Cultivating Stakeholder Trust
- KPM SMARTBiz
- Aug 11
- 10 min read
The Missing Discipline in Modern Project Delivery - Noticing the invisible, and learning to grow it.
Why Trust Often Goes Unnoticed
(Yet Undermines Projects)
The Project That “Should Have Worked”
A few years back, I was leading a mid-size infrastructure project, with tight timelines, multiple stakeholders, nothing flashy, but important to the client. We were on track. Scope was controlled, the budget balanced, and milestones hit like clockwork. If you had walked into our status meetings, you'd have seen all the green indicators glowing. A textbook case of good project management, or so it seemed.
But around the halfway mark, something shifted. A key sponsor, "Julie", started missing check-ins. No big announcement. Just small signs.When we needed approvals for a change request, silence. When we asked for stakeholder input on an upcoming integration, delays. By the time we realized what was happening, weeks had slipped by. Momentum had quietly drained away, not because we missed a KPI, but because we lost something deeper: Julie’s trust.
Looking back, the red flags were there. She’d raised a concern about how a technical decision was communicated to field teams. We’d brushed it off as low-risk. We responded with process, not presence. That’s when the pullback began.
Trust is the Invisible Infrastructure
In traditional project models, we obsess over what we can see and measure: cost, schedule, scope.
But trust? That’s the stuff under the floorboards.
And when trust erodes, even strong plans crack:
Communication becomes cautious or surface-level.
Stakeholders engage only when required, not because they believe in the project.
Change management becomes exhausting, not energizing.
Decision cycles lengthen, while team morale quietly dips.
Backed by Research.
Karlsen et al. (2008), in their study of trust in major construction projects, found that trust directly impacts collaboration, communication efficiency, and risk response. Teams that invested in relationship-building, not just tasks, were significantly more adaptive under pressure.
In short, trust is not soft. It’s structural.
"Check the Foundation"
Here’s a reflection we now use with our teams:
What’s our trust temperature right now?
Have we dismissed any concerns that seemed “minor” but might have meaning?
Are our stakeholders showing up because they’re required, or because they care?
Are we treating trust-building as part of delivery, or as something that just happens
Try This Exercise: The Quiet Signals Checklist
During your next stakeholder review or team sync, try observing these subtle signals:
Are key people unusually quiet or less responsive?
Do decisions take longer even when the information is clear?
Are concerns being surfaced, or avoided?
Is there a shift in tone, energy, or presence?
You’re not looking for blame, just data on trust. Write down two actions you can take to reconnect or realign. That small step might be your biggest project win.
What Is Stakeholder Trust, Really?
What Makes People Say “Yes, I’m With You”
The Client Who Smiled, but Never Really Backed Us...
In one of my earlier transformation projects, this time with a hospitality group, things felt...off, even though the client was “all in” on paper.
The executive sponsor, Marco, always nodded during our updates. He was polite. Professional. Even supportive in meetings. But when it came time to escalate a change or unblock a roadblock? Crickets. We’d follow up, clarify needs, and even propose solutions.
Still, no movement. The frontline teams were watching, waiting. So were we.
It took me weeks to realize the problem wasn’t with the project. It was with trust, or rather, the kind we hadn’t earned.
Not All Trust Is the Same
We often say, “We need to build trust.” But what kind of trust? Psychologist and researcher Charles Feltman (2009) proposed four distinctions, and for project work, three are particularly useful to focus on:
Competence Trust
“I believe you can deliver.” This is the foundation most project managers focus on. Are we capable, skilled, and on top of things? It’s about delivery credibility. But it's just the start.
Relational Trust
“I feel heard and respected.” This is the emotional layer. Do stakeholders feel safe to speak up? Are they treated like partners or just process participants? Without this, even brilliant execution can breed resistance.
Intentional Trust
“I trust your motives are aligned with mine.” This one is subtle. It’s not about can you deliver, it’s about why you’re delivering. Stakeholders scan constantly for self-interest. If they sense you're managing for optics or personal wins, alignment frays.
Back to Marco…
Looking back, I realized we had proven competence, but missed on intentional trust. He didn’t feel like we understood what success meant for him. We talked KPIs; he needed to know we’d protect his team’s reputation during the change. Once we had that candid talk, everything changed. He became an active ally.Not because we changed the plan, but because we changed the trust dynamic.
Try This Exercise: The Trust Dimensions Check-In
Pick a current stakeholder and ask yourself:
Competence Trust: Have I clearly demonstrated capability? What results have I shared recently?
Relational Trust: Have I listened with real curiosity, or only responded?
Intentional Trust: Have I aligned our goals, or just assumed we're on the same page?
Now rate each dimension on a scale of 1–5. Any scores below 4? That’s your growth edge.
