Issue 4/2005
07/02/05
Competence in German-American business relationships
Dr. Ursina Böhm
The influence of culture on cooperative efforts
It lies in the nature of international cooperation that differing working styles, bearing the marks of their cultures, will meet one another and increase the probability of communication misunderstandings. The effects of intercultural misinterpretation can be much the same as a slap in the face. The one person feels himself to have been slapped unjustifiably while the other often hasn’t a clue that he given cause for offense. But when they first meet the first thing any two strangers will strive to achieve is a basis for trust. In the best case distrust will delay the building of confidence necessary for successful cooperation.
Category: Issue 4/2005
Posted by: Editor
Regrettably, it is usually the case that the individual who has been “virtually” slapped will seek revenge and thus an intercultural conflict grows out of the misunderstanding and this hampers any creation of a confidence base.
Intercultural misunderstandings are not the result of bad intentions. Rather, they are triggered by misinterpretations of signals and behavior. Thus the behavior of a foreign business associate often does not align with one’s own expectations and the reasons for this behavior, contrary to expectations, cannot be divined. Understanding others presumes, however, knowledge of one’s own culture – one’s own “mental software.”
Our culture provides a pattern of values and orientation for our thinking, feeling and actions and thus is determinant for our behavior and our perceptions. Cultural patterns are learned and passed along by way of communication during the course of our socialization. The culture of any group is expressed essentially in its values, i.e. what is deemed to be good and proper and how someone who is a member of this group ought to behave. These values have been internalized and are to a great extent subconscious. They can, however, be brought to light with the aid of training programs, for example. The values impressed upon us by our cultural background are expressed in our attitudes and our behavior (see Figure 1). While our system of values is not discernible for an outsider, our behavior, which is influenced by our values, is visible.
German and American values and behavior patterns are compared and contrasted below. This comparison makes it possible to see ourselves from an intercultural perspective and thus to recognize the relativity of our own cultural framework. There are no absolute standards for “good” or “right.” Rather, values are only relative.
Typically German – typically American
Management research using comparisons of cultures has made it possible to identify two dominating standards in the German and American cultures; these have come into being over the course of the centuries (cf. Table 1). Thus “group-oriented” individualism on the German side – with its emphasis on order, recognition and sense of duty – encounters egocentric individualism emphasizing a struggle for independence, success and self-reliance on the American side.
The second cultural standard in which Germans and Americans differ widely has to do with attitudes toward uncertainty and risk. While the German culture is marked by a pronounced yearning for security, with the associated values of thoroughness and perfection, predictability and consistency, the American culture is characterized by willingness to take risk and the concomitant values of optimism and pragmatism, improvisation and change.
To further enhance our understanding of these cultural differences, important historical factors which influenced the German and American cultures are discussed below.
Historical backgrounds of the German and American cultures
Germany may be designated as a culture of communities and tribes. The individual, as a member of the community, is safe. The concept of association with the group was already of fundamental significance in the age of the Germanic tribes. The tribal chief was elected. He was the primus inter pares and thus close at hand, both territorially and institutionally. Dominance and protection are closely associated with one another.
Germany was not unified by the Romans or by Catholicism. Instead, German history for hundreds of years was characterized by fragmentation into numerous tiny states (counties, duchies, principalities etc.). The residents identified strongly with these small and easy-to-grasp units. This led to greater geographic rooting and a distinct awareness of the region in which one lived.
German particularism, as this was known, was further exacerbated by the divisions resulting from religion, in accordance with the well-known principle “Cuius regio, eius religio” (“He who rules determines his subjects’ religion”). Ultimately the individual found himself confronted with an omnipresent authoritarian state which even dictated the local confession.
In addition Germany has, since the Thirty Years’ War, suffered more than other European countries from the horrors of war. The Germans’ fear of uncertainty and their need for order can most assuredly be traced back to the many armed conflicts, and their consequences, experienced in the past.
To be mentioned as a further important historical factor is the Roman legal culture, which has had a vital impact on the German way of thinking. With the reception of Roman law the systematic structuring of legal premises as well as the formation of logical principles and superordinate concepts was adopted. This legal order presents itself as an integrated whole – as a “closed system” – in which all questions can be solved through the interpretation of existing legal standards (=> deductive approach).
