View source for Template:The importance of trust in Russia

Excerpt from The Culture Map, by Erin Meyer:

[[file:The Culture Map, by Erin Meyer figure 6 point 1 trusting.png]]
 
As you look at the Trusting scale you see the United States positioned far to the left while all BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) fall far to the right. When it comes to building trust, the center of gravity in the global business world has fundamentally shifted over the past fifteen years. Previously, managers working in global business may have felt themselves pulled toward working in a more American manner, because the United States dominated most world markets. Building trust in a task-based fashion was therefore one of the keys to international success. But in today’s business environment, the BRIC cultures are rising and expanding their reach. At the same time, countries in the southern hemisphere such as Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are growing in global weight. All of these countries lie markedly toward the relationship-based end of the Trusting scale. 

Today if you are a manager aiming for success at an international level and your work brings you to the BRIC cultures
or really anywhere in the southern hemisphere, you must learn how to build relationship-based trust
with your clients and colleagues in order to be successful.

On the other hand, for those who work frequently in North America, you may be skeptical about
the accuracy of the United States on the left-hand side of the Trusting scale. Are Americans really so
task-based? What about the client breakfasts, the golf outings, and the team-building activities and
icebreaker exercises featured at so many American-style training programs or conferences? Don’t
these suggest that Americans are just as relationship-based as the Brazilians or the Chinese?

Not really. Think back to those icebreaker activities—those two-to-three-minute exchanges
designed to “build a relationship” between complete strangers. What happens when the exercise is
completed? Once the relationship is built, the participants check it off the list and get down to
business—and at the end of the program, the relationships that were so quickly built are usually just
as quickly dropped.

What’s true in the training or conference center is true outside of it. In task-based societies like
the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, relationships are defined by functionality and
practicality. It is relatively easy to move in and out of networks, and if a business relationship proves
to be unsatisfactory to either party, it’s a simple matter to close the door on that relationship and move
into another.

By contrast, icebreaker exercises in relationship-based societies are rare. Relationships are built
up slowly, founded not just on professional credibility but also on deeper emotional connections—and after the relationship is built, it is not dropped easily.

As an example, consider what happens when the boss fires someone on your team. Will you
continue your relationship with the person who has been fired even though he is no longer part of your
company? Responses to this question vary dramatically from one culture to another.
A Spanish executive working in an American firm stated:
:"I couldn’t believe the way my American colleagues reacted when one of our team members lost his job. That guy was our friend one day and out of our lives the next. I asked my teammates—all of whom I respect deeply—“When are we going to have a party for him, meet him for drinks, tell him he is on our minds?” They looked at me as if I was a little crazy. They seemed to feel, since he was underperforming, we could just push him off the boat and pretend we never cared about him. For a Spaniard, this is not an easy thing to accept."