Why is it so easy for American companies to simply try out new things – whereas in Germany, a project group is often set up before anyone gets bold?
Why do the big technological leaps come from Silicon Valley – and here in Germany, it’s mainly improvements to what already exists?
The answers lie deeper than tax policy or funding logic.
They lie in our cultural software.
The middle technology trap – when culture becomes a brake on growth
A recent Focus article warns with reference to the “growth agenda” just presented by the Ministry of Economics: Germany is caught in a middle-technology trap.
We invest a lot in research, but mostly in sectors that we already know well – automotive, mechanical engineering, chemicals.
We perfect where others rethink.
This is no coincidence, but an expression of our cultural DNA:
- We avoid uncertainty.
- We plan instead of experimenting.
- We trust systematics more than intuition.
This creates a culture of innovation that perfects high technologies – but rarely produces new ones.
The middle technology trap is therefore not an economic problem. It is a cultural one.
Hofstede and the cultural codes of innovation
The Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede showed back in the 1970s how national cultures deal differently with uncertainty, power and individuality.
These dimensions shape how people work, learn and assess risks.
- USA: low uncertainty avoidance, flat hierarchies, high individualism. → Courage to take risks, acceptance of failure, speed before perfection.
- Germany: high uncertainty avoidance, rule orientation, collective coordination. → Planning, thoroughness, control – and therefore stability, but also inertia.
The result: the USA rewards the courage to leave things unfinished.
Germany rewards the diligence of the accomplished.
Both have their value – but in disruptive times, security can quickly become a brake on innovation.
DARPA, SprinD and the institutional dimension
So how do we deal with this? In this context, reference is often made to the US American DARPA – the research agency that gave rise to the Internet, GPS and autonomous systems.
Germany has been trying a similar model since 2019 with SprinD – but the results have so far been modest.
In my article DARPA: How a US agency changed our world and created Silicon Valley, I described how DARPA has functioned as a laboratory for radical ideas since the 1950s:
- with autonomous project managers,
- short decision-making processes
- and a culture of error that sees risk as the norm.
SprinD was deliberately founded based on this model – but in a different cultural context.
In this country, freedom of innovation meets budgetary law, risk assessment and political controlling.
Not because people are less creative – but because our institutions reflect our culture.
We want planning, control and traceability – and often lose track of time in the process.
UEBERflow and the learning culture behind it
Now you could say: we don’t have a knowledge problem, but an implementation problem.
An appeal along the lines of the growth agenda“We must learn to make uncertainty productive” is therefore not enough. After all, how do you learn to do this – in old structures?
In my dissertation UEBERflow – scope for shaping global education (2012), I have already examined this cultural dimension in the context of learning.
I was able to show that Flow experiences – states of focus and creativity – occur at different rates depending on how a culture deals with uncertainty.
In risk-taking cultures (such as the USA), flow occurs early – in safety-oriented cultures (such as Germany) only when control prevails.
This also applies to organizations.
Securing learning prevents discovery.
Controlling knowledge slows down innovation.
What this means for our training culture
Our training landscape follows the same pattern:
We love structure, certificates and quality assurance.
But this is precisely what often prevents what we need:
a culture of trial, error and shared learning.
If Germany wants to break out of the middle-tech trap,
it must also transform its training culture:
- Less instruction, more self-organization,
- Less testing, more reflection,
- Less perfection, more courage to be uncertain.
After all, continuing education is not a repair store – it is the cultural laboratory for future viability.
Conclusion: Culture is the new infrastructure
The growth agenda speaks of “competitiveness” and “innovative strength”.
But the real challenge lies deeper:
in the cultural mindset that shapes our institutions, companies and learning spaces.
Perhaps we don’t have to become like Silicon Valley.
Perhaps it is enough if we learn to become more culturally agile – without our depth, but with more lightness.
Because the future does not belong to them,
who do everything right – but those who are prepared to learn anew.