“It seems that Americans want constant updates, and that Germans want first to get it perfect. Why?”
American cowboys
“Our German colleagues are risk averse. They see us Americans as taking unnecessary risk. We see them as doing far too much analysis. Germans think we’re cowboys. How can we beat the cliché that we are cowboys?”
More self-follow-up
“How can I as a German get Americans to do more self-follow up, so that I don’t have to do the follow up?“
Symptomatic
Thanks for the question. It’s symptomatic for German-American cooperation, and it can be answered.
There is follow up and there is follow up, meaning different kinds of follow up, depending on the context in which it takes place. First, take a look at the respective logics under: Agreements_Follow up.
If you manage Americans and you feel that you have to follow up too often on their work, or on certain tasks which you have assigned to them, then I can think of the following explanations:
Not competent
It’s entirely possible that certain members of your team are not competent. Plain and simple. This requires of you to constantly check on them and their work. If this is the case, you need to address it with them.
Competent
If your team is competent then perhaps your instructions are not clear. Yes, start off by taking a critical look at yourself and ask: “What am I not doing right which then requires of me that I have to follow up on members of my team?”
It is typical in the German-American space for people to think they understand each other, including tasks assigned. Make sure that everyone is “on the same page”, that they have a common understanding of who is expected to do what, by when and how, including small-scope tasks.
Priorities change
Consider also the possibility that priorities can change. Americans are especially sensitive to changing parameters. What you expect from individual team members by a certain date and in a certain form might change in the eyes of that team member.
Follow up in the U.S. context is a key instrument for maintaining overview of not only tasks, but also their respective priorities.
Your team members might misunderstand or misinterpret which of their tasks assigned to them by you has priority for you. In other words, if you do not signal to them that the tasks you assigned are still important – and that signal in the U.S. is follow up – they could easily misinterpret your lack of follow up as: “That task is no longer so important.”
More self-follow up
The amount of follow up you have to do in order to “stay on top of” your American team members and/or colleagues is most likely typical for the U.S. context. It is certainly far too high for the German context.
So, how can you get Americans to do more “self follow up”?
First, discuss the topic with them. Make sure that they understand follow up in the German context. But make sure, also, that you understand how Americans use follow up.
Second, once all of you understand the cultural differences between Germans and Americans when it comes to follow up, both parties – you and your American team members – will be in a position to decide how you want to handle it.
Remember: First understand, then combine!
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.”
Smallest disagreements
“Our American colleagues escalate the smallest disagreements to our team-lead so quickly. Why? We can resolve our problems ourselves.”
‘No more meetings’
“Our two companies were merged about a year ago. Post-merger integration has been completed. Recently we have begun experiencing cultural problems. More and more often our American colleagues refuse to participate in meetings. They simply say ‘No more meetings!’ We don’t know how to react. What should we do?”
Well, first off, it sounds like the honeymoon is over. There was the initial euphoria. Then came post-merger integration (PMI) with all of its complexity, the many long intense discussions about workstreams, etc.
That was PMI in the technical sense. But the human part has just begun. You’re collaborating. Intensely. Day-in. Day-out. The influence of cultural differences on that collaboration are exerting their influence.
“No more meetings!” is a clear sign that you’re experiencing rather serious problems in your cross-Atlantic collaboration. Ok, no big deal, this is normal. In fact, it is healthy.
Instead of giving a long, detailed response to your question, let me make a few points and include links to further material to read and reflect on, and then ideally to discuss with your colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic.
Communication
There are significant differences in how Germans and Americans communicate. Those differences, if not understood, can inhibit communication. And I mean communication in the literal sense: A not understanding what B has said.
Decision Making
You and your colleagues are meeting in order to make decisions, in order to move forward. It sounds like your American colleagues would like to do less talking, less discussing and more acting, more moving forward.
Well, the fact is that Americans and Germans makes decisions in accordance to different logics. Compared to their German colleagues, Americans want to move much more quickly, after having done less analysis, accepting a higher level of risk.
Leadership
And remember that in the American context decisions – especially important ones – are made with far less consensus-building than in Germany. Americans need less time to discuss, analyze, and decide. They “get out of the blocks” much more quickly than is the case in Germany. Whether their decisions, and their implementation, is better, that is a discussion for another day, and a very complex discussion.
Power
Finally, this could be about power. Not all conflicts or differences of opinion or misunderstandings in cross-border collaboration are caused by cultural differences. Often it is simply a divergence of interests, self- or organizational interests.
For whatever reason, perhaps your American colleagues just don’t want to discuss and debate with their German colleagues a certain topic or issue or decision. They want to act.
Let me offer some consolation, which I stated at the beginning of my response. This problem you are experiencing – “No more meetings!” – is normal in the Germany-USA space. I have experienced it, witnessed it, been involved in it many many many times.
