different classes of personal leadership characteristics:

TABLE 6.8
Percent of Attributes per Category in West German Executive Job Advertisements

	1981		1996
Characteristics	%	Rank	%	Rank
Initiative	13.5	1	11.8	3
Purposive	12.8	2	12.2	2
Communicating	11.5	3	10.2	4
Administrative Skill	9.6	4	7.7	5
Inspirational	7.7	5	6.9	7
Collaborative	7.7	5	14.2	1
Leader Experience	7.1	7	6.9	5
Responsible	6.4	8	2.0	12
Motivating	5.8	9	3.3	11
Firm	3.8	11	6.5	9
Flexible	3.8	11	4.9	10
Future Oriented	3.8	11	6.9	7
Rational	3.2	13	2.0	12
Enthusiastic	1.9	14	1.2	15
Directive	1.3	15	0.8	16
Willingness to Learn	0.0	–	2.0	12
N of categorized attributes	156		246
Total N of attributes	177		261
Total N of advertisements	69		68
Attributes per advertisement	2.57		3.84

Positively valued inter personal attributes were mainly associated with Willy Brandt, who was said to have displayed the “most human form of power” (Eppler, 1992), including trustworthiness, collaborative, and humane orientation, and somewhat associated with Ludwig Erhard (the “father” of Germany's social market economy) for his social justice and social welfare orientation. Most of the interpersonal leadership behaviors ascribed to the remaining political and some of the business leaders were pointed out in the biographical publications to be questionable to at least some extent, for example, they were said to instrumentalize personal relationships, play micropolitics, be autocratic, display patriarchal behaviors and high power orientation at the expense of people orientation. However, the popularity of these leaders and the fact that they were commonly chosen as examples for outstanding leadership underlines the quantitative GLOBE results for Germany, which indicate a leniency toward leadership that displays deficiencies in interpersonal conduct and humane orientation. This view is also in line with the argument described earlier, that leadership in Germany seems to be depersonalized and institutionalized (Martin et al., 2004).

TABLE 6.9
Leader Attributes of Publicly Known Leaders in West Germany

Political Leaders	Business Leaders
1945 to 1960s: Post World War II, a Period of Privation and Beginning Economic Growth
Ludwig Erhard (1897–1977): German Minister of Economy (1945–1963) as a member of the conservative party (CDU). Known as the father of the “soziale Marktwirtschaft” his (social economy) and the German “Wirtschaftswunder” (engl., economic mystery).	Axel Springer (1912–1985): Most successful publisher (popular press, e.g. Bild-Zeitung) during the German postwar area and the 1960s and 1970s. Known for his conservative attitudes, fight for German Reunification, reconciliation with Israel, and supporting the social economy.
Leader attributes: •  Visionary, “highly prognostic in economics” •  Realistic and constructive optimist •  Performance orientation •  Social justice orientation, “Gemeinwohl” •  Firm, imperturbable •  High expertise in economics	Leader attributes: •  Visionary, missionary •  Moralist, religious •  Patriarchal, micromanager •  Seeking for harmony •  “Publishers task … of ‘grounding’ ideals •  often excludes materialistic thought and action.”
1960s to 1970s: A Period of Social Change (e.g., Student Revolt) and Steady Economic Growth
Willy Brandt (1913–1992): German Chancellor (1969–1974) as a member of the social democratic party (SPD). Known for his “Versohnungspolitik” (politics of reconciliation) with East Germany. Received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971.	Alfred Herrhausen (1930–1989): Known as president of the Deutsche Bank who was murdered in 1989. He became member of the board of directors, Deutsche Bank, in 1970. His high rise (“high profile,” “sharply rising”) career extended until the late 1980’s when he became president of the Deutsche Bank.
Leader attributes: •  Visionary, “ideal of peace,” inspirational •  High integrity, trustworthy, loyalty •  Collaborative, cooperative, mediator •  Social and humane orientation •  Convincing speaker, excellent listener •  Ambitious, highly self-critical	Leader attributes: •  Risk taker, courageous, straightforward •  Energetic, enforcing, purposive •  Peformance oriented, individualist, outsider •  High need for recognition and confirmation •  Micromanager, power oriented, autocratic •  Rational, reserved, distanced.
1980s and 1990s: A Period of Geopolitical Change (Reunification) and Reduced Economic Growth
Helmut Kohl (1928): German Chancellor (1982–1998) as a member of the conservative party (CDU). Known to be the driving force of the Reunification of Germany in 1989 and its integration in the European Union. Despite intense investigations, he was never sentenced for obvious deception.	Leo Kirch (1927): Known as “media tycoon” who created an empire consisting of several private TV stations and several TV-production and trading companies. His activities were subject to public suspicion in the early 1990s. He lost his whole empire right after the turn of the century.
Leader attributes: •  Politically instinctive and far-sighted •  Purposive, enforcing, "a doer" •  Firm, consistent, reliable, autocratic •  Ambitious, micropolitician •  Realistic with common sense	Leader attributes: •  Vision of himself as a media monopolist •  Instrumentalizing personal relationships •  Firm, hard, smart, cunning •  Personal power and status oriented •  Patriarchal, autocratic, micromanager

