Question

Germans enter into an agreement only after they have gathered all of the relevant information up-front. In the U.S. business context, however, speed and rapid reaction time are critical success factors. How can we reconcile the two approaches?

Answer

First: explain to your German colleagues as often as possible how mission-critical rapid reaction time – speed – is in the U.S. business context. Use concrete examples how speed led to new business, to profitable business, to business growth. It is not enough to simply repeat how important speed is in the U.S. market. Provide examples of wins and losses, and the role reaction time played.

Second: always acknowledge the rightness and legitimacy of the German logic. Honor the strengths of the German approach of gathering all relevant information up-front in order to decide whether to make a commitment. Remember, when German commit, they commit. They will do their absolute utmost to live up to their commitments. 

Third: discuss with them, as partners, how you can together reconcile the two strengths – American speed with German reliability. 

For example, ask your German colleagues what information they need up-front in order to commit to an early-stage piece of a commitment. In other words, break down a larger commitment into pieces or stages. Then move, together with your German colleagues, stage for stage. Do not be shy about asking them what kinds of information are critical vs. nice-to-have.

In addition, always give your German colleagues a sense for the risk involved when breaking down a commitment into smaller pieces. The American logic of breaking down complexity into its component parts – see CI’s content on the topic Persuasion – then focusing only on the key parts, is their way of not only maintaining focus, but also of managing risk. 

Compared to Americans, Germans are risk-averse. When coaxing your German colleagues to move faster, for example, by asking them to make mico-commitments, provide them with your assessment of risk. Simply say:

“Look, colleagues, we’re breaking this commitment with the customer, or potential customer, into smaller commitments. This allows us together to move faster, while at the same time reducing risk. What (truly critical) information do you need from us in order to enter into this micro-commitment?”

Fourth: this may sound not only counter-intuitive, but also potentially dangerous for business, but do your best to manage the time expectations of your customers or potential customers. Americans are too speed-oriented. Rapid reaction is often unnecessarily important. The importance of speed is often a result – a bad result – of poor planning, of nervousness, of allowing oneself and one’s team or project to be driven faster than necessary. 

Yes, it takes real courage to say to the customer: “We can hit that date. But frankly, if you will be patient, if you will give us a bit more time, we will deliver even better results than you are expecting. How critical is the due date you are requesting to your needs? Please be patient with us.

We mean this respectfully, but isn’t it often better to receive great results a little bit later than less-than-great results quickly? We want to be fully in synch with your schedule, but we also need to coordinate with our colleagues in Germany. Would it possible to sit down and do into a little more detail about your schedule pressures, and the parameters within which we are operating?”

Question

“Our impression on the American side of the Atlantic is that the German business culture is reluctant to commit to projects which have unknowns and are not guaranteed to succeed. In our business culture we are under constant pressure to produce results. We Americans can appear to be pushy, emotional and fiery. How can we reconcile the two approaches?”

Answer

Let’s consider this question from a high level, without going into the details. What are the questions within this question? I think they are the following:

The first is commitment. We know that Americans and Germans take different approaches to commitments. How they define them. How they decide whether to enter into them. If agreed to, how they maintain and fulfill them. What are those differences and how do they influence collaboration?

The second is risk, the two culture’s respective understanding of risk. Well, what are those differences and how can American and Germans get a common understanding of the risks involved in individual projects?

The third is pressure. More specifically, the pressure to produce results. In the U.S.: What results? In what form? How quantified? When are they expected? Can these be answered and explained to the German colleagues so that they understand the situation on the ground in the U.S.?

The fourth is about Americans coming across to Germans as pushy, emotional and fiery. Can the three topics above be so explained by the American colleagues such that their German colleagues will understand and be open to searching for ways to reconcile the two respective – and successful – approaches?

And let’s remember what the term reconcile means. Let’s go to MerriamWebster online: “1. to restore to friendship or harmony; 2. to make consistent or congruous; 3. to accept something as unpleasant; 4. to check against another for accuracy.”

Interestingly, each one of these four definitions applies the task at hand:

Get into harmony, into synch, with your German colleagues. In order to do that you need to constantly explain the logics operating in the U.S. Make your responses to customers consistent with both the American and the German approaches, in other words an integrated approach.

There is no other option. Integration means compromise, which in turn is always a bit unpleasant. Constantly check with each other, and with the customer, that things are accurate, meaning accurate in meeting the needs of your customers, but within the key parameters of how you do business.

The customer is not king. And the customer does not want a supplier, especially in a sophisticated and complex business, to be a serf. Serious customers want serious suppliers. And serious suppliers are not s

Question

“How can we get German colleagues to list upfront all of their concerns before saying no?”

Answer

Perhaps you should anticipate their concerns, then build your arguments into your request, thereby demonstrating that you have done your homework, and that you have taken their perspective into consideration.

Secondly, perhaps you should not confront Germans with yes-no questions, to which you expect them to respond with a yes immediately, without them having time to understand the request, and to do some serious reflecting on whether they should agree with it or disagree. 

In other words, there are alternative ways of introducing your request, maybe as a thought, as a suggestion, as something to collaborate with them on.

Question

“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?“

Answer

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.

Question

“Would it be beneficial to set up the scope of an agreement? In other words, to get clarity among all parties to an agreement what the expectations are? For Example: the team will have check-ins to share project progress even without aspects being fully complete.”

