- THE SMELL OF BRUSSELS SPROUTS
Situation
There was a large article in a Dutch newspaper with the headline: ‘Police professional code breathes the smell of Brussels sprouts’. The Council of Police Chiefs wants police officers to show an incorruptible conduct and has drawn up a new professional code. Below are a few examples of principles that are discussed in the professional code:
Respect: At work I question myself whether I want to be treated that way myself
Transparency: I do not accept large gifts
Justice: I am honest with citizens.
The chairman of the Dutch Police Union reacted to this with the following words: “The smell of Brussels sprouts that comes off is almost unbearable. We’re going back to the fifties”. And: “The patronizing tone shows that the chiefs of police do not take their staff seriously. Apparently every cop has to become some kind of model citizen. Robots that are identical in appearance and behavior, but where personal responsibility and common sense are switched off”.
Why was the Police Union reacting in this way?
Interpretations
Click on the interpretation you think is most adequate
Comment on a)
Moral conduct is not the domain of trade unions, but trade unions like the Dutch Police Association would like to be involved in the drafting of the code. Besides, they are in favour of paying attention to moral conduct and the good name of the police. Therefore there is no loss of influence at stake. Back to the interpretations
Comment on b)
Surely in the Netherlands there is abundant discussion about the potential dangers of a surveillance state, as the police makes more and more use of cameras images and data about citizens. But these new technologies are generally welcomed by the police, since they make crime fighting more easy. There is no danger whatever that Dutch policemen will become more like robots. They are highly trusted by the public (‘The police is your best friend’), strict but at the same time reasonable, and trained to deescalate tense situations. Back to the interpretations
Comment on c)
Possibly part of the anger of the Dutch Police Association was caused by the fact that they were not involved in the process of drafting the professional code. Dutch employees and citizens find it very important to be involved in decision making which concerns them. But they do not feel hurt in their honour when they have not been involved. They would just question the legitimacy of the decision and want to be convinced that it makes sense. Back to the interpretations
Comment on d)
Like other Dutch, a Dutch policemen would easily think: “I know for myself how to do my work, my boss does not need to tell me”. Dutch workers know a high degree of professional autonomy and do not like detailed interference of their boss. Of course they will follow important orders, but they are used to take a high responsibility in the execution of their task. Getting a detailed code of conduct from above is seen as a lack of confidence in their personal capabilities and maturity. Further Dutch do not believe in ‘one size fits all’ rules and being treated as dumb robots. In each police situation you have to determine the adequate response and they consider themselves quite able to do that.
Further explanation
‘Brussels sprouts’ stand for very oldfashioned narrow minded circles. It is associated with the 1950’s when Dutch employees were still very obedient to their boss. Nowadays they are used to have a lot of freedom in executing their job. Often they are far more competent in their field than their manager and have a well-based opinion which is taken very much seriously by their superior. Managers are seen as organisers and facilitators of the work. Many decisions can be taken by employees themselves and do not have to wait for consent of their boss. Employees are used to taking that responsibility and considered to be capable of weighing up what is best for the company.
Not only in their work but even more in private affairs the Dutch are used to decide for themselves what they want. And they grant the same freedom of choice to others. This is the basis of the famous Dutch tolerance. It does not mean that most Dutch are strongly in favour of using drugs, abortion, euthanasia and personal gender choice. But they strongly fight for the right of everybody to decide for himself. So that they themselves may enjoy the same freedom. They say: I do not care what others others do, as long as they do not bother me. Forward to the next case
2. DISCUSSIONS
Situation
Hannelore from Germany states: I am still irritated by this anti-authoritarian behaviour of the Dutch and every time I am wondering why so many issues have to be discussed. In my country I have had the experience that what management says is carried out. There is then nothing to discuss or question again. It is simply done. But in the meetings that we have here in the Netherlands, of course always many issues have to be discussed. In one meeting it was about that we should work differently or use other formats, that was told to us by the management. And everyone was upset about it, it was hotly debated why you have to do everything differently now, as in the past everything worked wonderfully and that there were no good reasons why verything should be changed. And I was sitting in that meeting and asked myself if this was really happening or that I was dreaming. Because I really thought, ok the manager said we should do it like this and then we do it like this and not in another way. It’s just incredibly difficult sometimes to understand why in the Netherlands it is not just carried out that way. The issue had to be discussed for ages, all aspects had to be weighed carefully and they demanded to be explained exactly why it should now be done differently. In this situation I had the feeling that the Dutch colleagues felt somehow attacked, as if they had not done well in their job before or something like that. I don’t know, but this kind of situation frequently comes back, this anti-authoritarian behaviour: The first thing first they do is to tackle what the boss says.
Why are the Dutch always discussing the decisions of the manager?
