Building trust in cross-cultural restoration work

If you work with ethnocultural communities, and you want to explore sensitive topics, it is doable. I have talked about topics that range from what I would consider "comfortable" - such as resilience and healthier aging to "extremely uncomfortable" - such as mental health, violence, and abuse. One of the first and most important steps before you do that is to develop and gain their trust. There is no sustainability in what we do, no matter how important it is, without earning the trust of the people we serve and support. How do you do that? Well, this was my approach when I began my work on older adult mistreatment (elder abuse): 1. Identify and map out the community organisations in your area/city that meet the requirements of your services/support/project. 2. Reach out to community/cultural/spiritual leaders of those communities - ideally with an email and then a face-to-face meeting (introduce yourself and be transparent in what your ask is, but also suggest that you would like to know how you/your organisation can be of benefit to the community). 3. Ask to be invited to community events or gatherings as a gentle entry into the community, and so they can familiarise themselves with you. 4. Remember - it's about the community, their needs, and voices. 5. You may need to do these community event visits several times to earn and develop trust (trustworthiness is also a pillar of trauma-informed care). 6. Once trust is earned, and you have been able to engage the community in conversations around their needs, you can address your ask and adapt it to the community and the concerns they share with you. This sort of community engagement will also bring with it benefits and growth, plus, if you're in the field of social support and community engagement and advocacy, you know how important these steps are. Trust first. Your ask comes later.

This week, I’m in Berlin delivering training on the importance of robust and inclusive disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy. The discussions have been insightful, but one theme keeps emerging: the importance of trust. Participants have shared real-world examples of how communities’ willingness to engage with DRR initiatives, especially those inclusive of particularly at-risk or marginalised communities, is shaped by their trust in institutions, policymakers, and each other. Without trust, even the best-designed policies risk failing at the implementation stage. Building that trust means ensuring DRR efforts are transparent, inclusive, and responsive to the lived realities of those most at risk. This reminder aligns closely with a piece I’ve had published this week on PreventionWeb, exploring the role of misinformation and trust in DRR. The piece was based on a report I launched last month (https://lnkd.in/eniYeaNM), the piece examines how misinformation doesn’t just distort public understanding of risk: it actively undermines confidence in scientific expertise and disaster governance, disproportionately affecting marginalised groups. As we refine DRR policy, we need to recognise that trust isn’t an abstract ideal, it’s a core component of effective disaster preparedness and response. Without it, the best policies remain words on a page. Building trust requires deliberate effort. Key steps include: 1️⃣ Understanding the community by analysing cultural, social, and political dynamics and engaging key leaders 2️⃣ Engaging from the start using participatory approaches and consulting diverse community groups 3️⃣ Communicating openly by providing clear, honest, and timely information 4️⃣ Ensuring inclusivity by engaging marginalised groups and avoiding reliance on elite voices 5️⃣ Delivering on commitments by following through on promises and providing regular updates 6️⃣ Maintaining long-term engagement by fostering sustained partnerships and resilience-building By prioritising trust through transparency, inclusivity, and sustained engagement, DRR efforts can become more effective, ensuring that policies translate into meaningful action for those most at risk. The link to the PreventionWeb article can be found here: https://lnkd.in/ecdZMQt7 #InclusiveDRR #LeaveNoOneBehind

Approaching engagement projects with First Nations communities requires deep consideration. Cultural respect isn't a token gesture; it is vital for building trust and enduring relationships. Organisations and project teams must prioritise long-term relationship building, recognising that trust is cultivated over time and requires unwavering commitment. Remember, transparency and authenticity are non-negotiables in our work, ensuring that actions align with an organisation’s values and commitments and there is accountability to the communities we serve. By actively listening and learning from First Nations communities, any collaboration will be rooted in mutual respect and understanding. [Image description: Five key points that must be considered when engaging First Nations communities.]