The situation in the United States is far different. As an immigrant culture, the country was founded by poor settlers, largely from Europe, who came to the New World to start a new life. Their rejection of traditions and class thinking in the Old World was joined with an openness and enthusiasm for new ideas. Ultimately, they had no other choice. The settlers found themselves confronted with situations in which their previous knowledge was of no help at all. They were on their own on a wide, wild continent. Here it was a matter of naked survival, of readying land for cultivation, of building infrastructures. Improvisation was of the essence.
Furthermore, what distinguished America from all earlier societies was the fundamental concept that this was the “land of the free” and a “land of opportunity,” founded on democratic principles without class structures. Everyone is at liberty to do whatever he pleases. Everyone has the freedom to shape his own fate. There are no class barriers, no omnipresent authoritarian state. This idea attracted millions of immigrants from all over the world. And this was paired at the same time with an cornucopia of natural resources. Everything seemed to be available in abundance. There was land enough for everyone. One need only use it. The open frontier to the West expanded social mobility in a geographic sense, too.
The legal culture in the USA is based on English common law, which rests in turn upon Germanic legal culture. With the ongoing improvement in living standards, both economic and social, the settlers sensed a growing need for a developed legal system, and it was this need which served as the justification for adopting and propagating the English common law system. In common law, concepts, subdivisions and categories developed themselves solely in response to concrete problems, in the course of individual litigation (=> inductive approach).
What are we to understand, in more precise terms, to be “typically German” and “typically American” cultural standards and what are the values associated with them?
Group-oriented individualism versus egocentric individualism
In group-oriented individualism the citizen sees himself as a part of a superordinate group and uses the welfare of the group as the yardstick for his own actions. “Community thinking” or “community feeling” is promoted. The esteemed philosopher Immanuel Kant not only brought this type of thinking and action to a fine point with his categorical imperative; he also made a major contribution defining it:
The individual learns:
• To be considerate of others,
• To include other people and the surroundings in one’s own considerations,
• To understand the spirit and purpose of actions and their potential effects on others and on the surroundings,
• To accept authorities in regard to the disciplines they master, but to question their standpoints and opinions in an open dialog.
Once a consensus has been formed, the group-oriented individualist submits to the majority opinion or will at least not act in contravention of that view.
Group-oriented individualists have a strongly developed sense of justice (“It’s my perfectly good right!”) and their actions will depend upon or, at least, take account of others. Determinant is what the public as a whole perceives and how it acts.
The effects of group-oriented individualism are to be found in certain values: striving for order, personal recognition, and a sense of duty. The German passion for order is expressed accurately in the saying: “Order is a must.” This need to avoid every type of disorder results in the large number of rules, regulations and restrictions in Germany. And laws and rules are to be obeyed, as well. Such conformist behavior is joined with a pronounced idea of what is “right” and “wrong.” Transgressions by others will be cause for complaint and might even be reported to the authorities. Thus a motorist who parks illegally might very well “get an earful” or someone who crosses when the pedestrian light is red will be called to task. The value of “recognition” is referenced to the tendency to act so as to benefit the welfare of a community as a whole and to reap recognition from that community, usually in the form of higher social prestige or greater authority. Many tasks are executed out of a feeling of obligation or duty – though today one more often refers to “responsibility.” In professional life, awareness of obligations refers to concrete tasks set by one’s superior, loyalty to the company, and dependability in regard to contractual agreements. Regardless of whether one likes one’s boss or not or whether the colleagues get along well together or not – an employee is morally obliged to discharge his duties.
In egocentric individualism the individual sees himself primarily as an autonomous individual and only secondly as member of a family, an organization or a religion. Americans are raised with the idea that everyone has the right to live out his own individualism. Personal freedom prevails. Moreover, everyone is to have the same starting conditions and a “fair chance.” What he might make of that is his (sole) responsibility.
