Human Systems Management 36 (2017) 363–368 363

DOI 10.3233/HSM-17157
IOS Press

Managerial trust outlook in China

and Pakistan
Muhammad Rafiq∗ and Wu Weiwei
School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

Abstract. As cross-cultural studies become crucial to business enterprises and other societal organizations that compete
internationally, this article assesses managerial outlook toward trust in China and Pakistan. Questionnaire data were collected
from two separate groups, different in term of anthropogeography, culture and economy, so it was not surprising to find that
these prospective managers also differ in their outlook toward trust. Also noted are, however, multiple significant similarities.
The present study offers a refreshing approach to cross-cultural comparisons pertaining to trust. Based on the findings, the
study also provides suggestions for management and practitioners and recommends new directions for future research.

Keywords: Trust, cross-cultural comparison, China, Pakistan

Muhammad Rafiq is a Ph.D. Candi- 1. Introduction

date at Harbin Institute of Technology
(HIT). His main research inter-
ests include Organizational Behavior,
Human Resource Management, Lead-
ership, Employees Proactive Behav-
ior, Conflict Management and Cross
Cultural Differences in Business
Organizations.
Wu Weiwei is a Professor and a Ph.D.
Supervisor at School of Management,
Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT).
His main research interests include
technological innovation, technology
management, technology human re-
source management. He has a vast
research experience in his area of
research and published many articles
in reputed journals. He also served
as the associate editor of Chinese
Management Studies, and Journal of
Management Science.
∗ Corresponding author: Muhammad Rafiq, Ph.D. Candidate,
School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Yi
Kuang Street, Science Park Campus, 2H Building, Lab 337, Harbin
150001, China. Tel.: +86 13214613913; E-mail: rafiq109@yahoo.
com.
In today’s world cross-functional and interdisci-
plinary teams are a necessity to tackle the complex
organizational challenges. Countries are increasingly
interested in forming economic-blocks with close
allies, as evidenced, for instance, by formation of
BRICKS and initiation of One-Belt-One-Road initia-
tive. Such alliances will further accelerate globaliza-
tion and multiculturalism with this effect markedly
pronounced at organizational or industrial level. The
managers and employees in such work-places will
need to re-adjust and re-process some norms to
achieve a new acceptable equilibrium. Policies will
need to be put in place to nurture work-force collegial-
ity. Establishing trust in a cross-cultural environment
will be a challenge and one that, we can expect, will
require creative thinking and innovative efforts by
managers to yoke together a purposeful team.
With growing Chinese economic and political
influence on the international forum and its close ties
with Pakistan, there is a need for better understand-
ing of Chinese work culture. It is for this purpose that
we examine how employees in these two countries
perceive trust and compare its role for organizational
success. The two cultures can traditionally be con-
sidered collectivist but differences still exist. Media
organizations are perhaps where these differences
might be stark and easier to separate, China with a