🌿 Why Field Visits Matter in Tree-Growing Projects: Lessons from Burundi’s Restoration projects In Burundi’s rolling hills and fragmented landscapes, tree-growing is more than a technical intervention it’s a social, ecological, and political act. As restoration gains momentum across the country, field visits have emerged as a critical tool for ensuring that tree-growing projects are not only planted but rooted in reality. 1. Ground-Truthing Restoration Plans Satellite imagery and GIS maps offer a bird’s-eye view, but they can’t capture the nuances of soil texture, microclimates, or community land use. Field visits allow restoration teams to: &1. Validate ecological baselines and identify degradation hotspots. &2. Adjust species selection based on local soil, slope, and water availability. In Burundi, where land tenure is often informal and landscapes are highly variable, these insights are indispensable. 2. Building Trust with Communities Tree-growing is not just about planting, it’s about people. Field visits create space for dialogue, especially with marginalized groups like the Batwa, women, and youth. They help: Surface local priorities and cultural values tied to land and trees. Co-design restoration activities that reflect community needs and aspirations. Strengthen transparency and accountability in benefit-sharing mechanisms. Without this engagement, restoration risks becoming extractive rather than regenerative. 3. Monitoring Progress and Adaptive Learning Restoration is dynamic. Field visits enable real-time monitoring of: -Survival rates of planted trees. -Soil stabilization, erosion control, and biodiversity indicators. -Community participation and labor dynamics. These observations feed into adaptive management allowing teams to pivot strategies, reallocate resources, and document impact with credibility. 4. Validating Incentive Structures Economic and non-economic incentives are central to sustaining restoration. Field visits help: -Understand how incentives are perceived and accessed by different groups. -Identify gaps in benefit-sharing. -Refine incentive frameworks to ensure equity and long-term engagement. In Burundi, where restoration intersects with livelihoods, this validation is essential for scaling impact. 5. Ensuring Contractual and Strategic Coherence Donor proposals and project conventions often look tidy on paper but field visits reveal the friction points. They allow technical leads to: -Spot incoherences in timelines, deliverables, or resource allocations. -Document insights that inform strategic notes, MRV plans, and donor communications. 🌍 Conclusion: Restoration Begins with Presence Field visits are not a luxury they’re a necessity. They transform restoration from a top-down intervention into a bottom-up movement. They ensure that trees are planted where they’ll thrive, that communities are engaged where they feel heard, and that strategies evolve where they meet reality.

The Meaning of a Promise at Work When I was in Tokyo, I once asked a labmate for a small favor. Later that day, I reminded him. His response was immediate and firm: “You’ve told me once. It will get done. No reminders needed.” And he meant it. Every request I made in that lab was followed through without a second word. A commitment there carried weight—it was automatic, not negotiable. Back in India, I noticed the dynamic was different. A “yes” doesn’t always mean the same thing. Follow-ups are expected, but too many can damage the relationship. Ironically, the task often still remains incomplete. Over time, I stopped chasing. Instead, I began observing. Quietly, I’ve learned to classify: Those who do what they say they will. Those who don’t. This shift has saved me a lot of energy—and it’s taught me that integrity is not interpreted the same way everywhere. What a promise means, how trust is built, and when reminders are acceptable—these are all cultural codes, not universal truths. In any workplace, the challenge is not just getting things done, but also learning how accountability is understood within that environment. For me, the compass is still the same: trust people who follow through, and place less weight on words that don’t become actions.  For those who’ve worked across cultures—how do you adapt when “yes” doesn’t always mean the same thing? And what practical ways have you found to build trust and follow-through on commitments at work?

Your team thinks you’re clueless. Your approach screams "American". And they're unconvinced. Kara Williams, an engineer from Boston, learned that the hard way. She flew to Munich to pitch carbon reduction strategies to a room full of German executives. She was confident. Prepared. Right to the point. She opened her presentation with a bold statement and recommendations for how to take action. But she barely made it through her first slide before the questions started flying: ➡️ “Please tell us more about the research you conducted." ➡️ “How many people did you interview?" ➡️ “What methodology did you use for analyzing the data?" Kara felt the group was attacking her credibility and became defensive. But what she saw as aggression… was actually a cultural difference in approach to reasoning. In Germany, where deductive thinking is built into the fabric of the education system, building your argument by first proving the principle before moving to application reigns. Introduction, thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. In the US, where inductive reasoning prevails, getting to the point and sticking to it is more desirable and often more persuasive. Her next trip, Kara tried a different approach: “I began with the concept— this is the problem. Here are the details about the research done. I left time for debate and discussion before moving to recommendations... I focused first on WHY, then on HOW... I got the funding". Here’s the bigger truth: though most are unaware, the ways you seek to persuade others and the kinds of arguments you find convincing are often deeply rooted in your culture’s philosophical, religious, and educational assumptions and attitudes. Far from being universal, the art of persuasion is one that is profoundly culture-based. Another truth: No matter where in the world you're working, if you're not informed and adaptable, they may think you're clueless too. #TheCultureMap #ErinMeyer #CrossCulturalCommunication #CulturalFluency #GlobalTeams #BusinessAcrossBorders #EQatWork #WorkAcrossCultures