Managing Stakeholders: Or How to get cats to march in a parade

By Lon W. Schiffbauer, BA, MBA, PhD, SPHR

Today we’re talking about stakeholder management and how good workplace communication can help us manage and really engage our stakeholders.

So, first of all, who are our stakeholders? Well, anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of whatever we’re working is a stakeholder. In other words, they hold a stake, or they have an interest, in whatever we’re doing.

For example, let’s say that we’re thinking of a project in which we want to really increase the performance of whatever it is that graph is showing here.

Well, that means that we have to put in place a plan on how we’re going to do this. Thing is, we can’t do it alone.

We need the help of any number of people if we’re going to be successful in getting this project off the ground. We need their help to pull this off, but they each have their own priorities. They have their own agenda.

So, if we’re going to get their help, we need to engage with them in a way that has meaning to their individual agendas, and that’s what stakeholder engagement and management is all about.

By connecting our own goals and objectives with those of our stakeholders, we make what we’re doing matter to them. And if what we’re doing matters to them then they’re going to help us with their own time, money, expertise, and resources.

But here’s the deal, the reverse is true as well. If they don’t see any way that what you’re doing furthers their own agendas then they’ll withhold their support. Worse still, if they think that what you’re doing will work against their interests, well now you’re in for an uphill battle.

Trust me; I’ve been there.

WHY STAKEHOLDERS MAY NOT LEND THEIR SUPPORT

So obviously we want—and in fact need—our stakeholders onboard. Without them we’re going to fail. Now we’re going to talk about how to bring them onboard soon enough, but to do that we first need to understand why they might resist and withhold their support in the first place. Here are just a few of the reasons our stakeholders may withhold their support:

Perceived negative effect on their own interests

Will what you’re proposing mean more work for your stakeholders—stakeholders who are overworked in the first place? Will it jeopardize their positions, their influence in the organization, or any sense of meaning and purpose they get from their work? If so then it’s not hard to see why they may not be quick to support your project.

Lack of clarity of what you’re trying to accomplish and what is needed from them

It’s hard to support someone if that person isn’t sure of what they’re asking for in the first place. Let’s say that you want to start a business and you need the help and support of your parents, partner, or friends. Obviously they’re going to ask you what kind of business you have in mind, what products or services you plan to offer, who your target market would be, and what you would need from them. If you don’t have clear and considered answers to these questions, and instead offer a vague shrug of the shoulders and say you’re not sure yet, then it shouldn’t come as any surprise when they hesitate to get behind you all the way.

Concern that what you’re recommending goes against already agreed-upon objectives

If your stakeholders are fully committed to an existing objective, and your new direction seems to work against that objective, then odds are your stakeholders will balk at your proposal. For example, at the college where I teach we’re concerned about student retention. Data shows that students that drop a class or leave with the intention of taking a “short break” from school are unlikely to return, let alone graduate with a degree. It’s understandable then that if our goal is to help get students through the program and earn a degree that we would want to do everything we can to increase retention. However, many faculty—a key stakeholder group when it comes to students staying in school—argue that making retention a key metric for classroom success works against the larger goal of helping students reach their learning objectives—actually gaining the knowledge and skills they’ll need in the workplace. Reaching a 100% retention would be easy, they argue: make all the assignments easy and hand out A’s like they were candy. On the other hand, if the program is going to be valuable, rigorous, and robust then some level of attrition should be expected. In this example, a key stakeholder group feels that the proposed measure of success—retention—may dilute the larger objective—imparting knowledge and skills to the students.

Lack of conviction that what you’re recommending is even necessary

There’s a favorite saying in many workplaces, which is, if it works, don’t fix it. It’s only natural that we get comfortable with the way we do things and so may be skeptical of any proposed change. I can’t tell you how many times leadership, in all the various places I’ve worked, got all excited about new operational processers or work approaches—proposals that require organizations to completely change the way they do just about everything. Inevitably employees express confusion and concern, of not outright hostility. What we’ve done for the last decade seems to have worked just fine, why are we so eager to change things all of a sudden? When leadership runs into this concern it’s an indication that they have more work to do in making the case for the new direction in a way that matters to the stakeholders.

Belief that the timing of your proposal is wrong

In some cases your stakeholders may say that, while they agree with your proposal in principle, the timing just isn’t right. This makes sense when we think about the fact that your request for support doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There are any number of other things going on in your stakeholders’ lives that may make it difficult for you to get the support you need.

UNDERSTANDING THE IMACT OF YOUR STAKEHOLDERS

If you’re going to put together a good stakeholder management plan then the first thing you need to do is identify and classify the various players. To do this we’re going to use something called the RASCI model.

RASCI stands for:

Responsible

Accountable

Support

Consult

Inform

Responsible

Who is responsible for ensuring the success of the project?

Accountable

Who is Accountable for the outcome of the project? They’re going to be the ones who put their signature at the bottom of the page when it’s all said and done, so their name will be attached to the project’s success or failure. A supportive Approver can be a strong champion; an indifferent Approver makes your project dead on arrival.

Support

Whose Support do you need to complete the project, as in, what skills, resources, and competencies do you need to be successful? This can include financing, technical support, facilities, and so forth. With their help you’ll get a lot done; without them you won’t stand a chance.

Consult

Who should be Consulted for insight and guidance? These are folks who have been down this road before and whose advise can help us be successful. If they are generous with their expertise then you have a ringer; if they’re withholding then you’ll be left to figure it out on your own.