Read this response of mine. Reflect on it. Read the material I have linked to. Read and reflect on that. Send this Q&A to your colleagues, both German and American. Speak together about it. Germans and Americans. You might be surprised how quickly you find a resolution.
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.
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.
Still persuade me
“How is it that certain Americans, although they do not understand the subject matter as well as their German counterparts, and have less experience, are still able to persuade me that their concept, product or service is better?”
Many times in my work I have heard Germans say: „Our proposals are better than those presented by our American colleagues. We have deeper expertise and more experience. But often senior-level management, German included, chooses what the Americans propose.“
Ok, let’s pull apart your question.
Fachlich nicht so gut verstehen, meaning less expertise. And weniger Erfahrung, meaning less experience. What could be more persuasive than those two attributes? „We know the material at a deep level. And we have worked with it over an extended period of time.“ That should be enough to convince anyone, Americans included.
I define authentic expertise as experience understood. Knowledge without experience is empty. It’s up in the clouds, not grounded, it’s theoretical. On the other hand, experience without understanding is not known. It is merely anecdotal, cannot be explained. It, too, is empty.
So how is it that those German colleagues, who have authentic expertise, can fail to persuade another German (same culture!), whereas an American with less authentic expertise can?
Perhaps those German colleagues are ﹣ or come across as ﹣ too theoretical, too academic. Perhaps they are overly problem-oriented, focusing too much on complexity and risk, and not enough on opportunity. Perhaps they are a bit arrogant, therefore not fully listening, a bit close-minded, inflexible.
Perhaps they are not suffienciently motivated. It is one thing to possess the knowledge and the experience to solve a problem, to overcome a significant challenge, to know exactly what needs to be done. It is a wholly different thing to be fired up, determined, utterly focused, totally dedicated to then doing it. Execution!
Maybe, and this is quite subjective, the Germans are less likeable than their American counterparts. Maybe the Americans communicate with you﹣deal with you in the sense of handle you﹣in such a way that you say to yourself: „Yeah, I like these people. They inspire me. There’s energy and excitement in them. They’re like me. I’m like them. I want these folks to succeed. I want to be a part of this!“
Here’s another possible explanation.
Maybe knowledge and experience are not everything. Maybe there are other skills which are just as, if not more, important than knowledge and experience. Such as: a clear vision, if not in detail, of what needs to be done; the ability to recruit and inspire those who will make those things happen; and the management skills to ensure that execution.
Knowledge and experience can be recruited, bought, or borrowed. Americans define leadership more in tems of the overall ability to bring experts together, form them as a team, and then lead them to success. Whereas Germans define leadership on technical expertise (Fachwissen) and experience.
You can see this within their companies. Look at what it takes to advance in German companies, especially technology-driven companies. Then contrast that with what it takes within American companies.
My final thought is that perhaps you have experience working with Americans, or at least observing them, and you see that they, too, are successful. It is not as if America has not produced people and companies who succeed.
So, maybe the rational side of you says: „These folks know how to solve problems. They may not always have the highest level of subject matter expertise nor the many years of experience. But they have many other skills critical to success. And they have the `fire in the belly´ to succeed!“
Two final comments: Your question, Christian, begins with “Wie schaffen es bestimmte Amerikaner, ….“: „How do certain Americans ….“ So we’re talking not about all Americans, but some of them.
Second, and perhaps more importantly: How can Germans, who have authentic expertise, and in most cases, therefore, are proposing what is best for the team and the company, ensure that their message comes across persuasively not only to their fellow Germans, but moreso to their American listeners?
Personality or Facts
“When Americans are in persuasion-mode what is more important the power of personality or the power of facts and Argumente (reason, points, arguments, making the case)? And why is it so?”
This is an exceptionally critical (as in important) question. It goes to the heart of one of the major divergences in how Americans and Germans persuade. Please read our analysis at persuasion_objective.
It is not so much a question of which is more important. Both are central to being peruasive in the American context. They cannot be – or are seldom – separated.
Your question begs another critical question: How do Americans combine them?
„combine“ not in the sense of a mechanical-kind of 50-50% balance, but in the sense of the logic operating when an American puts personality ahead of facts and reason or the other way around.
This, of course, will depend on the situation: What is the nature of the subject matter? Who is the target audience to be persuaded? What decision (behavior) should the persuading lead to? What is the particular style (capabilities, inclinations) of the person(s) persuading?
Truly persuasive people in the American context are masters of combining the two elements: personality and fact.
The Germans are masters of this craft, also. But in accordance to their, to the German, logic. They place far more emphasis on fact and Argumente.
Why is it that Americans are more open to, more persuaded by, personality? This is a very complex question, one which we at CI have not yet researched. Clearly, though, Americans choose freely both to be persuaded via personality, and to persuade via personality.
A culture’s approach to persuasion is always an unspoken agreement between two parties – the persuader and the to-be-persuaded. How personality and fact/Argumente are combined is driven by national culture. It is a shared logic, shared within the respective culture.