Monday, May 16, 2011

Managing Difficult Stakeholders

You’ve all had them . .  stakeholders that for one reason or another are difficult to satisfy / manage.  They can make project work difficult, unsatisfying and even dangerous.  I’ve seen them complicate, slow and even derail perfectly healthy projects.  They are the bane of project leaders and seem to be ever present.  Avoiding them is NOT an option; so let’s consider how to improve our ability to manage the difficult stakeholder.
Why So Difficult?  What makes a stakeholder “difficult”?  We’ll address the three most common reasons; 1) They don’t Understand, 2) They don’t Agree With, or 3) They don’t Value / Support  the project.  All three of these reasons lead to pain, and most avoid the pain associated with change by avoiding or confronting the change.  As a change agent, the project leader usually is at the “point” of or driving change initiatives and thus must effectively deal with the resulting resistance.  So having a handful of tactics may be helpful.  Ready?

Understand:  Paramount among reasons for “difficult” stakeholders is fear resulting from lack of or misunderstanding about projects.  It is not uncommon to have stakeholders become resistant when their “comfort zones” are invaded by the ripple effect resulting from your project.  Frequently this happens late in the project as a result of poor stakeholder identification at the beginning of the project or ineffective communication throughout the project.  This will result in delay and potential scope creep, creating huge problems for the unsuspecting project leader.  Communication is the solution to this problem, and preemptive is always better than reactive.   You need to first understand the stakeholder’s perspective and then provide information to alleviate the underlying fear or pain.  This frequently requires creativity, so allow your core team to assist.

Agree With:  We all have beliefs about the way things should be (paradigms) and it is not uncommon to have those beliefs clash.  This accounts for much of the tension with which project leaders must deal.  We are normally threatened when someone disagrees with our view of things, and our first reaction is usually to “dig in” and defend our view or belief.  When we undertake this tactic it only serves to solidify the opposing view and intensify the difference.  Negotiation and Idea Generation are the solutions to this problem.  When project leaders learn to view disagreements as opportunities for creativity and use the energy that normally accompanies such differences to generate alternative ideas / paths / solutions or negotiate trade offs they cease to exacerbate differences and begin to construct bridges to resolution.

Value / Support:  Each of us has values / priorities (personal or work imposed) that address the question “what’s in it for me?”.  Things that we value highly get our attention and effort, and things that don’t, don’t.  Imposing my values or priorities on others does not win their support nor garner much of their energy.  With everything that is going on in busy organizations today, many things don’t earn my interest or attention until they impact me personally (until I am within the ripple or begin to feel the pain).  The solution to this type of difficult stakeholder is education.  They must be convinced of the benefit to themselves to recognize value and behave in supportive ways.  The wise project leader ascertains stakeholder values / priorities as part of their situation analysis at the beginning of the project and uses that information to anticipate potential problems and “educate them away” early in the project.  But even when they spring up during the project, education about benefits is the solution.

2 comments:

  1. Hello Chad..Can you just provide me this with an example?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes. On a recent project, I worked with a key stakeholder who viewed the project as an irritation because it ultimately added workload to people in his department. He viewed the project only as it impacted his department. When I discovered the reason for his lack of support, I was able to provide him with data that demonstrated the impact to the entire organization and worked with his peers to adjust / revise budgets, job descriptions and headcounts to minimize the impact on his department. He became much easier to work with and moved from "Low Support" to "High Support" of the project.

    ReplyDelete