When stakeholders don’t say what they really want: Psychological dynamics and unrealistic expectations in project management

Stakeholder requirements often appear clear at first glance – until it becomes apparent during the project that their actual expectations are quite different. Unspoken needs, power dynamics or unrealistic objectives can quickly lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. But why don’t stakeholders always openly say what they really want?

Stakeholders often formulate specific requirements, but these may conceal expectations that are not openly expressed. A desired outcome, a particular budget or a tight schedule, for example, says little about the underlying needs. This creates a risk for project managers: they may implement the requirements correctly while still failing to meet the stakeholder’s actual expectations.
Status and hierarchy can also influence communication. Employees may be reluctant to voice criticism openly, while decision-makers may use their position to push their views more strongly. Social desirability can further lead people to make statements that reflect what is considered acceptable in a particular environment rather than what they think. Project managers should therefore not only record requirements but also question them. Asking about the underlying objectives, priorities and criteria for success can help make implicit expectations visible and prevent misunderstandings at an early stage.

Difficult stakeholders do not always manifest themselves through open conflicts. Often, it is specific behavioural patterns that delay decisions and make project work more challenging. For project managers, the challenge is to recognize these patterns at an early stage and respond to them appropriately. Three typical behaviours can be distinguished:
The indecisive stakeholder repeatedly changes requirements or fails to set clear priorities. Decisions are postponed because different options are kept open for as long as possible. This creates uncertainty about which objectives are actually being pursued and where the project team should focus its efforts.
This can have significant consequences for the project: tasks may need to be repeatedly adapted or redone, resources are tied up and decisions are delayed. At the same time, team motivation may decline if work that has already been completed is repeatedly discarded due to changes in direction.
Clear priorities and formally documented decisions can help limit frequent changes in direction. Defined decision points and clear approval processes also provide guidance and make it transparent which requirements are actually to be implemented.
The dominant stakeholder uses their position or decision-making power to impose their views over professional arguments. This creates the risk that decisions are influenced more by a person’s hierarchical position than by the actual requirements and information available within the project.
This can lead other team members or stakeholders to become reluctant to voice their professional opinions openly. Risks may be overlooked and alternative approaches may not be adequately considered. In the long term, this can affect not only the quality of decisions but also trust within the project team.
It is therefore particularly important to make different professional perspectives transparent and to document decisions in a clear and traceable manner. Clear decision-making processes and defined responsibilities create a framework in which arguments can be considered regardless of hierarchical position.
The stakeholder who avoids responsibility may set expectations while leaving potential risks or decisions for others to take responsibility for. Responsibility may, for example, be passed on when decisions are uncomfortable or involve a high level of risk.
This can be problematic for a project because responsibilities remain unclear and important decisions may not be made in a timely manner. There is also a risk that problems are passed between different parties rather than someone taking clear ownership of finding a solution.
Clearly defined responsibilities, for example through a RASCI matrix, help make responsibilities visible and prevent uncertainty at a later stage. Decision-making authority should also be clearly defined so that it is established in advance who can decide, who should be consulted and who needs to be informed of the outcome.

At management level, expectations may also arise that are difficult to reconcile with the actual possibilities of a project. One reason for this may be optimism bias: time, budget and performance are assessed too positively, while potential risks receive less attention. At the same time, an illusion of control can lead to an overestimation of the actual influence over the course of a project.
This can create a conflict for project managers between the desired outcomes and the realistic framework conditions. Particularly when there is strategic pressure to succeed, objectives are often set without sufficiently considering or questioning potential risks.
It is therefore more important to address unrealistic expectations at an early stage. Transparent assessments, reliable data and a clear presentation of risks can help align expectations with the actual possibilities of the project.

Hidden expectations can often be identified when a stakeholder’s statements, decisions and behaviour do not align. For example, repeatedly demanding rapid implementation while simultaneously failing to make decisions may indicate a potential conflict of objectives. Project managers should therefore not focus solely on individual statements but also recognize contradictions and recurring behavioural patterns throughout the course of the project.
To manage such conflicts professionally, expectations should be made as specific as possible. Asking clear questions about priorities, responsibilities, timelines and available resources can help make different expectations visible. Conflicting objectives should also be addressed openly rather than being allowed to escalate later in the project. The aim is not to confront difficult stakeholders, but to create transparency. When expectations, limitations and potential consequences are clearly communicated at an early stage, decisions can be made more consciously, and later conflicts can be reduced. For project managers, professional stakeholder management therefore also means asking uncomfortable questions at the right time and setting clear boundaries when expectations are unrealistic.

Stakeholder management involves more than simply gathering and implementing requirements. Behind stakeholders’ statements, there may be unspoken expectations, psychological dynamics and conflicting interests. Recognizing and addressing these at an early stage can help prevent misunderstandings and conflicts.
For project managers, this means listening carefully, asking targeted questions and assessing expectations realistically. Successful projects are not only built on clear requirements, but also on a sound understanding of the people behind those requirements.