0167-2533/17/$35.00 © 2017 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
364 M. Rafiq and W. Weiwei / Managerial trust outlook in China and Pakistan
closely monitored media setup while Pakistan with a
rapidly expanding private media sector. For this rea-
son, in this article, we focus on media organizations
from China and Pakistan.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis
2.1. Trust
Trust can be defined as ‘a willingness to be vul-
nerable to another, based on the belief that the other
is reliable, open, competent and concerned’ (Mishra
et al., 2011: 43). In cooperative relations trust is a
fundamental component, promoting coordination in
workplace and leading to improved performance [1,
2]. Effective management entails novel and subtle
trust-building exercises [3].
In organizations where trust has been established,
advantageous effects, such as; reduced transactional
costs by decreasing requirement for monitoring [3],
compromise and willingness to take on extra respon-
sibilities can be observed.
2.2. Managerial trust
Managerial trust, despite diversity in literature [4],
has widely been accepted as the assumptions, expec-
tations, or beliefs of an individual that the future
action/s of others (supervisors, managers, owners)
will be beneficial, advantageous, or at least not detri-
mental to their individual interests. The presence or
lack of such trust, and its severity, can have a notable
impact on the organization.
With balanced and employee sensitive manage-
rial practices, managers can engender trust between
employees [4–7]. Consequently, employees expect
their managers to be consistent, honest, and compe-
tent during any crises, disagreements and conflicts
[8]. Managerial trust has also been perceived as a
substitute for hierarchical control [9]. As managers
are primary designers of the organizational forms,
the initiators of many vertical exchanges who control
the flow of certain type of information and oppor-
tunities to share information [10], maintaining and
developing trust is particularly critical to managerial
and organizational effectiveness [11].
2.3. Cross-cultural trust
Culture is the homogeneity of characteristics
of values, norms, and institutions distinguishing
human groups [12]. In cross-cultural context, trust is a
highly relevant issue for both employees and employ-
ers [13]. Many researchers jeremiad the dearth of
integrative theories on trust [14, 15], but, herein,
we only use trust as a comparative tool across two
cultures.
Cultural differences were traditionally viewed as
obstacles to organizational performance, it’s long-
term existence and research institutions professional
reputation [16]. Previous findings have shown that
individuals’ trusting choices are both highly person-
alized and decontextualized [17]. Researchers have
indicated significant differences in the degree of trust
between different countries and the impact on coun-
tries economic functioning and success [18]. Trust
in business relations between firms depends on the
common expected development, which is shaped, at
least in part, by the institutional environment in which
actors are ingrained [19].
Building and maintaining trust between cultures is
a challenge [20]. Individuals from diverse cultures
often bring to relation building efforts ‘foreigner’
beliefs and values, ‘distinct’ conducts and even
inconsistent theorizations, which can thwart effec-
tive interactions and productive associations [17,
21]. Cross-cultural relations can entail misunder-
standings, embarrassment, low self-efficacy and even
mental suffering [22]. People and countries akin to
each other, trust each other more and, thus, can
transfer expertise and resources faster and more suc-
cessfully [23, 24]. It is in this regard that our work is
of value, before we can theorize strategies to nurture
wholesome trust in a cross-cultural environment it is
pertinent to compare and contrast them, as is, to gain
valuable insight into how individuals perceive trust.
Hypothesis 1: The outlook towards trust of busi-
ness professional in China differ significantly from
those of business professional in Pakistan.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample
Full-time media employees from China and
Pakistan were selected as candidates for this study.
Media is an evolving, distinct occupation [25–27] and
performs quite differently for the two countries.
Data collection activities took place from
December 2016 to July 2017 and were HR man-
agers or the key employees who took responsibility
 M. Rafiq and W. Weiwei / Managerial trust outlook in China and Pakistan 365