Signals That Reveal Trust, or the Lack of It
Why Your Stakeholder May Smile… But Still Not Trust You
When Everything Seemed “Fine”—Until It Wasn’t
I once co-led a tech-driven workflow change at a food production site in Latin America. On paper, we had full buy-in. People came to the meetings. Gave us the nod. The floor supervisors even added tasks to their checklists.
But something felt… off. When I walked the floor, questions were whispered, not asked. One supervisor kept saying “we’re good” but made no eye contact. Team leads implemented changes halfway and never escalated problems.
After a while, I stopped looking at the project tracker. It was polished, yes. But it told me nothing.
The real insights? They were hidden in body language, delays, and what people didn’t say.
Trust Leaves Clues
Research across fields, from construction megaprojects to cross-functional digital teams, shows that trust is signaled less by big statements and more by consistent micro-behaviors. These signals fall into a few key themes:
Trust Is Present When You See…
Consistency in actions: People do what they say, follow through, and show up, even when no one’s watching.
Constructive disagreement: Stakeholders voice concerns or push back respectfully. That’s a sign of safety, not defiance.
Escalations that come early, not late: Trusted partners loop you in early when risks arise—not after things have blown up.
Shared language and ownership: You hear “we need to fix this,” not “you need to handle this.”
Trust May Be Lacking When You Notice…
Passive compliance or silent approval: “Looks good” with no questions? That’s not alignment. That’s detachment.
Last-minute surprises: If issues always surface at the eleventh hour, it often reflects withheld concerns.
Lack of transparency in status updates: When things feel overly curated or vague (“we’re progressing”), trust isn’t flowing freely.
Avoidance or side conversations: Are people looping others in behind your back instead of through you?
Spot the Signal Early
Use this table as a quick check during stakeholder meetings or site visits:
Post-Meeting Trust Scan
After your next big meeting, ask:
Who participated, and how? Did I hear honest input or just polite agreement?
What felt off, even if I can’t explain it? Gut signals matter. Document them.
What questions didn’t get asked? Silence can be louder than speech.
This reflection only takes 5 minutes, but helps you catch trust erosion early, before it shows up in project delays.
A “Trust Pulse Check”
Because Trust Isn’t a Feeling, It’s a Practice
The Stakeholder I Almost Lost
In a digital transformation project across multiple hotel sites, I had an influential regional director who smiled in meetings, approved plans… and then ghosted every key decision moment.
I kept thinking, “But we’re aligned, right?”
Turns out, we weren’t. He didn’t trust the rollout team’s priorities. But I hadn’t created a safe moment to ask that question.
What finally worked? A 10-minute pulse check conversation, where I said:
“Can I quickly check in on how useful this process feels to you?
On a scale of 1 to 5, how aligned do we feel on goals, and how well are we supporting your team?”
That one question opened the floodgates.
Try This: The “Trust Pulse Check”
This is a simple monthly (or milestone-based) exercise to spot trust signals early, before resistance grows silent.
Use it during stakeholder touchpoints, 1:1 check-ins, or steering committee reviews.
Step 1: Identify Your Key Stakeholders
Interest/Influence Map: Who has the power to support, slow, or derail your project? Map each stakeholder by:
Level of Interest (How involved or impacted are they?)
Level of Influence (Can they affect direction, funding, culture?)
Step 2: Rate Trust Signals (1–5 Scale)
Per stakeholder, rate across 3 key trust dimensions:
Step 3: Reflect on Micro-Behaviors
Ask yourself after each interaction:
Did I follow through on commitments?
Did I share context or only decisions?
Did I invite real feedback or just tick a box?
These micro-signals accumulate and shape how safe or respected others feel.
Step 4: Plan 1–2 Trust-Building Actions
Small acts go a long way. For each stakeholder with a score below 4, try:
A 10-minute “context alignment” check-in
Inviting them to co-design one decision
Sending a pre-meeting brief and asking for input in advance
Launching a mini-feedback poll
Asking “What’s one thing we can do to improve this?”
Step 5: Reflect and Adjust
Trust is not a score. It’s a living conversation. Don’t treat this like a diagnosis. Treat it like a ritual that opens space for insight and realignment. Even just asking someone
“How trusted do you feel in this process?” can shift the energy.
Bonus Tip: Start Small!
If monthly feels too formal, start by picking one stakeholder and trying this method just once. Trust builds in small, consistent ways. So does transformation.
Everyday Exercises That Cultivate Trust
Even small moments can become powerful trust-builders, if we're intentional. Trust isn't earned all at once, but through consistent, human interactions.
Let me share three exercises we’ve used in real projects that helped shift dynamics, not with fancy tools, but with honest conversations:
Discovery Listening Session
When to use: At project kickoff or early-stage alignment.
