Action. Reaction.

Whenever we interact with another person they are interacting with us. This sounds rather obvious. So, let’s go little deeper.

When we interact with another person, we do our best to read them, to understand them, so that we know how best to react. Much of our behavior is in reaction to others, to what they say and do.

That is the meaning of reaction. But often we are so focused on understanding the other person, on reading what they say and do, on reading the signals they send, that we forget that they are doing the same with us. When I, John, am interacting with Annegret, she, Annegret, is interacting with me, John.

I know that his sounds obvious, trivial, so self-stated. But wait, what does it really mean? We have to be aware of how what we say and do is interpreted, perceived, understood, misunderstood, by the other person. Yes, I am reading Annegret’s signals. But Annegret is reading the signals I am sending. Signals I am sending consciously or unconciously.

Clichés

Let’s take a simple, common, but very important example. A typical situation involving Americans and Germans. It involves a major misunderstanding that Germans have about Americans, that Americans are superficial.

I have heard it hundreds of times, in one form or another: Amerikaner sind oberflächlich, in English Americans are superficial. I don’t want go into detail about this particular misunderstanding.

We all operate on misunderstandings about other cultures, whether we care to admit it or not. I, John Magee, know very little about any other culture other than the U.S., my home culture, and Germany, where I have lived for more than twenty-five years.

Any thoughts I have about France, Italy, Mexico, China, India are based on little to no knowledge, even less experience. Per definition any and all thoughts I have about those countries and cultures are over-simplified, inaccurate, very likely wrong.

Americans are superficial is a German misunderstanding about Americans. We Americans have our misunderstanding about Germans, such as Germans have no sense of humor. We all know that both misunderstandings are silly, dumb, untrue, frankly, embarrassing.

Klaus the German

The point I want to make about interactions is that they are always participatory. Let’s take Klaus, a German, who meets Judy, an American, and they engage in smalltalk.

Klaus being German, wants to discuss subjects of substance. That is what Germans do. Germans often bring up subjects of substance. They want different viewpoints, different opinions. They want a lively discussion, even a debate.

But wait, Americans are different. In small talk situations Americans avoid subjects of substance. They avoid subjects which could lead to lively discussion or debate. Americans bring up subjects which are light, non-political, non-controversial, such as the weather or sports or vacation or food, anything to keep things calm and civil.

Americans do not go into depth in such situations. That’s why it’s called small talk. We could also call it shallow talk. Shallow vs. deep. Or call it superficial talk, meaning on the surface, keep on surface.

Americans can do deep talk. In fact, they’ve been doing it for more than two hundred and fifty years. You need only take a closer look at American history.

Judy the American

Ok, so let’s get back to Klaus and Judy. They are in Atlanta at a conference. They are colleagues, but only recently working together. They are excited to finally meet. Even though, frankly, their collaboration has not gone all that well thusfar.

At a dinner many folks get together. Klaus and Judy are there. It is their chance to meet and do some small talk. Klaus then brings up topics of substance. And since it is the year 2020, and they are in U.S., and America is always topic in Germany, Klaus wants talk about controversial current developments in U.S.: politics, race relations, response to the Cororna-virus, the economy, etc.

As stated, these are not topics Americans feel comfortable with in a small talk setting, most certainly not in a business setting. So what does Judy do? She pulls back, does not engage, tries to lighten up conversation, to change the subject.

Judy asks Klaus what he thinks of Atlanta. She asks him how the conference is going. She might even ask Klaus how his flight to the U.S. went. How does Klaus react? Most likely surprised. “What, my flight? I want to talk about Corona-virus.” This goes back and forth and Klaus gets impression that Judy is, well, superficial.

Miss the Point

I could spell out in great detail the German reaction to American small talk. I will not, because I want to make a bigger point, actually two bigger points.

The first point is, Klaus sees the interaction with Judy, and with other Americans during conference, as verification of what everyone in Germany knows, namely that Americans are superficial.

The second point, and the message of this video is that it does not occur to Klaus that Judy is reacting to him. In other words that his actions are leading Judy to pull back, to not engage, to try to lighten up the conversation.

Klaus is not aware of how his actions affect Judy, thus affecting Judy’s reactions to him. Klaus most likely is not aware that Judy perceives him as overbearing, provocative, rude, maybe purposely picking a fight with her.

All Interactions

My message here is that every interaction is participatory. We cannot separate what we experience from what the other party is experiencing in the interaction. Our behavior influences their behavior. Their behavior influences ours. We are participating in this together. It is participatory, and not separated.