6. SUMMARY

The GLOBE program has demonstrated that characteristics attributed to outstanding leaders match closely with cultural values and practices (cf. House et al., 2004). Our analysis shows that this holds true for Germany as well. Hallmarks of German cultural practices are high levels of Uncertainty Avoidance, Assertiveness, and Performance Orientation, along with low levels of interpersonal Humane Orientation, all moderated by institutionalized social welfare and code-termination of capital and labor. Effective German leaders are characterized by high Performance Orientation, high Autonomy, high Participation, low Self-Protection, and low Compassion. Conflict and controversy seem to be built into the German work culture, soothed by institutionalized participation and social welfare. In short, the phrase, “tough on the issue, tough on the person, participative in nature,” appears to best characterize the GLOBE findings for leadership “Made in Germany” at the turn of the 20th century (Brodbeck, Frese, & Javidan, 2002).

Is the German culture prepared to cope with the necessary changes when considering its current economical profile? The GLOBE societal culture findings presented here can lead to the conclusion that the Economist’s recipe, “attack the high taxes, over-generous welfare benefits, onerous labor market restrictions and red tape that are choking growth in output and jobs” (“The Sick man of the Euro,” p. 21) is not easy to implement because a set of historically rooted cultural practices and values (uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness, performance orientation, institutionalized welfare, and strong labor representation) underpins the status quo that the Economist suggests to “attack.” The decline of Germany's traditionally high performance and future orientation in the 1990s—Zeitgeist of consolidation—worsens the case. We assume that it is much more difficult to change national culture than organizational cultre. Since the issues of high uncertainty avoidance, high assertiveness and low humane orientation may be more important in the companies because it makes it difficult to manage change, we suggest that organizations should work hard on changing their organizational culture. Managers in Germany should not wait (or hope) for societal changes to happen any time soon.

What is on the positive side then? Apparent positive trends in Germany's societal culture (“Should Be”) indicate, on the one hand, declining levels of power distance, assertiveness, and uncertainty avoidance and, on the other hand, an increased popularity of gender egalitarianism and interpersonal compassion at work. These trends justify some optimism. Altogether we think that our analysis can serve as a first step toward a societal cultural SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis for another twin accomplishment for Germany (world-class economy and social welfare) in the new millennium.

Are German managers prepared for taking up leadership roles that support the necessary changes? The current “tough on the issue, tough on the person” leadership approach in combination with institutionalized participation appears to explain Germany's twin accomplishments of economical and social welfare in the second half of the 20th century. However, whereas this period was dominated by large industrial companies and labor unions and a stable environment, the present and the future look different. The old-fashioned “tough on the issue, tough on the person” leadership approach is unlikely to be effective in a future that requires to respond to the challenges of globalization and to change the “Germany AG” from a state-granted social market to a private-initiative-based modern social economy.

What can be done? A “tough on the issue, soft on the person” leadership approach seems to be a better recipe for future generations of German managers. It requires a careful development of Germany's business leaders that enables them to promote and effectively manage declining levels of power distance and uncertainty avoidance, on the one hand, and to capitalize on the increased popularity of gender egalitarianism and the apparent request for more compassion, interpersonal competence, and team orientation at work, on the other hand. It also requires the preservation of the traditional benefits of constructive conflict at work by keeping the balance of high autonomy (for leaders and employees), high participation (codetermination), and low self-protection on part of the leaders, as well as working toward even improving levels of professionalism, technical competency, and broad knowledge on the part of both leaders and followers.

A lot can be learned, not only from the West, where business leaders are portrayed in the public press as determined, future oriented, and assertive, but also from the East, where business leadership is portrayed as dialectical in nature, a constant exchange of opinions in search for higher levels of rationality and effectiveness. Overall it seems that the valuable principles of codetermination and humane orientation, which traditionally have been institutionalized in Germany, need to find their way onto the interpersonal levels of face-to-face social behavior in small groups, company networks, and international partnerships, guided by principles of direct participation and compassion.

7. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The strong relationship between societal culture and leadership perceptions, which are evident across all GLOBE countries and in Germany as well, finds an explanation in the following processes: Culture defines a set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Individuals learn to conform to these norms through acculturation and socialization. Over time, individuals become particularly skilled at acceptable behaviors. Successful managers are well socialized and acculturated. They tend to be good at acceptable behaviors.

Cultural adaptation can also be dysfunctional, for example, when managers are placed in a different cultural environment or when change is forced on organizations or whole societies. Successes (and failures) in the past generate experiences and formerly successful behaviors will be repeated elsewhere—even when change is required.

Considering Cultural Differences

GLOBE has produced a database that can help us identify the similarities and differences among countries and organizations. When two cultures are relatively similar in content, that is, their dimensional profiles have considerable similarities (rather than markedly different), transacting business is easier with not much change in behaviors (for a detailed discussion of GLOBE results in relation to knowledge transfer across cultures, see Stahl, Javidan, Brodbeck, & Wilderom, 2004).

