Part 2: Trust Between People and Multicultural Teams—Expectations, Power, and Culture

A Series on Trust — Part 2

By Kristin Schleicher

Imagine two colleagues leaving the same meeting.

One feels relieved: finally, someone challenged the proposal directly.

The other feels uneasy: why was that disagreement raised in front of everyone?

They witnessed the same exchange. They did not experience the same thing.

When we talk about trust, we often assume everyone recognizes trustworthy behavior in the same way. In international teams, that assumption deserves particular attention.

Your intention is only part of the conversation

My intercultural work has included professionals and families moving between the United States and the DACH region, as well as Arab cultural contexts. I have also supported managers’ spouses adjusting to American life.

The practical questions are about far more than etiquette.

How do I ask for help?

How do I recognize a firm commitment?

How do I disagree without damaging the relationship?

Those questions belong in workplaces, too.

A brief email may be intended as efficient and read as dismissive. A regular check-in may feel supportive to one person and controlling to another. Silence might mean agreement, uncertainty, respect for hierarchy, or simply that someone needs more time to formulate an answer.

None of these possibilities gives us permission to put people into national boxes. Someone’s passport cannot tell us how they prefer to receive feedback.

Research by Roy Chua, Michael Morris, and Shira Mor examined cultural metacognition—awareness and reflection about cultural assumptions—and its relationship with trust and creative collaboration across cultures. Their findings give us a useful reason to examine our interpretations, rather than treating our own expectations as universal. Collaborating Across Cultures

My practical starting point is simple: Before deciding what a behavior says about someone’s character, check what it means in this relationship.

Power changes the risk

When I became Area HR Manager in Dubai, I was a young female manager working with colleagues who brought substantial local experience. I needed that expertise. At the same time, I had managerial responsibilities of my own.

That combination matters. Leadership credibility does not require pretending to know everything. It requires knowing where you need help and remaining responsible for the decisions that are yours to make.

It also reminds me that trust between a manager and an employee is not symmetrical. A manager can influence assignments, evaluations, and career opportunities. Asking an employee to speak openly involves a different risk from asking a peer.

“You can tell me anything” needs evidence behind it."

What happened the last time someone disagreed?

Trust and psychological safety are related, but distinct

Amy Edmondson’s research defines team psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. Her field study found an association between psychological safety and team learning behavior. Trust concerns our willingness to rely on someone; psychological safety concerns the team environment for speaking up, asking for help, and acknowledging mistakes. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams

Both matter when a colleague says, “I don’t understand,” or, “I think this plan has a problem.”

Leaders can make those moments easier by offering more than one way to contribute: a discussion, a written response, or a private conversation.

Avoid treating eye contact, social confidence, or quick verbal answers as proof of competence or honesty.

Language differences and neurodivergent communication make that especially important.

Shared understanding starts when we stop assuming our interpretation is the only one.

How to build trust in multicultural teams

In an international team, “My door is always open” may sound welcoming. It still leaves an employee wondering how to walk through it.

Can they challenge you publicly? Should they arrange a private conversation? Will a written question seem overly formal?

My intercultural work has taught me to pay attention to those questions. Building trust in multicultural teams means creating a shared way of working that makes room for different ways of communicating.

Respect: offer different ways to contribute

Share important questions before a meeting. Allow time to think. Offer a written route for contributions.

When someone speaks cautiously or searches for words, give their point the same attention you would give a confident, fluent speaker.

You can ask:

“Would you prefer to discuss this now, think about it first, or send me your observations afterwards?”

The aim is to make participation accessible while keeping the work moving.

Clarity: discuss expectations explicitly

Explain how disagreement will be handled, which decisions require consultation, and what a commitment means.

If someone says, “I’ll try,” check rather than assume:

“Should we plan on delivery by Thursday, or are there dependencies we need to resolve first?”

The purpose is mutual understanding. Both people should have permission to clarify.

Discuss response expectations, too. When does a request need an acknowledgment? When should someone flag a delay? Which situations require an urgent conversation?

Clear agreements reduce the need to guess.

Dependability: show how you respond to difference

If you invite challenge, demonstrate how you handle it. Thank the person, examine the concern, and explain your conclusion—even when you proceed with the original decision.

For a manager, the responsibility is greater because the consequences are unequal. Employees need evidence that respectful disagreement will not quietly affect their evaluation or access to opportunities.

Review these agreements as the team changes. A working arrangement that suited five colleagues may need adjusting when new people join.

When you leave the room, people should not need to become experts in your personality to know how to work with you.

Make expectations discussable

Start with the next conversation in which you notice yourself interpreting someone’s behaviour.

Ask what they meant. Explain what you expected. Agree on what would help both of you next time.

You do not have to accommodate every preference. You do need enough shared understanding for people to work together without constantly guessing.

When you leave the room, do people understand your expectations—or are they still trying to decode you?

In Part 1, we explored the foundations of trust at work—ability, care, and integrity; here, we examine how expectations, power, and culture shape the way people experience those foundations.. Part 1: Trust at Work—What Are We Really Relying On?