We all know this, right? But, do we take it enough into consideration when we interact? I think not. Or not enough. There is considerable risk, considerable danger, in not taking enough into account how our actions affect the other party.

And why? Because they may misinterpret our intentions. Because they may misinterpret who we are. And vice versa. We misinterpret their intentions. We misinterpret who they are.

Definition

Benefit of the doubt, what does phrase mean? Doubt is something like this: “I don’t understand why my colleague, Manfred, is doing X. I’m not sure if it is good or bad. My sense, that it is not good. Even more, I don’t know if Manfred’s intentions are good or bad.”

A benefit is something good, positive, in someone’s favor. To give someone the benefit of doubt is to choose to see the good, the positive, in what they say or do.

“I don’t understand why my colleague, Manfred, is doing X. I don’t know if his intentions are good or bad. However, I choose to give Manfred the benefit of the doubt. I choose to assume, to believe, that what he is doing is good and that Manfred’s intentions are good.”

That’s what it means to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Why

Why should you give Manfred the benefit of doubt? I can think of six good reasons: First, his actions and intentions might be good. If so, you are on the right side, on the side of Manfred and on side of what is good.

Second, if you are wrong about Manfred, if his actions and intentions were not good, you can always adjust your response.

Third, by giving Manfred the benefit of doubt, you are in a position to help Manfred, to change his actions, to help him have a change of heart. And that is helpful to Manfred and to the team.

Fourth, in the future Manfred will most likely give you the benefit of doubt. You will do things which other colleagues question. Gaining Manfred as a friend and an ally will be helpful to you.

Fifth, colleagues will have observed how you gave Manfred the benefit of doubt. By doing so you are setting an example, you are upholding the right behavior. This encourages others to do the same. Colleagues will be more willing to give each other the benefit of doubt.

Sixth, you will be doing the right thing. That alone is enough reason. You do not need any of the other five reasons.

Depending on the situation both sides will be quick to assume the negative, bad motives, to not give the benefit of doubt. The danger of misreading actions and intentions will be especially high. Instead, let’s look at each other with friendly eyes. Let’s go further, let’s look at each other with loving eyes.

Circling the Wagons

You are Americans. You are Germans. Your companies have been merged. Collaboration is key to your success. Let’s talk about loyalty. It’s a big word, a really big word.

Who are you loyal to? To your respective companies? Germans to the German side of company, Americans to the American side of company? Or to the stockholders, including institutional investors? Are you loyal to your customers? And what about your suppliers?

I suspect that you are loyal to those people who influence, or even determine, your success. Because your success pays the bills, secures your future. Success protects you. It keeps you strong. Success enables you to protect people you are taking caring of. Spouse, children, a relative, the people you love.

Tension

Why I raise the loyalty question is rather simple. Because in many situations problems, disagreement, tension, confrontation occurs. In such situations sides can be formed. One side against other. Us-against-them.

And in the context of global organisations sides are formed along country lines, based on culture, based on national culture. “We Americans against those Germans” and “We Germans against those Americans.” It is particularly common during post-merger integration and can continue long after integration.

This us-against-them attitude is also called circling the wagons. From old Hollywood movies. From westerns. Innocent white settlers moving west to make a life for themselves. But they come into conflict with the Native Americans, also known as Indians. The battles are vicious and brutal, terrible. In the movies the Indians are savages. Remember that term, savage?

What did the settlers do when attacked? They circled the wagons. The women and childen hid in safety. The men got out their rifles, defended women and children, against murder, rape, enslavement, by those evil, savage Indians. Or at least that is what the movies protrayed. The German term Wagenburg means literally “wagon fort” or “fort made with wagons.”

Reject it !

Here is my point with the loyalty question: There will be times – perhaps now – when tension is high, when some colleagues talk us-against-them. I understand that. It is human. It is native to us. It is natural.

We are unsure, insecure, frightened, literally scared. In such times, if colleagues from the same country, from the same culture, talk in terms of us-against-them, I want you to say “No.” I am serious. I am dead serious. I want you to say: “No, that is too simple. No, that drives us apart. No, that is not a solution.”

Then I want you to ask: “What is the problem? How can we solve the problem? Together, with colleagues from the other side of Atlantic?”

It always fails

I am not joking. This is not some kind of touchy-feely, psychobabble, nonsense. I am speaking from both the head and the heart. If you are sincerely listening, then you are hearing me with both your head and your heart.

Because we know that every form of us-against-them is driven by fear, and that any- and everything we think, say or do which is driven by fear is wrong. Not only wrong, but ineffective. Not only ineffective, but harmful.

