Persuasion – understand-culture

“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.

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.

Prepare the ground

“In my experience, Germans usually try to persuade in a fairly logical manner and in that sense are not dissimilar to Americans. I have noticed a tendency, however, to assume the audience thinks like they do, shares their general views of the world, etc. In selling something (products, ideas) it would seem useful to prepare the ground a bit more before going forward. Do Germans prepare the ground?”

Your question has three parts. All three are highly relevant. Let’s address them one by one.

„Germans persuade in a logical manner … not dissimilar to Americans.“

Yes, both cultures have so much in common. Their deepest roots are common: Judeo-Christian faith, Greek philosophy, political structures influenced by the Romans, the rule of law, human rights, democracy, market-driven economy, language, generations of close contacts on many levels, and so much more.

And although Americans are made up of many cultures, Americans as a people, and America as a culture, is still primarily European. The German influence on American has been especially significant, in both the past and the present. Americans and Germans are relatives in an extended family.

This fact makes their cooperation that much more complex. Does this sound counter-intuitive? Only apparently so. For the differences﹣deep and subtle﹣are not suspected, not anticipated, therefore neither seen, much less articulated.

Germans and Americans can certainly succeed in their cooperation without addressing these subtle cultural differences, but they can succeed even more if they do. Your question makes that point indirectly.

„… a tendency, however, to assume the audience thinks like they do ….“

Which we all do. Don’t we all assume that our way of thinking is universal and not formed and driven by our particular, specific national culture? Is it not the case, that we see our approach to persuading as human and not as American- or German-human?

When I reflect on my first years in Germany, my operating assumption was that Germans were Americans who just happened to speak German, live in a different country, have a different history, etc. The readers of this are certainly welcome to laugh at me.

And I laugh at myself, too. It did not occur to me until I had lived in Germany for roughly five years that the Germans thought in many ways much differently than I did. It fact, it did not occur to me at all. It was pointed out to me by a German who was working in the cross-cultural field.

It is only when we experience a different reaction to what we think is clear, straightforward, obvious, that we realize – if we’re fortunate enough to realize ourselves or have pointed out to us – that there are other ways of thinking, that there are differences, many very significant, between how Americans and Germans think.

This goes to the heart of the matter, Matt, to understanding those differences in our national cultural hard-wiring, differences in our most basic operating assumptions, the coordinates of our thinking.

„In selling something … useful to prepare the ground .…“

Yes! And it is there that CI is trying to make a contribution. The first step is to understand the differences. In this case between how the two cultures fundamentally persuade.

The second is to anticipate the influence of those differences on how a message﹣our message﹣is understood, or as is often the case, not fully understood or even misunderstood. The third step is to then adapt one’s message so that it, indeed, does come across persuasively.

We „prepare the ground“ by taking those three steps. Please see CI’s analysis on Persuasion.