This really depends on the relative importance to the project of that stakeholder which is why thorough, ongoing stakeholder analysis is needed to ensure that a team's limited capacity is best utilized otherwise on an even a moderately complex project we could spend the majority of the team's time chasing stakeholders who don't affect the project to any real extent.
Project & PMO Manager | Research & Enterprise Mentor| GFB HoldingSouth America, Brazil
I believe you should chase clarity, not people. When a key stakeholder goes silent, I first try to understand the reason behind the silence, considering their priorities, level of engagement, and the potential impact on the project. I prefer proactive communication, making the risks, decisions, and consequences visible while creating space for an honest conversation. If the silence persists, I adjust my approach and escalate when necessary, always based on the project's governance and decision-making structure. For me, stakeholder engagement is not about chasing responses; it is about ensuring that the right people make the right decisions at the right time. Silence is not necessarily approval, and waiting without a strategy is still a decision, one that may come at a cost. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Thank you, Pavan. Your question highlights an important risk: silence can leave critical concerns, decisions or dependencies invisible until their consequences emerge.
However, I would distinguish silence from disengagement. A stakeholder may remain silent for many reasons, including competing priorities, uncertainty, limited authority or simply having no response to provide. Nor is a difficult stakeholder necessarily more dangerous; constructive disagreement can reveal risks that apparent alignment conceals.
The choice, therefore, is not simply whether to chase or wait.
I would first establish what response or decision is required, who has the authority to provide it, how time-sensitive it is and what consequences may follow from continued silence.
The appropriate action might be a direct conversation, clarification of expectations, an agreed deadline or escalation through established governance arrangements.
Importantly, responsibility for obtaining a decision does not necessarily confer authority to make or presume it.
Perhaps the more fundamental question is: are we dealing with a communication gap, a stakeholder engagement problem, a decision-making constraint or a weakness in the project's governance?
Each requires a different response. The objective is not to eliminate silence, but to understand when it matters, why it occurs and what action is justified. Saving Changes...
I believe in following up rather than waiting indefinitely. After a reasonable period, perhaps a couple of weeks without a response, I would explore the appropriate channels within management or the business to obtain the required answers and understand whether this pattern of silence has occurred in previous projects. It could be due to competing priorities or unavailability, so I would work with the team to identify a backup contact who can provide decisions, ensure accountability, and share project progress and recommendations when the key stakeholder is unavailable. My goal will be to keep the project moving while maintaining transparency and strong working relationships. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I'd follow up, but not endlessly through the same emails or meeting invitations. Sometimes silence is a sign that the stakeholder has competing priorities, doesn't see the urgency, or has concerns they haven't expressed. A direct conversation can reveal more than several reminders. And if a decision is holding up the project, I'd make the impact and deadline clear rather than allowing silence to become an unofficial approval. Saving Changes...
Project Manager| AWR Development (BD) Ltd. Cox's Bazer , Bangladesh
Hi Pavan, spot-on insight! A disengaged stakeholder is definitely a hidden risk. Waiting is rarely an option because silence is almost never genuine approval. Instead of chasing via email, I like to switch communication channels or use "negative confirmation"—letting them know we will proceed with Option A by a set deadline unless they object. It maintains project momentum while leaving the door open for their input! Saving Changes...
I think it helps to make the next step as easy as possible for the stakeholder. Instead of sending another general reminder, I would summarize the decision needed, the available options, and the impact of further delays. That might make it easier to get a useful response. Saving Changes...
AI-Powered Social Media Strategist| Gujranwala Incubation Center
A Project Manager shouldn't just wait or keep annoying a silent stakeholder; instead, they should try a different approach and set a clear deadline to move forward. For example, if a stakeholder ignores emails about a design, the PM sends a quick message saying, "To avoid delays, we will go ahead with Plan A if we don't hear back from you by Friday." Saving Changes...
I agree with Kiron, a stakeholder analysis should be performed, and according to the power, interest, and influence of these, you should take different actions like managing actively, maintaining him informed, monitoring him with the less effort, or others. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