Us-against-them is fear-driven. It is self-defeating. We are defeating ourselves. It damages our very selves. Now this will not be easy. Believe me, I know. I have enough life experience to know this. I have many years working in USA-Germany space, many years helping colleagues, to collaborate, many of whom were in a battle against each other.

Courage

It takes great courage to say to colleagues from the same team, company, culture: “No, I will not participate in any us-against-them nonsense against our colleagues from the other side.”

The pressure will be great. Some will call you a traitor. Others will ostracize you. Still others will apply pressure on you. You need to stand firm. How? By focusing on the solution. By continuing to collaborate. As best you can. With your new colleagues, with colleagues from other side.

You simply need to be honest, transparent, fact-based, and most importantly, remain calm. People who play the us-against-them card always lose in end. They will be exposed sooner or later, because us-against-them is fear-driven, manipulative, and it does not work.

Expose Cowardice

A final point: us-against-them occurs on both sides of Atlantic. If colleagues on other side begin slipping into us-against-them, reach out to them, help them to solve problems, to reduce the tension.

Expose us-against-them for the stupid, primitive trick it is. Shine light on it, get it out into the open. If you expose us-against-them, if you get it out into the open, it shrivels up, it shrinks, it hides, it runs a way. Why?

Because every form of us-against-them is cowardly. People who push us-against-them are cowards. When exposed cowards always run away. Why? Because they are cowards. And that’s what cowards do. They run away.

We do it all the time

Attributing motives is a dangerous thing. Dangerous for those who do it. You will hurt yourself. Badly. To attribute motives means to assign motives to another person. Motives explain why a person said or did something.

You all know that I take words seriously. I want to know their meanings. To attribute is a verb. It means to explain something by indicating a cause, to regard as a characteristic of person or thing.

An example: “John said and did this, because John thinks this or John thinks that.” More concretely: “John is recommending X, not because he thinks it is the best solution for the team. But instead because it is John’s idea and he wants to advance his career.” We explain John’s behavior as being motivated by self-interest and not motivated by what is best for the team.

But it is also possible to attribute positive motives. “John is recommending X not because he thinks it will advance his career. But instead because John believes it is the best solution and the best for the team.”

We all attribute motives to other people and to each other. Attributing motives is a way of explaining behavior of others. “Why did Susan do that? Hmm, well most likely because she X, Y or Z.”

Now, you folks are all aware of this, about attributing motives. We do it all the time. Consciously or unconsciously. Fairly or unfairly. And you can be sure that other people are attributing motives to us.

Dangerous

Here is where it gets tricky, where it can be dangerous: If we attribute motives to another person’s actions and the attributions we make, the motives we assign to that person, are not accurate or only partly accurate, they lead us to adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

“Why did Susan do that? Hmm, well most likely because she X, Y or Z. And because Susan is motivated by X, Y or Z, then I need to respond in this way.” We adjust, react, respond to what we think is Susan’s motive.

Ok, fine. There is nothing wrong with that, with being alert, with being careful. In the case of Susan perhaps it is prudent, because Susan is tricky, unreliable, political, untrustworthy. In fact, many people are tricky, unreliable, political, untrustworthy.

But wait, what if we attribute motives that are not accurate? What if we are way off target? And what if we adjust our behavior accordingly? Then it can become very dangerous.

First, negative motives, treating another person unfairly, is never  agood thing. Not good for them. Not good for us.

Second, the adjustments we make may not be in line with reality. We are reacting to something which does not exist. “Susan is out to make me look bad. I will preempt her by making her look bad first.”

Third, our adjusted behavior, based on a misreading of the situation, could lead to the other person reacting in ways which they did not intend, reacting to our behavior, to our actions, which are concrete and real. “Why did John criticize me in our team meeting this morning? I don’t understand. What should I do about this?”

Spin out of Control

Folks, all of us are very familiar with dynamic. There is no need to have a Ph.D. in psychology. The dynamic is at the core of our thinking as human beings.

We observe and experience the behavior of others. Family, neighbors, work colleagues, customers, suppliers. Often their behavior surprises us. We can perceive as a threat. We want to understand their behavior. We think about their motives, about causes. “Why did he or she do this or that?”

During the Cold War we had our best thinkers, on both sides, Nato and Warsaw Pact, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, trying their hardest to understand the thinking on other side.

A lot of soldiers and armies and weapons and nuclear weapons. If they had gone boom, it would not have been very pretty. Miscalculation would have had very dire consequences.