The American nation firmly believes that “all men are created equal.” This does not mean that people are all the same. Rather, this concept expresses the idea that everyone has the same right to try his luck! Nothing – neither money nor fame, neither a particular talent or a personal characteristic, not even success itself – makes one person better than another. These things just make some people different. And every American is actually quite proud of the fact that he is different from other Americans, a unique individual. But even where Americans emphasize their individual differences (material success, status symbols such as a big house, nice car etc.), they insist all the more vigorously that they not be treated differently.
The individual learns
• To be proud of his own achievements,
• To bear responsibility alone,
• To accept his position not merely in the social order but to assert himself again and again,
• To be distrustful of collective authority.
Competition in a setting characterized by egocentric individualism is tough and omnipresent. There is no “time out” or “king’s X” in competition. In contrast to group-oriented individualism, regulations are intended primarily to protect the individual’s opportunities for self-development.
The effects of egocentric individualism are found in certain values: success, self-reliance and striving for independence. The typically American striving for independence is expressed in the belief that people have to be “self-starters.” The individual should look after his own affairs on the basis of his own drive, without external or social pressure. The greatest incentive is self-fulfillment. And only someone who is independent can realize his true self. Thus it is no coincidence that for many years the cowboy was the popular icon of American culture. Independence is personified in the image of the lonesome cowboy. He has no ties – no house, no property, no family or friends (just his horse) – in fact nothing which might limit his freedom. He interacts with society only when he wants and on his own terms, mowing on, whenever other people start to expect things from him. How seriously Americans take doing things themselves is reflected in the inflationary use of words such as self-confidence, self-control and self-improvement.
Quality of life is ensured in the American culture by way of personal material success. In a country founded on democratic principles, without class distinctions, people differ only on the basis of their actions and material success. Status symbols, as a visible expression of success, thus play a major part. How important success is shown by a famous quotation; former football coach Vince Lombardi once said: “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” In American business life it’s all about winning. But this also means that one’s own successes can be assertively put on display. In contrast to Germany, societal distribution of wealth is not seen as a “zero-sum game.” Envy is thus less manifest.
Self-reliance: Each individual is responsible for himself. The fundamental concept – that business success or failure is the individual’s own responsibility – is reflected in the free market ideology. Competition automatically brings about improvement and growth. But at the individual level, this also means that cooperation takes place in the American society only when it contributes to one’s own success.
Striving for security instead of taking risks
German cultural pessimism amazes many foreign observers. Germans appear to worry unnecessarily about potential crises and disasters and thus often seem burdened and somber. Joined with these fears about the future is the German penchant for avoiding risk. Whether it is a matter of laws, standards, automobiles, atomic power stations or financial investments, Germany is known for its obsession with striving for security. One attempts to preclude risk and unforeseen events and to make life more predictable. It is not without good reason that Germany is the country with the greatest outlays for insurance coverage. The need to control a situation, to minimize risk and neutralize potential disturbances and sources of error is expressed in the most comprehensive possible and well-founded planning, organizing, structuring and systematization.
The effects of the cultural dimension ‘striving for security’ are found in the values of thoroughness and perfection, predictability and reliability. German thoroughness and perfectionism are almost legendary. Adherence to the maxim, “It is better to strive for perfection and fail than to aim for mediocrity and achieve it,” pervades the claim to perfection in all areas of life. The single, final and absolute truth and the perfect solution are sought. Germans approach their pursuit of perfection deductively by subdividing their ideas down to the smallest possible unit. In many cases great attention is paid to details. One wants to get to the core of the thing. Behind that is the conviction that often not only the true quality of a matter is to be found in the details, but that the real problem will be identified as well. As the saying goes: “The devil’s in the detail.” At the same time the passion for quality has elevated “Made in Germany” to a seal of quality. It is not the marketability of the product that is in the foreground but rather its durability, its ongoing utility and its low downtime rates. Here the conscientious engineer would add just one more safety device, just in case …
The famed inclination towards “procedural thinking” provides a degree of security, as well. And thus it is hardly surprising that in German society predictability and reliability – being “able to rely on someone” – are felt to be high measures of esteem for a colleague or business associate. In the spirit of rule-oriented, internalized self-monitoring it is expected that everyone will adhere to his own resonsibilities and accomplish his tasks.
