Trust is not enough!

[David Coleman]

For many years I thought trust was critical for collaboration or for distributed teams to be effective, but after attending the NewWoW symposium in the summer of 2008 which looked at the effects of culture, I began to understand that trust was just not enough. Also, I can easily think of situations where people on a team or committee did not trust each other yet worked together for a common goal. Just look at any standards committee for a good example of this.

From Wikipdia: Trust is a relationship of reliance.

It does not need to involve belief in the good character, vices, or morals of the other party. And it does not need to include an action that you and the other party are mutually engaged in. In fact, trust is a prediction of reliance on an action, based on what a party knows about the other party.

What I came to realize is that for collaboration to be successful, trust does help, but understanding the “local context” of your team members was even more critical. What I mean by “local context” is knowing about the other team members, the organizations they are in, the country culture and the individual characteristics. Without an understanding of this local context poor communication, and missed meanings run rampant on distributed teams; especially teams with members from “high context” cultures (like Japan)1 when they are intermixed with team members from “low context” cultures (U.S.).

A good example of this occurred when I did some classes on collaboration in Japan a few years ago. The classes went well and when I got back to the U.S., I e-mailed my main contact in Japan to discuss some unresolved issues from the training. I also wanted to introduce them to others in the U.S. who I thought could benefit their business. I made an online (e-mail) introduction and assumed everything was proceeding. But that was not the case. My contact in Japan was not even replying to my e-mails. Finally in frustration I called my contact in Japan and asked what was going on. Now, I come from NY and have been told I can be rather straight forward, part of being part of a low-context culture. However, my contact in Japan was from a high context culture and one that also avoids conflict. He had enough trust in me to tell me that the introduction was being ignored because it had gone to the wrong people, and they lost “face” by it. Once I sent the e-mail to my contact’s boss, and asked permission for the introduction, things went a lot better. The boss “saved face” my contact was allowed to e-mail me again, and the introduction was made.

How many times has something like this tripped you up when working on a geographically distributed and cross cultural team? Although I almost always recommend to my clients that the first team or project meeting should be in person (then it is much easier to do the electronic collaboration that follows) because it helps all the team members understand the local context for each other. This in-person visit, although expensive, should have some social experiences thrown in, as they help to speed up understanding (and possibly trust) of the other team members.

I found that taking the time in the beginning to learn about and know each of the other team members paid off in spades later on. Also the agreement on clear team processes and interactions at the beginning of a project also really paid off. Yes, both of these help to develop trust, but more than that, they give you an understanding of those you are working with, which is even more critical when you work at a distance.

David Coleman
Collaborative Strategies - blog and website