However, even when it comes to apparently very similar cultures, we have learned that it is useful to take a more detailed look. For an example, the GLOBE data show the cultural profiles of Austria, German-speaking Switzerland, and Germany to be highly similar to each other and dissimilar to 19 other Pan-European countries (Brodbeck et al., 2000). To a manager from Japan or any other culture distant to the Germanic cultures, representatives from these three Germanic countries appear very much the same. However, there can be subtle but disturbing differences when representatives from highly similar cultures are working together. Closer inspection of the GLOBE database revealed that leadership concepts of German-speaking Swiss managers differ in some subtle ways from their German counterparts. They rank slightly lower on autonomy and somewhat higher on modesty, diplomacy, and team orientation than their German counterparts. Although the differences on each dimension are small, their combined effects may have severe consequences in particular situations (Weibler et al., 2000). According to the author's observations, German-speaking Swiss managers find it disturbing when German managers tend to present their views in a confrontational manner (low compassion, low modesty, low team orientation, high straightforwardness), thereby stressing the differences between others and their own position (high autonomy) by making statements like, “Yes! But I think X and Y.” In German-speaking Switzerland, different views are usually presented in a compromising way (higher compassion, modesty, and team orientation) stressing the common basis (lower autonomy) by a statement like, “Yes! And we should also consider X and Y.” The same factual issue, introduced with a “Yes, but I …” approach, is less likely to be impartially considered by Swiss managers than when it is introduced with a “Yes, and we …” approach.

When cultures are different in content, that is, their dimensional profiles are significantly different, adjustment is generally necessary in proportion to the cultural distance. It will be more difficult to adjust to another culture if the cultural differences are large and manifold because it implies that people need a higher amount of cognitive and behavioral restructuring, especially when larger cultural regions are trespassed (the 10 cultural regions identified by GLOBE; cf. House et al., 2004). This can be attained via training, coaching, and experience within the country. Knowledge about specific cultural characteristics (e.g., the type of constructive conflict and controversy at work endorsed in Germany) can help expatriate managers to better anticipate potential benefits (constructive controversy leads to high quality) and potential problems (interpersonal conflict leads to stress and emotional strain) in cross-cultural interactions. The knowledge derived from GLOBE about the particular leadership profiles that most strongly differentiate two or more target countries can be used for the development of cross-cultural management training and coaching.

For example, the empirical evidence for German managers being perceived as lower in humane orientation and as higher in autonomy than UK managers can be used to tailor-make trainings for the managers from these two countries by identifying and developing critical role-play situations that embody the particular differences GLOBE has identified.

Another implication is that a manager successful in one culture may not be able to adjust well to another culture. Or the other way around, a technically well-qualified manager who is socially maladjusted at home might actually be a good fit in another culture.

For example, assertiveness in Germany is associated with straightforwardness, tolerance for conflict, and controversy. Paired with low interpersonal humane orientation, this might lead to a manager humiliating an employee from a higher humane orientation culture like the UK. In contrast, the same set of factors paired with high performance orientation can be highly efficient with employees from a high performance orientation culture like Germany. A UK manager with high tolerance for conflict and controversy and high performance orientation, who is not the perfect fit within his or her mother culture, can actually be a successful manager in Germany, particularly if he or she is not easily disturbed when facing conflict and low compassion in interpersonal behavior.

Considering Change

Germany may have to change its culture to be able to compete successfully in the global markets of the 21st century. However, societal culture is difficult to change. Some cultural dimensions are so deeply rooted in history and society that any change will take a long time and require widely distributed efforts. Germany's high uncertainty avoidance, high individualism, high assertiveness, and reliance on state intervention seem to be deeply rooted in its history. Both parts of Germany rank similarly on these dimensions in various studies from the early 1960s to the late 1990s. However, prompted by the demands of the free-market economy and globalization in the 1990s, Germany has witnessed a questioning of the ideals of a welfare state in favor of neo-liberal concepts of self-reliance and of individual commitment to smaller, organically grown units such as family, work groups and networks. The country has entered a postmodern type of democracy, in retreat from state intervention and disenchanted with the welfare state (Hahn, 1995). First steps to such a change are visible; Germany is currently reducing resources to its social programs by using additional private pension schemes (Private Zusatzrente) and increasing private contributions to the health care system. Note that the 2005 elections in Germany resulted in a pat situation for the two major political parties (the socialist SPD and the conservative CDU), which the media currently interpret to promote stagnation rather than reforms. If major reforms can be brought on their way at all, it seems it will take a broad consent within society and across political camps.

Our own data support the view that some cultural aspects are already valued differently than some decades ago. German society and organizations want to advance more female participation in work and management. This could even change the comparably low levels of perceived humane orientation because a more feminine ideal of leadership could bring more interpersonal compassion to work. The German Zeitgeist of consolidation, in part a consequence of the tremendous monetary and psychological costs of the reunification process, seems to be a major obstacle. A critical challenge is how to restructure the traditionally institutionalized mechanisms for maintaining social welfare, cooperative capital–labor relationships, and personal safety while at the same time cutting down on high taxes, high labor costs, and a cumbersome bureaucracy.