Miscalculation is linked to misattribution of motives. “If we do this, the Soviet Union will most likely react in this way. That will lead us to respond in that way. Which, in turn, could lead the Soviets to, etc. “

We all know this. We are all familiar with the dynamic. The key is to know the other side so well so that when we attribute motives, we do so as accurately as possible. We want to be so aligned with their thinking that our response is appropriate, fair, prudent, measured.

If our response is not all of those – appropriate, fair, prudent, measured – the situation can spin out of control. Frankly, it is a wonder, a miracle of history, that no nuclear weapons we fired during the Cold War. Although, in October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, both sides came very close.

Misattributing

I think we all know where I am going with this. My work is helping Americans and Germans to understand cultural differences, so that collaboration succeeds.

We know that there are times when the two groups do not get along, when they are not in agreement, at odds with each other, against each other, even see each other as enemy.

Which means following: if there are differences between Americans and Germans, and in foundational areas, differences in how they think and in how they work, then those differences necessarily, per definition, influence collaboration, directly and constantly.

If that is the case, then the chances of miscalculation, of misattribution, of motives, are high. Miscalculation, misattribution, misperception, these are synonyms, different words with same meaning. A better word is misunderstanding.

If German colleagues misunderstand American colleagues, and American colleagues then say or do something which the German colleagues do not agree with or are against or see as counterproductive or even as dangerous, then it is very likely that the German colleagues will attribute a motive to what the U.S. colleagues have said or done.

The German colleagues will then very likely take countermeasures. They will do something against it. This is normal, human, rational, perhaps even legitimate, responsible, the right thing to do perhaps. But perhaps not.

Risk of Misunderstanding

The key term is understanding. How can the two sides reduce the risk of misunderstanding? I have a few recommendations:

First, talk to each other. I mean this seriously. Talk to each other. If Joe says or does something which you Germans find disturbing, instead of attributing a negative motive to Joe and then preparing and executing countermeasures, pick up the phone and speak to Joe about it. I know, this is scary, risky, dangerous, uncomfortable, especially after you have convinced yourself of Joe’s bad motives.

Second, when speaking with each other, when getting clarity on reality, go deeper. Ask each other about your respective deeper logics. This may feel strange. It will not be easy, because we normally don’t reflect on our national cultural approaches. We need to do it anyway. It deepens understanding.

Third, remain in dialogue with each other. If you have taken the first two steps, if you have taken this leap forward together, if you have embarked down this path, stay on that path.

Fourth, once you are on that path together and you see to the left or to the right others who misunderstand each other, reach out and pull them over onto the path. Get them talking with each other. Help them to do what you have learned to do.

Often I hear or read about how important it is to have an enemy. Not in the sense of a person or group to go into battle against, but instead in the sense of what is not good, what needs to be battled. When it comes to cross-border collaboration there are three enemies or let’s call it a monster with three heads, a three-headed monster.

Now, when we talk about cross-border collaboration it doesn’t matter if is a post-merger integration or a major reorganisation or working with suppliers and customers or companies are teaming up to serve a customer or teams within company joining together. They all have in common collaboration, people involved from different countries. Who is the enemy? What are three heads of monster?

Lack of Awareness

Enemy Number One is lack of awareness, in the sense of: “No one ever told me that there are perfectly good reasons for why Germans are so direct in communication” or “No one ever told me that there are perfectly good reasons for why Americans constantly do follow up.”

Should Americans or any cultures know why Germans are direct and that there are perfectly good reasons for this? The same goes for Americans and follow up. There all sorts of reasons for lack of awareness of each other’s cultures. And I spell those out in a separate video.

The key here is to recognize that the first head of three-headed monster is: not knowing, not being aware of, not having been informed about cultural differences.

Untruths

Enemy Number Two is untruths. An untruth is something which is not true, which is false. “Germans are so direct in communication, they get right in your face. Why? Because Germans are impolite, blunt, rude and insulting.” That’s a pretty serious statement. True or untrue?

Well, it depends on the perspective. It depends on the national cultural perspective. Because Germans frankly are direct. Germans believe that people should say what mean and mean what they say. Germans use clear and unambiguous language. They avoid using figures of speech. They avoid using euphemisms. Germans do not sugar-coat. They believe that people should call it as they see it. Be honest, transparent, clear, direct, to the point.

And why do Germans take this approach? Because it is honest, transparent, clear, direct, to the point. And that makes for good communication. And good communication helps collaboration. And good collaboration leads to success. Now, what is wrong with that logic? It’s the German logic. It works. It leads to success. And it’s explainable, understandable, perfectly legitimate.

Unless, of course, you come from culture, which is less direct in communication. For those folks, for those cultures, the Germans can be rather impolite, blunt, rude and insulting. My message here is: there are a whole lot of untruths swirling around out there, where Americans, Germans, and other cultures are collaborating. Untruths are things which are untrue.

