Over the past year, I watched a contracted project manager quietly hold together one of the most demanding stakeholder relationships on a project.

The community member was influential among their peers and arrived at the engagement group confident they carried a mandate from their part of the community. They could dominate the discussion, making it difficult for other perspectives to find space.

Their influence also extended beyond the formal engagement process. They held their own conversations with people connected to the project and actively shaped how others understood what was happening.

Managing that relationship took a fair amount of work.

During the meetings, the project manager had to acknowledge the person’s contribution while creating enough space for everyone else. Outside the meetings came careful emails, informal catch-ups and additional conversations aimed at keeping their involvement productive.

He also knew when the relationship needed greater organisational authority. At those points, he escalated the issue to the project sponsor or, when appropriate, the chief executive.

A stakeholder record might show a series of meetings, emails and issues raised. But it would struggle to capture the judgement sitting underneath them.

The project manager was learning when to respond, what needed to be acknowledged, which concerns carried wider community influence and when an issue had moved beyond his mandate. He was holding history, context and a finely tuned sense of what might help the relationship remain workable.

Much of that work was almost invisible.

The least glamorous parts of trust are load-bearing

We tend to notice trust when something dramatic happens.

A public meeting turns hostile. Opposition grows. A commitment is missed. Someone goes to the media. A stakeholder with influence begins organising others.

Yet much of the work that supports trust is incredibly methodical. It is built through emails answered when promised, concerns recorded accurately, informal conversations, carefully timed introductions and knowing when someone with greater authority needs to become involved.

It reminds me of laying bricks or tiles. Each interaction adds another piece. Most individual pieces look unremarkable, yet their placement and connection determine the strength of the whole structure. Miss one, position it badly or allow a gap to develop, and the effect may emerge much later.

The least glamorous parts of trust carry a lot of weight.

When the relationship sits with one person

Contract project managers and communication and engagement specialists are common across infrastructure and public projects. I am one of them.

We are often brought in because a project needs additional capacity, specialist judgement or someone who can step into a complicated environment and start building relationships quickly. While that creates value for the organisation it also creates a continuity risk that responsible contractors and project leaders need to manage deliberately.

In this case, the relationship sat primarily with the contracted project manager. The sponsor and chief executive had appropriate visibility when matters were escalated, although the detailed knowledge remained largely with the person managing the relationship day to day.

This risk applies to employees too. People change roles, move to other projects, take leave or become unavailable when pressure rises. A project can become dependent on anyone whose brain holds the history of an important relationship.

Continuity therefore needs attention well before a handover is expected, because people can become unavailable suddenly through illness, leave or other unexpected circumstances.

Contact records preserve activity, not judgement

Stakeholder systems are useful for recording names, interactions, interests, influence, issues and commitments. That information provides an essential foundation.

The harder knowledge to preserve includes:

• Why a seemingly minor issue carries so much weight for someone
• Which previous interactions shape how they interpret the project
• How their influence travels beyond formal meetings
• What helps them contribute productively
• Which commitments or boundaries need particular care
• When a conversation requires the authority of a sponsor or senior leader

This is relational knowledge which grows through repeated contact and close attention to behaviour, context and history.

It also creates a practical challenge because some of this knowledge is sensitive, subjective and inappropriate to capture as blunt commentary in a stakeholder database. Teams need a disciplined way to share useful context without labelling people or recording assumptions as fact.

That requires judgement too.

Building continuity into the project

The answer is not to spread every stakeholder relationship across a large internal group. Important relationships benefit from clear ownership. Stakeholders should know who to contact and trust that the person understands their history.

Continuity comes from ensuring the relationship holder is connected to a wider project system.

For significant or high-risk relationships, I would want the project team to be able to answer five questions:

1. Who currently holds the relationship?
   There should be a clear lead with enough time, authority and skill to maintain it.
2. Who else understands its history and significance?
   At least one appropriate person inside the organisation should understand the context before an urgent escalation or handover becomes necessary.
3. Where are commitments and important sensitivities recorded?
   The record needs to be useful, factual and respectful, with clear ownership of anything still open.
4. When should the sponsor or senior leadership become involved?
   Escalation pathways should be understood before the relationship reaches a critical point.
5. Could somebody else step in without asking the stakeholder to begin again?
   A replacement will still need to build their own credibility. They should be able to enter the relationship with enough context to acknowledge what has already happened.

These questions support employees managing contracted specialists, and they should also guide those of us working as contractors.

Our job includes building credible relationships on behalf of the project. It also includes helping the organisation retain enough knowledge and connection to continue those relationships without us.

Trust needs a home beyond the individual

The project manager in this story was doing skilled relationship work. His ability to manage the relationship directly, while involving the sponsor and chief executive when appropriate, helped keep the community member connected to the project.

The wider opportunity is to recognise that work as part of project assurance.

If an influential relationship depends heavily on one person, the project should understand the dependency and actively build continuity around it. That means creating organisational visibility, maintaining accurate records, sharing relational context with care and ensuring another credible person can step in when needed.

Trust may be experienced between people. The responsibility for supporting it sits across the project.

Take a look at one of the significant relationships on your current project.

If the person holding it became unavailable tomorrow, what knowledge, credibility and connection would disappear with them?

Margot B
Trusted Voice in Authentic Engagement

PS: If this brought a particular project or relationship to mind, hit reply. I would be interested to know how your organisation protects relational continuity when project teams or members change.