Trust across cultures

By Rupert Younger, Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation and Michael Gates, Adjunct Professor, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics.

Trust underpins all social interactions and institutions. Without trust, cooperation breaks down making it difficult to transact, build relationships, or achieve common goals. The volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) nature of our societies today makes trust an even more vital commodity. But in a globalised and increasingly interdependent world, we need to recognise that levels of trust vary considerably across cultures. Understanding the role of trust in building bridges between people from different cultures and backgrounds has become one of the most important challenges facing leaders today.

Recent data from the World Values Survey - from respondents who were asked whether ‘most people can be trusted’ – has shown trust tends to be highest in Denmark (74%), Norway (73%) and Sweden (65%). This compares with Brazil (3%), Colombia (4%) and the Philippines (5%) – a massive difference.

However, when it comes to trust in government, the results shift dramatically. The Edelman Trust Barometer 2024 showed China had the highest trust (84%), followed by the UAE (78%) and Switzerland (75%). The bottom of the table is led (again) by Brazil (10%), South Africa (11%) and Venezuela (12%)

It is possible to have various combinations. Among these are countries with

• Low trust between individuals but high trust in government (China)
• High trust between individuals but low trust in government (Japan)
• High trust between individuals and in government (Finland)
• Low trust between individuals and in government (Brazil)

So, what explains these differences?

As with most complex issues, models can be useful starting points. Yet they should be seen as ladders to help us reach new vantage points, to be kicked away once we engage with the specifics of any situation.

Our work at Saïd Business School engages with questions of trust and culture. A starting point for our work and teaching on trust is the idea that trust is an outcome, and that leaders need instead to focus on trustworthiness – or earned trust. After all, increased trust, if unearned, may well be a very bad idea. 

One model that seeks to unpick this is the “Lewis Model” which classifies cultures into three broad categories, linear-active, multi-active and reactive. The graph below illustrates a simplified version of the Lewis Model:

The Lewis Cultural Types Model

Linear-Active

Those cultures that can be classified in as linear-active are characterised by efficiency and planning. People in these cultures tend to be cool, factual, and decisive in their interactions with others. Descriptors that are common when referencing people from these cultures include 'polite but direct', 'confronts with logic' and 'respects officialdom'. Linear-active cultures also tend to have plenty of drive, and often complete tasks fastest in experiments. They generally do one thing at a time. Trust is usually earned by keeping promises and showing competence. Countries that best sit in this space include Germany, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

Multi-Active

Multi-active cultures are characterised by complexity at a relationship level and people orientation. They tend to be more people-oriented than focused on data. People in these cultures tend to be warm, emotional, loquacious and impulsive. Descriptors in this category include 'displays feelings', 'often interrupts', and 'unlimited body language'. They tend to expect people to be constantly reachable and available, and they often earn trust among themselves by gradually giving out personal information and seeing whether you use it against them or not. Countries that best sit in this space include Italy, Mexico and Brazil.

Reactive

In reactive cultures, respect and formality are dominant characteristics. People in these cultures tend to be courteous, amiable, accommodating and good listeners. Descriptors in this category include 'conceals feelings, 'statements are promises' and 'patient'. You can earn trust by making sacrifices and by doing and returning favours. Countries that best sit in this space include China, Vietnam and Japan.

Interpersonal Trust

When we now look at the statistics on interpersonal trust in the light of this model, the highest-ranking cultures tend to be linear-active and the lowest-ranking cultures tend to be multi-active and reactive. Of course, there are exceptions. And it gets more complicated when we think about trust in government. This chart below summarises some of the main ways trust is earned by the three types. 

In linear-active cultures, you see much more trust in institutions, and this trust is based on performance (doing what you say you will do), displaying consistency, facts and a widespread sense of competence when it comes to officialdom.  In multi-active cultures, trust is more seen in personal groups rather than in institutions, and is based on concepts of high compassion, closeness, and being willing to display vulnerability within personal networks. In reactive cultures, trust is earned through reciprocity and is based on what you do to protect the reputation of your friends, overt displays of courtesy and personal sacrifice on behalf of the friendship group.

Practice Implications

How can executives use these insights in practice? 

One example relates to Disney who for years had been trying, unsuccessfully, to get planning permission to build a Disneyland in Shanghai. In Autumn 2008, they changed their approach and began opening Disney Schools of English - six in Shanghai and two in Beijing. Within two months they were granted permission, and the theme park celebrates its eighth anniversary in 2024.

There were clearly many factors involved in this change of approach, but from a cultural point of view:

More broadly, here are five simple steps that executives should consider when trying to build trust across cultures.

1. Be actively aware that culture matters when it comes to achieving desired outcomes, and that trust holds the key. This may seem obvious, but organisations try all the time to impose head office led, or culturally monotone, strategies. Linking strategic success to trust concepts reduces the risks in organisational strategy.
2. Build detailed cultural understanding into strategy formation. Strategies cannot just be globally theoretical ideas put into practice. Strategic initiatives need to both understand and reflect real cultural norms if they are to succeed.
3. Actively build in cultural framing when working through strategic implementation of new initiatives.  Often strategic ideas that are valuable become undermined and unimplementable in practice because of a lack of awareness of – or attention to – different cultural norms.
4. Ensure that the language used in the communications accompanying strategic initiatives resonates with local employees. Not doing so risks two things – basic misunderstanding on the intent of the initiative, or (much worse) a risk of cultural insensitivity and offence.
5. Create career progressions that enable cross-cultural exchanges to take place, and  that build up cross-cultural practices, feedback loops and insights that can be shared among the leadership team and across the business units.

Culture can be a dangerous topic if handled inflexibly.  What it can do at best in business is help us generate counter-intuitive approaches: at least, counter-intuitive for our own culture. These approaches rely on probability but - in the absence of complete information – trying out probable ways of creating trust across cultures can lead to powerful results.  

Michael Gates is Vice Chairman of Richard Lewis Communications and was, until recently, also an Associate Fellow at Saïd Business School. He is a cross-cultural generalist but also delivers a wide variety of culture-specific training. His specialist areas are the Nordic region and India, as well as delivering training in functional areas such as negotiation, leadership, presentation and teams. He particularly specialises in negotiation and spent many years teaching the cross-cultural module on the Oxford Programme on Negotiation. He has been involved in the development of the Lewis Model and approach from the start, especially in the creation of pedagogical techniques and web-based tools. He has published many articles on cross-cultural issues, and has collaborated in books written by Richard D. Lewis.