Last but not least, there are consequences to tolerating managers who are insensitive to the feelings of employees and are so task focused that learning and development are not on their agenda. Especially in these times of globalization and multicultural work forces, the so-called soft skills (e.g., consideration of people, compassion in interpersonal conduct, team orientation, and cross-cultural flexibility) become critical attributes for success. Though conflict and controversy have their merits in a highly task-focused and performance-oriented society, German managers need to be aware of the pitfalls of their current “tough on the issue, tough on the person” approach. This is particularly true when institutionalized systems to deal with social welfare and the peoples’ angst are in decline.

Developing the perceived strength of outstanding leadership Made in Germany (i.e., high performance orientation, low self-protection, high participation, high autonomy, open communication, technical competency, and a broad knowledge base) and changing the weaknesses (medium team orientation, low interpersonal humane orientation) seems to be the route to go. The benefits of developing leaders to be “tough on the issue, soft on the person, and participative in conduct” need to be intensively explored in future practice and research. Further practical implications for doing business with Germans, which relate to GLOBE findings, are described by Schroll-Machl (2005). The author looks at two sides of business partnerships—on the one hand, when people are working from their home country or as expatriates with Germans; and on the other hand, when Germans have business relationships with people from all over the world, wether face to face or at a distance.

8. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Though ambitious in scope and design, the GLOBE project has set clear limitations on the samples and methods used within each country. The strengths of the quantitative and comparative design of GLOBE sets clear limits to the study of a particular country's societal and leadership cultures because data from only three industries and only middle managers were obtained. Clearly this does not constitute a representative sample. However, note that, in the overall GLOBE study, in fact all the societal cultural and leadership dimensions have been triangulated on the country level of analysis with a whole variety of additional data about the countries studied (cf. House et al., 2004). With the additional qualitative analyses, using a whole range of respondents (e.g., managers, journalists, and ordinary people from different strata in society) and several different methods for data gathering, at least some triangulation was possible for Germany. The quantitative and qualitative findings about Germany described in the present chapter converge in nearly all respects. This increases our confidence in the validity of the findings and the conclusions.

Even more ambitious is the attempt to describe a nation's history, economy, societal culture, and leadership concepts in just a couple of pages while not being an expert in the relevant disciplines of political science, history, economy, management, anthropology, and sociology. The reader who is an expert in one of these disciplines may accept our apologies for not being aware of further relevant resources. We can only hope that the results described and the interpretations given stimulate further and improved quantitative and qualitative research into the issue of how leadership concepts held in Germany relate to its societal culture, the effectiveness of its organizations, and the economic situation as a whole.

The following suggestions for future research are based on our psychological background in the subdisciplines of basic and applied social, cross-cultural, work, and organizational psychology.

First, obviously the GLOBE data generated to date does not allow stringent predictions about actual leadership behavior in organizations and cross-cultural situations. This requires further in situ investigation of how a particular cultural background influences leadership behavior and effectiveness within and across certain cultures’ boundaries.

Second, an intriguing consideration about leadership made in Germany becomes evident when considering that the interpersonal dimension of leadership is becoming more critical around the world. Traditional power distance, competition, and conflict-based models of how human beings relate with each other are no longer functional in a highly interconnected world (Clark & Matze, 1999). Thus, members of certain cultures may be better suited to the new challenges of global leadership than others are. For example, Martin et al. (2004) argue that German managers (as compared to Irish) may be less geared to operating as multinational executives because of the very specific cultural context of their country's success (cf. Warner & Campbell, 1993). Also, too few of them have worked or studied abroad. Assuming that a global company's success is clearly linked to the emotional intelligence of its leaders (cf. Adler, 2002), comprising empathy and social skills for successfully managing relationships, the German leadership concept with its dominant task focus and low interpersonal humane orientation does indeed not seem to match particularly well to the future global challenges.

However, our outlook to the potential of international success of leadership made in Germany is actually less grim than that reported in Martin et al. (2004). There are clear strengths in German leadership concepts, as there are particular leadership strengths to discover within any societal culture. Within Germany, outstanding leadership is associated with high performance orientation, technical competency, autonomy, straightforwardness, constructive controversy, and participation. When adequately managed (e.g., soft on the person), these attributes can provide for work outcomes of the highest ambition and quality—anywhere in the world. These and similar hypotheses, which emphasize the notion that there is a grain of “truth” (about what makes people live well) in every viable societal culture and leadership approach around the world, seem worthwhile to be further investigated by sound empirical testing and practice.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Abbruch Ost. (2003, February 6). Der Spiegel.

Andersch-Niestedt, H., & Lilge, H.-G. (1981). Betriebliche Führung im Vergleich: Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Deutsche Demokratische Republik [Comparing business leadership: Federal Republik of Germany—German Democratic Republik]. Berlin: Verlag Volker Spiess.

