“Besser den Spatz in der Hand als die Taube auf dem Dach” – better a sparrow in the hand than a dove on the roof – is a popular German saying expressing the German aversion to risk.
Aversion to risk and conservativeness go hand-in-hand. Never want too much, be satisfied with what you have.“ Den Mund nicht voll nehmen.” – Don’t bite off more than you can chew.
Only 13 percent of Germans invested in stocks and shares during 2014. Despite rock-bottom interest rates, the majority of savers continued putting their money into trusted bank savings accounts and fixed-return financial products.
Germans often have the impression that their American colleagues gather too little information before making a decision. Valuable information sources are not tapped into. Comparisons are made “on thin ice.” Early indications based on subjective sources are not questioned critically.
All these reservations go against the German belief in erst denken, dann handeln – think first, then act. For richtig denken – literally right or correct thinking, in the German context means holding down (controlling) the natural impulse to act until the situation has been analyzed and the consequences of actions thought through.
It should be of no surprise, therefore, that Germans often see American analysis as insuffiently stringent. They see a narrow and incomplete focus on only certain aspects of the decision to be made. They fear that the Americans overestimate their ability to do a sauber – clean analysis.
This is underlined by what the Germans believe is an American tendancy to take subjective information too strongly into consideration. They are surprised when their counterparts do not use those tools and standards which have proven to be successful.
In the end Germans see their Americans colleagues as too pragmatic, too inaxact. Insufficient results are accepted too quickly. This is very difficult for Germans to accept as a people which places so much emphasis on avoiding errors via accepted tools and standards, errors which could be the source of a Systemzusammenbruch – literally system collapse. Germans see themselves sliding into danger which can only be stopped through analysis performed twice or even three times over.
A willingness to take risks and a desire to make decisions are the basic requirements for starting a business. Germany is not a land of entrepreneurs.
According to Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), an annual joint publication of the University of Hannover and the Institute for Jobmarket and Career Research of the German Federal Agency for Employment, only 2.5% of adults in Germany started a business which they could live from. This placed Germany in spot 10 of the 22 compared.
Rolf Sternberg, an economist, considers one reason for the weak culture of entrepreneurship to be the widespread desire toward security:
“The tendency to strive towards security is much more prevalent in Germany than in Anglo-American countries”. This is the flipside of having a well-developed social security system.
Yvonne Stolpmann of Chamber of Commerce in Nürnberg summarizes the situation as such: “Those who give up a permanent position here stand to lose a lot of security. It’s different in the USA”.
Germans consider critical feedback to be unfair if it does not include concrete recommendations on how to improve on weaknesses. They believe that people can only improve on what they understand to be suboptimal. Critial feedback, the Germans believe, should therefore be communicated clearly, avoiding any use of politically correct language.
The more objective and impersonal the critical feedback is stated, the less chance it will be taken personally. Feedback experts in Germany go as far as to view personal relationships within teams as a barrier to honest, effective feedback. They often recommend neutral third parties to facilitate particularly critical feedback discussions.
Critique is taken personally in the German culture when it is communicated in a condescending or aggressive way. Germans react very sensitively to personal insults or attacks. There is absolutely no place in German feedback discussions for any form of personal insult.
The ongoing Euro crisis has tested the nerves of both political and business leaders alike in Germany. Chancellor Merkel‘s former Chief of Staff, Ronald Pofalla, criticized harshly a colleague by saying Ich kann Deine Fresse nicht mehr sehen – „I‘m getting tired of seeing your mug“. Fresse is an idiom for an animal‘s mouth. He was forced to apologize in front of Parliamentary Caucus, but remained in his position.
To be coachable means to allow yourself to be coached: accept criticism, want to improve, do the necessary extra work in order to perform better, listen to the coach. Critical feedback – regardless of how clear, fair, diplomatically communicated – is only helpful if the team member is willing to work with the coach.
When judging talent American sports coaches look carefully at the willingness and ability of a player to be coached, their coachability. American managers are no different. The ideal player (employee) is one who is self-critical, identifies their own weaknesses, takes the initiative by looking for ways to improve, and communicates all of this to their boss.
American team members want a team lead who can coach. American managers want employees who are coachable.
German colleagues will at times communicate critical feedback with irony, hoping to gain a smirk or a smile. This is not meant to make fun of the colleague whose work is being criticized, but rather to add a lightness to the criticism.
