Germany – understand-culture

Maintain overview

“Germans prefer to deliver complete results, even if late, over incomplete results, but fast. In addition, their frequency of follow-up is low compared to the U.S. How can we American colleagues maintain constant and accurate overview of the agreements made with our German colleagues, including factoring in new agreements the Germans may have entered into?”

First, ask yourself when is it truly necessary to do follow-up. Americans do a lot of follow-up purely out of nervousness and anxiety. Start with taking a critical look at your own logic.

Second, when entering into individual agreements with your German colleagues, discuss and agree on the frequency of follow-up. Be sure to point out to them the American logic regarding follow-up. Sensitize them to the cultural difference.

Continually explain to your German colleagues the nature of the American business environment, especially the important of follow-up in maintaining an on-going overview of commitments, priorities, decisions, projects.

Third, when following up with your German colleagues simply ask them if the follow-up frenquency is still good, effective, working well. Yes, literally ask them. Give them a chance to signal to what the right frequency is. At the same time, explain to them the parameters within which you are operating, which, in turn, require follow-up.

Fourth, at an appropriate time reach out to your German colleagues and ask them to explain to you how Germans fundamentally handle follow-up. Ask them literally what the German logic is. Chances are your German colleagues will ask you about the American logic.

Always acknowledge the rightness and legitimacy of their logic. Honor the strengths of the German approach to follow-up. Remember, Germany has the fourth-largest economy in the world with only about 80 million people. They are certainly doing a whole lot of things right. Which means that how they handle agreements in general, and follow-up specifically, works and leads to success.

A final point: you must have all sorts of shared documents which inform both sides of the Atlantic Ocean about projects, customer interactions, and such. It should be technically possible to simply add another piece of information, another parameter.

Name it Follow-up. Then give it some pieces: project name; customer involved; information needs of customer, of US, of Germany; what information, in what form, why, by when, sent from whom, to whom.

And be sure to have a space for “factoring in new agreements the Germans – or the Americans – may have entered into.”

Overengineering

“Why do Germans seem to always overengineer their products?”

One right solution

“Why do Germans believe that there can be only one right solution?”

„Alle Wege führen nach Rom“

„There‘s more than one way to skin a cat“, an American idiom which communicates that there are different ways to reach the same goal, to complete a task, to „get the job done.“ When Germans are asked for an equivalent idiom they always say „All roads lead to Rome.“

But do the two idioms really have the same meaning? First let‘s understand the meaning of „All roads lead to Rome“ via its history.

During the days of the Roman Empire everyone was to know that Rome was the center of all life. Every road in the Roman Empire either led directly to Rome, or was linked to one of the major roads which did lead directly, or more directly, to Rome.

Not only did this fact help to point out the dominance of Rome in the Roman Empire, it also enabled trade. One of the reasons that the Roman Empire lasted several centuries was because travel was easy. „All roads lead to Rome.”

But not only trade. Also Roman troops. „All roads lead to Rome“ signaled that no matter what one did, no matter how one tried to get around it, one had to do things the Roman way. The well-planned and -guarded Roman road system was designed to make sure that the provinces couldn’t organise resistance against the Empire.

In modern times the phrase „All roads lead to Rome“ has since taken on another meaning, that something is set up so that disparate means will eventually achieve the same goal. The key word is „eventually“, for not every path to Rome was equally fast, efficient, affordable and safe.

Americans are a pragmatic people. They care far more about the results than they do about the method. They believe strongly that there are several, if not many, ways to „get the job done.“ As an immigrant people, with a multi-ethnic society, the pursuit of the „one right solution“ would be close to impossible.

Nor could that pursuit be reconciled with the American deeply-held understanding of freedom, individualism, individual rights. And the American experience has demonstrated that the varied, flexible, situation-specific approach to „skinning a cat“ also leads to success.

Scientific

There Germans are very strong in the natural sciences, mathematics, physics and engineering. They have a national cultural inclination to take a scientific approach to whatever problems they address. Science aims to discover the truth, the solution, the correct answer. It is a pursuit.

Germans believe that there, indeed, can be only one truly best approach, one best solution, one optimal way to do something. In that they are not wrong. Although all roads did lead to Rome, not all were equal. Depending on the situation, one route was best. Put another way, the parties traveling should try to identify which route was right, best, optimal. A pursuit.