Armbrüster, T. (2005). Management and organization in Germany. Bodmin, Cornwall, England: MPG Books.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and practical applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Berschin, H. (1993). Deutschlandbegriff im sprachlichen Wandel [Semantic changes of the concept of Germany]. In W. Weidenfeld & K.-R. Korte (Eds.), Handbuch zur deutschen Einheit (pp. 139–147). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.

Boehnke, K., Dettenborn, H., Horstmann, K., & Schwartz, S. (1994). Value priorities in the United Germany: Teachers and students from East and West compared. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9,191–202.

Boss talk: Goal is game, set, and match—Siemens’ CEO allies tactics of tennis to management: Rules of winning, losing. The Wall Street Journal. (2001, February 2).

Brockhaus Encyclopedia. (1997). Deutsche Einheit[German reunification], 5,289—290.

Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Führung—made in Germany. Die Mitbestimmung, 4 (April),10–18.

Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., et al. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,1–29.

Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., & Javidan, M. (2002). Leadership made in Germany: Low on compassion, high on performance. Academy of Management Executive, 16 (1), 16–29.

Brodbeck, F. C., Hanges, P. J., Dickson., M. W., Gupta, V., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004). Comparative influence of industry and societal culture on organizational cultural practices. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 654–668). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, B., & Matze, M. (1999). A core of global leadership: Relational competence. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 127–161). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Craig, G. A. (1991). The Germans. New York: Putnam's Median Book.

Dorfman, P., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 669–719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dumont, L. (1994). German ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eppler, E. (1992). Die humanste Form der Macht [The most human form of power]. Der Spiegel, 42,26–28.

Europe has a problem—and its name is Germany. (2002, January 19). The Economist, p. 9.

Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39,37–63.

Glunk, U., Wilderom, C., & Ogilvie, R. (1997). Finding the key to German-style management. International Studies of Management & Organizations, 26,93–108.

Gupta, V., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 178–218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters methodology and findings. Journal ofWorld Business[Special Issue on GLOBE], 37,11–15.

Gurowitz, E. M. (1998, October). Ohne Worte [No words]. Manager Magazin, pp. 133–134.

Hahn, H. J. (1995). German thought and culture. From the Holy Roman Empire to the present day. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Hammer, T, (1999). Developing global leaders: A European perspective. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 99–113). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heyse, V. (1994). Führungskraefte-Orientierungen und Weiterbildung in ostdeutschen Unternehmen [Leaders’ orientations and training in East German companies]. In L. v. Rosenstiel, T. Lang, & E. Sigl (Eds.), Auswahl des Fach—und Führungskräftenachwuchses in den alten und neuen Bundesläendern (pp. 323–331). Landshut, Germany: Schriften der Sommerakademie.

Hiebsch, H., & Vorwerg, M. (1978). Sozialpsychologie[Social psychology]. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures’ consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & Globe Associates (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jago, A. G., Reber, G., Böhnisch, W., Maczynski, J., Zavrel, J., & Dudorkin, J. (1993). Cultures’ conseqeunces? A seven nations study of participation. In D. F. Rogus & A. S. Ratmi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute (pp. 451–454). Washington DC: Decision Sciences Institute.

Lawrence, P. (1994). German management: At the interface between Eastern and Western Europe. In R. Calori & P. de Wood (Eds.), A European management model: Beyond diversity (pp. 133–165). New York: Prentice-Hall.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing. London: Routledge.

Macharzina, K. (1993). Werthaltungen in den neuen Bundesläendern: Strategien fuer das Personalmanagement[Values in the new German states: Strategies for personnel management]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.

Maier, G. (1990). Füehrungsgrundsäetze: Ein Ausdruck der Unternehmenskultur [Principles of leadership: An expression of organizational culture]. In S. Hoefling & W. Butollo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Congress for Applied Psychology of the German Psychological Association (BDP) (pp. 135–144). Bonn, Germany: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag.

Martin, G. S., Keating, M., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Organisational leadership in Germany and Ireland. In M. Keating & G. S. Martin (Eds.), Managing cross-cultural business relations: The Irish-German case (pp. 41–69). Blackhall, Ireland: Dublin.

Müller, W. A. (1995). Führungsforschung/Führung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in Österreich und in der Schweiz [Leadership research/leadership in Germany, Austria and Switzerland]. In A. Kieser, G. Reber, & R. Wunderer (Eds.), Handwörterbuch der Führung (pp. 573–586). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.

Reber, G., Jago, A. G., Auer-Rizzi, W., & Szabo, E. (2000). Führungsstile in sieben Ländern Europas— Ein interkultureller Vergleich [Leadership styles in seven European countries—A inter cultural comparison]. In E. Regnet & L. M. Hofmann (Eds.), Personalmanagement in Europa (pp. 154–173). Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.