The person criticized is given the opportunity to accept the feedback with a sense of humour and light-heartedness. The Germans value the ability to maintain a healthy, objective distance to one‘s own work.
Humor: the ability to accept with lightness personal imperfections and those of the world, as well as the difficulties of daily life.
Germans love insurance policies. According to the magazine Stern, the average German household paid an average of 2,771 EUR annually for private insurances in 2002, 106 EUR more than in the previous year. They are clearly willing to spend on their security.
However, the avoidance of risks in this way is often not rational. According to Stern, every other German is insured for legal representation, yet only one in ten have disability insurance. Statistically, however, one out of four people will be unable to work for an extended period of time during their lifetime due to illness or an accident.
The investment counseling agency KSK-Südholstein makes a similar attest: “Germans love to be rooted and secure. That is why they are so keen on insurances. For this reason, there is an incredible variety of insurances available on the German insurance market.
Amongst these policies you will find some which are sensible, and others which really are not, because not every value must be insured. Much to the dismay of experts, there is a tendency in Germany to insure small amounts of damage with high initial ventures.”
In February 2015 Christian Lindner, the head of the Free Democatic Party (FDP), gave a speech in Dusseldorf, the capital of the German state Northrhine Westphalia.
“Entrepreneurship is a signal of confidence in a culture’s future. When people start new companies, they are not only creating a better future for themselves, they’re creating jobs for others.”
Hardly into his speech a state representative from the ruling Social Democrats (SPD) called out smugly that Lindner, indeed, had had personal experience with startups.
Lindner pounced on the opportunity. “Aha, look here. You say that I have experience. It is true, dear colleague. During the highpoint of the new economy I founded a company. It was not successful. But the leader of your party, the premier of this great state, in her speech today stated clearly that Germans should not stigmatize those whose startups fail.”
Lindner continued: “There you have it, in your own caucaus, Madame Premier, a colleague who doesn’t listen to you. This is exactly one of the reasons why so many people prefer to work as civil servants, instead of starting a company. For if they are successful then you Social Democrats want to tax and reallocate their profits. And if they are not successful, then they are derided.”
Auf YouTube wurde die Rede bereits millionenfach angeklickt. In DIE ZEIT vom 19. Februar 2015 schreibt Feliks Eyser, ein Gründer, der im zweiten Anlauf erfolgreich war, in einem Artikel mit dem Titel „Wer wagt, verliert“:
Within hours the speech was uploaded to YouTube and clicked on over a million times. A week later DIE ZEIT, a respected political weekly, published an article by Feliks Eyser, whose first startup failed but whose second succeeded.
The article’s title was „Wer wagt, verliert“ – those who risk, fail. This is the opposite of the well-known German figure of speech “Wer wagt, gewinnt” – those who risk, win.
“Failure is a part of entrepreneurship just like sore muscles are a part of sports. Those who start a company run the risk of failure. Courage is essential. Perhaps more people in this country would have that courage if a busines failure were not seen as human failure.”
Interestingly, Eyser wrote scheitern not seen as versagen. Both terms translate into failure. Could this mean that Germans see in failure human or personal failure?
In the German context feedback about one‘s work is in and of itself not personal. Germans – team leads as well as members – can argue vehemently about business topics and at the same time have a friendly, collegial working relationship. German management can criticize harshly an employee but still respect and personally like that individual. In Germany feedback is not personal.
In German team meetings open, honest, direct feedback is not only permitted, it is desired. Weaknesses in individual performance are addressed by team lead and members alike. The criticism, however, is not meant, and is not taken, as a personal attack, not jemandem etwas ins Gesicht sagen (to tell them off), but more to „get a it on the table“, in den Raum stellen.
Jemandem etwas ins Gesicht sagen: to say something critical to another person‘s face; to say something mean, unfair, provoking; to tell someone the unadultered truth; to give another person „a piece of your mind.“
Etwas in den Raum stellen: to put something in the room; to raise a question, a problem; to comment on, to make an observation; to bring a subject into the discussion.
This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to provide a more personalized experience and to track your whereabouts around our website in compliance with the European General Data Protection Regulation. If you decide to to opt-out of any future tracking, a cookie will be setup in your browser to remember this choice for one year.
Accept or Deny