When stakeholders don’t stay managed

“What do you do when stakeholders agree, but then change their mind?”

This question came up during a recent workshop on program complexity. We were talking about unstable agreement, where the culture allows people to waver even when the facts haven't changed.

We weren't talking about disagreement, that is a different problem. This one is more unsettling because it means the foundation you’ve built on isn't as solid as you thought.

Usually, our instinct is to go back and try to secure the agreement. Have another coffee, adjust the approach, and try to regain their support.

But if you’re working in a culture that tolerates (or even rewards) stakeholders changing their positions, you’re playing an unwinnable game. You simply cannot talk your way into stability when indecision or fluctuation is the norm.

What are your choices?

When complexity outpaces your ability to navigate it, you have two options. Both can work, but they have different implications.

1. Reduce the Complexity

Simplify the stakeholder map or change who holds the final say. Changing the scope or approach can make things easier, but it often comes at the cost of having to shrink your ambition.

2. Adjust the Operating Model

If you can’t change the environment (and often you can’t), stop trying to fix the instability and start designing for the situation you find yourself in. Your approach needs to accommodate shifting levels of support, and the timeline needs room for milestones to be fluid. Your interactions are about actively maintaining alignment and not just assuming it persists after a meeting ends.

Redefining what governance means

In a stable environment, governance is about execution. You set a plan, secure commitments, and track progress against those milestones.

However, when the situation is unstable, governance is about ‘sense and respond’. It is the constant work of questioning the level of support and being on the lookout for what might shift.

Public displays of commitment (often seen as important) might be useful or destructive, depending on the situation. Stakeholder communication needs to make space to hear the weak signals of dissent. You stop treating agreement as ‘done’ and see it as something that needs ongoing maintenance.

While this feels like more work, it is the necessary work. It is far less costly than reaching the middle of a program only to discover your foundation has evaporated.

Involvement rather than management

When the environment is complex, you need to create enough genuine involvement that people feel ownership of the outcome and are willing to surface any disagreement. Ideally, this will also make it more likely to hold their position when the winds change.

You need to stay ahead of the context, or it will eventually get away from you.

Some questions to consider:

• Which stakeholders are likely to surprise you?

• Where are you assuming alignment is stable when it might not be?

• Do you have a good network of sensors that let you know the ground is shifting?

• Have you ever traded a bit of project ambition for a significant reduction in complexity?

You can either design for the instability or let it happen to you by default. Choose how you are going to play the game to give yourself a better chance of success.