In strategic alliances, the question isn’t simply whether you should trust or control, it’s how much you rely on each. Trust isn’t naïve; it’s the lubricant that allows alliances to move fast, adapt, and produce results. Control, by contrast, can create friction, slow things down and signal an underlying lack of faith.
On the one hand, trust creates the conditions for seamless collaboration. In all alliances I’ve seen the ones with the highest degree of trust are the smoothest ones. They have no need for control. When two organisations believe in each other’s competence and good will, they skip layers of review, micromanagement and legal formality, and instead respond dynamically. A partner knows they will do their job, the other knows they can rely on them. That builds speed, reduces cost and fosters innovation.
On the other hand, when control dominates, trust often fades. Detailed contracts, strict governance and heavy oversight bring a message: “We don’t fully believe you.” The result? One organisation feels boxed in, the other resents the micromanagement. In one real-life case: after an alliance started with mutual intent, it got bogged down when one party presented a “control-stamped” draft contract and the other felt trapped. Once the partner feels constrained rather than empowered, commitment drops and value creation shrinks.
But this doesn’t imply you must ignore control altogether. The reality is that alliances benefit from a foundation of trust plus enough structure to align intent. In a trust-based business partnership, measuring progress becomes a shared tool. While control may define terms, trust defines the quality of the relationship. The trick lies in shifting away from a posture of “I must control you” towards “I trust you and here’s how we stay aligned”.
For alliance professionals working at senior levels in global organisations, the take-away is clear: invest in building trust first. Start with transparency, clear communication and consistent behaviour across teams and organisations, these create the credibility on which trust thrives. Then layer in governance that supports, rather than suppresses, it. This approach doesn’t avoid contracts, KPIs or processes; it simply ensures they are enrolled in a relationship built on confidence rather than suspicion.
In summary, trust is the engine; control is the guardrail. Without the engine, you stall. Without the guardrail, you risk divergence. In high-stakes alliances, when trust leads and control follows, you accelerate toward value.