Consistency: “Anyone who says ‘A’ must also say ‘B’,” is a familiar German proverb, meaning, in effect, “You have to finish what you start.” Once you’ve started something you have to see it through to the end. Perseverance and consistency are much-valued virtues in German business life. Consistency is also visible in career planning in Germany. Professional competence is measured in part by the amount of experience in any field. A doctorate shows consistency and expertise through specialization in a particular field of endeavor. And so why should anyone leave a field of activity which he masters so well and in which he is deemed to be competent?
Americans, by contrast, see risk as something quite normal, as something which is a part of everyday living. The American view of risk results in many respects from the prototypical experience of the early immigrants who were faced with a multitude of tasks when settling the country. These were tasks which they had never before confronted, let alone carried out. In these unforeseen situations the colonists had the choice of either doing nothing – and perish – or trying out new behavior and seeing what happened. Under circumstances such as this, willingness to take risk quickly became a part of the lifestyle. Taking risks is expected in American society. Americans love trying things out almost as much as the actual success. And if the USA had a national motto, then it would certainly be something like Nike’s advertising slogan, “Just do it!”
Expressions of willingness to take risk in American culture are found in the values of optimism and pragmatism, improvisation and change. Led by a strong belief in the “pursuit of happiness,” Americans radiate optimism and spontaneity. They are firmly convinced that if they want something bad enough and just work hard enough to get it, then they will actually achieve their goals. It’s making the seemingly impossible possible! One has to believe in one’s own chances and grasp the opportunities they offer. Considerations thus circle around chances, not about problems. Problem-oriented contributions to discussions are thus undesirable in many situations. This distinct optimism is at the same time paired with a pragmatic approach. Thus inductive testing takes place in the American culture instead of the deductive derivation more typical of the German approach. The maxim is: “Let’s try it out, and if it doesn’t work, then we’ll look for another way.” This kind of approach leads to a different understanding of quality, in the spirit of “ready to use.” It might not be perfect, but it gets the job done (sometimes known as the “good enough syndrome” or “quick and dirty” approach). While Germans tend to perfectionism, it might well be that an American product doesn’t quite come up to the expectations of German engineers, but instead goes to market sooner, with improvements being made with each subsequent version.
The affinity for risk among Americans also explains their attitudes toward improvisation. Americans see nothing wrong with “making it up as you go along” or in responding quickly and spontaneously (“thinking on your feet”). In other words, they tend to act “on the spur of the moment,” without much forecasting or planning. Whatever the limitations and risks of improvisation might be, it is always faster than weighing the alternatives.
Taking advantage of opportunities makes it necessary to reorient oneself at short notice. Consequently, in a culture like this, change is desirable and by no means threatening. We are getting better and better! New ideas have an intrinsic appeal. Long-term loyalty is, by contrast, unusual and is not expected. On average, an American changes jobs eight times, changes professions three times and relocates every seven years.
German and American business associates are thus products of differing sets of values. How do these differing cultural paradigms affect mutual communication?
A comparison of German and American communication styles
Communication in general makes great demands on the perception and interpretation of a message, both for the person sending the message and for the recipient. Thus, even if two people share the same cultural background, understanding presupposes a certain degree of competence in correctly interpreting a message. How much greater is the hazard in international relations – that people will not understand each other, will talk past each other, and will ultimately offend each other. Sadly, many people have experienced this as they attempted to express themselves unequivocally to members of foreign cultures.
Our communication style is directly related with the value system and standards of the culture in which we grew up. Germans place great value on content and play down emotions in order to appear credible and objective (emphasis of the factual level). The German communication style can be described as unequivocal, subject-oriented and even a bit academic. Germans are generally more direct than Americans, especially when facts are to be presented, criticism is to be exercised and instructions are to be given.
Americans, by contrast, emphasize both the personal and the business aspects. They are more extroverted than the Germans and their primary goal, when they speak, is to be well-liked and socially accepted (emphasis on both the factual and the interpersonal levels). This is why on the one hand they are more direct than Germans in making compliments and expressing delight – and that makes them excellent at small talk – while on the other hand they are more indirect than Germans when expressing criticism.
