The Overuse of the Term “Trust”
The term trust has become so overused and broadly interpreted that it often loses its significance, particularly within the context of the global workplace. Because it means different things to different people, the concept of trust is frequently too vague to be useful in facilitating effective collaboration and mutual understanding.
Consider the following example that illustrates differing cultural perspectives. In many German professional environments, trust is closely associated with adherence to established processes. The prevailing logic is: “If you follow the process, I will trust you; once I trust you, I will follow the process.” This reflects a deeply procedural understanding of trust.
A contrasting example can be seen in interactions between Chinese and American business professionals. Imagine a scenario in which Mr. Wu and Mr. Smith sign a $40 million agreement. Subsequently, Mr. Wu asks Mr. Smith to employ his son for one year to enable him to obtain a U.S. visa. Mr. Smith interprets this request as unethical and, consequently, loses trust in Mr. Wu. Mr. Wu, on the other hand, feels that he extended a favor and now perceives Mr. Smith as untrustworthy for refusing to reciprocate. Both parties use the same term—trust—but with entirely different expectations and interpretations.
This illustrates how trust, much like other overused terms such as respect (a topic I have addressed in a previous post), can lose its meaning and practical value in intercultural and organizational contexts.
Through my years of consulting with thousands of professionals who have successfully built trusting relationships, I have developed ten principles that operationalize what trust truly means in practice. Three of these principles are shared below:
-
We accurately represent each other’s views when the other party is not present.
-
We follow through on the decisions we make together.
-
We assume positive intent in each other’s actions.