Interpretations
Click on the interpretation you think is most adequate
Comment on a)
Dutch employees are indeed used to carry out their work independently and often feel strongly responsible for the results. But they are not uncertain about their performamce. They know for themselves if their work is done well or not, and do not feel attacked at all by feedback or changing of methods. So this interpretation is not correct. Back to the interpretations
Comment on b)
Dutch employees are indeed used to carry out their work independently and often feel strongly responsible for the results. But when they think the new method does not make sense or leads to more work or worse results, they will question the plans of the manager, putting forward all kinds of arguments. Especially they hate inefficency and unnecessary work.
The discussion is meant to clear what is the best and most efficient way to carry out the work and employees think that they as professionals should have a say in it. Further explanation
Comment on c)
This interpretation is not correct. Dutch employees are not rebellous and do not have a structural mistrust against their managers. On the contrary, they normally have a very friendly and equal relationship with their team leader, often calling each other with “jij” (informal address) and their first name. Dutch are very keen on keeping a conflictfree cordial atmosphere at work and avoid heated debates. Back to the interpretations
Comment on d)
This interpretation is not correct. The Dutch don’t like discussions for the fun of discussing (they would consider this a waste of time). Back to the interpretations
Further explanation:
For the Dutch a very important value is utility (‘nut’). They are convinced that many commodities are scarce and that they should not be wasted. So don’t want to waste money, time or food or anything else when you could have used less.
They try to do their work in the most efficient way. They always scrutinize new procedures if they add something positive or are just an extra administrative burden. Dutchmen normally loyally stick to rules, but they will question them openly if they consider them to be not useful, not practical and hampering efficiency.
So when a manager introduces new work regulations or gives new instructions, it is very normal that employees who have doubts about the practicality or the usefulness of the measure start a discussion with their chef, asking: “What is the use of this?” This is not at all an offense to the manager, since the employees are professionals and often know more about the job than the manager.
It happens very often that employees ask their manager to explain why a new kind of work is needed if it makes no sense for them. They feel responsible for their work, so they want to know. Once they are convinced that the novel measure is clever and useful, they will do everything to make it succeed.
Sometimes these critical question lead to the manager changing his original plans and agreeing to incorporate the ideas of his employees in the plan, so that the plan is improved. Or the manager gives a more extensive explanation why the change is needed and beneficial for production, and after weighing all arguments the employees can be convinced that the change of work is the best choice.
There are however situations where the manager just executes orders from his top management and has no room to deviate from it. He might then explain to his employees that he does not agree either with this new measure, but has to follow orders from above. In that case employees will realise that there is no choice and no discussion possible, so they will do the work as the manager asks them to do, though reluctantly. Forward to the next case
3. PRIVATE AFFAIRS
Situation
Carlos, a Spanish manager, tells about his experiences working in a company in the Netherlands:
As a manager, I was surprised that the Dutch are so terribly open-hearted and fully explain what they did all weekend, including: “I smoked a joint”. And then I really thought: “Do I have to know all of this? Do I even want to know? ”. I found that rather strange. In principle, I want to know my employees, how they behave at work and how they assess it and not how they are privately. That would have to be my decision, whether I want to know or not. But there are so many moments when the Dutch shown themselves and told so openly about private affairs that I was sometimes shocked and thought: “Now I really know everything that the person has done”. I did never get used to this and refuse to tell them about my private life. That may be the reason why they consider me an outsider and some find me arrogant.
Why do the Dutch like to share private affairs with colleagues at work?
Interpretations:
Comment on a)
The Dutch are indeed very open and direct compared with other nationals, but they don’t share everything. They consider telling the truth very important, but that’s not a reason to demand from everybody to share his intimate feelings. This is not the best interpretation. Back to the interpretations
Comment on b)
Indeed the Dutch are keen to express equality on the work floor and to show that they are not complacent or arrogant. But telling about private affairs has little to do with that. Back to the interpretations
Comment on c)
Indeed Dutch society is a high trust society. The Dutch think you can trust most other people. But they are not naïve, they would not tell very personal things to mere strangers. But standing in the cue at the baker or sitting in the waiting room of a physician or a veterinarian they might easily start conversations with others whom they don’t know. This would create some mutual trust, so there is some truth in this interpretation, but sharing personal things contributes more to a pleasant friendly atmosphere in the room. Back to the interpretations
Comment on d)
This is the best interpretation. Dutchmen often aim at creating a conflict-free atmosphere among colleagues at work, it should be ‘gezellig’, instead of keeping formal relations among employees and everything strictly business. They behave like friends, sharing personal things, though they do not need the be close friends in private. It is all about creating an atmosphere in which everybody feels welcome and valued, which stimulates performance. Further explanation Forward to the next case
Further explanation
There is one thing which the Dutch dislike very much: conflicts. Therefore agression, open irritations, shouting, cursing and other signs of conflict on the work floor are normally avoided, just as in the rest of Dutch life. Anger an irritations are likely to be subdued, they are considered to abnormal and damaging good working atmosphere. The normal situation is peaceful consensus, ‘gezelligheid’.