Regnet, E. (1995). Der Weg in die Zukunft: Neue Anforderungen and Führungskräefte [Pathways to the future: New requirements for managers]. In L. von Rosenstiel, E. Regnet, & M. Domsch (Eds.), Führung von Mitarbeitern: Handbuch für erfolgreiches Personalmanagement (pp. 43–54). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10,435–454.

Schäfer, P. (1989). Der Raum–seine territorial-politische und seine wirtschafts—und kulturgeographischen Veränderungen [Space—its territorial political and its economical and geo-cultural change M. Overesch (Ed.), Die Gründung der Bundesrepublick Deutschland: Jahre der Entscheidung 1945–1949, Texte und Documente (pp. 19–44). Hannover: Landeszentrale für politische Bildung, Niedersachsen.

Schroll-Machl, S. (2005). Doing business with Germans: Their perception, our perception (2nd ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Schultz-Gambard, J., & Altschuh, E. (1993). Unterschiedliche Füehrungsstile im geeinten Deutschland [Different leadership styles in the united Germany]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 24,167–175. The sick man of the euro. (1999, June 5). The Economist, p. 5.

Simon, H. (1996). Hidden champions. Boston.: Harvard Business School Press.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams. The pivotal role of intra group trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,102–111.

Stahl, G., Javidan, M., Brodbeck, F. C., & Wilderom, C. (2005). Transferring knowledge across cultures: Lessons learned from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Executive, 19 (2), 59–76.

Stewart, R., Barsoux, J. L., Kieser, A., Ganter, H. D., & Walgenbach, P. (1994). Managing in Britain and Germany. London: Macmillan.

Szabo, E., Brodbeck, F. C., den Hartog, D. E., Reber, G., Weibler, J., & Wunderer, R. (2002). The Germanic Europe cluster: Where employees have a voice. Journal of World Business, 37,55–68.

An uncertain giant: A survey of Germany. (2002, January 19). The Economist, pp. 1–20.

von Rosenstiel, L. (1995). Führung durch Motivation in Zeiten sich wandelnder Wertorientierungen [Management via motivation in times of changing value orientations]. In H. Kasper (Ed.), PostGraduate-Management-Wissen (pp. 75–146). Wien, Germany: Wirtschaftsverlag Ueberreuter.

Warner, M., & Campbell, A. (1993). German management. In D. J. Hickson (Ed.), Management in Western Europe: Society, culture and organization in twelve nations (pp. 89–108). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Weibler, J., Brodbeck, F. C., Szabo, E., Reber, G., Wunderer, R., & Moosmann, O. (2000). Führung in kulturverwandten Regionen: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bei Führungsidealen zwischen Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz [Leadership in culturally similar regions: Similarities and differences of leadership prototypes in Germany, Austria and Switzerland]. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 5,588–604.

Wiendick, G. (1990). Führung im Wandel. Neue Perspektiven für Führungsforschung und Führungspraxis[Leadership under changing conditions. New perspectives of leadership research and leadership practice]. Stuttgart, Germany: Enke.

World Economic Forum. (2000). The global competitiveness report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wuppertaler Kreis. (1992). Führungsverständnis in Ost und West[Concepts of leadership in East and West]. Köln, Germany: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.

Yukl, G. (2005). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Zander, E. (1995). Führungsstil und Personalpolitik im Wandel [Changes in leadership style and personell policy]. Personal, 47,238–241.

Zwarg, I. (1995). Führung in den neuen Bundesländern [Leadership in the new states of Germany]. In L. von Rosenstiel, E. Regnet, & M. Domsch (Eds.), Führung von Mitarbeitern: Handbuch f ür erfolgreiches Personalmanagement (pp. 739–750). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.

Appendix A

West Germany

The political system of the Federal Republic of Germany was—and still is today—a constitutional, representative, and pluralistic democracy, similar to other Western democracies. In the early days after World War II, the Western allies, especially the United States of America, took a major part in helping the West Germans to build a modern democracy. The GARIOA scheme (Government and Relief in Occupied Areas) and, most well known, the Marshall Aid (ERP, i.e., the European Recovery Program) granted financial aid, stability, and favorable conditions for building a constitutional democracy granting the basic rights of freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, liberty, and protection of the private sphere and their recoverability by law. The German constitution, though not specifying any particular economic system, constrains a free-market economy with the doctrine of the social market economy (Soziale Marktwirtschaft). It defines legal obligations for the government, the trade unions, and the companies for maintaining public welfare (e.g., education, health, retirement), social justice (e.g., social security, equal opportunities, protection of minorities), and cooperative industrial relations (e.g., codetermination, industrial democracy). A key feature of industrial relations is exemplified in the wage-bargaining process. It is simple in structure, only two partners, one trade union and one employer. It is predictable—a timetable of industries and states is sequentially followed—and it is stable—wage bargaining has the force of law and strikes inevitably occur in particular seasons of the year (cf. Lawrence, 1994). Another key feature of industrial relations is the system of codetermination that is regulated by law. It grants mutual control and participation for employees by defining rights and duties for worker representatives in the companies’ supervisory boards and for elected employee representatives on the work council. The social market economy is one important factor for the stable and solid economical and social development in post–World War II Germany. To some foreigners this system appears to be overburdened with formal procedures. However, the strengths are its high reliability, straightforwardness, and legally enforced procedural justice, criteria that meet the formal and task-oriented interaction style maintained in West German companies (cf. Lawrence, 1994).

