Introduction

When I led a breakout session/ workshop about  Trust at the Workplace!?! at the DevCon Midwest 2024 conference, the participants agreed that the presented ABCD Trust Model^TM is tailored towards a WASP (= White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) work place environment and works very well for what Richard Lewis, the author of When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures (Boston, MA, 2018), calls “linear active” cultures. 

But how do we create trust and trustworthy relationships in a more culturally diverse workplace environment with team members coming from “all over the world”? A good start to find some answers is Richard Lewis’ research and publications about different cultures, cultural behaviors and norms, national characteristics, and leading across cultures. There is a saying “different culture(s), different people.” In this blog I will try to explain with the help of Richard Lewis’ work how different people from different cultures can work together in very empathetic and effective ways.

The Lewis Model: Cultural Types

Richard Lewis articulated his approach to better understand people in different cultures in his book: When Cultures Collide (1996). Lewis speaks ten European and two Asian languages. After visiting 135 countries and working in more than 20 of them, he concluded that humans can be divided into three clear categories based on BEHAVIOR. He named his typologies Linear-active, Multi-active and Reactive.

So, Lewis states that we need to understand different cultures through the lens of behavior types. He classifies the world’s cultures in three categories: Linear Active, Mutli-Active, and Reactive. And for each cultural type, Lewis lists behaviors that are dominant or characteristic for the listed types.

The table above shows a detailed list of behaviors and how these groups differ. Richard Lewis contends that learning about cultures through dominant behaviors comes with advantages, for example, you can

• Predict a behavior of a person from a specific culture
• Clarify and explain/ understand why people did what they did
• Avoid giving offense
• Look for some kind of unity
• Standardize policies
• Perceive “neatness” and “Ordnung” – which I understand as you know where people are “coming” from with their specific behavior.

So, if you know that a linear active person – for example a German native like me – does not want to share much or anything about his personal life in a workplace or professional setting, the German colleague is not “rude” but rather shows a typical cultural behavior of a linear-active German. Or, colleagues from a multi-active culture, who talk a lot, often interrupt, and mix the social and professional in the workplace, are not “unprofessional” but simply behave in a way that is the norm and acceptable in their native culture. If we know about these behaviors that are typical and acceptable in their cultures, I can understand and explain these behaviors, show empathy, and use that information to resolve any tension. An important step to build trust!

Cultural Types: The Lewis Model (Triangle View)

The next visual shows the Lewis Model of cultural types in a triangle view. The triangle lists countries along the Linear-Active, Multi-Active, and Reactive legs:

• Linear-Active cultures in blue are “cool, factual, decisive planners”.
• Multi-Active cultures in red are “warm, emotional, loquacious, impulsive”.
• Reactive cultures in yellow are “courteous, amiable, accommodating, compromiser, good listener”.

The article The Lewis Model – Dimensions of Behaviour from the Website www.crossculture.com shows that each cultural type possesses behavioral elements from the other two types. The difference shows in what behavior is dominant.

The model also shows that there is a “fluent” transition from one corner to the next one. For example, Germany and Switzerland are the most “linear active” cultures, while Belgium, Israel and South America are right between the most linear-active and multi-active cultures with Italy, Spain, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia on the other end of the spectrum.

It’s quite interesting to note that individuals from one culture with different professions show different tendencies; for example, a German engineer or accountant tends to be more linear-active, a German sales person shows more multi-active, and German lawyer or medical doctor show more reactive tendencies.

Basic Cultural Concepts

Lewis states that all people regardless of culture share basic concepts (like trust, honesty, and so forth) but view them differently. Thus, their behaviors, how they enact and show these values, differ. Knowing more about how various cultures expect trust to be shown will help us understand how to communicate and work well with one another.

Let’s take a look at a couple of “basic concepts” and start with the notion of “truth”. 

1. Linear-active people: Plan, schedule, organize, pursue action chains, do one thing at a time; truth before diplomacy.
   • North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand
   • Northern Europe, Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg
2. Multi-active people: Loquacious people who do many things at once; planning priorities not according to a time schedule but to the relative “thrill or importance” that each appointment brings with it; low trust societies, situational truth.
   • Italians, Latin Americans, Arabs
3. Reactive people: Prioritize courtesy and respect; listening quietly and calmly to their interlocutors and reacting carefully to the other side’s proposal; diplomacy before truth.
   • Chinese, Japanese and Finns

As mentioned above, for linear actives, truth is non-negotiable and comes before diplomacy. The truth is the truth, plain as a fact, nothing to discuss about. Not so for multi-active and reactive cultures. According to Richard Lewis, the Chinese would argue that there is no absolute truth. However, truth can be seen as a “dangerous” concept and destroy the “harmony of the relationships between individuals, companies and entire segments of society” (Lewis, p. 5). Because truth can, for example, expose someone’s weakness or even cause the loss of face, truth is “situational” for multi-actives, and needs to be treated with “diplomacy” for reactive people.

What about the concept of trust?

How does the Lewis Model explain trust in different cultures? Lewis discusses trust together with motivation (Lewis, p. 117 ff.)  stating that trust is the foundation of (positive) motivation. I want to focus on the “trust” part here – discussing “motivation” could warrant its own blog entry.

