Vertical Trust Networks in the Nazi Bureaucracy

Abstract

This chapter discusses the role of vertical trust—the trust that governs the relationship between superiors and subordinates in an organization—in determining both the capacity for efficient behavior within a bureau and the level of productivity of the subordinates within the bureau. Vertical trust is determined by a number of factors that are measurable, such as the frequency of promotions within the bureaucracy and the perquisites available to subordinates in the bureaucracy, which include bonuses and other benefits and awards. Examples of the factors present in the Nazi bureaucracy that are discussed in this chapter include advancement and perquisites in the SS, and rewards to those who orchestrated the Reichstag fire, which established Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship in 1933.

Appendix 1: Conspiracy—A Rejoinder

The Hollywood adaptation of the Wannsee Conference depicted in the movie Conspiracy (Mandel 2001), which is the subject of Appendix 1 (Chap. 3), yet again provides a useful insight into the workings of the Nazi Holocaust bureaucracy as framed in Breton and Wintrobe (1982, 1986). In this case, a small piece of dialogue near the beginning of the movie illuminates the importance, as discussed in Chap. 2, of turnover at the senior bureaucratic levels of an organization (i.e., turnover among superiors), which results in a lower net return to investments in trust between superiors and subordinates (Breton and Wintrobe 1982). In this case, the dialogue provides a window into the substantial trust that had been built between Adolf Eichmann, portrayed in Mandel (2001) by Anthony Tucci, and his superior, Reinhard Heydrich, who is portrayed by Kenneth Branagh.

The relevant verbal exchange between Heydrich and Eichmann occurs just after the Conference has begun. At this point in the movie, a member of Eichmann’s staff enters the meeting room and announces that a telephone call for Heydrich has been received at the Wansee mansion. This particular verbal exchange is as follows, with emphasis added to the relevant portion:

Staff: :

Enters the meeting room, “Apologize. A call for General Heydrich.”

Heydrich: :

Speaking to Eichmann, “See who it is, and end the calls.”

Eichmann: :

[upon returning] Whispering to Heydrich, “A ‘Major’ is reluctant to give me a message.”

Heydrich: :

Whispering to Eichmann, “Hmm … he does not appreciate you as I do.’”

Refusing to leave with Eichmann a message for Heydrich indicates that the “Major,” who is outranked by Eichmann, lacks trust in Eichmann. This lack of trust is not indicative of any action taken by Eichmann in the past that was, in the view of the “Major,” deceitful or owing to mistrust. It is simply the result of not having interacted with Eichmann in a way that builds human capital in the form of trust between the two SS officers. Thus, Eichmann is not “appreciated” by the “Major” in the same way the he (Eichmann) is by Heydrich, who has been Eichmann’s superior for some time leading up to the Conference. With Heydrich’s assassination less than six months after the Wannsee Conference, all of the investment made by Eichmann in building trust with Heydrich (and vice versa), his superior, was lost in an instant. Thus, it is not surprising that Eichmann, and his subordinates, fared relatively poorly in terms of career advancement and perquisites after Heydrich’s death.