Appendix B

Former East Germany

The constitution of the German Democratic Republic (according to its revision from October 7, 1974) described a socialistic state of workers and farmers under leadership of the Marxistic-Leninistic unitary party, SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland). Legally, this party was constructed according to the principle of “democratic centralism”; practically, centralism dominated, although officials from other parties (CDU, Christian Democrats, LDPD, Liberal Democrats) were also involved. The political bureau of the SED-party (Politbüro) and its first secretary, decided about the political, economical, educational, and cultural life in former East Germany. It controlled the trade unions, the so-called “transmission belt” of the party, in which 95% of German workforce were members, the German youth organization (FDJ) in which about 70% of German 14- to 17-year-olds were organized, the people's own companies (VEBs and combines), the educational system (university entry was based on a subject quota basis, graduates were located to jobs by the state), and the media (e.g., no foreign print media and no foreign TV or radio was officially allowed to be consumed). The basic rights, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, liberty, and protection of the private sphere were constitutional, however, practically they were not fully recoverable by law (e.g., no free traveling abroad). In contrast, however, the basic social rights (e.g., the right to work, the right to health protection, the right to education) were highly effective in principle and in practice.

The planned economy system determined the level of productivity to be fulfilled by the VEBs and the aggregates of VEBs (combines) in all industries. Research and development activities were also performed in VEBs and combines. The structure was centralistic, meaning groups of combines reported to industry ministers and the ministers in turn reported to the Plan Commission, which was an organ of the SED political bureau. The planned market was controlled the reverse way; the Plan Commission defined the expected productivity output per industry and the combines and VEBs had to fulfill the plan. About 98% of the industries were “publicly owned” in this manner and only some private economy was allowed for a very small proportion of entrepreneurs (e.g., craftsmen) and private gardeners.

East German authors tend to describe the economic system as “double headed” (R. Lang, personal communication as part of a written review of an earlier draft of this chapter, 2000), that is, bureaucratic and tayloristic at its surface, but informal, bargaining oriented, with strong emphasis on informal contracts and pacts in its real functioning.

Appendix C

The German Reunification

As a result of the German reunification in 1990, East Germany stopped existing. The two “Germanies” did not merge; rather, East Germany joined West Germany and, therefore, adopted the legal system, fiscal policy, employment policy, external trade policy, and so on from West Germany (Brockhaus Encyclopaedia,1997, pp. 289–290). Aside from the geopolitical situation and the Russian Perestroika, one reason for the reunification is seen in the near collapse of the East German economy in the late 1980s. After the reunification the productivity levels of East German companies dropped again and unemployment—unknown in the former East Germany—rose sharply. A significant problem was the privatization of the state-owned companies; this led to the closing of many companies. By the end of 1994 more than 20,000 organizations were privatized.

From 1991 to 1995, West Germany transferred about a trillion German marks (about 500 billion euro/dollar to East Germany), from which 25% went into the economy and 11% were spent for developing infrastructure (e.g. transport, telecommunications, etc.). The largest proportion, however, went into unemployment, health care, and social welfare funds. On the one hand, German reunification triggered a consumer boom (which actually masked the beginning structural crisis of the West German economy). On the other hand, it exhausted West Germany's economy to considerable extent.

The cultural change and social psychological consequences of the reunification concerned mainly East Germans, who carried the primary share of change (“modernization shock”). They gained the basic constitutional rights of a Western democratic society and they gained in living standards. However, the reunification also resulted in disillusionment and the experience of high uncertainty. Furthermore, the markedly lower income level of East Germans as compared to West Germans (47% in 1991; 67% in 1994; 77% in 2002) led to feelings of injustice and unfairness among East Germans (however, household income is higher in East Germany because of higher female participation in the labor market).

Additional hard feelings were produced by criminal activities in the changeover process from state ownership into private hands and the mass restitution of those possessions that had been expropriated by the communist regime (2.7 million titles had to be processed). For example, renters of flats suddenly had to deal with different owners or owners of houses were expropriated in favor of the original owners. Women, who were highly integrated in the former East German workforce, saw an end to their favored status (e.g., the well-developed East German kindergarten system was completely destroyed). One of the darkest chapters in East German history was that millions of secret personal files collected and used by the former East German state security system (Stasi = Staatssicherheit) were released to the people who had been subject to prosecution. Thus, in addition to the modernization shock, many East Germans learned that their best friends, neighbors, coworkers, and so forth reported private and personal details to the Stasi. In short, the whole past and future life of many East Germans was called into question—for some of them totally—virtually overnight.

