As project managers, we recognize that not all high-impact stakeholders will actively support our projects, even when their influence can significantly impact the outcomes.
Have you ever worked with a stakeholder whose relationship with the project was turbulent, yet you still managed to achieve your objectives without their direct backing? What strategies or adjustments did you make to overcome that obstacle and keep the project moving forward up to completion and stakeholders’ acceptance?
Thank you in advance for your thought!
Akin
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Akin Fadare That’s an excellent and very practical question.
In my experience, when a stakeholder blocks instead of backing, the key is to reframe the dynamic from resistance to relationship management.
A few strategies that have worked for me:
- Clarify the “why” → Often opposition hides a misalignment of priorities.
By connecting project outcomes to the stakeholder’s own objectives, we can sometimes transform blockers into neutral (or even partial) supporters.
- Leverage coalitions → If direct influence fails, engaging other stakeholders with credibility and trust can help reduce the impact of a single opposing voice.
- Adjust the delivery path, not the destination → When backing is absent, I’ve found that incremental wins, visible metrics, and transparent reporting build legitimacy and momentum, even without strong sponsorship.
- Maintain professional composure → It’s easy to slip into confrontation.
But keeping a consistent tone of respect and openness preserves bridges that might later be crossed.
Ultimately, success in such cases often depends less on removing the obstacle and more on designing around it with creativity, resilience, and systemic support.
...
1 reply by Akin Fadare
Sep 30, 2025 11:53 AM
Akin Fadare
...
Luis Branco,
Thank you for these thoughtful submissions. You just educated me on the act of negotiation, people management and conflict resolution. Politics is complicated—no permanent friend. As we always say, choose your battle wisely.
Akin
I've had challenging high influence stakeholders many times over my career. If you aren't able to influence them to align with the success of the project, it becomes an exercise in risk management. In some cases, you might have to just accept the risk and deal with the roadblocks they introduce as those come whereas in others you might be able to modify the scope or approach to the project to reduce the impact they will have and in others you might escalate to someone more senior than them to "deal with them".
As usual, context counts.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Akin Fadare
Sep 30, 2025 12:23 PM
Akin Fadare
...
Kiron Bondale, Intelligent thought! In the process of modifying the scope to accommodate the obstacle, you might also need to raise a change request, which is subject to approval. The stakeholder you are blocking may also appear again in the background during the change process via CCB. What’s your thought on this?
Great question, Akin. Yes, I’ve faced situations where a key stakeholder wasn’t supportive. What helped was building alliances with other influencers, maintaining transparent communication to reduce resistance, and focusing on quick wins that demonstrated value early. Over time, this created momentum and shifted the stakeholder from passive resistance to at least tacit acceptance, which was enough to move the project forward.
...
1 reply by Eduard Hernandez
Sep 30, 2025 9:03 AM
Eduard Hernandez
...
Relevant question, since one of the key abilities of a PM is managing stakeholders of various levels of power and influence.
I recall occasions in which the sponsor was saying A in formal forums and then B in informal ones, creating distress and lack of transparency. When this occurs, it is essential to have a conversation with the sponsor, understand his reasons, and then educate him (without preaching, just an adult conversation between two professionals).
In some cases, as someone would say, it is easy in theory and difficult in practice. Politics aren't easy to handle.
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
Sep 30, 2025 4:15 AM
Replying to Syed Ashir Riaz
...
Great question, Akin. Yes, I’ve faced situations where a key stakeholder wasn’t supportive. What helped was building alliances with other influencers, maintaining transparent communication to reduce resistance, and focusing on quick wins that demonstrated value early. Over time, this created momentum and shifted the stakeholder from passive resistance to at least tacit acceptance, which was enough to move the project forward.
Relevant question, since one of the key abilities of a PM is managing stakeholders of various levels of power and influence.
I recall occasions in which the sponsor was saying A in formal forums and then B in informal ones, creating distress and lack of transparency. When this occurs, it is essential to have a conversation with the sponsor, understand his reasons, and then educate him (without preaching, just an adult conversation between two professionals).
In some cases, as someone would say, it is easy in theory and difficult in practice. Politics aren't easy to handle.
...
1 reply by Akin Fadare
Sep 30, 2025 12:26 PM
Akin Fadare
...
Eduard Hernandez, you are right, it’s easier to discuss it in the forum than implement it in real life. Politics is intense. The more you look, the less you see. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Akin Fadare That’s an excellent and very practical question.
In my experience, when a stakeholder blocks instead of backing, the key is to reframe the dynamic from resistance to relationship management.
A few strategies that have worked for me:
- Clarify the “why” → Often opposition hides a misalignment of priorities.
By connecting project outcomes to the stakeholder’s own objectives, we can sometimes transform blockers into neutral (or even partial) supporters.
- Leverage coalitions → If direct influence fails, engaging other stakeholders with credibility and trust can help reduce the impact of a single opposing voice.
- Adjust the delivery path, not the destination → When backing is absent, I’ve found that incremental wins, visible metrics, and transparent reporting build legitimacy and momentum, even without strong sponsorship.
- Maintain professional composure → It’s easy to slip into confrontation.
But keeping a consistent tone of respect and openness preserves bridges that might later be crossed.
Ultimately, success in such cases often depends less on removing the obstacle and more on designing around it with creativity, resilience, and systemic support.
Luis Branco,
Thank you for these thoughtful submissions. You just educated me on the act of negotiation, people management and conflict resolution. Politics is complicated—no permanent friend. As we always say, choose your battle wisely.
Akin Saving Changes...
I've had challenging high influence stakeholders many times over my career. If you aren't able to influence them to align with the success of the project, it becomes an exercise in risk management. In some cases, you might have to just accept the risk and deal with the roadblocks they introduce as those come whereas in others you might be able to modify the scope or approach to the project to reduce the impact they will have and in others you might escalate to someone more senior than them to "deal with them".
As usual, context counts.
Kiron
Kiron Bondale, Intelligent thought! In the process of modifying the scope to accommodate the obstacle, you might also need to raise a change request, which is subject to approval. The stakeholder you are blocking may also appear again in the background during the change process via CCB. What’s your thought on this?
Akin
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Sep 30, 2025 12:48 PM
Kiron Bondale
...
Akin -
If the change is to remove or add something according to the blocking stakeholder's wishes, they are likely to be supportive in a CCB meeting. On the other hand, if they are still opposing what is recommended, it comes down to the decision-making approach for the CCB - is it majority or plurality-driven or does it require a full consensus?
Relevant question, since one of the key abilities of a PM is managing stakeholders of various levels of power and influence.
I recall occasions in which the sponsor was saying A in formal forums and then B in informal ones, creating distress and lack of transparency. When this occurs, it is essential to have a conversation with the sponsor, understand his reasons, and then educate him (without preaching, just an adult conversation between two professionals).
In some cases, as someone would say, it is easy in theory and difficult in practice. Politics aren't easy to handle.
Eduard Hernandez, you are right, it’s easier to discuss it in the forum than implement it in real life. Politics is intense. The more you look, the less you see. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Kiron Bondale, Intelligent thought! In the process of modifying the scope to accommodate the obstacle, you might also need to raise a change request, which is subject to approval. The stakeholder you are blocking may also appear again in the background during the change process via CCB. What’s your thought on this?
Akin
Akin -
If the change is to remove or add something according to the blocking stakeholder's wishes, they are likely to be supportive in a CCB meeting. On the other hand, if they are still opposing what is recommended, it comes down to the decision-making approach for the CCB - is it majority or plurality-driven or does it require a full consensus?
Community Champion