Focusing on building trust, Lewis explains that linear-active strategies for trust building don’t necessarily work for multi-active and reactive cultures (Lewis, p.120 ff.). For example, a common management “playbook” in the United States would state the following steps as examples how to build trust:

• Prepare clear instructions
• Communicate instructions and objectives effectively
• Insist on an information-sharing policy
• Be transparent

These steps might be easily accepted in the linear-active cultures you find in Germany, Switzerland, and the United States. However, “effective communication” is not the same in France as it is in Australia. Or, the Japanese way of giving orders might not be seen as “clear” instruction by the Germans and Americans. For example, the Germans might say: “Tidy up the office”; whereas the Japanese boss would say to their subordinates: “As we have some important visitors coming at twelve o’clock and since we wish them to get the best impression of our company, perhaps we could improve the orderliness around here” (Lewis, p. 477).

Transparency is also less common in multi-active and reactive cultures where managers are less willing to share information especially vertically.

Knowing that the 4-word request to “tidy up the office” given by a German is just an expression of linear-active directness and conciseness, helps to understand that the intent is just to communicate the simple wish in a short and plain way. This not be taken as being “rude”.

The same with the 31-word request given by a Japanese boss: just an indirect, polite, and non-confronting way to communicate a request. Helpful to know for members of the impatient multi-active and sometimes impatient linear-active cultures.

High-Trust and Low-Trust Societies

Let’s take a look at trust inside a cultural group. According to Lewis, high-trust societies are usually linear-active cultures where members normally readily trust their compatriots. They assume that their fellow nationals “follow the rules” and trust them until proven not trustworthy. For example, if I met another German at a grocery store somewhere in Wisconsin, I might engage in a friendly chat. In contrast to an Italian who, as a member of a low-trust society, might be suspicious when he/she met another Italian in Wisconsin and ask “what is the other Italian doing here in Wisconsin?” Low-trust societies, usually multi-active and reactive cultures, are initially suspicious of fellow nationals. Members of low-trust societies show more flexibility with adhering to rules, regulations, and laws (Lewis, p.120 f.).

Trust Scores

Lewis conducted multiple surveys to determine a trust score, i.e. level of trust among fellow nationals (Lewis, p.121). He determined that the Danes, Finns, fellow Nordics, followed by Germans and Japanese, have the highest trust scores. The Americans used to be part of that group but have been showing declining trust levels. That means, Americans do less readily trust in their fellow Americans and have become more “cautious” or “suspicious” of their fellow Americans.

Low-trust cultures are countries like China, Mexico, France, Latin, and Arab countries. People in these groups trust completely only those they know best: family and one or two close, lifetime friends (Lewis, p.121).

Individuals in high-trust cultures also have more trust in their national institutions like schools, banks, and postal services where official institutions are seen as relatively efficient and speedy. Trust is fairly impersonal. In general, people do what they are paid to do. That’s different in low-trust cultures where individuals regard their faith in official (government) institutions as less firm (Lewis, p.122).

Trust Variance in Different Cultural Categories

The following graphic summarizes the trust variances in the different cultural categories.

High and Low Context Communication

Edward T. Hall developed the concept of context in communication (Lewis, p.125). Being aware of this might be helpful to navigate trust building especially in virtual work environments.

High-context communication refers to communication or messages where most of the information is already in the person and very little is explicitly said (or written) in the message. High-context French, Italians and Japanese will leave a lot unsaid, assuming that their listeners know the situation and the context. Low-context communication has the mass of information explicitly stated (said, written) in the message. In contrast, low-context Germans and Northern Europeans will require explicitness about how they are to proceed.

Lewis summarizes the difference as follows: “High-context people speak more, but say less. Low-context people speak less, but every word counts.” These different communication styles can be augmented by non-verbal cues, such as variety of body language, tone of voice, and so forth. There is a risk of losing trust, if you misunderstand these cues and run into a situation of “context confusion”.

According to Lewis (p. 125), it is important to be aware of the following: team members from liner-active and low-context cultures focus on tasks first and then build up trust with others. High-context and multi-active team members first deal with the question of trust (i.e. relationship building) before getting down to the task. Lewis suggests to start at least with exchanging backgrounds and pedigrees before starting with the tasks.

Build Relationships

Lewis already states in the preface of his book that “there is no international magic formula for either motivating or building trust across cultures.” It is important to understand “that establishing and maintaining relationships are the key concept when interacting across cultures (and within) liner-active, multi-active, reactive boundaries.” (Lewis, p. XV)

I have worked with colleagues from all over the world representing all three of Lewis’ culture types. And I agree, building one-on-one relationships is the key to success. It’s work but very rewarding!

Conclusion

The Lewis Model: Cultural Types is a useful too to navigate work places and teams with high cultural diversity. This blog is only a short introduction to Richard Lewis’ important work. This blog did not include the discussion of cultural conditioning (upbringing, context), manners (or mannerisms), motivation, specifics of each language, and how all of that influences cultural norms. I highly recommend reading Lewis’ book When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures to go deeper into this important topic.

If you want to learn more about the three cultural types suggested by Richard Lewis and how to work and lead across cultures at the work place, contact Riesling Consulting and let’s discuss a potential workshop or training session with your team or groups in your organization.

References

• Hall, Edward T., and Mildred Reed Hall. Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Intercultural Press: Boston, MA. 1990.
• Lewis, Richard D. When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures. Nicholas
• Brealey Publishing: Boston, MA. 4th ed. 2018. (Paperback edition)
• The Lewis Model – Dimensions of Behaviour. Posted on: 22 June 2015. Retrieved on 15 August 2024 from https://www.crossculture.com/the-lewis-model-dimensions-of-behaviour/
• Online Resources at CrossCulture: know culture for better business. www.crossculture.com.