When things are ambiguous, critical, or political, delivery becomes less about the plan and more about confidence.
Clients want to feel the programme is being governed calmly and competently, even when the ground is moving.
I lead the conversations that keep delivery moving and trust intact. In those moments, the programme needs leadership.
Where I start
Tell the truth early. Facts, options, recommendation, decision needed.
Defend the decision. Show the trade-off in clear terms: push harder and you don’t just lose hours, you lose judgement.
Find the real disagreement. The hinge of the conflict is usually about risk. I steer the conversation back to the facts to lower the temperature.
Hold the line without being obstructive. “No” is a diagnostic tool. Keep the room calm. Panic spreads faster than information.
If you can’t keep your head, you can’t keep their confidence.
Evidence
Examples are anonymised to respect client confidentiality.
Defending a delivery call under pressure
We couldn’t produce some market-specific assets in time. Placements were already booked, so the client was understandably unhappy and wanted us to “push harder.”
But you can’t swap experience in and out like batteries. Burn the team out and you lose judgement.
I proposed a pragmatic alternative to the client: adapt existing creative, protect the team, keep moving. They agreed.
Alignment with a difficult stakeholder
A senior stakeholder wanted to bypass the agreed briefing method and go straight to a specialist, ignoring the commitments already made.
We took it into a room with the account lead, explained what the old pattern was doing to delivery, and reset expectations. We compromised for the immediate need, but we protected the process going forward.
Procurement challenged rate differences
Procurement questioned rate differences across markets for roles that looked identical on paper.
I reframed it around underlying economics and scope: employer costs, utilisation assumptions, compliance overhead, and hub roles carrying broader responsibility. We mapped roles by responsibility level rather than title and made the value legible; speed, risk reduction, fewer reworks.
The conversation moved on because they had clarity.
If your programme’s under scrutiny and the room’s getting tense, that’s usually when I’m most useful.