2026: What’s in. What’s Out. What needs to change.

January is peak prediction season. Everyone is forecasting what will define 2026.  

We’re putting it out there and making a few bold predictions of our own. Not about buzzwords or tools, but about engagement practices that will hold up this year and the ones that will quietly undermine projects.

It isn’t theory. It’s based on what we’re seeing across projects, clients and communities right now.

What's actually changing in 2026.

The biggest shift is away from scale and towards trust. Large engagement programs can look impressive and deliver strong vanity metrics on paper, but they often deliver shallow insight and false comfort. Smaller, high-trust communities and groups are doing more of the real work. They surface issues earlier, shape opinions with their peers and influence others. Missing them is no longer a minor oversight. It’s a risk.

We saw this emerging through the NSW Legislative Council parliamentary inquiry into renewable energy infrastructure. (Impact of Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) on rural and regional communities and industries in New South Wales)

A consistent theme was not opposition to renewable energy itself, but frustration about how decisions are made and when communities are brought into them. Many of the concerns being aired publicly were raised much earlier, often quietly and locally, before projects gathered momentum.

When those early signals aren’t taken seriously, trust erodes. Over time, smaller groups become more organised, more visible and more influential. By the time issues reach formal inquiries or public forums, the opportunity for easy resolution has usually passed.

This usually comes down to a few familiar problems: 

• engagement is led by people without the skills or authority to handle difficult conversations or influence decisions 

• decision-makers aren’t prepared to listen or change, often because of time 

• teams are nervous about losing control, so they limit what communities can influence 

• engagement is squeezed into timelines that don’t allow it to change anything meaningful.

What else is winning in 2026?

Trust as decision infrastructure. We’re making trust our number one prediction for 2026. Not as a value statement but as a practical requirement for all our projects.  It’s a common theme among all the ins/outs below.

Co-creation and co-design. Decision-making done differently is becoming a non-negotiable. Consultation asks people to respond to ideas developed elsewhere. Co-creation brings communities into the thinking earlier, not just reacting to outcomes. This leads to better outcomes and fewer late surprises.

Hybrid engagement, used deliberately. Hybrid engagement has also found its place. Digital tools improve access and efficiency. They don’t replace presence. Trust still forms fastest through face-to-face conversations, repeat interactions and people being willing to show up. Projects that rely on digital alone struggle to build confidence. Projects that ignore digital limit who can participate. Both matter.

Clarity about power and decisions. There is also less tolerance for ambiguity around decision-making. Communities want clarity. Who decides what. What influence they actually have. Vague reassurances don’t work. Being upfront about power and constraints builds more trust than pretending everything is open.

Engagement as risk management. Timing underpins all of this. Early engagement is not a gesture of goodwill. It’s a signal of seriousness and good risk management. Projects that wait until they are “ready” are already behind. [read more here] 

What's not winning in 2026?

One-way communication dressed up as engagement. Sharing information without creating space for dialogue isn’t engagement. It’s communication. Updates, newsletters and briefings have a role, but they don’t replace listening or involvement.

Not closing the loop. Collecting feedback without closing the loop is no longer seen as incomplete. It’s seen as dismissive and disrespectful. If people can’t see how their input was considered, trust erodes quickly.

Get rid of the vanity metrics. Vanity metrics have lost credibility. Attendance numbers, event counts, clicks and reach mean little unless they are clearly linked to insight and decisions. Volume without impact convinces no one.

Engagement isn’t a theatre. Highly produced sessions, polished narratives and statements that say “we heard you” without evidence don’t hold up. Communities can tell when engagement exists to manage perception rather than influence decisions. Embrace the messy, you’ll have more fun and get better outcomes.

Avoiding difficult conversations. Projects that dodge hard discussions early usually face bigger ones later. Fear of what communities might say or expect is a sign engagement isn’t trusted as a process by the project team.

Burning out communities. More engagement isn’t better engagement. Repeating the same questions, turning up with a marquee at a random community event, over-surveying and failing to show progress drains goodwill fast. Purpose matters more than frequency.

Treating engagement as a handbrake. When engagement is seen as something that slows delivery rather than improves decisions, it gets sidelined. The result is predictable: lower trust from stakeholders and engagement professionals, higher risk to the project and more time spent defending decisions.

Want overcome these challenges?

Let's chat about how Mara can help to strengthen your engagement approach in 2026. 

📞 02 4965 4317

👉 mara@maraconsulting.com.au

The bottom line for 2026.

In 2026, engagement will be judged on substance, not performance.

Meaningful engagement won’t be louder or flashier. It will be earlier, more deliberate and grounded in respect for people’s time, knowledge and lived experience.

So, here is Mara’s call for the year ahead.  

• Listen earlier. 

• Collaborate where it matters. 

• Measure what actually changes.

Projects that do this will make better decisions and build real stakeholder confidence. Those that don’t will spend more time explaining outcomes that could have been shaped differently.

That’s the choice facing engagement in 2026.

Author.

Kelly Lofberg is an engagement and communications professional, who specialises in complex and issues rich environments. Bringing innovative ways to solve problems is her jam. Sometimes Kel brings LEGO® too.