An American manager joins a German-led product team. In the first week, she notices that every conversation circles back to process. How will we structure the workflow? What are the checkpoints? Where is the documentation? She’s patient at first. Then frustrated. Then blunt: “Can we stop talking about process and start getting things done?”
Her German colleagues are stunned. From their perspective, talking about process is getting things done.
This is one of the most common collisions in German-American teams. Not because one side cares about process and the other doesn’t. Both care. But they mean fundamentally different things by the word.
_____
For Germans, processes are guarantors of quality. The product and the process that produces it are two sides of the same coin. A work result is only as good as the method that created it. Processes ensure objectivity. They ensure stability. They ensure that outcomes are reproducible, verifiable, and defensible. When Germans invest time defining a process, they are building the infrastructure that makes excellence possible.
For Americans, processes are tools. Useful tools—sometimes essential tools—but tools nonetheless. A means to an end, not the end itself. Processes assist and support human judgment. They don’t replace it. When a process step adds no value, Americans will deviate without hesitation. The result matters. The path to the result is negotiable.
_____
Watch what happens when these two philosophies share a project.
The German side builds a rigorous workflow. Detailed. Interconnected. Designed to catch errors before they propagate. The American side looks at that workflow and sees bureaucracy—a system designed to slow things down and prevent people from using their judgment.
The American side proposes a lighter approach. Flexible checkpoints. Adapt as you go. The German side looks at that and sees recklessness—a system with no system, where quality is left to chance and individual whim.
Neither perception is accurate. But both feel real. And both lead to the same toxic conclusion: the other side doesn’t understand what matters.
_____
The way through this is not to pick one philosophy. It’s to name the difference and then decide together, process by process, where rigor is essential and where flexibility serves better.
Some processes in your collaboration genuinely require the German approach—especially where errors are costly, where regulatory standards apply, where interconnected systems demand precision. Other processes benefit from the American approach—especially where speed matters, where the environment is changing fast, where human judgment outperforms any checklist.
The conversation to have is not “should we have processes?” Both sides already agree on that. The conversation is: “What kind of process does this specific situation demand?”
That’s a conversation both cultures are equipped to have—once they stop assuming the other side doesn’t take the question seriously.