Answer

It is true that Americans have a much higher frequency of status-checks than do Germans. For Americans, an agreement actually kicks off the collaboration. And collaboration in the U.S. means a lot of back and forth, a lot of engagement, high levels of communication. That’s how Americans work in teams.

And it is true that Germans have a much lower frequency of status-checks. For Germans, an agreement actually kicks off each party to the agreement working on their part of that agreement. And collaboration in Germany does not mean a lot of back and forth, does not mean a lot of engagement, does not mean high levels of communication. 

That is not how Germans work. They first get clarity on who does what. Then they as individuals get to working doing the what. They come together only when necessary. Ideally when each is finished with their part, with their deliberable. 

So, if you feel that check-ins, also called status meetings, are important, propose to your German colleagues: when they should take place, for how long, who should participate, and most importantly why the status meeting is necessary, how it adds value.

But be prepared for your Germans colleagues to ask why all of this is necessary. You need then to explain to them how Americans work in teams, that much of it is iterative, tactical, flexible, less structured.

They will tell you how they as Germans work in teams. You should find a happy middle ground.

Question

“Our German colleagues seem to be much more reserved in celebrating successes. Whether it’s a business, personal or even sporting event, they do not seem to celebrate victories. I was wondering why?“

Answer

I know what you mean. Americans are often quite surprised by how reserved the Germans are, modest, even stoic. Especially after successes.

Americans inflationary

What Americans might call a success is often for Germans “just doing our job.” We Americans, if we’re honest with ourselves, know that we have become inflationary in praise.

Just look at the terms we use: great, fantastic, awesome, super, etc. Very rarely would Germans use comparable terms in their own language.

In fact, America has become inflationary in general: McMansions of the 1990s and 2000s; oversized portions of food and drinks; grade inflation at just about all levels of education; inflated working titles in the private and public sectors; federal monetary policy (“quantitative easing”); trophies awarded to youth sports teams far from the top of their league.

Thankfully, a debate has begun in the U.S. challenging all of this over-praising. For the danger in inflationary praise is losing touch with reality.

Germans deflationary

At the same time the German approach can be too deflationary. Nicht geschimpft, ist genug gelobt – literally means, not chewed out is praise enough.

Many Germans with experience working with and for Americans have very positive things to say about how in the U.S. people are praised for good work and for team successes.

They feel motivated by it and wish there were more such positive thinking in German organizations.

If not understood, this cultural difference can have very significant (negative) influence on American-German collaboration.

In the end, Americans and Germans who collaborate need to sit down together, discuss these cultural differences, then decide how they jointly define success, as well as if and how they want to celebrate them.

It can be done. It isn’t rocket science. First understand the differences in approach. Then integrate those approaches.

Question

“I find myself constantly asking our German colleagues the when-question regarding the completion of a project. Their response is frequently vague. How can we get the response to be better for us, even if only it is an approximate answer?”

Answer

Germans do not like to be nailed down – festgenagelt – on anything. Who does, actually?

Why? Not because they are non-committal, but because they feel nearly 100% bound to their commitments. Because they know that there are factors not in their control. And because the Germans hate any kind of pushiness. And what for Americans is not pushy is often for Germans push to very pushy.

So what to do with German colleagues who are reluctant to give a completion date, even if it is only an approximate answer?

First, give them as specific information as you can about why it is important for you to at least get an estimate of a date. These should be business and technical reasons. Spell out for them the timing of the project from our perspective, about the ramifications if certain work is completed by certain dates. You can almost never give a German colleague enough context information.

Second, provide them with a few scenarios. “Well, if you can get me that data by the 15th of the month, that will allow me to do this or that.” or “I don’t want to be pushy, Klaus, but if I have your work results by the end of next week, that would be good, because it allows me to then present to the customer during the week thereafter, and the advantages there would be XYZ.”

Third, ask for a time-frame, a window, in which your German colleague can reach completion. And while you do that ask them what factors are affecting the project on their side of the Atlantic. Do your best to put yourself in their shoes. Literally ask them: “Anna, what are your parameters, your boundary conditions? Give me a chance to work within them. We can get this done if know each other’s situation. Thanks!”

Question

“I have the impression that Americans shy away from using criticism, be it in personal conversation or at work. In Germany it is accepted to express objective criticism when appropriate.

But in conversations with Americans everything is always great. On what level is it socially accepted to voice concerns or criticism in America?“

Answer

An excellent question.

No society can function well without it having a way to voice and address things which aren’t working. Whether it be within a family, a school, a religious community, a sports team, certainly within a company, the group needs to have a common understanding of what is and is not working.

“What is effective? What is helpful? Where do we stand? What needs to be improved?” These are questions to be asked, and answered, on a constant basis.

Merriam-Webster defines criticism as: the act of criticizing usually unfavorably; the art of evaluating or analyzing; the scientific investigation of literary documents.

So, certainly Americans engage in criticism. Certainly Americans are capable of giving and taking criticism. As are the Germans. Both societies are complex. Both are successful. Both have their approach to criticism. And both approaches work.

The key questions for their interaction as Americans and Germans are: What are the differences in their approaches to criticism? What influence (effect) do these differences have on their collaboration? How can they best manage that influence?

Question

In the U.S. once a decision has been made the time afforded to implement that decision can be very short. Who is responsible for deciding what the hard deadline is?

Answer

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. 

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.