Whenever these divergent communication techniques are not entirely understood misinterpretation and misunderstandings are pre-programmed. Germans often see Americans as superficial, uncritical, naïve and even duplicitous. The American cliché is that the Germans are impolite, gruff and argumentative know-it-alls who see everything in a negative light.
Small talk and presentations as fundamental situations in communication between German and American business associations are observed more closely below.
Small talk
The purpose of small talk is to create a relaxed and cordial atmosphere and to establish or revive a personal relationship. Small talk should in all cases be positive in nature. Suitable topics are sports, movies, the weather, the family, hometowns, hobbies, cars, travel. Topics which could easily lead to controversy or which could infringe upon value systems are avoided, as are subjects which are negative in character.
Small talk is rather a difficult art for the Germans. On the one hand, Germans differentiate clearly between the public and private spheres. Consequently, in the German view, it is not customary to talk about family with someone whom he has met just two minutes before. In addition, it is difficult for Germans to avoid negative statements since we are accustomed to enhance prestige more by way of a “balanced opinion” or a “critical distance” to matters or engaging in an intellectual contest. In the latter one attempts to prove that one’s counterpart has overlooked an important aspect, that he is not aware of all the facts etc. For Germans such a controversial debate can create commonalties since it shows the participants that they are interested in the same things and that they are intellectual equals. For Americans, however, intellectual sparring of all kinds is contrary to a relaxed atmosphere. Small talk is not the place for impressing one’s counterpart with extensive knowledge and highly differentiated positions.
The American avoidance of in-depth analysis, discussions of problems and controversy in small talk situations makes a major contribution to the view, widely held among Germans, that Americans are “superficial.” Particularly since – during the “getting-to-know-you” phase – it would be unseemly for Americans to go into great depth, to discuss problems or to enter into controversial debates on fundamental questions, it becomes possible for them to “reveal” information earlier which the Germans would feel to be “too personal” – about career and family, for instance. Americans are interested in the cordial emphasis of commonalties.
Presentations
Presentations play a central part in business life and can be decisive for business success or career advancement. Here, too, it needs to be empasized that differing forms of presentation will not necessarilt lead to misunderstanding but rather that the differing criteria for a “good” presentation will often not be adequately satisfied. The result can be that other persons, companies or products are given priority when evaluating employees, when contracting etc.
Germans prefer to have objective facts structured in a logical and deductive manner in presentations and lectures. In the limelight here are central theses or statements which are arrived at by way of derivation. Americans, by contrast, prefer an inductive logical structure. Individual ideas, examples, anecdotes, comparisons, graphics etc. are focused upon a few core messages which are spotlighted in the presentation.
While in Germany objectivity, contextual analysis and problem orientation are in the foreground when preparing arguments on any particular subject, in the United States the elements of innovation, utility and practicality are particularly important. Analysis is limited to purely quantitative aspects. Above all the presenter has to identify what it is about the subject, idea or product that is new, exciting, contemporary, challenging, wonderful, surprising, particularly useful and promising of success. He has to link the subject, idea or product with a message which is positive, powerful and evocative! Conviction is not reached among Americans by way of compelling logical argumentation but rather by selling ideas to the audience.
In Germany earnestness is of great significance. Listeners expect a certain degree of seriousness from the presenter and its evaluation is based upon the aura of qualification and expertise which the speaker projects. Important for the success of a presentation in the USA, by comparison, is a performance which is entertaining on the one hand (regardless of how serious the subject might be) and, on the other hand, very quickly and pointedly shows listeners why it is beneficial to deal with the subject, the product or the idea. The presenter must on the one hand be charming, humorous and quick-witted in his depiction; on the other hand he has to be optimistic, powerful, dynamic, and in all events thoroughly self-aware!
The differences pointed out here will of necessity result in discrepancies in intentions and perception. To take just two examples:
• The American approach – concentrating solely on the preferred solution to a problem – is seen on the German side as poorly prepared and naively optimistic. On the other hand, the German technique – to analyze all possible solutions evenhandedly – is perceived by Americans as a sign of uncertainty and is, in addition, annoying, since it consumes an unnecessary amount of time.
