Workplace trust is defined as the willingness of one party to be vulnerable to the acts of the other party; the extent to which the ‘trustee’ is willing to allow the ‘trustor’ – superior or colleague – to shape and impact his or her professional life.
Who & How Do We Trust?
Paradoxically, both China and India have high power distance and collectivistic cultures. In high power distance societies, a hierarchical expression of authority between leaders and followers is readily accepted. On the other hand, collectivistic cultures emphasise the interdependent nature of groups where individuals build robust allegiances between one another. In examining trust relationships with supervisors, peers and subordinates in these two countries, what was most telling were the results for trust amongst peers. Unlike vertical relationships involving individuals in authority such as the supervisor, relationships between peers are characterised by negligible power imbalance and are effectively void of vertical power dynamics.
Trust in Supervisors
Of the three key traits of trust building – ability, benevolence and integrity – both cultures prize benevolence more in their relationships with superiors. Benevolence is defined as support in career guidance, showing understanding, and listening. Moreover, this was expressed not just in the workplace. India and China’s collectivistic cultures facilitated the sharing of personal information and lives, which bonded employees in their professional domains.
Implications for Organisations
Here are the major findings of this study:
A. Benevolent motivations drive most trust building efforts in both India and China. This is much more apparent at the peer-to-peer level, especially in India.
B. Trust relationships spill over from the professional to the personal domains in both countries.
C. Trust in peers strongly dissuades staff from leaving a company. Organisations should therefore continue to encourage supervisors to build trust with their subordinates.
Yet, the key insight from the study is that such trust building efforts are not enough. Organisations in China and India should proactively create natural workgroups to encourage trust-building between peers. Creating such trust building efforts among peers is likely to reap benefits over and above that of trust building efforts by supervisors. Such natural workgroups can also provide strong support to peers in the socialisation process, in getting work done, and, in providing the avenues by which peers are able to turn to for help, especially in the personal domain in times of need. This is especially relevant for Indian organisations since trust in peers among Indian respondents is built solely via benevolence.
A Chinese respondent gave the example of a supervisor who demonstrated benevolent leadership by supplying the subordinate with flu medication when the latter was sick and alone. The Indian narrative referred to benevolence where the subordinate’s mother was hospitalised and needed money. The supervisor delivered the money to the hospital and gave leave to the subordinate to attend to his mother. Both narratives suggest that employees view paternalistic behaviours in their supervisors as the basis for trust formation or reinforcement. This resonates in the Chinese context, where a good benevolent leader is one who looks after the welfare of followers in exchange for allegiance and loyalty. However, there are differences in the way trust is built with supervisors in these two countries. While benevolence is the primary driver with Indian respondents, Chinese respondents view it as one of several factors in building trust. Delegation and reciprocity in relationships are important, highlighting the importance of mutual obligations and reliability of team members in achieving work deliverables within a collectivistic culture.
Creating such trust building efforts among peers is likely to reap benefits over and above that of trust building efforts by supervisors.
Trust in Peers
The differences in the Indian and Chinese respondents are more stark at the level of peer trust. Although benevolence was a major factor in trust building between peers in both countries, Indian respondents cited it as the sole attribute. In the Indian case, constant and supportive communication with peers drives their trust in each other. Commonalities also contributed to their relationship. This is to be expected as, given the lack of vertical power dynamics, influence and trust is built using different means, such as goodwill, good intentions and experiencing good times together. A respondent in India needed help at work. This person’s peer decided to prioritise his own work so that he could help the respondent. In the process, both of them were able to meet their own deadlines. The respondent was mindful of the fact that his peer could have deliberately delayed him to gain a professional advantage. That the peer did not view it this way conveyed his goodwill to the respondent.
In the Chinese sample, benevolence is also important, but it was not the sole attribute of peer trust. In fact, ability and integrity played important roles. A specific incident regarding integrity occurred when a peer messed up a work situation and the respondent reprimanded the peer. Instead of getting angry, the peer reflected and changed his work processes to minimise future lapses at work. To the respondent, this is a peer who is willing to take responsibility, learning and change for the better, with the result that he trusted this peer from then on. What are the consequences of such trust in peers? An Indian respondent said that he is staying with the organisation as he could not bear to leave his trusted peers. One potential implication is that in India (and less so in China), building trust in peers could more effectively retain employees over and above conventional retention methods.
Methodology
The research involved semi-structured interviews with 30 Indian and 30 Chinese employees working for a variety of large organisations. The interpersonal trust relationships are examined from three perspectives – horizontally between peers, and vertically (upwards and downwards) between seniors and subordinates. In the study, Indian and Chinese employees were asked to define trust and identify a supervisor, a peer and a subordinate with whom they had developed a strong relationship. They were asked what factors affected their trust development, and how these influenced their work relationships. The respondents were also asked to narrate an incident marking a milestone in the building of trust. Chinese participants narrated a total of 27 critical incidents, while Indian employees cited, 31 incidents. The majority of the incidents recalled were with the supervisor (14 for Chinese and 17 for Indians). The next level involved incidents with peers (seven for Chinese and six for Indians) and, finally, incidents with subordinates (six for Chinese and eight for Indians). The study distinguished between trust earned in the personal and professional contexts, as well as in a third, mixed category of trust building across personal and professional spheres. The Chinese samples saw four incidents occurring in the personal context, 19 in the professional, and three in the mixed context. The Indian samples saw four incidents occurring in the personal, 26 in the professional and none in the mixed domain.