Trust and credibility - Why collaboration fails long before the plan does
The fourth deep dive in a series on multi-company collaboration in complex transformations
Returning to the model
In the earlier articles in this series, I introduced a multi-dimensional view of collaboration for large, multi-company transformation ecosystems.
The core idea remains simple — and frequently overlooked:
Collaboration does not live on a single axis.
In successful transformation ecosystems, it emerges across multiple, intertwined dimensions, all active at the same time:
Commercial alignment – incentives, contracts, and financial reality
Power and authority – who decides, who influences, who absorbs risk
Capability and expertise – what each party truly brings (and doesn’t)
Trust and credibility – built slowly, lost quickly
Narrative and meaning – the story people tell themselves about the work
Human relationships – respect, identity, ego, fear, pride
None of these dimensions can be managed in isolation. They constantly shape — and reshape — one another.
We have explored commercial alignment, power and authority, and capability and expertise.
Now we turn to the dimension that determines whether any of the others can function: trust and credibility.
The invisible currency of transformation
In multi-company ecosystems, trust is rarely named as a deliverable.
It does not appear in contracts.
It is not in the RAID log.
It has no milestone.
And yet, when trust erodes, everything else slows.
Commercial models become defensive.
Power dynamics harden.
Expertise is questioned.
Narratives fragment.
Relationships become transactional.
Trust is not a soft add-on. It is the condition under which collaboration becomes possible.
Trust is not agreement
It is tempting to confuse trust with harmony.
But trust does not mean:
everyone agrees,
there is no tension,
conflict is absent.
Trust means:
people believe others are acting in good faith,
disagreement does not imply hidden agendas,
bad news can be surfaced without disproportionate punishment.
Credibility, meanwhile, is the behavioural foundation of trust.
It is built through:
consistency,
delivery,
transparency,
and the ability to admit mistakes.
Note that ‘running trust workshops’, where -for instance - you are asked to fall backwards and your team members then have to catch you, is deliberately not in this list. 😉
In complex programmes, credibility travels (much!) faster than formal authority.
How trust interacts with the other dimensions
Trust is not independent of the model.
Commercial alignment shapes whether people feel safe to disclose problems.
Power dynamics determine whether honesty increases or decreases exposure.
Capability affects whether advice is believed.
Narrative frames whether partners are “strategic allies” or “vendors”.
Human relationships amplify or dampen suspicion.
Trust is relational. It is continuously negotiated in small interactions. Not in strategy documents.
Vignettes from the field
Vignette 1 — The budget overrun
A systems integrator identified a looming cost increase caused by unforeseen complexity.
Commercially, reporting it early increased exposure.
Politically, it risked reputational damage.
The programme director chose transparency.
The client was unhappy — but not surprised.
The relationship strengthened.
Credibility rose.
Trust expanded because bad news travelled quickly.
Vignette 2 — The quiet erosion
In another programme, minor delivery issues were reframed as “temporary optimisation adjustments”.
No one lied outright.
But language softened reality.
Over months, discrepancies accumulated.
When a major issue finally surfaced, the client no longer believed the assurances.
The technical problem was solvable.
The credibility problem was not.
Vignette 3 — The trusted challenger
A transformation partner repeatedly challenged assumptions in steering meetings.
At first, this was seen as obstructive.
Over time, the pattern became clear: challenges were evidence-based and consistently focused on risk mitigation.
When a crisis emerged, this same partner was asked to lead the recovery.
Trust had been earned through disciplined dissent.
The paradox of trust
Trust accelerates work.
But it cannot be rushed.
It is built through repeated, small, visible acts of reliability.
It erodes through:
inconsistency,
selective transparency,
defensiveness,
protecting optics over substance.
In complex programmes under pressure, the temptation to protect image increases. Ironically, that is precisely when trust matters most.
What this means for leaders
Leading trust and credibility in multi-company collaboration requires intentional attention.
Some practical leadership lessons:
1. Make bad news travel fast
Speed of transparency is a signal of maturity. But: be ready for it.
2. Reward candour, not only delivery
If people are punished for surfacing risk, they will stop surfacing it. You will never hear the truth,
3. Watch language carefully
Euphemisms often signal declining credibility. Note that prevailing corporate jargon often expressly exists to soften reality.
4. Separate performance from identity
Critiquing output must not become attacking competence.
5. Model vulnerability at senior level
Admitting uncertainty increases collective credibility.
Trust cannot be mandated. But leaders can shape the conditions under which it grows.
Why this matters for the series
In the next article, we will explore Narrative and meaning — the stories people tell themselves about the collaboration.
Because trust does not exist in isolation from story.
People trust not only what they see —
but what they believe the work represents.
Final thought
“Trust is not built in the absence of problems, but in the presence of honest response.”
In complex ecosystems, credibility is the quiet architecture of collaboration.
Without it, the structure may stand —
but it will not hold under strain.
About the author
I’m Frank Smits, a change and transformation consultant with about 30 years of international experience helping organisations navigate complex business and IT-driven change. I have particular expertise in setting up and managing global HR programmes, including the implementation of HRIS solutions such as SAP SuccessFactors.
I’ve worked with global teams across industries and cultures to deliver major transformations—balancing strategy, execution, and the human side of change. Based in Europe, I work in multiple languages and thrive on making change practical, collaborative, and real.
What I can offer:
I help you shape and manage the engagements to achieve your business outcomes. By bringing in my specialist programme management, change and transformation expertise. From initiation through to implementation. Or any part thereof. This includes leading large-scale business change initiatives, from digital transformation to complex HR programmes.
As executives, you may need a discrete partner to test your ideas. Or get fresh, new ones. I will act as your sparring partner. To having the right conversations. Helping you succeed. This applies to all areas of business leadership—including how to navigate and lead major HR change or transformation initiatives.
Expertise in designing and facilitating innovative and engaging interventions. And, if needed, I can convene a variety of experts from my extensive network (academics, peers, consultants, active retirees) to open up new thinking. In HR programme leadership, this means bringing together key stakeholders—HR, IT, business leaders, and external partners—to drive alignment and engagement.
Sometimes you would like your leaders to get dedicated, customised, specialist education. To enhance your capabilities. To possibly change the conversation. HR leaders facing major change or transformation also need the right tools and perspectives to guide their teams. I can help build that capability.
Find me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franksmits