Should you engage with your stakeholders when there are risks of negative activism? Part Two.

A short practice example:

Earlier we discussed the merits of proactive engagement to ‘get a read’ on community interest and issues, as part of professional project management. This has risks, but there are latent stakeholder related risks on every project where people live and work nearby.

As an example, we worked on a development project that would result in local residents experiencing an increase in traffic and noise. As a team we agreed we would undertake early, proactive engagement to explain the necessity and benefits of the project.

Yes, there were complaints. However, the approval agency appreciated we had accepted responsibility for our project, where we respectfully listened and responded to stakeholder concerns.

The approval agency appreciated they were not wedged between a keen project proponent and an angry community.

The team respectfully addressed concerns early through direct delivery of facts, rather than escalation of issues because of lack of information and suspicion, or the spreading of misinformation on social media. 

We accepted stakeholders could support or object to the project on the basis of scope and facts, but we could reduce the potential for issues based on misinformation and misunderstanding. We successfully contained potential issues through direct, personal contact. Our project and construction manager attended all meetings to answer questions directly. The project was eventually well accepted.

When we evaluated this project with the client, they agreed they would always bring potential issues forward to seek resolution early. They felt more in control and prepared for complaint rather than back-pedalling in crisis management mode.

This may work for you too.