Barriers to stakeholder engagement
| Barriers | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Diversity of interest | Stakeholders operate with distinct institutional logics, bringing different goals, incentives and definitions of value to engagement processes. Treating different stakeholders as a homogonous group may obscure these differences and challenge the conditions required to co-create value |
| Understanding the service delivery context as a complex system, including who is in it, what drives it and where priorities conflict, is a pre-condition for mapping stakeholder diversity and enabling meaningful and ongoing participation | |
| Lack of influence | Traditional stakeholder identification methods tend to prioritise roles and titles over those who shape behaviour, mobilise networks and affect change |
| Strategic engagement requires identifying stakeholders based on their influence, authority and/or lived experience | |
| Ad-hoc approach | Traditional stakeholder engagement often defaults to opportunistic or relationship-dependent selection of stakeholders, reproducing existing networks rather than building meaningful connections. This approach may fail to secure the diversity and breadth of stakeholders needed to address persistent challenges within complex systems |
| A strategic engagement approach requires stakeholder identification to be treated as a dynamic, iterative process across the project lifecycle | |
| Stakeholder fatigue | Project managers may repeatedly recruit stakeholders across multiple initiatives, resulting in stakeholder fatigue, which may reduce the quality and continuity of participation |
| Stakeholders who feel that their influence is limited are unlikely to remain engaged and committed | |
| Inflexible, rigid process outcomes | Structural constraints, such as short-term funding cycles, mandatory reporting requirements and compliance processes, can limit practitioners’ capacity to respond to emerging conditions and shifting stakeholder priorities. When adherence with process outcomes overshadows social impact objectives, stakeholders may become disengaged |
| A strategic engagement approach requires structural conditions that enable iteration, recalibration and shared decision-making | |
| Outdated but highly used tools/templates | Legacy checklists and static templates persist because they’re familiar, even when they mask risk, equity gaps and adoption barriers. These forms are designed to document consultation activities rather than to support meaningful participation. They can obscure equity gaps, power imbalances and the relational dynamics that determine engagement quality |
| Barriers | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Diversity of interest | Stakeholders operate with distinct institutional logics, bringing different goals, incentives and definitions of value to engagement processes. Treating different stakeholders as a homogonous group may obscure these differences and challenge the conditions required to co-create value |
| Understanding the service delivery context as a complex system, including who is in it, what drives it and where priorities conflict, is a pre-condition for mapping stakeholder diversity and enabling meaningful and ongoing participation | |
| Lack of influence | Traditional stakeholder identification methods tend to prioritise roles and titles over those who shape behaviour, mobilise networks and affect change |
| Strategic engagement requires identifying stakeholders based on their influence, authority and/or lived experience | |
| Ad-hoc approach | Traditional stakeholder engagement often defaults to opportunistic or relationship-dependent selection of stakeholders, reproducing existing networks rather than building meaningful connections. This approach may fail to secure the diversity and breadth of stakeholders needed to address persistent challenges within complex systems |
| A strategic engagement approach requires stakeholder identification to be treated as a dynamic, iterative process across the project lifecycle | |
| Stakeholder fatigue | Project managers may repeatedly recruit stakeholders across multiple initiatives, resulting in stakeholder fatigue, which may reduce the quality and continuity of participation |
| Stakeholders who feel that their influence is limited are unlikely to remain engaged and committed | |
| Inflexible, rigid process outcomes | Structural constraints, such as short-term funding cycles, mandatory reporting requirements and compliance processes, can limit practitioners’ capacity to respond to emerging conditions and shifting stakeholder priorities. When adherence with process outcomes overshadows social impact objectives, stakeholders may become disengaged |
| A strategic engagement approach requires structural conditions that enable iteration, recalibration and shared decision-making | |
| Outdated but highly used tools/templates | Legacy checklists and static templates persist because they’re familiar, even when they mask risk, equity gaps and adoption barriers. These forms are designed to document consultation activities rather than to support meaningful participation. They can obscure equity gaps, power imbalances and the relational dynamics that determine engagement quality |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.