Q&A

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.

Question

„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?“

Answer

This is an excellent question, Christian.

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?

Question “Why do Germans believe that there can be only one right solution?”

Answer

„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.

Question

“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.”

Answer

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.

Question

“Although I have worked with German colleagues for 15+ years in a global context, I still see the strong push from them to clearly define roles and responsibilities. This occurs with people who have already established trust and confidence in working together, as well as with new colleagues, and when timelines are short.

Where does this need for such clarity come from, even prior to beginning any work towards the objective? How can we balance this need with the need to react faster in the market?“

Answer

I can attest that in the German business culture there is a very high need to define as clearly as possible who does what, meaning roles and responsibilities. German organizational charts should be taken very seriously, for example. They are always up-to-date, carefully constructed, and accurate in portraying how a German team is set-up.

And yes, the Germans come together on a regular basis to establish and maintain a common understanding of who does what, and who does not do what. Why?

Germans work independently

For one, the Germans work – and like to work – independently. They define the team structure, the tasks to be completed, roles and responsibilities, lines of communication, key processes, etc., then they go to work. The frequency, duration, depth and nature of their communication during the work is different than in a comparable American team.

The more independent the team members work, the more important it is to clearly define roles and responsibilities up front. If done well, it leads to speed, quality and efficiency. A high level of clarity about roles and responsibilities is especially important when timelines are tight.

This is not a paradox. Nor is it a paradox when German colleagues who know and trust each other well also focus intensely on first clarifying roles and responsibilities.

Germans encroach

There is another purpose, I believe, in the German context for putting so much time (as judged from the American perspective) into clarifying who does what. The Germans have a tendancy to enroach on each other’s area of responsibility, on each other’s mandate, work scope, roles and responsibilities.

Merriam-Webster defines encroach as: To gradually move or go into an area that is beyond the usual or desired limits; to gradually take or begin to use or affect something that belongs to someone else or that someone else is using.

The path to success (promotion, prestige, higher pay) in German companies is usually via size. The larger your organization, the larger its revenues, the more people it has, the greater its scope (roles and responsibilities), the better.

Germans can be very territorial, which means they are to a certain degree wary of each other. They are careful to “protect their garden”, as they say. Protect from encroachers.

I believe – without being a psychologist of the German people – that it is very important for Germans to be able to say: “This is my job. It belongs to me and to no one else. I own it. And no one else will take it away from me.”

Americans don’t encroach

Americans, on the other hand, also value the importance of clarity in who does what. They approach it more fluidly, however. They prefer to get only a required degree of clarity in order to then get started with their tasks quickly, knowing that through the actual work they will gain on-going clarity about roles and responsibilities.

Secondly, Americans are far less inclined than Germans to encroach on each other’s work scope. Americans in the workplace certainly aren’t angels, nor are the Germans devils. But Americans have very low tolerance for internal bickering about who does what.

American team leads reserve the right anyway to “move players around on the field”, meaning making constant adjustments to who does what.

Finally, the way in which teams in the American business culture operate requires that flexibility in roles and responsibilities. Any restrictions or overly-defined internal rules inhibit rather than enable rapid-reacting teamwork.

Depending on the team, individual tasks meld together, overlap, work so closely hand-in-hand that clear lines of delineation between them would be difficult to define.

Two cultures. Two approaches to clarifying who does what. Plenty of potential for misunderstanding, problems, suboptimal collaboration.

“How can we balance this need with the need to react faster in the market?”

I think you may know my response to the question. Sit down together. Address the issue. Step 1 – Understand the respective cultural approaches. Step 2 – Combine the inherent strengths of both.

Not specific enough?

Ok. Get clarity on who does what at a basic level, the fundamentals. Talk it through thoroughly. Your German colleagues will expect it. Do it with them. It won’t kill you. In fact, it will give you deeper insight into how they work.

Then remain in constant dialogue for the duration of your collaboration on those areas not clearly defined: the overlaps, the hand-offs, the grey areas. That’s where the potential for misunderstanding and friction will occur.

It’s also where the critical questions of your teamwork will pop up. It’s where collaboration actually takes place. It’s where you’ll either succeed or fail together.

Question

“Ok, we understand the idea that the overall goal of integration is bringing together the best of both worlds – German approach and American approach. For example, German thoroughness and American speed and flexibility. But how do we react when we find ourselves bringing together the worst of both worlds – sloppy work and far too slow?”

Answer

This is not the easiest of questions to respond to. There is no specific point of entry. It is clear that collaboration is not going well. I suspect that the organization has not been addressing culture. Or that if it has, then most likely not in the right way.

I would have to know much more about the situationt in order to provide any meaningful advice. So let me just make a few general points.

Par for the course
That is a figure of speech. The MerriamWebster Dictionary states: “the score standard for each hole of a golf course; an amount taken as an average or norm,an accepted standard.”

I hope that my statement – that your problem is “par for the course” – is consoling. For the problem you are experiencing is no surprise, is rather normal, and in many ways healthy. No one on either side is doing anything wrong.

Don’t panic. Remain calm. Continue to engage with each other. You’ve entered into a complex relationship. It requires time and patience to work things out.

Human Beings
Always remember, especially in the “heat of the battle”, that you are colleagues. You are in this together. You succeed or fail together. This is personal. And it should be personal. You are human beings and not machines. We human beings make machines. And we live in the Machine Age. But we ourselves are not machines. We do not interact with each other as if we were parts in a machine.

Subject Matter
Begin – together – identifying the key points of difference. Literally, what you are fighting about, what you are struggling over. Proceed point-for-point. Don’t be afraid to let the emotions out. Don’t try to suppress them. But always be honest and sincere with each other. And, at all costs, do not be political with each other. Do not treat each other as means to an end, but instead as ends in and of themselves.

Culture
Then, point-for-point, engage with each other about the your respective logics, about the deep-lying drivers of your thought and therefore of your action. Explain to each other how you think, why you think that way, where it comes from.

This will not be easy. Most of us don’t usually reflect on this. We think that our approach is universal and not country- or culture-specific. Identifying and then reflecting about our deeper-lying drivers is difficult enough. Explaining them to colleagues from another culture is even more of a challenge. We are simply not used to doing it. It is unfamiliar to us.

Question

There are a lot of benefits to doing product development regionally. But our colleagues in Germany are not open to that. Nothing is made in U.S. We buy internally from Asia or Europe. Why? The German fear of letting go. We had no other choice but to find a source in the U.S. Under the radar, of course. How can we convince our German colleagues to let go a bit of control?

Answer

Who likes to let go of control?

Sincerely, folks, I can fully understand the perspective of headquarters in any company operating globally. All those regions, far away, foreign cultures, unfamiliar markets, colleagues who you may or may not trust as competent, constantly coming up with all sorts of half-baked ideas about how “the company can make a lot of money.”

Especially when it comes to product development. Remember, the German economy is the fourth largest in the world with only about 80 million people. And the strength, the core, of the German economy is their science and technology, in the end their products.

And what is at the core of a product? It’s development: science, engineering, manufacturing. Who wants to give up, or even share, that core?

Now, if you are sourcing within the company from other regions, then your German colleagues will have to react at some point. Because if that sourcing goes well – technically just as good as what comes out of Germany, and less expensive, and more flexible to the needs of your customers – well then Germany will have to respond to that company-internal competition.