Inform

Who needs to be Informed and kept in the loop every step of the way? These folks often don’t have much to do with the day-to-day job of getting the work done, but their influence can either make your life easy or difficult.

The next thing you want to do is classify these stakeholders as Supports and Opponents. Supporters are those who have pledged their support to the project, while Opponents are those who are not yet onboard with the direction you’re taking, maybe for some of the reasons we listed above.

Once you have the key players identified can classified, the next thing to do is to place them on one of four quadrants along two axes: the degree to which they can influence the project—the Power they hold—and the degree to which they are affected by the project—their Interest.

So for example, if someone’s Power—the degree to which they have a say in the project—is low, and the degree to which it affects them in any significant way are both low then you’ll simply monitor them, just to make sure they don’t make any waves.

On the other hand, if someone’s Power is high, as is the extent to which the project affects them, well then you better manage these folks closely and keep them happy.

Now, if someone’s Power is high but their Interest is low then you’ll want to keep these folks satisfied and meet any needs they may have. They may not have the same amount of skin in the game as the previous quadrant, but they have power and influence, so you want to keep them on your side.

Conversely, if someone is profoundly affected by the outcome of the project but wields little power or influence over your project then you’ll simply want to keep them informed through frequent and transparent project updates and other communications. They may not have the power to make your life difficult, but you need to be considerate of the degree to which you’re affecting how they do their jobs.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

So now let’s put this all together. Let’s Say that I want to provide employees with free soda and coffee in the breakroom.

The HR Director, Kashvi, is all over this and lends her support as the Approver. This is big since she how high Power and high Interest since she’s struggling with improving employee morale and sees this as a way to help address the issue.

But to do this I need the support of Facilities, since they would be the ones to actually redesign the breakroom and install the equipment. Thing is, Anton, the Facilities Manager, isn’t onboard. He’s busy opening up some new office space and sees this breakroom deal as a distraction from what his team has been tasked to do. He has low Power but high Interest since it would affect his own work schedule.

To make matters worse, I also need to consult with Lisa since she has experience with this, and she thinks this is a waste of time. She has tried this sort of thing before and doesn’t believe that free soda and coffee will move the needle when it comes to employee morale. She has high Power and so can say no to my request with impunity, as well as low interest since she has no real skin in the game.

With this as my picture, there’s little chance of success. Sure, my Approver is in a strong position, but without the support of Anton and the insights from Lisa I’m at a severe disadvantage.

So where should I start? Well, when it comes to Anton, his concern is primarily rooted in the fact that this project may take time away from priorities set by his boss, so maybe I can go to the Facilities Manager and see if I can’t negotiate a compromise.

When it comes to Lisa, this one is trickier. Her reservations are rooted in a fundamental disagreement on the merits of the project, based, it would seem, on past experience. A good place to start would be to go to Kashvi and ask her to leverage her relationship with Lisa and try to bring her onboard.

These, and any other possible solutions I can dream up, would hinge on my ability to win stakeholder support, so let’s talk about that.

HOW TO WIN STAKEHOLDER SUPPORT

Here are seven things you can do to help win and sustain stakeholder support:

Relate your needs and objectives to their needs and problems

It’s infinitely easier to get the support of others if you can tie what you’re trying to do with what they care about. This is classic WIIFM—What’s In It For Me. As a general rule, people are more interested in meeting their own needs and solving their own problems than they are in solving yours. By connecting your objectives with theirs, you can win an ally.

Use data to support your case

Any organization worth its salt is always looking at the data and trying to make the very best decisions based on what the research says. By bringing hard data to the table, you can help persuade leaders who otherwise may not be convinced that your proposed direction is the best course of action.

Express the value of the end-state in a way that they can envision emotionally

Data plays an important role in business decision-making, but emotions are always doing their part to guide and direct our actions. Sometimes helping a stakeholder envision a future in which your solution successfully solves a problem they’re facing is enough to get them excited. You can even explicitly ask, “Imagine if this was no longer an issue for you. How would you feel? What would you spend your time on instead?” I’ve done this before and have seem people practically swoon at what the future could provide!

Set clear engagement and resource expectations

Stakeholders are going to be far more likely to say yes if they know what they’re saying yes to. Don’t ask them to give you open-ended, blank check support; be clear about what you’re asking for and what time and effort this will involve on their part.

Provide a map to the end-state

Remember when you were a kid in the backseat of the car during a family road trip and you would ask “Are we there yet?” It’s easier for stakeholders to lend their support if they have a clear understanding of where you’re going, how you’re going to get there, and how long it will take.

Predictably report progress against schedule

You provided a map, now communicate your progress regularly and transparently. It’s not enough to win their support, you then need to keep it as well, and frequent updates will help them see how things are going and where they can help if necessary. The more they see you nailing your deliverables, the more they’ll be willing to invest of themselves in the project.

Acknowledge their contributions at each success

You couldn’t have done this without them, so make sure they know and feel your appreciation. Afterall, this probably won’t be the last time you need their help. Make sure they know that their support is valued and appreciated.

Alright? So there we go! Thanks for joining me, and until we talk again, have a fantastic day!

Lon is an Associate Professor of Business Management at Salt Lake Community College and holds an MBA, a PhD, and is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR). In addition to his academic background, Lon spent close to 30 years working and consulting for such companies as FedEx, Intel, eBay, and PayPal, as well as a variety of small to mid-sized companies around the world.