In order to avoid conflicts the Dutch are very good at conflict-solving. When they have issues, they sit together, discuss their complaints or different points of view and rather quickly find a compromise, a middle way that satisfies both parties. For this each person has to give in a little (‘to do water in the wine’) and gets something in return from the other. Clinging to your own right, wanting your opponent to completely adopt your point of view or claim, not giving in and not meeting your opponent in the middle is considered to be extremely rude and asocial. The Dutch might become really very angry about such a behaviour.
Decision making in a group goes in the same way. Mind that nobody is presiding these meetings, the group members do it al autonomously. First all members express their (sometimes widely different) personal opinions. Outside observers would fear that these differences can never be bridged. But oh wonder, then the members of the group start suggesting compromises, and in several rounds they reach consensus, a proposal in which there is something for everybody and that is supported by everyone. Notice that it is not the majority of the group which decides, but that carefully is sounded that everybody in the group can live with the decision.
The Dutch have a lot of meetings during their work, to adjust their issues to others (‘met elkaar afstemmen’), to be sure that others can agree with a chosen approach and have the opportunity to bring in their point of view. In this way the carefully create a continuous consensus at work.
An amiable friendly atmosphere on the work floor creates ‘gezelligheid’, this much appreciated conflict-free climate in which the Dutch feel very happy and are most productive. Part of it is behaving like friends, sharing personal information, because this produces mutual understanding and sympathy. But there are also other ways the Dutch create this friendly atmosphere. For example, by handing out cakes to colleagues and boss when they have their birthday. Or organising a ‘borrel’ (drink, not necessarily alcoholic) with colleagues after work.
4. HELPING OUT
Situation
Anand tells: Last week a female colleague of another department came by, we had a nice small talk. She needed my imput for a big project they were going to launch. She gave me the project proposal and asked for my advice on the budget, saying: “Can I have your feedback on it?” “That’s okay,” I replied, “I will look at it this week”. Since I had several very difficult issues to solve on my plate and I received no confirmation mail, I assumed that it was not very important and that there was no hurry with it. In fact I was so busy, that I completely forgot about that project proposal. But exactly one week later I got an angry call from this colleague, asking me why she had not received any input from me. “I thought I could rely on you. You promised me to give your feedback in a few days and now you are letting me down”, she said. “We have an important meeting with government officials tomorrow morning and I need your input now!” I was shocked about these unexpected reproaches. So I dropped all my work, wrote my advice in a rush and brought it to her before the end of the day.
How is Anand to know that what people ask from him is important and urgent?
Interpretations
Comment on a)
Dutchmen avoid agression on the workfloor and they would never use the time frame as a way to pressure people to do something. When they say something is urgent, they are really serious. So this is not a good interpretation. Back to the interpretations
Comment on b)
Dutch colleagues do not need to address formal requests to each other to get something done. Often issues are informally arranged between two colleagues. So this is not a good interpretation. Back to the interpretations
Comment on c)
Dutchmen take very literally what you say. So if you mention that you will do something ‘tomorrow’ or ‘this week’, they expect you to do it within that time frame. Even informally given commitments are taken very seriously. Further explanation
Comment on d)
Although Dutch employees may have personal tasks and responsibilities they are not strictly observed. Helping out colleagues is very normal, even if you do not know each other. The idea is that you work for the same company and the same goals, so they find it natural to solve problems together. Therefore, this interpretation is not correct. Back to the interpretations
Further explanation:
When you get more aquainted with Dutch society, you will notice that it is very well organised and structured, both in spatial planning as in time planning.
Structures and rules for the Dutch not so much seen as ways to dominate them, but creating a very reliable, trustworthy and predictable environment. The relaxedness, openness and mutual trust that are characteristic for the Dutch would not have appeared if the Dutch wouldn’t live in a well structured society.
Even a verbal commitment has the force of a contract. Saying yes to a proposal of somebody else, means that you have an agreement and did a promise which you will have to keep. If you don’t, you will considered unreliable, which is just as bad as being dishonest.
So if somebody asks you to do something, you should for yourself reflect how much time it will cost and if it fits in your schedule. If not, you say you cannot do it, you are too busy. You will say this even to friends and they . Saying yes to please a person sympathetic to you, but later not being able to keep your promise, is unforgivable. Then people cannot rely on your word. Because ‘een afspraak is een afspraak’.
So before you say yes, you should look in your planning if you can make it and when you say yes, you should take this as a serious commitment.
Unorganised people are likely to be considered as asocial. A front garden on the street with untrimmed herbs, is considered to be a shame and qualifies the owners as asocial, undiciplined and careless people.
Public spaces, even in corner where few people come such as areas around railways are mostly well kept, you won’t see car carcasses or rubbish dumped there.
Using your time well is very important. Wasting it is zonde (literally ‘sin’). Yes Dutchmen have some obsession with nut (‘utility’). They do not like to do unncessary work or spend more than is needed. When you do not care about costs or to do the work in the most effcient they consider you unorganised.