A few weeks ago, at the AI Edge conference in Scottsdale, I was leading a roundtable discussion on AI adoption in planning and supply chain. Interestingly, the conversation quickly shifted away from technology and toward something much more foundational: trust.
What surprised me was that there was no consensus on what trust actually means, how it is built, or even what people trusted.
That conversation reinforced something I have seen repeatedly throughout my career working in forecasting, demand planning, and S&OP/IBP:
Most global business processes do not fail because of poor design.
They fail because organizations underestimate the role trust plays in how people work together, make decisions, and align around a plan.
Trust Is the Foundation of Every Business Process
In supply chain and S&OP, we often focus on the visible components of process maturity: People, Process, Data, KPI’s, Technology, or even AI integration now…
All of those do matter.
But underneath every successful process is an invisible layer that determines whether those elements actually work together effectively: trust.
Trust impacts:
- Whether sales trusts the forecast
- Whether operations trusts supply assumptions
- Whether finance trusts the numbers presented in the executive review
- Whether planners feel comfortable escalating risk
- Whether teams collaborate openly or protect information
- Whether organizations adopt new technologies such as AI
- Whether people commit to a single plan
Without trust, even the best people or designed process becomes performative.
Meetings happen. Slides are presented. Numbers are reviewed. But true alignment never fully develops. Many organizations confuse attendance with alignment. They assume a number or checking the box on a meeting means consensus. They are not the same thing.
The Hidden Problem in Global Processes
This becomes even more complicated in global organizations and processes. Many companies assume that if they standardize the process globally, alignment will naturally follow. On paper, this makes sense. The same templates, the same metrics, the same meeting structure, the same technology. This is the way most books and trainings present S&OP/IBP.
Yet global teams still struggle.
Why?
Because people do not experience processes the same way.
- What builds trust in one region may create skepticism in another.
- What one culture views as transparency, another may view as confrontational.
- What one team sees as efficiency, another may see as cold or disconnected.
The process itself may be standardized, but the interpretation of the process is not. And this is where many global organizations quietly break down.
Trust Is Universal. How It Is Built Is Not.
One of the biggest insights from my recent research is that trust is universal, but its foundation is cultural. Every successful organization requires trust. Every business process depends on it. But trust is not built the same way everywhere.
- Some cultures trust people.
- Some trust roles.
- Some trust rules and structure.
- Others trust results and outcomes.
A simple way to think about this is to ask yourself:
“Do I trust the system?”
Or
“Do I trust the person?”
This distinction appears consistently across both research and everyday business experience. Studies such as the World Values Survey show significant variation in whether people believe “most people can be trusted.” Northern European countries consistently score among the highest, while many parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia score lower.
This does not mean one region is more trustworthy than another. It means trust is established differently. And those differences directly impact how global business processes function.
Forecasting Is a Trust Exercise
Forecasting is often treated as a mathematical problem. In reality, forecasting is largely a trust exercise.
Think about what happens during a demand review meeting.
A planner presents a forecast. Sales challenges the assumptions. Marketing introduces a new campaign. Finance questions the gap to target. Operations pushes back on volatility. At the center of the discussion is not just the forecast itself.
It is whether people trust:
- The assumptions
- The data
- The intent
- The process
- The people presenting it
This is why two organizations with identical tools and forecasting models can achieve dramatically different outcomes. One organization collaborates openly, escalates issues early, and works through disagreements productively. Another spends most of the meeting defending positions, protecting functions, or negotiating numbers politically.
The difference is often not process maturity alone. It is trust maturity. Or at minimum, not understanding or addressing cultural complexity and differences correctly.
Even Small Interactions Matter
One of the more fascinating aspects of this research was realizing how even small interactions reveal how trust is built differently around the world. Even something as simple as saying “hello” or asking, “How are you?” can carry very different meaning depending on the culture. In some regions, these greetings are not social pleasantries. They are foundational trust-building rituals.
Liezl Smith, a professional based in Africa, explained during our interview: “You start conversations and business meetings with ‘How are you doing?’” In her context, skipping this step is not merely abrupt. It is disrespectful.
Before business discussions begin, there must first be acknowledgment of the individual and their well-being. That interaction establishes the human foundation that supports both trust and workflow.
This same theme appeared throughout several interviews in Latin America. One planner shared: “In the U.S., you are taught to say ‘hi’ and ‘how are you,’ but in Mexico we say it and actually mean it.”
Cynthia, a CFO working across Mexico and the United States, described how even in highly demanding business environments, her teams intentionally spend time building personal connections before discussing work. “We are a family, a group of friends, or familia.”
These relationship-first approaches contrast sharply with regions such as Denmark, where one S&OP manager explained that meetings focus almost immediately on structure, alignment, and the broader business objective. He described successful meetings as: Starting on time, staying on agenda, and avoiding unnecessary tangents.
Again, none of these approaches is necessarily wrong if you are getting the results. They may work based on where you are located or depending on who is participating. In fact, many organizations would consider them best practices.
In many cultures, spending several minutes discussing family, health, or weekend activities is not inefficient. It is trust-building.
Whether it is discussing soccer before the meeting begins or immediately opening the first slide deck, those opening moments signal how relationships are built and ultimately shape how work gets done.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
This topic is becoming increasingly important as organizations:
- Expand globally
- Implement AI
- Centralize planning functions
- Standardize processes
- Accelerate decision-making expectations
The more companies attempt to create globally integrated processes, the more cultural complexity becomes visible.
Ironically, many organizations respond by tightening process control even further.
But forcing alignment without understanding how trust is built often creates resistance rather than collaboration.
You cannot standardize human behavior the same way you standardize KPIs. The strongest global organizations do not ignore these differences. They recognize them, understand them, and design processes that allow different styles of trust-building and collaboration to coexist effectively.
Final Thoughts
One of the biggest mistakes organizations make is assuming that mature processes are purely operational or technical achievements.
They are not.
At their core, mature processes are social systems. They require people to share information openly and challenge assumptions constructively. They are about commitment to making decisions together and navigating uncertainty collaboratively. And none of that happens without trust.
The irony is that trust is rarely listed on process maps, maturity models, or implementation plans. Yet it influences every single one of them.
Perhaps the better question for organizations is not simply:
Do we have the right process?”
But rather:
“Do we understand how trust is built inside our global teams?”
Because that answer often determines whether the process succeeds or quietly struggles beneath the surface.