What it is: A facilitated session with key stakeholders where the PM or facilitator only listens.
Opening question: “What keeps you up at night about this project?”
I once ran this with a group of VPs during a new system rollout. I expected technical concerns, but what surfaced was a deep fear about staff adoption and political fallout. No solutions were offered in that meeting. Just acknowledgment.
One VP said afterward, “That’s the first time someone listened without jumping to fix it.” That moment shifted everything because it was rooted in intentional trust.
Benefit: Builds relational trust by showing curiosity, not control.
Transparent Trade-Off Workshop
When to use: During decision points, when options carry real consequences
What it is: A structured conversation where you present choices with their pros/cons clearly laid out. Stakeholders weigh in on what matters most.
In a fast-paced product development cycle, we faced a fork: launch on time with limited testing, or delay to ensure performance under load. I laid out the risks transparently, then said: “I’d like to decide together, knowing what’s at stake.” That sentence shifted the room. They didn’t just feel informed, they felt trusted to help decide. And they backed the choice, even when it meant a tough delay.
Benefit: Strengthens competence trust by aligning on trade-offs and respecting judgment.
Trust Repair Conversation
When to use: After friction, delays, or broken expectations
What it is: A short, honest conversation that names the moment and invites re-alignment. Not about blame—about repair.
After a miscommunication led to a missed approval, I called the sponsor. Instead of defending, I said: “I think I created confusion. I missed a chance to clarify expectations.” The tension eased immediately. We ended that call not just with next steps—but with more goodwill than we had before. Trust had taken a hit, but that moment made it stronger.
Benefit: Reinforces intentional trust by showing accountability and care.
These aren’t “soft” skills. They’re strategic. Every project lives or dies on alignment, and alignment lives or dies on trust. The good news? You can build it, moment by moment, with questions, not just answers.
Why This Matters Now
We’re leading projects in a time when trust is increasingly fragile.
Recent insights from sources like Deloitte and the Association for Project
Management (APM) shows that:
Trust is harder than ever to earn, especially in hybrid and fast-paced environments.
It’s easier than ever to lose, even one missed message or broken expectation can create lasting damage.
Yet trust is still treated as invisible. It's rarely a line item in our risk logs, governance checklists, or performance metrics.
In fact, many frameworks still prioritize control over connection. But this gap comes at a cost:
When Trust Is Missing:
Projects become transactional.
Escalations increase.
Feedback dries up.
Resistance shows up late, when it’s expensive.
When Trust Is Cultivated Intentionally:
Stakeholders lean in early.
Misunderstandings get caught before they escalate.
Teams feel safe flagging risks or asking questions.
Rework is reduced, not because of luck, but because people are aligned.
And perhaps most importantly: relationships survive the tough parts of the journey.
In our work, we’ve seen projects rebound from setbacks not because they were perfect, but because the people involved had enough trust to navigate the messy middle together.
Closing Thoughts
Trust isn’t a checkbox. It’s a gentle discipline. It's built not by grand gestures, but by consistency, humility, and intention. It’s protected in the quiet moments: when someone asks a vulnerable question, and we stay curious instead of defensive.
Research Bibliography
1. Karlsen, J. T., Græe, K., & Massaoud, M. J. (2008). The role of trust in project–stakeholder relationships. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management.
Based on a case study of a Norwegian construction project, this research shows that trust—built through reliability, integrity, and shared goals—significantly enhances stakeholder collaboration and overall project performance.
2. de Oliveira, G. F. (2019). Stakeholder management influence on trust in project environments.
Examines how structured stakeholder engagement practices can systematically reinforce trust, especially in complex, inter-organizational settings.
3. Deloitte (2023). Trust: Increasingly Hard to Win, Easier Than Ever to Lose.
Highlights that highly trusted companies outperform peers by up to 400%, and emphasizes that trust must be operationalized—measured, assigned ownership, and embedded in governance.
4. Deloitte Global Boardroom Program Survey (2023). How boards are nurturing and measuring stakeholder trust.
Reveals only 39% of organizations have mature trust strategies, and that trust deteriorates without clear governance, regular dialogue, and accountability.
5. Deloitte (2024). The Four Factors of Trust™ (HX TrustID).
Trust as measurable across four components—humanity, transparency, capability, reliability—and actionable via regular trust assessments.
6. Calefato & Lanubile (2017). Establishing personal trust-based connections in distributed teams.
Demonstrates that even in virtual or remote teams, trust can be built through deliberate social and communication practices.
7. Kujala, J. (2022). Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future.
A review of stakeholder engagement evolution, showing how trust and transparency are central to modern frameworks beyond traditional metrics.
Comments