United States – understand-culture

“Let’s give it a shot“

Question

One line I often hear in the U.S. is „let’s give it a shot“, and „this is simple, let’s make a small commitment and see how it goes.“ Is the core thought here to get the foot in the door and build the relationship with a small, low-risk try-out?

Answer

That is a very interesting﹣and accurate﹣observation. Although we at CI have not yet begun a research project on the topic of relationship management, I am confident that it is a clear difference, and important one, between Germans and Americans.

Let me explain what I think is at play here.

Persuasion is in the end always about asking the receiver of the message to make a decision: to respond with „yes“ or „no“ to the product or service offered. Or to the idea, concept, suggestion, proposal offered within a team.

The bigger the yes-no question is, the greater is the risk that the receiver will tend to say „no.“ Conversely, the smaller the yes, the less risky, thus, more likely one will get a yes.

Americans might be more inclined than Germans﹣again, we at CI have not yet done the analysis ﹣to move the relationship with the customer forward via incremental steps, via small yesses. It is not only a trust-building measure. It makes it difficult for the customer at a later stage to say „no“ after having said „yes“ several, or even many, times.

This American inclination is also consistent with another, much stronger, inclination in the U.S.: trial-and-error. As long as the risk (or investment) is not too high, Americans are willing to „try things out“, or as you write to „give it a shot.“

Low-risk try-outs can be of very high value. They produce experience (data), which can help the decision-making process. And frankly, many things simply have to be tested in order to know if they work. There is a reason why so many companies in the U.S. offer potential customers a trial period. Whether it be a physical product or service, „Try it out!“ helps to get the sale. „See for yourself!“ is effective.

So, reducing risk is one reason. A second reason is that trial-and-error is deeply imbedded in American thinking. A third reason might be the American tendency to take complexity and break it down into its component parts.

Reducing complexity is a form of risk management. Americans are sceptical of large, complex, systematic solutions, whether they be products, services, or approaches in general. They’re seen as too risky. See CI’s thoughts on this under Learn_Persuasion_Analytical.

It was all show

Question

“In the Disney Store the young saleswomen dressed as Mickey Mouse were so nice, so sweet to us and our children, as if they wanted to take us in their arms and cuddle with us. Just as quickly, however, it became clear that it was all show. That sudden realization could under certain circumstances lead to Kauf-Unlust (purchase-aversion, -reluctance, -disinclination), after having been so „touched“, and given in the impression that you are the greatest customer in the store. Am I being too critical?”

Answer

Sell wares

What a great anecdote! So common in German-American interactions. Let’s have some fun with it. Point by point. And a bit tongue-in-cheek on my part: a figure of speech implying that a statement is meant as humor; it should not be taken at face value.

The Disney Store. Stores are businesses. Their goal is to sell their wares, to make a profit. They do so when many customers come in and purchase those wares.

Saleswomen. Yes, those were salespeople in the Mickey Mouse costumes. They are paid to welcome customers to the store, with the hope that they will purchase items. The saleswomen come to work each day dressed in normal clothes, then change into costumes, at the end of the day they switch back into their clothes and go back home.

“… as if they wanted to take us in their arms and cuddle.“ Children﹣your children!﹣are the target group. Disney is primarily about children. Cuddling is what children want to do with their favorite Disney characters. The children then go from the cuddling to seeing something in the store which they want. Seeing the glow in their childrens’ eyes, parents have a difficult time saying no. What a great business model!

“… it was all show.“ Well, yes, you were at Disney. What were you expecting, a collaborative, rational cost-benefit analysis right then and there between you, your wife and children on the one side and the salesperson in the costumes on the other? (tongue-in-cheek)

Ernüchterung

„That sudden realization (Ernüchterung)….“ What a perfect word﹣Ernüchterung﹣for this anecdote! It can be translated into „disillusion“ (removing the illusion) or „sobering“ (making you feel serious and thoughtful).

But an even better translation is „disenchantment.“ To enchant means to attract and hold the attention of someone by being interesting, pretty, etc.; to put a magic spell on someone or something. Magic spell. That’s it! That’s what Disney is all about, enchanting children (and adults, too).

„sudden realization.“ Clearly you and your wife know that a certain degree of „show“, of selling, is normal. And your children, regardless of how young they might be, are also aware that they are in a store, and that stores are about business. Children see their parents pull out their wallets to pay for items. Children often hear from their parents that they cannot have certain things because they are too expensive. The realization could not have been all that sudden.

„That sudden realization could under certain circumstances lead to Kauf-Unlust (purchase-aversion, -reluctance, -disinclination).“ This is the key point of your question. It is the key intercultural point. You are aware of it and have imbedded it into your question. And rightfully so!

Let’s spell it out, but only briefly. For we have done so under Persuasion_Learn.

Buyers and Sellers

We know that in all cultures products and services have to be sold. And that means at some point an interaction between the two parties: buyer and seller. What does that interaction look like, however?

Our topic is Persuasion, which is a sophisticated word for selling. There are all kinds of selling. In different business sectors. At different levels. Between different disciplines. But the core activity is persuading. Selling. So how do Germans and Americans respectively sell, how do they persuade? Stated more precisely, how personal should it be?

