“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?”
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.
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?
“Let us participate”
“German decision making is a bit hidden from us until decisions are announced. The criteria used to decide is not communicated to us. Decisions are made before we have a chance to build our case. Is there a way to convince our German colleagues to allow us to participate in key decision making?”
Consensus vs. Top-Down
“As a practical matter, how does German consensus-style decision making differ from the American top-down approach? Is it more efficient? Does it produce better results? Is it easier to implement because of the buy-in of all the parties? Can these factors even be measured?“
Well, you can’t get more practical than making decisions and implementing them.
You ask three questions. 1. Differences between German consensus-building and American top-down decision making? 2. Which is more effective, and easier to implement? For every decision is only as good as its implementation. 3. Can decision making styles be measured?
Question 1 – Differences. This is a very complex topic. Please see my analysis on the divergences between Germans and Americans in their decison making in the lefthand navigation.
Question 2 – Effectiveness. Both countries, societies, economies are successful. Not without problems, not without ups and downs, but still the largest and fourth-largest economies on the planet, with more than a handful of first-rate global companies. So we can safely say about both cultures – therefore business cultures – that they know how to make decisions and implement them.
Which approach to decision making is more effective is an extraordinarily complex question, and would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I would not want to be the person who has to come up with a method for such analysis.
But that comparison is not all that relevant, anyway. American and German collaboration is not about judging which approach is better, but instead about first understanding the differences between the approaches, in order to define how best to combine their inherent strengths. “In order to”: the reason for, the task, goal, the great pay-off.
Imagine what Germans and Americans could achieve if they truly understood their respective decision making logics, then sat down to map out how they make decisions together! This is the true high art form of working across cultures.
Question 3 – Measureable. I’m not sure if “measure” is the right term. But there certainly are indications – let’s even call them KPIs (key performance indicators) – for decision making processes which work and those which do not work. See the five divergences between German and American decision making which I address. These can be understood as KPIs.
Never full disclosure
“Information sharing with Germany is usually a one-way street. If we get anything at all it is ‘You will do this’ vs. ‘Let’s discuss.’ We all work for the same company, why not share? We Americans ask a question. We don’t get a lie. Instead only the bare minimum of information. Never full disclosure. Relevant points are left out. Our German colleagues say: ‘Because you didn’t ask for it.’ How we get our colleagues in Germany to share critical information with us?”
Why so absolute
“In the German culture, why does a yes or a no need to be absolute and not conditional upon changing input factors? In other words, is a qualified yes or a qualified no acceptable in Germany?”
Yes, the German culture allows for a qualified yes and a qualified no. In fact, what culture could not? Life, reality, the interactions between individuals and groups demand this day in and day out.
Especially fast-moving, complex and sophisticated economies depend on contingency-planning, on the ability to act in ways which imply that the parameters of a given situation can change at any time.
That is the very definition of the term flexibility. Merriam-Webster online writes: “characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements.”
And it lists the following synonyms: adaptable, adjustable, alterable, changeable, elastic, fluid, malleable, modifiable, pliable, variable.
As antonyms it lists: established, fixed, immutable, enelastic, inflexible, invariable, nonmalleable, ramrod, set, unadaptable, unalterable, unbudgeable, unchangeable.
So yes, the German culture does allow for qualified yes and a qualified no. One could argue that they are especially good at it, when one considers their precision, how well they plan, coordinate and manage actions taken at the same, or near same, time. The Germans are proud of their ability to develop complex, interrelated work processes.
Which means the question is not so much whether the German culture allows for a qualified yes and a qualified no, but rather the following questions:
How do Germans define what is qualified?
When in the German context is a qualified yes or a qualified no a response which a German can deal with, factor into their work, coordinate with other situations, versus when do Germans prefer to hear either a clear yes, a clear no or a clear “I don‘t know at this time”?
Stated another way: When is yes or a no too qualified, too unspecific, so that it cannot be dealt with in the German contingency logic? Germans will often say: “Come back to me, please, when you have a higher degree of clarity of what it is you are asking for.”
Every culture‘s contingency logic has its own bandwidth, borders, poles, extremes, degree of tolerance (pick your term), within which they operate, plan, factor in potential sudden change.
Perhaps the German bandwidth is narrower than the American. Perhaps not. The Germans would argue that they are more flexible than the Americans. See the intercultural divergences in leadership approaches. See how the two business cultures handle processes.
The German contingency logic works. Germans and Germany are exceptionally capable and successful. Remember, Germany is the third-largest economy in the world with only about eighty-five inhabitants. The American bandwidth, the American contingency logic, works also. Americans and America are equally capable and successful. They are, however, two different contingency logics.
Contingent yes, contingent no, this appears to be a rather simple, straightforward topic. Americans ask themselves: “Why can‘t the Germans be more flexible?” Germans ask themselves: “Why can‘t the Americans think things through first, before acting, then inevitably changing course?”
This is a very complex topic. The fundamental divergence in contingency logics involves the following topics: agreements, decision making, leadership as well as systematic (German) versus particularistic (American) thinking.
The challenge – with great upside potential – is developing a common, or near-common, understanding about contingency planning, of how flexible a yes and a no should be.
Implementation time
“In the U.S. once a decision has been made the time afforded to implement that decision can be very short. In Germany who is responsible for deciding what the hard deadline is?”
That would depend on the situation. What kinds of situations, or scenarios, are there?
There are teams. Most decisions which are implemented exist within the context of a team. You have a team-lead and team-members. The team operates within some kind of business ecosystem, meaning within a broader context of a company. Who determines deadlines? The team-lead. Perhaps the team-members. Possibly the receiver of the deliverables, which could be another team within the ecosystem.
Then there are projects. And projects are nothing more than a variation of a team. A project is a team for a limited time with a limited purpose. Who determines deadlines? Well if a project is simply a variation of a team, then it would be the project-lead. Perhaps the perhaps-members. Possibly the receiver of the deliverables, which could be another team within the ecosystem.
Then there are customers. Stated more precisely, teams or projects who iteract directly and closely with customers. Is this scenario any different in nature to the two above, teams and projects? I think not. Why?
Because all teams deliver results. Those results go to a customer, who is either company-internal or company-external. Yes, you can make the argument that the external customer is always more important than the company-internal customer. But, that also depends.
Who decides what the hard deadline is? Well, there are only three possibilities.
First is hierarchy. That would be the team- or project- or customer relation-lead. “I’m the boss. We need those results out the door and to the customer by this date. No discussion. Get to work.”
Second is implementation. These are the colleagues actually responsible for delivering the results. They should know best what is realistic, what makes sense, what best serves the customer, whether internal or external. They also are in constant contact with the customer, which means that they are in a position to adjust the schedule expectations of the customer, and together in agreement with the customer. The closer the collaboration with the customer “on the ground”, the more likely that deadlines can be handled flexibly.
Third is the customer. Taking the approach of “the customer is king” would place responsibility of setting deadlines in the hands of the people receiving the deliverables. But is this wise? Is this what truly benefits customer? Often their scheduling needs change. And any well-managed customer-supplier relationship is more of a partnership than it is a master-slave relationship.
My preference? Second, implementation, but in very close collaboration with the customer, and keeping informed the next-level hierarchies on both sides: supplier and customer. Time, speed and deadlines, however, should be managed by those implementing the decision.