So for the Germans, the „one right solution“ is the best solution at any given time. And because the pursuit of that route‘s optimization never ends, at a later time there will be another „one right solution.“

But also human

The Germans are human beings and not scientific machines. It should be of no surprise that such a capable, ambitious and self-confident people would view their approach to a given task as „the right solution“, the best route to Rome, the optimal way to „get the job done.“

And their success verifies to and for them that this is the case. Until proven otherwise they, understandably, are not always willing to consider „another route.“ Why take the risk? Why change things? The English figure of speech would be „never change a winning team.“

Unless, of course, another approach has the potential to become the new optimal way. That is where an additional factor, or motivation, comes into play. It, too, is deeply human.

Fear

What if an alternative approach also leads to the same, or better, results? And what if the logic embedded, or at the root, of that approach is not familiar, or even foreign, to the Germans and the logic behind their approach?

If there is a competition of approaches, and the one wins over the other, then the consequences for the losing side are significant. Those on that side need to adopt and adapt to the other logic, to the other approach. And if that approach is unfamiliar (not from the same family, meaning culture), it can be difficult to learn it, to take on, even to understand. For any culture, not just the German, this all means change, insecurity, risk.

„All roads lead to Rome“ also meant that the provinces, areas subjugated militarily by the Roman army, remained subservient to Rome. Command and control over the roads (transportation, logistics, troop movements) was synonymous with power. Rome as headquarters, the provinces as regions.

Power

The discussion, often battle, over the „right way“ to do something – internal processes, IT systems, product development, go-to-market strategies – is not only about businesses working more effectively, it is about power.

This is even more true when different cultures come together to collaborate. Colleagues in mono-cultural companies – or companies in which one culture dominates – share the same logic behind their approaches. Variations in approach are no more than variations on the same theme.

Collaboration in companies with several cultures involves a more complex discussion and debate about which approach to take, which method is best, about the „right solution.“

And since the Germans focus very strongly on „how the work is done“, they instinctively recognize that power is rooted in who has the say about the „right solution“ understood as process, method, approach, about the „road.“

The discussion about the „one right solution“, therefore, is at a far deeper level a debate, a battle, about who has the say about the route, way, road.

Traditional engineering

“Why do Germans seem to support (maybe even promote) using traditional engineering design versus newer, less complicated, and in most cases, less expensive design?

It seems that even experienced engineers will not question or go against established engineering practices even when there are good reasons to do so. Why?“

Your question takes us to a fundamental difference between Germans and Americans.

Tradition

Germans honor and value tradition. For them the past is highly relevant. One doesn’t break from tradition without having very good reasons. Germans view things that are new – or pretend to be new – with a certain degree of skepticism. They are sensitive to the difference between claiming to be new and actually being new.

Americans believe in new. Hardly any consumer product can survive without claiming to be “new and improved.” For Americans new is fresh, innovative, young, promising, better than before.

In contrast to the Germans, and to continental Europeans in general, Americans are often skeptical of things which are too linked to the past. Tradition can mean old, encrusted, inflexible, immovable. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is seldom persuasive in the U.S. context.

Less complicated

Germans are complicated. They think in complicated ways. They can handle complicated situations and subjects. They believe that intelligence is the ability to deal with complexity as it is.

To think, read, write, explain complicated things is a sign of sophistication. And it is. Assuming, of course, you get the complexity right. Less complicated can be interpreted by Germans as simple, simplified, even simple-minded.

Americans are less complicated, and complicating. They value the ability to handle complexity in a pragmatic way. KISS. “Keep it simple, stupid!”

Intelligent is the person who can explain complex matter to the “man on the street”. Americans view complicated as complicating, not workable, not robust.

Less cost

The Germans say Was nichts kostet, ist auch nichts. Literally: What costs nothing, is nothing. Meaning also, what hardly costs anything, is hardly anything. Germans are expensive. What they produce is expensive.

Germans seldom sell – or buy – via price. If an engineering design approach leads to lower costs, they’ll suspect that less (and less quality) engineering work is being performed. They’ll look for the shortcuts made, the quality sacrificed.

Americans – whether they admit to it or not – buy and sell far more based on price. If work can be reduced, saved, minimized via a new process, they’ll do it, as long as the quality does not suffer too much.

Even experienced engineers

Actually, it’s the experienced German engineers who will be most inclined to be skeptical of a new design process. Why? We all feel comfortable with our habits. If we do good work, or at least believe so, why should we change what works?

Who likes change?

Human nature. Think about it. Engineering design processes are all about how the work is done. And “how the work is done” goes to the heart of our self-understanding, as engineers, as marketers, as supply chain specialists, as human resources professionals, etc. How the work is done also determines the tools we use. Very basic, very pragmatic.