For your (German) family visiting Disney in Orlando, Florida, the selling in the Disney Store was a bit overdone, overly sweet, „as if we were the greatest customers in the store“, as if they wanted to „cuddle with us.“

Warning to Americans

Therein lies the difference, the message, the warning to Americans. Put simply: yes, you want to establish some kind of connection to the person to whom you want to sell something. And maybe that connection could and should be personal. But how personal from the German perspective?

And to what degree is it truly personal vs. business-personal, in the sense of a means to an end? The Germans are much more likely to believe that you mean it truly, really, authentically, when you work to establish a personal connection, a personal relationship. Remember, Germans separate between personal and professional far more strongly and clearly than Americans do.

If Germans sense that a person, an American, is not truly interested in a personal connection, that they are faking it﹣a means to an end﹣they might experience Ernüchterung, disenchantment.

And we all know the what feels like to be disenchanted. The magic is gone. One has been tricked, deflated, disappointed, and becomes angry and hurt. „You didn’t really mean it!“

Enchantment may help you close one sale. There may never be a second sale, however.

Personality or Facts

Question

“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?”

Answer

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.

still able to persuade me

Question

„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?“

Answer

This is an excellent question, Christian.

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?

German thoroughness and American speed and flexibility

Question

“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?”

Answer

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.

Put people in boxes

Question

“Is it accurate – and helpful – to refer to the American? What do a New Yorker, a recent Mexican immigrant in Texas, and a Californian have in common?“

Answer

Broad and deep consensus

This is an extraordinarily important question. Why?

If the answer is: “John, you cannot generalize about people. There is no such thing as the American or the German”, then CI, my work, your reflecting on intercultural differences has little to no value.

This foundational question is posed to me time and again. Since I intend to address it soon in a more systematic way, I’ll just give you some food for thought, in the form of questions and statements.

If a large, complex society functions well (see Germany, USA), then there must be a broad and deep consensus among its people about how it does some very fundamental things. See the ten topics CI currently addresses. There are more. What is meant is not a lowest common denominator in those things, but a deeply rooted belief about those things.

Immigrant influence

Although America is an immigrant nation, with newcomers arriving constantly and from different cultures, can you name which newcomer-cultures were immediately embraced by the dominant culture(s) within America?

Asked differently: If you are an American, when was the last time you – in the workplace – went up to a colleague who is a recent immigrant (or at least first generation American) and asked them about their culture, with the expressed intent to allow your own thinking (culture) to be influenced by that colleague’s culture?

American history makes clear that the dominant cultures within the U.S. invariably demand of immigrants that they assimilate.

Your success in other American companies

If you are capable at what you do, you are able to transfer immediately to another company within the U.S. and to perform the same or similar work at the same level – or higher – of proficiency. Why?

Because of your capabilites, yes. But primarily because you are an American and would be moving to another American company. Would this be the case if you were to move to a company in the same business sector, doing the same work, but in another business culture?

Let me finish by addressing one difference between Germans and Americans. The topic is Persuasion. The German logic is: “Arguments should speak for themself.” The American logic is: “Sell yourself first, then your product or service.”

People in boxes

If those two statements are true – the one for Germans, the other for Americans – would there be any significant variation – in the context of German-American collaboration – if the German giving a presentation were man or woman; young or old; Catholic, Protestant or non-believer; from Northern or Southern Germany; extrovert or introvert; trained in the sciences, engineering, law, economics or humanities; from a large or a small family; working in the automobile industry or chemicals or software or financial services; in a position high, mid or low in the organization?

Or flip it around. If the statement is fundamentally true about how American persuade, and an American were attempting to persuade a German audience, would it make any significant difference whether that American were male or female; young or old; etc.?

I believe not.

You see, we can “put people in boxes.” We can generalize. In fact, we do it all the time. We look for patterns in order to deal with complexity.

There are such things as national cultures. There are peoples. And peoples have charactistics. They have ways of thinking and acting. Our job is to understand those ways, discuss them, and find out how to best combine them. That is what our work is all about.

No, we are customer-centric.

Question

Here in U.S. the customer is at the center of what we do. Our German colleagues do not think that way. They actually say: “You need to stand up to the customer re: what they need and how they should buy from us.”

Our response: “No, we are customer-centric. We cannot do that.” The German response is then: “Tell the customer that they should just try our product. They will like it.”

It comes down to who customers want to work with. Coming in cold, calculating, factual, analytical does not work with Americans. Every relationship is personal first.

How can we get our German colleagues to understand this?

Answer

The questioner states:

“Here in U.S. the customer is at the center of what we do. Our German colleagues do not think that way.”

Wait, stop!

Are the Germans not customer-oriented? Seriously. Only eighty million people. Country no bigger than the US-state of Montana. Yet, fourth-largest economy in the world.

Either there are a lot of really dumb customers out there buying stuff from the Germans. Or German products are so great that a lack of customer-orientation does not matter. Or, maybe just maybe, the Germans are customer-oriented.