Things which people think are true, but are actually false, such as: Americans are superficial. Germans are too serious. Americans processes are sloppy. Germans processes are rigid. When it comes to decision making Americans are a bunch of cowboys. Germans are far too slow to make decisions. American products are of low quality. German products are over-engineered and over-priced.

Untruths, Enemy Number Two, on three-headed monster. This is what my work is about. Battle the enemy. Untruths. Uncover, expose, disprove them. Get that nonsense out of way, so that collaboration can succeed. Much, perhaps most, or searching for the truth in any area of life is first and foremostly getting untruths out of way.

Fear

Lack of awareness and untruths are enemies one and two. We should take them very seriously. But, they are beatable. They can be defeated. Enemy Number Three is fear.

Fear, this is an enemy of a different quality. It is the biggest, baddest, meanest of them all. Fear is the mother – or father – of all enemies. Its destructive power is almost immeasurable. Its cunning is of extraordinary sophistication.

It has an almost endless set of tools from which to select, depending on the situation. It can reach deep down into the depths of our psyche. It can stroke it in any direction it wants. It can slither and swim like a snake into the very marrow of our bones, to sour and to poison it.

Fear can inject into us all sorts of elements, known only to itself, in order to destabilize our chemical balance. It can conjure up in our imagination the most beautiful, and the most ugly, of scenes. It can distort and contort, twist and tie up, the most innocent of experiences, the most obvious of truths.

Fear is the most dangerous enemy by far. No other enemy comes even close. Making it an even greater danger is that it can team up with any other enemy, at any time, in any situation, increasing or reducing the intensity. And one of fear’s greatest weapons is invisibility. It can hide, camoflage itself, impersonate. It can be extremely charming. It can convince you that it is your best friend.

Now, this may all sound dramatic for those of you who have never experienced fear. But for those of you who been there, who have fought the fight and survived, and for those still in fight, this is no exaggeration.

What does this mean for our topic cross-border collaboration? What does it mean for the influence of cultural differences? If fear can do its dirty work in any and all areas of our lives, it can and will attempt to do its dirty work when we collaborate.

We spend most waking hours working – 40, 50, 60 per week. We spend more time with each other than we with our loved ones, with spouses, children, relatives, friends. It is naive to believe that fear will not try to do its evil work when we collaborate, in global teams, in global projects, especially in post-merger integration.

In fact, it is our work, where we spend most or our time, that fear sees its biggest playing field, its biggest forum, its biggest ocean to swim in. What to do, how to battle fear, how to defeat fear, at least to keep it in check?

First, open our eyes to its existence and presence. Ot the existence and presence of our fears in our lives.

Second, identify where fear is doing its dirty work. Right now. Specifically, concretely. In teams and in situations: Who is afraid of what? Who is afraid of whom? Where is there doubt? Where is there instability? Where is there a lack of awareness? Who has fallen prey to fear?

Identify means to expose fear. Fear hates being exposed, have a light shone on it. Fear is terrified of being identified, called by its name, terrified of being pulled out into the open.

Third, after having identified fear, after having identified where fear is doing its diry work, enter into battle against it. Together.

If you are wondering what John talking about. “Fear? We’re a company, an organisation, with teams, with employees. Yes, colleagues, Americans and Germans and many cultures. And yes, there are cultural differences, but all this talk about fear. Is John trying to make us fearful? Is this his way of getting us to listen to him?”

Maybe. Who can know with 100% certainty what our deepest drivers are? I have had my experiences with this terrible and terrifying enemy. And I still do. I continue to battle fear. Frankly, the battle is never over. So let me be more concrete about what I mean with fear. Let me name a few:

“I will lose my job. They are americanizing us. They are germanizing us. He is in my way. I need to get him out of way. She trying kill me off. I need to kill her off first. Their approach will ruin things. We need to block it.

They are lying about numbers. We have no choice but to do same. We need get our customers on our side against them. We need to get their secrets, but to not share ours. They acquired us with our money.

Our management is a bunch of cowards. They give in to other side. Our boss is an idiot. We need to find a way get him removed. My colleague is an idiot. I will simply ignore her.

That engineer is a real thorn in our sides. We need to find a way to make his work unbearable. They are bad people. We are good people. We want the best for customers. They do not. Those Germans! Those Americans!”

Do these statements sound familiar? Do they sound harmless or harmful? Let me finish with this: those kinds of statements, the spirit behind them, the emotions behind them, are dangerous, very dangerous, because they are fear-driven.