Who likes to change how they think and how they work? I don’t, even though I know that it is often necessary.

And then there is the question of power. Those who have the say about how the work is done, have the power in the working relationship. People sense that immediately, consciously or unconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

So unfortunately, there are all kinds of barriers to you getting your German colleagues to take an honest look at what you are proposing. Working across cultures is not easy. I suspect it was never easy, and never will be.

Advice

I recommend you take a look at CI’s content on two topics: Persuasion and Process. Do some reflecting. Then ask your German colleagues to do the same. That is Step 1. Understand the cultural differences.

Then – Step 2 – engage with them about what you are proposing. Keep an eye on possible misunderstanding and misinterpretation based on those cultural differences.

This is more about culture than engineering. And remember, the American engineer is an American first, then an American engineer. Same for the German engineer.

Worst of both worlds

“Ok, we understand the idea that the overall goal of integration is bringing together the best of both worlds – German approach and American approach. For example, German thoroughness and American speed and flexibility. But how do we react when we find ourselves bringing together the worst of both worlds – sloppy work and far too slow?”

This is not the easiest of questions to respond to. There is no specific point of entry. It is clear that collaboration is not going well. I suspect that the organization has not been addressing culture. Or that if it has, then most likely not in the right way.

I would have to know much more about the situationt in order to provide any meaningful advice. So let me just make a few general points.

Par for the course
That is a figure of speech. The MerriamWebster Dictionary states: “the score standard for each hole of a golf course; an amount taken as an average or norm,an accepted standard.”

I hope that my statement – that your problem is “par for the course” – is consoling. For the problem you are experiencing is no surprise, is rather normal, and in many ways healthy. No one on either side is doing anything wrong.

Don’t panic. Remain calm. Continue to engage with each other. You’ve entered into a complex relationship. It requires time and patience to work things out.

Human Beings
Always remember, especially in the “heat of the battle”, that you are colleagues. You are in this together. You succeed or fail together. This is personal. And it should be personal. You are human beings and not machines. We human beings make machines. And we live in the Machine Age. But we ourselves are not machines. We do not interact with each other as if we were parts in a machine.

Subject Matter
Begin – together – identifying the key points of difference. Literally, what you are fighting about, what you are struggling over. Proceed point-for-point. Don’t be afraid to let the emotions out. Don’t try to suppress them. But always be honest and sincere with each other. And, at all costs, do not be political with each other. Do not treat each other as means to an end, but instead as ends in and of themselves.

Culture
Then, point-for-point, engage with each other about the your respective logics, about the deep-lying drivers of your thought and therefore of your action. Explain to each other how you think, why you think that way, where it comes from.

This will not be easy. Most of us don’t usually reflect on this. We think that our approach is universal and not country- or culture-specific. Identifying and then reflecting about our deeper-lying drivers is difficult enough. Explaining them to colleagues from another culture is even more of a challenge. We are simply not used to doing it. It is unfamiliar to us.

“I’m baffled”

“I’ve always been baffled by how Germans can attempt to persuade by referring to processes and certificates. That is certainly a cultural issue which even after 14 years I’m not willing to accept.”

You are baffled. When Germans refer to processes and certificates it does not persuade you. Why do Germans persuade with processes and certificates?

Process
If a German brings the topic of processes into the conversation then that conversation is about how something should be done.

A decision has been made. Something should be done. It’s about the How. So the next decision is how to do that something.

Germans believe very strongly in processes. Yes, there are many bureaucratic processes in Germany. Just as there are in the U.S.

But when Germans talk about processes, they mean not only literally „how the work should be done“, but also in a more fundamental sense that how you do the work determines the results, the output, whether you reach your goal or not.

Process and results (of that process) are two sides of the same coin. They are inseparable. To talk about outcomes (results) means to talk about process.

When Germans talk about their processes, they are saying: „We’ve done this before. Many times. We have a way of doing. It has proven itself. Please allow us to explain to you how we would do this.“

Certificates
Certificates are important in Germany. They represent the way in which Germans say: „See this person? She or he is capable of doing this task. They have been trained and tested. We, the organization which granted this certificate, are experts in this area. We know the material, and we know how to impart it to others.“

Now, as in any country, one can question the organizations granting certificates, and therefore question the person holding the certificate.

And although we at CI have not yet analyzed this aspect of German business culture – how Germans define, develop and certify competence – anyone with experience working with Germans knows that they are a very capable people, knows that they have a very successful educational and technical training system, and knows that their duale Bildungssystem has been one of the keys to their success.