So, is the American perception wrong that the Germans are not customer-oriented? Or could it be that Americans and Germans define customer-orientation differently? And when we say Americans and Germans we mean also American customers and German customers.

According to UC’s content under the topic Customer, for Germans to serve is to consult. In Germany, both customer and supplier strive for a balanced relationship. In fact, it is considered by both parties to be an obligation and a duty to provide advice, to consult.

Yet, often we here in the U.S. are faced with situations in which the approach taken by our German colleagues leads to an unbalanced relationship.

Their actions, reactions, positions do what is in the best interest of the company with our headquarters back in Germany, and often not what is best for the customer or the overall relationship with the customer.

In fact, our American customers are often treated as if they are serving us, instead of the other way around. And this despite increasing competition and fast changing markets which present viable alternatives to the solutions we are currently providing.

When challenged and presented with all the arguments from the customer’s perspective, I often find that the situation can be changed, that a customer-friendly solution can be identified.

This however, is achieved only after we in the U.S. have demonstrated that we have challenged the customer and established what is actually required to solve their problems and meet their needs.

How do we combine the power of the consultative approach with maintaining a high degree of service- and customer-orientation, while at the same time increasing speed to create a competitive advantage?

Americans overpromise

Question

“We Americans overpromise. Much more than do our German colleagues. How do we strike a balance between overpromising to our American team-leads – and/or to our American customers – and underpromising or realistic-promising to our German colleagues?”

Answer

Reduce the overpromising to your American team-lead. Get real. Get realistic. Only promise what you can deliver. Reduce inflation in the broadest sense in the U.S. Take that chapter from the German book. And encourage your American team-lead to reduce their overpromising to their next level management.

On the other side of the coin, encourage your German colleagues to aim higher. The term encourage means literally to give courage. The Germans are chronic underpromisers, to a fault. They can reach higher and achieve more. They take things too safely, too often.

Third, make this a topic in your collaboration with both Americans and Germans. Stating it in an oversimplified, but accurate, way: Americans are inflationary. Germans are deflationary. Work together towards the middle.

There is no hiding from this cultural difference. Therefore, address it head-on.

Get Americans to do more self-follow-up

Question

“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?“

Answer

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!

Why do our US-colleagues send so many emails?

Question

Why do our US-colleagues send so many emails?

Answer

First, while the high volume of emails generated by Americans may seem excessive to a German, the practice is based on the clear understanding that within American organizations the flow of information is absolutely essential. The default view for Americans is that information sharing is the path to successful outcomes.

No team can succeed without the free, open, and efficient flow of information. In American organizations, the decision-making process is organic, defined by the back and forth, the give and take of information. Sharing information is at the heart of the process.

Successful action is the result of good decision-making, which in turn is achieved only when the full-range of decision options have been proposed, understood and evaluated. This requires having the most accurate, timely, and relevant information gleaned from a broad base of participants; Americans are constantly communicating, sharing and updating information.

Not surprisingly, we see these values reflected in American email protocol and its high volume of communication. For Americans this exchange of emails is not seen as excessive because they see it as simply part of the process of working through the issue confronting the team.

Emails are not interrupting the process, but are essential to it. They are a means to ensure that “the full-range of decision options have been proposed, understood and evaluated” and that they have “the most accurate, timely, and relevant information.” Emails are an important part of the process of give and take and back and forth that is the model of American decision-making.

Second, Americans as a people have it in their cultural DNA to be information sharers. Think of the iconic American town hall; when in doubt Americans communicate. In fact, they often are over-communicators. Simply observe what they reveal to each other as strangers meeting in the supermarket, café, train station, or sitting next to each other on an airplane. Sharing information just comes naturally. Is it any surprise then that most, if not all, of the major trends, tools and platforms in today’s world of communication have their origins in the United States: Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Google, the list goes on and on.

Third, we’ve all heard the colorful figure of speech “cover your ass”, meaning: do what you can to avoid being blamed for something which goes wrong. As emails provide a record of actions taken, we can assume that the CYA reflex may contribute in some part to the volume of American emails. Americans are aware that sending an email is one way to show at a later time that action was taken. It’s a form of documentation, of proof.

Fourth, email provides a form of documentation in the more pragmatic sense of record-keeping. Instead of keeping notes, one can simply save emails which then can serve as a portable filing system that is always at hand. Email becomes a convenient way to document promises, agreements, decisions, etc., and to keep one informed about the flow and status of things.

Finally, using email may be seen as showing politeness or extending respect. Walking over to consult a colleague or calling on the phone without warning, may constitute an unwelcomed interruption. For this reason, American colleagues who work on the same floor will often still opt to send an email.

Why? Because it does not interrupt that colleague’s work. It does not demand that they stop what they were doing to respond to a question or request. Sending an email is a way to avoid putting them “on the spot” without warning. The outreach by email allows the colleague time to address the issue and to give a considered response. Its subtext might read: “Dear Colleague, I need to speak with you about something or I need something from you or I have something for you, but do not want to interrupt you. Please get back to me if and when you have time. Thank you.”