• If a German manager refers to historical experience and orients his discussion on what is actually feasible, he will be seen in the eyes of an American manager as a man without vision and conservative, to boot. The German feels the American to be unrealistic when he projects great visions of future successes.
Cultural differences in German and American business
In order to further sharpen the perception of cultural differences in German and American business, the topics of information dissemination and the understanding of time, leadership and motivation are discussed below. Since every business situation makes it necessary to take into account the context of each case and thus the personalities of those involved, there can be no generally valid answers codified in a list of “dos and don’ts.” Rather, the examples put forth here are intended to increase sensitivity and promote reflection.
Information dissemination and the understanding of time
In day-to-day business life in German companies the cultural standards outlined at the beginning – group-oriented individualism and striving for security – are reflected in phenomena such as a general preference for clear procedures, exact delineation of authority and a certain respect for rules which, among other things, define areas of competence and responsibility. Americans see this as a sort of compartmentalization and suffer under the often restrictive distribution of information on a “need to know” basis, as is frequently found in the German business world. Behind this phenomenon is usually nothing more than the notion that people who are not directly involved with any given matter should concentrate on doing what they’re being paid for. But Americans, who are used to an unimpeded flow of information in all directions, quickly feel excluded by such a convention.
In addition to the breadth of information dissemination, the information flow within a company is characterized by the information depth. In the German business culture information tends to be – and is expected to be – transmitted in larger, well-rounded “packages.” In the American business culture again information is passed along in timely “bits and pieces,” which is ultimately to be traced back to a differing understanding of time. Although the societies in both the USA and Germany have fixed time planning concepts – i.e. time is linear and can be subdivided into segments – there are different perceptions of time in the German and American business communities.
The German concept of time serves to carry out all the activities at the right time. Germans organize time according to work plans and agreements. Important decisions have to be carefully made. In advance of the actual decision it is necessary to take account of every potential problem and to compare notes with everyone involved. That takes time, of course. When a firm consensus as to the approach has been achieved, then one goes on to implementation in accordance with an exact plan.
The roots of the American time concept are to be found in the Puritan heritage. Useful activities are valuable, significant and moral. To quote the famous American inventor and statesman Benjamin Franklin: “Waste no time, it is the stuff of life.” Time, like money, can be saved, lost or well invested. The formula is “Important = Urgent!” And due to that the Americans often are accused of having a cowboy mentality – “Shoot first, aim later!” The fact that a business culture such as this is characterized by quick decision-making, rapid implementation and the corresponding expectations is also demonstrated by the popularity of books such as The One-Minute Manager. In the USA time is not spent – or “wasted” – on pursuing basic questions or attempting to perfect a solution. Rather, Americans are guided by the need to be efficient and find a quick solution.
Management philosophy
In Germany a supervisor is expected to be an “all-rounder” who is distinguished both by professional qualifications and a head-start in experience. He should radiate realism and confidence. At the same time he should, as primus inter pares, not want to monitor everything but rather to place his trust in his employees’ expertise and sense of responsibility. Thus employees are to be included in decision-making processes and to be persuaded. This is contrary to the “top-down” approach, in which assignments are simply dictated.
Employees are trained to work independently. They receive – in the spirit of the values of thoroughness and perfectionism – detailed information on the context of their work (objectives, reasons, purpose, their function and role). In case problems arise it is expected that employees will largely solve them themselves. Accordingly the supervisor will tend to see problems as being rooted in poorly crafted systems and not in the employees. He is more involved in institutional monitoring and processes than in overseeing his subordinates. Thus the employee in the German business culture can work relatively independently, within the pre-defined framework, but does not look beyond his own assignment (“That’s not my responsibility.”).
In the USA it is not expected that a manager be an expert in the particular field. Consequently it is quite normal to change industries on the way to the top. The American manager sees himself as a “doer and shaker” who radiates optimism and confidence and has his eye more on the overall concept than on theories and details. Consequently a good manager is characterized by dynamism, performance and successes. In the spirit of “the boss is the boss,” success is not possible without management leadership which sets down clear assignments, supports efforts, and monitors success.