for distribution and collection of survey instruments. Table 1

Questionnaire were completed on site and were t-tests for the trust China and Pakistan
sealed by each respondent to ensure individual confi- Items Group mean (SD)
dentiality. In the translation of the questionnaire the
China Pakistan t-value
back-translation method was used, where the ques-
tionnaire is first translated into the target/resident 1 4.46 (0.86) 4.27 (1.18) 2.02∗
language and then blindly translated back to the orig- 2 4.24 (0.77) 4.17 (0.99) 0.91
inal/source language [28]. 3 3.90 (0.76) 4.09 (1.00) –17.31∗∗
A total of 512 usable responses were received. The 4 4.30 (0.79) 4.13 (1.06) 2.03∗
sample comprises of 270 (52.7%) Chinese employ- 5 4.31 (0.80) 4.15 (1.06) 2.01∗
ees, and 242 (47.3%) Pakistani employees; 302 6 4.29 (0.78) 4.11 (1.08) 2.14∗
employees were (58.9%) males and 210 (41.1%) were 7 4.34 (0.74) 4.17 (1.01) 2.18∗
females. Of these 169 (33.0%) were less than 25 years 8 4.36 (0.80) 4.26 (0.99) 1.29
old, and 343 (67.0%) were 25 or older. Thirty-four 9 4.34 (0.79) 4.14 (1.05) 2.43∗∗
percent of the participants were single, 58% mar- 10 4.28 (0.80) 4.12 (0.98) 2.05∗
ried, and 8% widowed, separated, or divorced. With 11 4.25 (0.86) 4.05 (1.09) 2.28∗
regards to education, the largest proportion reported 12 4.35 (0.77) 2.83 (0.47) 26.27∗∗
graduation 55%, master degree 27%, Ph.D. less than 13 4.33 (0.83) 4.24 (1.02) 1.05
1%, and secondary education certificate 17%. 14 4.37 (0.79) 4.61 (0.95) –3.09∗∗
Note. ∗∗ p < 0.01,∗ p < 0.05; SD = standard deviation.
3.2. Measurement
is accepted. Consequently, it is established that the
A 14-item trust climate was used as an instru- stated outlook toward trust between participants from
ment to collect employee attitudes towards trust China and Pakistan differs
climate [29]. The trust climate measure used a 5-
point scale strongly disagree - strongly agree. Sample
items include “Employee’s questions and problems 5. Discussion
are responded to quickly,” “Employee’s hard work
is appreciated,” “Employees are treated fairly”. The In this study, we compared responses to trust
reliability coefficient for this scale was 0.95 (China) related dilemmas across media employees in China
and ␣ = 0.93 (Pakistan). See the appendix for each of and Pakistan. Our findings indicate a difference in
the 14 items. outlook towards trust in eleven of the fourteen items.
These results indicate that the two groups place
considerable importance on having managerial trust.
4. Analysis and results While most items were comparable some statistically
significant divergences are also observed. Chinese
Table 1 presents the significance differences in respondents feel decidedly stronger than Pakistani
mean scores which were measured using a two-tail respondents that businesses are receptive to trust,
test outlook towards trust for the 14 items collected, respect and problem solving – items that traditionally
and each item in this scale is investigated for the China govern personal behavior (items 4, 7 and 11). Exam-
and Pakistan comparatively. ple include “Employees’ questions and problems are
We hypothesis that there would be significant vari- responded to quickly”, and “Employees’ hard work
ances/differences in reported outlook toward trust is appreciated”.
between the participants from China and Pakistan. Popular Chinese sayings like: A promise cannot be
The t-test results of the two means show that, on aver- taken back once it is made (yi yan ji chu si ma nan
age, China participants reported significantly higher zhui), lend support to a cultural and business phi-
levels of propensity for the items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, losophy where trust is of supreme importance. This
11 and 12. On the other hand, the only two items philosophy could be the most vital construct that is
are significantly lower levels of outlook towards trust influencing the growth of strong enduring business
are 3 and 14 (see Table 1). Given that there were relations for China throughout the world [30, 31].
significant difference reported outlook towards trust Furthermore, the international monetary fund (IMF)
for 11 out of the 14 trust items, so our hypothesis finds that several developing nations are pinning
366 M. Rafiq and W. Weiwei / Managerial trust outlook in China and Pakistan
their expectations and confidences on China’s contin-
ued prosperity while adhering to this philosophy of
trust [32].
In short, if this trust trend continues, China is on
track to become the world’s largest economy with
trust as its bedrock for managers and healthy orga-
nization cultures. Although Chinese employees have
demonstrated higher inclination towards most of the
trust items, in two cases a stronger significance is
observed for Pakistani employees (items 3 and 14)
related to supervisor playing favorites and employ-
