Of course, governments come and go, particularly in recent years. And major companies, public bodies, business associations and voluntary and community organisations have learnt to cope.
They mostly follow a familiar routine: check if there are any new interfaces you need to get to know, swot up on the successful party's manifesto, work out whether it's likely to embark on policies that affect you directly or indirectly, write a couple of 'impact on us' pieces, and wait to see what happens.
So, is there anything different this time around? Maybe. Here are four issues to consider.
The end of gradualism
Recent governments have mostly sought to build on previous public policy. Tony Blair famously stuck to John Major's financial plans and did not unwind much of the Thatcher revolution.
Changes such as the Coalition's austerity programme squeezed the existing system rather than changed it fundamentally. Radical ideas like 'The Big Society' came to nothing, and even Brexit was essentially a re-assertion of traditional British ways of doing things. The one who wanted a significant change was Liz Truss, but she did not stay long enough to make a difference.
When Sir Keir Starmer took office, it was on a 'ming vase' strategy where the aim was not to frighten the electorate with anything too drastic. Although the rhetoric spoke of significant change, genuine change was much more modest.
Andy Burnham, and his supporters, have won power by challenging this gradualist philosophy and openly declare that they want to be bolder, and quicker. Unlike his predecessors in office, he openly criticises the country's course over the past forty years. (Rishi Sunak came close, but immediately recanted when his comments were interpreted as an attack on Conservative predecessors.)
This time around, and in an attempt to spike Reform's guns, the new Prime Minister feels he has the support of an electorate whose living standards have stagnated since 2008 and who now agree with him that we have to change course. Whether he can do this is another matter. But the intent is there.
Cutting through the red tape is part of that same intent. Sir Keir famously lamented that once he became Prime Minister, he realised that many of the levers of power didn't work very well, and that he was hidebound by conventions, protocols, processes and, yes, consultation. Many observers of British governance have been complaining of this for years, because in an attempt to avoid direct ministerial accountability for very specific state policy or operational activities, vast arrays of executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies, regulators, inspectorates and quangos were created.
They are mostly required to be independent, autonomous bodies, and statutorily precluded from changing the way they deal with their brief just because a minister tells them to. The way the checks and balances work, if one body found a new policy acceptable, chances are that another would take the opposite view. Consensus can usually be achieved, but it takes time and talent.
Where the lawyerly Starmer tolerated these normal dialogues and debates, Burnham may not. His style seems more inclined to force the issues, knock heads together in public and be less tolerant of traditional civil service or ministerial turf wars. His reputation as a mayor was of being firm of intention but inclusive and ecumenical in the range of parties and stakeholders he brought to the table.
More disruption before things settle
Implementing an accelerated process of change inevitably means more disruption to the day-to-day activity of public bodies, and their stakeholders, at least in the short term. Let's be clear what change means. Something we told stakeholders a short while ago may no longer apply. The facts on the ground may be the same, but they may be interpreted differently. An initiative that was well-developed, funded and committed to last month may no longer be certain to proceed. Legislation meandering through Parliament may get amended or withdrawn. Budgets that were secure may now be in doubt. New risks may appear; opportunities may arise.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the reorganisation of English local government. Few people try to defend the status quo with its complex web of single and multiple-tier councils, but experience shows that amalgamating authorities is horrendously complicated: disturbing long-term representative structures, re-aligning hundreds of separate public services and blurring community identities. Local officials find themselves embarking on new roles, or applying the same skills to new geographies. In three years' time, they may have learnt their new jobs.
One should never underestimate the true cost of wholesale reorganisations. They divert resources, demoralise staff and cause delays while decisions are held pending new postholders or accountability mechanisms being put in place. Worse still, they lead to serious loss of talent and vital institutional memory. The real trick, and the challenge for Burnham, is to make progress on his agenda with the minimum of disruption. That's a tall order.
What this means for your stakeholder engagement plans
None of these are show-stoppers. Strong leadership can overcome many of these issues, but only if people believe in what they are doing. And this is where the new Prime Minister feels he has the edge. His predecessor never managed to describe and enthuse his followers with a vision of what he wanted to accomplish, so progress was often obscured by the fog that enveloped the journey to wherever the destination was meant to be.
In a world of vagueness and ambiguity, it is easy to maintain stakeholder relationships in a state of ambiguity, ready for many eventualities but best left dormant until something major actually happens.
Greater clarity, and an ability to motivate people by raising their hopes, can go a long way to improving the mood music. It gives organisations a better articulated purpose for taking actions and making changes. If you are surrounded by people who genuinely believe in a cause, it is best to assume that it will actually happen.
If this analysis is even only a little bit true, there are hundreds of UK organisations who should reassess their stakeholder engagement plans over the summer.
Whereas the previous Labour Cabinet's agenda was broadly predictable, and their methods conventional, the Andy Burnham premiership may prove less orthodox. He knows his time is limited, drastically if he contemplates an early election. He also knows that he needs imaginative solutions to some intractable problems. Expect, therefore, the deliberate creation of a public opinion 'bandwagon' effect, creating the space to adopt options that were previously discounted.
The key task is to anticipate which of your many stakeholders will be most impacted by changes of policy, and by the different ways of doing things. Get closer to them, help them understand the wider picture, and work together to hammer out optimal reaction strategies. This may entail mobilising many different parts of your organisation, who may be in a better place to identify forthcoming policy changes that will affect your stakeholders' interests, and your relationship with them.
Ultimately, the best stakeholder management is a discipline that understands how external developments, in politics, economics, social change and much else, may affect your organisation, and maintains the relationships that will help achieve the best outcomes.
This summer's change of Prime Minister will be an excellent test of how good you can be at this important function.