When a German presents their certificate, for example as a Meister (literally Master) in any technical or artisan trade, or they present their diploma as an engineer, chemist, economist, you can be very sure that they are that they know how to do the job, as they were trained to do it.

The process in the German context signals: „This is the best way to do it.“ The certificate signals: „And I know how to execute this process.“

Both of these, of course, from the German perspective.

“Help!”

“Germans love processes and procedures and rules. Our American point of view is: ‘Processes are man-made. We can change them.’ Customers in the U.S. find it difficult to do business with us as a German company: ‘Too inflexible.’ We are constantly debating internal business rules. We struggle to get things done. We can’t get them to change. They always find a way to logically disprove what we are trying to do or they keep pushing for more data. It’s like a legal battle. They wear us down. Help! What can we do?”

“constantly debating internal business rules”, I have heard this complaint hundreds of times over the years. If it is any consolation, you are not alone and the issue is not unique to you.

The fact is that Americans and Germans have, in many ways, very different approaches to processes. And keep in mind that processes are the – formal and informal – ways in which the work is done. Processes, and procedures and so-called desktop procedures, are the rules which govern the running of the company, of any company. This is serious stuff.

Folks – Americans and all other cultures working in a German company – your German colleagues take processes seriousy, very seriously, as they should. Processes define how the work is done. How the work is done, in turn, determines results, business results, whether you will all be able to pay your bills month in and month out.

Continue to engage with each other. Be patient with one another. Most importantly, before you enter into intense internal discussions and debates about which processes need to be modified, in which ways, and why, be sure to first understand where you differ in terms of your respective approaches to processes, your process philosophies.

Diagrams vs. Prose

“Why do Americans prefer describing processes in prose text? Germans prefer diagrams, which can then be combined to illustrate processes. The German approach seems to be übersichtlicher (clear, clearly arranged).“

A interesting point!

Germans brief

I’ve seen many process documents in both cultures. The Americans seem to use both prose text and illustrations. In fact, Americans are famous for preferring pictures with some explanatory words over too much text. I agree, however, that many process and procedure descriptions can be lengthy in wording.

On the other side, German process descriptions do tend to be brief, often relying on illustrations and very limited prose text. Could it be that those who write the processes in Germany assume, and expect, that the reader need only see the illustration (the boxes and their connections) in order to understand what needs to be done?

Americans lengthy

On the flipside, could it be that American process descriptions assume that the reader is not familiar with the process, therefore it needs to be spelled out in prose text?

Implied in the fact that a process is documented is that those people who will read it are not necessarily familiar with it. If that is the case, then it makes sense for the document to go into detail, or more detail than its German counterpart.

Differences are key

The more fundamental question here, though, is what the different approaches to such documents tell us about the differences between Americans and Germans when it comes to processes and procedures. Documents are no more than representations of logics, approaches, methods, ways of doing things.

Micro vs. Macro

“I find my German counterpart likes to break down tasks into micro goals. I tend to keep macro goals in view but not bother recording the steps along the way. Is this cultural or just us?”

Yours is a question I have never been asked. Nor have I done any thinking about micro and macro goals, and whether there is a cultural difference between Americans and Germans. Let me take a spontaneous stab at it anyway:

It is actually one of the great American strengths to take complexity and break it down into its component parts, in order to focus on the essential, and to not waste time on the non-essential. Of course, what is essential and non-essential is in the eye of the beholder.

In contrast, it is one of the great German strengths to see – understand, grasp, penetrate – the specific as a part of the general … the particular as a part of the system. Germans instinctively look for the connections, interdependence, mutual influences among particulars.

Your German counterpart appears to break down complexity into its component parts, whereas you focus on the overall.

However, it could be that she/he has already gotten the overview, and is now addressing the particulars, the most important among them.

Can you be more specific about “my German counterpart likes to break down tasks into micro goals” … and about “I tend to keep macro goals in view but not bother recording the steps along the way”?

I don’t want to split hairs, but how do you distinguish between a task and a goal?

“Why are we here?”

“Headquarters in Germany wants us to run our business, but they don’t empower us to do so. Frustration in the U.S. is significant: ‘Why am I in this team if our German colleagues are always negative about new ideas we propose?’ We Americans collaborate differently than Germans. When tasked with a job, we’re allowed to go and dig into it, then come back with recommendations, as a team. Do the Germans respect us? What do they value? We never get anything back from them and when we do it’s always challenging questions. So we Americans sometimes ask ourselves: ‘Why are we here’? How can we convince headquarters in Germany to truly empower us?”