BGA | BUSINESS IMPACT
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
In the real world, we also usually conduct some form of verification process before deciding to trust someone. Trust is complex and we must not be naïve about our reasons. A person may be perceived to be trustworthy, but it takes a further cognitive ‘leap’ to decide to trust them. When we take a leap, we also take a risk. A ‘leap of faith’ is a decision based on emotional and irrational foundations. This leap of faith is taken when we want to believe that another person is telling the truth, even when the evidence shows otherwise (see Trust as a social reality by J David Lewis and Andrew Weigert). When we allow ourselves to become vulnerable to another person based on little more than a gut feeling, this can have quite serious impacts on us both personally and professionally. The emotional side of the trust equation must not be ignored, however, and decisions about trustworthiness can be based on relationships, such as those within families. We generally experience stronger and more enduring trust in families than at work, since workplace relationships are considered more unstable and short term than family relationships. According to Catherine T Kwantes, co-editor of Trust and trustworthiness across cultures , when we are willing to trust another person, we go through an assessment process whereby we allow ourselves to be vulnerable to them, based on our expectations about how that person will behave when we have trusted them. We have decided to spend less time and energy protecting ourselves from being exploited, thereby opening ourselves up to risk. We have estimated the risks posed by another person, resulting in some measure of uncertainty. Since we are motivated to protect ourselves, we will develop an impetus to reduce that uncertainty. In her book, Why workers still identify with organizations , Denise M Rousseau contends that this is especially true when we are at work and
our job may depend on verifying the trust that we have placed in another person. Some may seek conditions to prevent being cheated or sabotaged, but to some extent we always accept some degree of personal risk. Applying specific criteria When we consider trusting someone at work, we should apply explicit criteria, claim Roger C Mayer, James H Davis and F David Schoorman, co-authors of An integrative model of organizational trust . These cover: ability – the perceived competence of another person; benevolence – the belief that they have your best interests in mind; and integrity – the perception that they adhere to acceptable values or principles. As educators, we should approach the trust concept with sensitivity and care. I advise this cautious approach since concepts of trust may differ between cultures, meaning that we should not assume that any single view of what trust means is superior. This approach is even more important when teaching overseas, where we may find ourselves with a minority viewpoint. In my classes, I like to ask questions that explore the assumptions my students have about trust. I like to invite them to talk openly about their perspectives on trust and to talk about the challenges they have faced when trusting others in another culture. This sometimes reveals interesting differences between their understandings of what it means to trust. For instance, in some cultures the trust concept relates more closely to an ongoing relationship with the person who is considered trustworthy, rather than an assessment of their ability, benevolence or integrity. I consider asking open questions to be an important part of the practice of teaching. I also like to adopt a somewhat naïve approach, by inviting my students to explain concepts such as trust to me so that we can dissect the variety of interpretations and explore any uncertainties and challenges
15 15
“I like to explore the assumptions students have about trust”
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online