ees being treated as equal. A probable justification
could be that Pakistan management makes strong
distinction between trust from the head (i.e. trusting
someone because of his/her professional competen-
cies) and trust from heart (i.e. trusting someone
because of your good relationships with him/her);
favor the first while the Chinese management puts
more reliance on personal relationships. In the vein,
guanxi consisting of three different aspects: xinren,
ganqing, and renqing [33] could provide a possible
clue. The latter (xinren) is a deep personal trust and
it takes time to develop because that is judged by
the partner on the basis of previous promise keep-
ing history. This can have implications where a joint
work-force is present and the management will need
to be aware of their employees’ mindsets; do they
crave a more personal relationship or one where a gap
exists between the two and one-for-all policies are
implemented. Anyhow it will be critical for the man-
agement to be, firstly, aware of cultural nuances and,
secondly, determining a roadmap that will placate and
support all employees with bias.
While the current examination makes a contribu-
tion to research in cross-cultural trust comparison,
the reader should be reminded of its limitations.
First, because sample is limited to business media
employees, generalizing the results of this study to the
general populace is not appropriate. One interesting
avenue for future research is to enlarge the sam-
ple base to include business managers from diverse
institutions. This would permit for a comparison in
outlook towards trust between current and prospec-
tive business managers in each country.
6. Conclusion
When comparing outlook of trust in organizations,
even countries with comparable cultures and sim-
ilar national values may find subtle but important
differences. It will be illogical to assume that your
own view of trust is always admirable. This form
of nationalism is a common human condition and
must be re-adjusted and re-evaluated when multi-
ple cultures are present. Although companies have
become accustomed to educating their management
of the customs and language of foreign trade asso-
ciates, such education must be developed to embrace
reliance anticipations. This acquaintance will lend
a hand to trim down misinterpretations, help boost
confidence and build trust in workplace, across orga-
nizations and nations.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (71472055,
71272175, 71002061), National Science Foundation
for Post-doctoral Scientists of China (201104424,
2012M520697), Heilongjiang Philosophy and Social
Science Research Project (14B105), and the Project
sponsored by SRF for ROCS, SEM.
References
[1] K.T. Dirks and D.L. Ferrin, Trust in leadership: Meta-
analytic findings and implications for research and practice,
Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4) (2002), 611–628.
[2] A. Zaheer, B. McEvily and V. Perrone, Does trust matter?
Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interper-
sonal trust on performance, Organization Science 9(2)
(1998), 141–159.
[3] B. McEvily, V. Perrone and A. Zaheer, Trust as an organizing
principle, Organization Science 14(1) (2003), 91–103.
[4] E.M. Whitener, S.E. Brodt, M.A. Korsgaard and J.M.
Werner, Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange
relationship framework for understanding managerial trust-
worthy behavior, Academy of Management Review 23(3)
(1998), 513–530.
[5] A.M. Lämsä and R. Pučėtaitė, Development of orga-
nizational trust among employees from a contextual
perspective, Business Ethics: A European Review 15(2)
(2006), 130–141.
[6] J. Gould-Williams, The importance of HR practices and
workplace trust in achieving superior performance: A study
of public-sector organizations, International Journal of
Human Resource Management 14(1) (2003), 28–54.
[7] J. Connell, N. Ferres and T. Travaglione, Engendering trust
in manager-subordinate relationships: Predictors and out-
comes, Personnel Review 32(5) (2003), 569–587.
[8] M.C. Clark and R.L. Payne, The nature and structure of
workers’ trust in management, Journal of Organizational
Behavior (1997), 205–224.
[9] A. Zaheer and N. Venkatraman, Relational governance as an
interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of
trust in economic exchange, Strategic Management Journal
16(5) (1995), 373–392.
 M. Rafiq and W. Weiwei / Managerial trust outlook in China and Pakistan
[10] W.D. Creed and R.E. Miles Trust in organizations: A con-
ceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial
philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In: R.
Kramer and T. Tyler, editors. Trust in Organizations: Fron-
tiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;
1996, pp. 16–38.
[11] J.H. Davis, F.D. Schoorman, R.C. Mayer and H.H. Tan,
The trusted general manager and business unit performance:
Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage, Strategic
Management Journal 21 (2000), 563–576.
[12] A.B. Eisingerich and G. Rubera, Drivers of brand
commitment: A cross-national investigation, Journal of
International Marketing 18(2) (2010), 64–79.
[13] M. Jukka, M. Jukka, K. Blomqvist, K. Blomqvist, P. Ping Li,
P. Ping Li, et al., Trust-distrust balance: Trust ambivalence in
Sino-Western B2B relationships, Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management 24(3) (2017), 482–507.
[14] P.M. Doney, J.P. Cannon and M.R. Mullen, Understanding
the influence of national culture on the development of trust,
Academy of Management Review 23(3) (1998), 601–620.
[15] R. Bhattacharya, T.M. Devinney and M.M. Pillutla, A
formal model of trust based on outcomes, Academy of Man-
agement Review 23(3) (1998), 459–472.
[16] S. Liyanage and H. Mitchell, Strategic management of inter-
actions at the academic-industry interface, Technovation
14(10) (1994), 641–655.
[17] O. Branzei, I. Vertinsky and R.D. Camp, Culture-contingent
signs of trust in emergent relationships, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 104(1) (2007),
61–82.
[18] G.R. Franke and S.S. Nadler, Culture, economic develop-
ment, and national ethical attitudes, Journal of Business
Research 61(3) (2008), 254–264.
[19] C. Lane and R. Bachmann, The social constitution of trust:
Supplier relations in Britain and Germany, Organization
Studies 17(3) (1996), 365–395.
[20] M.M. Ajmal, Cultural effects on trust building in inter-
national projects’ stakeholders, International Journal of
Information Technology Project Management 6(3) (2015),
41–57.
[21] A. Ariño, J. De la Torre and P.S. Ring, Relational quality:
Managing trust in corporate alliances, California Manage-
ment Review 44(1) (2001), 109–131.
367
[22] A. Molinsky, Cross-cultural code-switching: The psycho-
logical challenges of adapting behavior in foreign cultural
interactions, Academy of Management Review 32(2) (2007),
622–640.
[23] L.M. DeBruine, Facial resemblance enhances trust, Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences 269(1498) (2002), 1307–1312.
[24] E. Spolaore and R. Wacziarg, The diffusion of develop-
ment, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(2) (2009),
469–529.
[25] R. Dickinson and B. Memon, Press clubs, the journalistic
field and the practice of journalism in Pakistan, Journalism
Studies 13(4) (2012), 616–632.
[26] P.L. Dooley, Taking their political place. Journalists and the
making of an occupation. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997.
[27] L. Dogruel, Innovation research in media management and
economics: An integrative framework, Journal of Media
Business Studies 12(3) (2015), 153–167.
[28] R. Brislin The Wording and Translation of Research Instru-
ments. In: W.J. Lonner and J.W. Berry, editors. Field
methods in cross-cultural research (Cross-cultural research
and methodology series, vol 8):. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.;
1986, pp. 137–164.
[29] M.A. Donovan, F. Drasgow and L.J. Munson, The Percep-
tions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment Scale: Development
and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in
the workplace, Journal of Applied Psychology 83(5) (1998),
683–692.
[30] T. Leung, K.-H. Lai, R.Y. Chan and Y. Wong, The roles
of xinyong and guanxi in Chinese relationship marketing,
European Journal of Marketing 39(5/6) (2005), 528–559.
[31] J.A. Pearce and R.B. Robinson, Cultivating guanxi as a
foreign investor strategy, Business Horizons 43(1) (2000),
31–38.
[32] A. Kriz and B. Keating, Business relationships in China:
Lessons about deep trust, Asia Pacific Business Review 16(3)
(2010), 299–318.
[33] B.R. Barnes, D. Yen and L. Zhou, Investigating guanxi
dimensions and relationship outcomes: Insights from
Sino-Anglo business relationships, Industrial Marketing
Management 40(4) (2011), 510–521.
368 M. Rafiq and W. Weiwei / Managerial trust outlook in China and Pakistan

Appendix (Trust items)

Reflect the following statements about trust outlook in questions 1–14. Indicate your position regarding each by
writing a number in the blank before each statement.
1 (strongly disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (not sure) 4 (agree) 5 (strongly agree)
Q1. Employees are praised for good work.
Q2. Supervisors yell at employees.
Q3. Supervisors play favorites.
Q4. Employees are trusted.
Q5. Employees are treated with children.
Q6. Employees are treated with respect.
Q7. Employees’ questions and problems are
responded to quickly.
Q8. Employees are lied to.
Q9. Employees’ suggestions are ignored.
Q10. Supervisors swear at employees.
Q11. Employees’ hard work is appreciated.
Q12. Supervisors threaten to fire or lay off
employees.
Q13. Employees’ complaints are dealt with
effectively.
Q14. Employees are treated fairly.