The dramatic changes in East Germany have not led to instant adaptation of the Western culture. Expressions of an East German cultural identity can be seen in their voting behavior. The PDS, a successor party of the former Communist Party, used to be rather strong in the East and practically nonexistent in the West. Furthermore, as part of the GLOBE survey in 1995–1996, East German managers tend to disagree with questionnaire statements like, “Citizens of the former East Germany should learn as quickly as possible from West Germans,” whereas West German managers tend to agree. On the other side, East German managers tend to agree to statements like “Citizens of the former East Germany should consider the strengths of the former East German culture”; West German managers tend to disagree.

An East versus West polarization became apparent that is still existent today. Stereotyped attributions of responsibility for the social and economical problems were often expressed in public media. West Germans stereotyped East Germans as showing little initiative, being unproductive, and exhibiting a welfare mentality of “taking from but not actively giving to society.” On the other hand, East Germans stereotyped West Germans as pretending to know everything better (Besserwessis) and as highly individualistic and self-centered.

Appendix D

Categories for Content Analysis of Print Media

Category Name	Text Phrases Containing the Following Characteristics
Determined	behaviors and expressed attitudes that imply determined decisions and actions.
Firm	behaviors and expressed attitudes that imply firm defense or resolute execution of goals, plans, ideas and beliefs.
Masculine	attributes like strength, courage, fighting, fatherly or paternal.
High integrity	attributes like modesty, socially responsible, humane, loyalty, trustworthiness or sense of responsibility.
Future oriented	behaviors and expressed attitudes that aim towards the future, planning for the future, anticipation of future events, or preparing for the future.
Visionary	behaviors and expressed attitudes that inspire or stimulate others, e.g. to surpass their limits, to change their attitudes and behavior.
Optimistic	behaviors and expressed attitudes that imply confidence in, or generally positive views of facts, events and future developments.
Confronting	attitude expressions in a highly confronting or agitating manner.
Rational	behaviors and expressed attitudes that imply objectivity, pertinence, rationality, realism, analytical competency and being well informed.
Evaluating	attitude expressions in an assessing or evaluative manner.
Opinion expression	attitude expression in a neutral manner.
Communicating	behaviors and attitudes that imply communication with others, informing oneself and others, and maintaining good relationships.
Collaborating	behaviors and attitudes that imply cooperation, or stress common goals, win/win situations and compromise.

Appendix E

Categories for Content Analysis of Executive Job Posting

Category Name	Text Phrases Containing the Following Characteristics
Initiative	engagement, entrepreneurship, intrinsic and performance motivation.
Purposive	high energetic impetus and strength in goal attainment.
Communicating	effective interaction and bargaining, affiliation motives, intercultural interests.
Administrative skill	structuring and controlling complex systems, implementing goals and plans.
Inspirational	convincing, being a positive model and thus influential, “a real personality.”
Collaborative	cooperative, participative, social competency and team orientation.
Leader experience	experience in leadership.
Responsible	willingness and awareness of taking responsibility seriously, committed, liable.
Motivating	motivating, supporting and developing employees.
Firm	persistence and stress resistance.
Flexible	adaptability, creativity, being nimble and movable.
Future oriented	planning ahead, prepared, modern, being a “signpost.”
Rational	thinking analytically, critical and realistic, broad knowledge.
Enthusiastic	enjoying to work.
Directive	straight, strict, and controlling leadership style.
Willingness to learn	motivation to learn, to acquaint with new tasks.

Appendix F

Factor Analysis Results of the 21 GLOBE Leadership Scales for Germany, East and West, and a West German Twin-Sample

^*Scales marked with *are kept for further analyses (Cronbach a > .50 or Pearson r > .40).

^a (ITEM DELETED) means that the scale statistics were calculated without the respective item.

^bPearson r is calculated when N of Items per scale equals 2.

^cItems are listed in full German wording in order to stimulate future research. The numbers indicate item location in the GLOBE Questionnaire (parts 2 & 4). Items were developed in collaboration with Erna Szabo (chap. 5, this volume) and Jürgen Weibler (chap. 8, this volume).

^dEigenvalue of first emerging factor is listed. Eigenvalues of further factors that emerged are given in brackets.

Appendix G

Comparison of East vs. West German Leadership Scores (16 Scales from Factor Analysis, see Appendix F)

¹Scales were shortened by one item to improve reliability (see Appendix F).

Country means may differ from the country scores obtained by GLOBE (House et al., 2004) because sample sizes differ for methodological reasons.

^* p < .05. ** p < .01 (two-sided tests).

Appendix H

Regression Analysis for Two Dimensional MDS Solutions in East and West Germany, and West German twin sample

_______________

¹The contributions from Markus Schmidt are thankfully acknowledged.

²The contributions from Silvia Specht de Huber, Gabriele Kessler, Oswald Moosmann, Alexandra Muz, and Nadja Töpper are thankfully acknowledged.

³The contributions from Natalie Goeltenboth are thankfully acknowledged.

⁴The contributions from Claudia Sold are thankfully acknowledged.

⁵The contributions from Oswald Moosmann in calculating and drafting the tables in Appendixes F and G as part of his diploma thesis supervised by the first author are thankfully acknowledged.