Pragmatism: Why German Love for Perfect Processes Is a Transformation Killer

 We try to design the “perfect” ironclad processes.

Everything documented. Roles crystal-clear. Communication is reduced to the bare minimum.

It feels safe. After all, we Germans love engineering perfection a nd rules.

👆But the moment a real transformation begins, this strength turns into a dangerous trap.

Why?

Suddenly, people live in two conflicting worlds:

🌎 The old world: “Follow the process. Never break the rules. That’s how we stay safe.”

🌍 The new world: “Experiment, take shortcuts, let go of old ways.”

You can’t just flip a switch between those two.

The result? Paralysis. Zero pragmatism.

The second things get uncomfortable, everyone retreats behind the process.

Without explicit room for pragmatism, people get overwhelmed: too many new things, zero tolerance for shortcuts or common-sense solutions. The transformation catches a cold… and quietly freezes to death.

I’ve personally watched a company spend over two years and millions of euros mapping EVERY excruciatingly detailed target process.

Absolutely Insane —  and the exact opposite of pragmatism.

Outcome? Absolutely nothing — except slowly wearing everyone out until the whole initiative died of exhaustion.

It remains, to this day, the most absurd and excruciatingly boring waste of time I’ve seen.

Takeaway:

➡️ Pragmatic solutions are not only allowed — they are required.

➡️ Mistakes are part of the deal. If you punish mistakes and failure, you instantly push the entire organization back into the German reflex: “We have always done it this way.”

Who else has watched German perfectionism freeze a transformation solid? What was your worst (or best) example? 👇

------------------

------------------

But there are high risks when it comes to a transformation.

You may expect me to say it takes to much time and goes against "Fail fast, learn fast". While that is true, I would like to discuss another issue that arises from such approach:

Perfectly defined processes are understood as rules. In the workplace it is a safe option to stick to the rules. Especially in Germany as we seem to love rules and regulations at the utmost detailed level.  Here comes the BUT:

First in a transformation you have to understand that people work in two worlds AT THE SAME TIME. The old world were they stick to the processes and all the rules in order to run the organization. And the new world were they have to let go of old ways in order to pave the way for the new world.

Yet, you have a history of having practiced and taught your organization, that processes have to be well defined and one should stick to them. This makes it hard for people to just change. It is a whole new playfield and a game they are not familiar with.

A transformation needs Pragmatism

I see the two-world-conflict as the root cause for a lack of pragmatism in a transformation. Pragmatism is something that is undervalued in a transformation and in my opinion not talked about enough. You have to go new ways and for that you need pragmatic ways to make it happen. Pragmatism keeps your organization from being overwhelmed by the transformation.

I see the two-world-conflict as the root cause for a lack of pragmatism in a transformation. Pragmatism is something that is undervalued in a transformation and in my opinion not talked about enough. You have to go new ways and for that you need pragmatic ways to make it happen. Pragmatism keeps your organization from being overwhelmed by the transformation.

Therefore, you have to work on the two-world-problem and make room for pragmatic solutions. It is a balancing act.

👉 Therefore, it is all the way more important to allow for mistakes and failure otherwise you shoo everyone back into the safe  "we have always done it this way" mindset

The two world conflict is just one of many reasons why change aversion occurs. But i feel like it is one that often goes unnoticed.