One leitmotiv in American business culture – fully in line with the values of optimism and pragmatism – is that anyone who has two hands can learn “on the job.” Since employees are often trained quickly, the manager is responsible for motivation, quality control and the successful conclusion of a project. Employees expect clear assignments as to what they have to achieve and when. In American business culture the employee sees himself working more in a diffuse framework which necessitates more communication and motivation on the part of the superior, but which also leaves room for creative action and improvisation.
Figure 4 provides an overview of the starting points for the German and American economies at the beginning of the industrialization process, and these differences made a significant contribution of the development of the divergent understandings of management functions.
Motivation
While American parents raise their children to believe that, “You can achieve anything you want,” German parents ask worriedly, “Will my child make it to college?” Confidence on the one side, anxiety on the other side, are common threads weaving their way through all of life.
German business life is characterized by a sober and industrious atmosphere. The glorification of hard labor and effort can be traced back to Luther and Calvin, as is the concept of achieving God’s grace by the best possible discharge of assignments (the so-called Protestant work ethic). Older generations in Germany would state with pride that “We live to work.”
Most Americans are influenced by the same Protestant work ethic, something which the colonists brought with them. This is augmented by the need to achieve. In a nation based on democratic principles, without class distinctions, the Americans differ from one another only on the basis of their actions and their individual material successes. Everyone determines his own fate through his own initiative. A business culture such as this demands performance and, when performance has once been demonstrated, the individual is entitled to take part in “the pursuit of happiness.” That is why Americans are so excited whenever their achievements and successes are documented – by being named “employee of the month,” for instance.
The differing fundamental motivation of Germans and Americans also explains the differing expectations in regard to praise and criticism. In Germany employees do not expect praise for something they consider to be “normal discharge of duties.” Instead, only exceptional achievements are praised. While Germans praise by not criticizing, the American criticize by not praising. Thus, praise for normal performance is expected. If it is withheld, then there arises great uncertainty as to whether the expected standards have been met. Figure 6 summarizes the differences on the subject of praise and criticism, from the German point of view.
Perspectives
Perhaps you, kind reader, are by now amazed that the German and American (business) cultures are so different. My intention here was not to point out so many cultural differences between the two societies that now, considering all the supposed challenges, you are numbed into immobility. Quite the opposite. By providing information on Germans and Americans I want to give you a basis for understanding and communication.
Knowledge about your own culture and the foreign culture provides the foundation for intercultural learning and intercultural competence:
• Behavior which contradicts your own expectations can thus be discerned as a cultural difference and not simply be evaluated as impolite, incapable, comical or authoritarian.
• Armed with this knowledge, you are emotionally a bit more detached and thus less likely to be surprised, disappointed or offended. Sometimes it is even possible to anticipate the behavior of others, so that the situation will not be perceived as unexpected.
• Consequently, you can respond more confidently and more adequately in that you can, for instance, explain the causes for the situation. Or you can respond in a way that comes a bit closer to the foreign cultural pattern. This defuses the danger that the situation will escalate. Neither of the parties will withdraw into the “shell” of their own cultures. Nor will they be tempted to pay back the perceived slap in the face – to return to the image used at the outset – by “telling the other person a thing or two.”
Every culture has its strengths and its weaknesses. There is no absolutely good or bad cultural system. To be aware of one’s own strengths and weaknesses makes it possible to advance from a “better than” viewpoint to a “different from” attitude. Your American business associates, employees or colleagues want primarily to be respected by you in regard to their “otherness.”
Competence in German-American business relations requires openness and curiosity about this otherness and, as well, a readiness to approach one another and to learn from each other. This not only makes it possible to settle conflicts but also opens the way to discovering options for augmenting one another. Ultimately, potentials for synergy can be exploited.
For further reading
Nees, Greg. Germany – Unraveling an Enigma. Yarmouth, 2000.
Schmidt, Patrick LeMont. Die amerikanische und die deutsche Wirtschaftskultur im Vergleich. Göttingen, 2003.
Storti, Craig. Americans at Work – A Guide to the Can-Do People. Yarmouth, 2004.
4/2005
