Steven ZacharyDirector| Alberta Health ServicesCalgary, Alberta, Canada
What are some methods and practices you use to engage with nonsupportive stakeholders?
They could be nonsupportive due to not finding value in the initiative, being the recipient of extra unwanted work as a result of the project, they may not receive the value from the project directly...etc. Saving Changes...
Kiran, Non-Supportive are the ones with low commitment but not necessarily low influence, they could be of hugh influence and power so like I mentiined above, the PM should analyze and assess the situation properly.
I was just responding to what Steven was mentioning and what you also mention is right they are also non-supportive, but for those specific stakeholders, I would use different strategy as compared to the low influence/ low commitment ones. The high influence folks with low commitment I would certainly use and make sure that I address the concerns from them on a priority as compared to the other
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 04, 2016 4:19 PM
Rami Kaibni
...
Sure Kiran, I was not criticizing, I support what you've mentioned and yes it is very true, depending on influence and power, they have to deal with the stakeholders accordingly.
Saving Changes...
Saurabh MathurProject Manager, PMP, PMI-ACP, CSM, ITIL®,SSGB| Publicis SapientGhaziabad, Uttar Pardesh (U.P.), India
I generally follows the following steps:
1) Identify the position and influence of the stakeholder.
2) Review the nature of information required.
3) If position and influence(High) /Information required (Important) then i follow up with them on the need basis try if they can get me the required info through the mean(email/questionnaire/f2f meetings) they feel comfortable in.I do keep the follow up details so that it can create some pressure on them along with dates.
4) If position and influence(Low) /Information required (Important) same steps as 3 but at the same time involve there seniors after 2 time delay.
5) If every thing fails and stakeholder is not cooperating for longer run i do involved my sponsors/Management for faster process.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 04, 2016 4:20 PM
Rami Kaibni
...
Saurabh, Great feedback. With regards to item 4, can you elaborate more on: "Involve their seniors after 2 times delay" ?
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 04, 2016 1:14 PM
Replying to Kiran Kumar
...
I was just responding to what Steven was mentioning and what you also mention is right they are also non-supportive, but for those specific stakeholders, I would use different strategy as compared to the low influence/ low commitment ones. The high influence folks with low commitment I would certainly use and make sure that I address the concerns from them on a priority as compared to the other
Sure Kiran, I was not criticizing, I support what you've mentioned and yes it is very true, depending on influence and power, they have to deal with the stakeholders accordingly. Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 04, 2016 3:03 PM
Replying to Saurabh Mathur
...
I generally follows the following steps:
1) Identify the position and influence of the stakeholder.
2) Review the nature of information required.
3) If position and influence(High) /Information required (Important) then i follow up with them on the need basis try if they can get me the required info through the mean(email/questionnaire/f2f meetings) they feel comfortable in.I do keep the follow up details so that it can create some pressure on them along with dates.
4) If position and influence(Low) /Information required (Important) same steps as 3 but at the same time involve there seniors after 2 time delay.
5) If every thing fails and stakeholder is not cooperating for longer run i do involved my sponsors/Management for faster process.
Saurabh, Great feedback. With regards to item 4, can you elaborate more on: "Involve their seniors after 2 times delay" ? Saving Changes...
Michael AdamsSolutions Architect| LANLLos Alamos, Nm, United States
I'm with Eileen here, find out from them, why they aren't supportive. Then ask them what it would take for them to be supportive. Maybe they're un-supportive, because they've been somehow excluded from sessions where the organization gathered requirements or they were not included in the planning, and the project conflicts with a project they have going, which is mission critical to that group. Maybe they simply don't really understand what the project will do, or why it is being done. They can't see its value to the organization.
After finding out why, they may have become supportive, especially if you've indicated that you'll include them in future planning and requirements. If they still aren't supportive, you have two ways to proceed: 1) you might be able to negotiate with them so that the project does produce value for them, this might require championing some ideas with the steering committee or sponsor. At the very least, this will buy you some good will from an un-supportive stakeholder. 2) If not, at least you know where they stand, you aren't left guessing about what the problem is. You have a better and more global understanding of the motivations behind people in your stakeholder registry.
In either case, this may mean going to your steering committee/sponsor and having an honest discussion about the project and its benefits. When next you speak with your un-supportive stakeholders, you may have gained access to a new perspective that has them see the benefits of the project, and get on board. Saving Changes...
Jen Jee ChanManaging Director| DotProjects Pte LtdSingapore, Singapore
Jan 04, 2016 11:38 AM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Jen, I am not sure if I agree with all what you've mentioned. For example, reporting to their bosses would increase the conflict, it might resolve it temporarily only. I won't use this approach until I have spared every other constructive solution.
Hi Rami, I think u misunderstood my post. When I mentioned reporting to their bosses it was to give an e.g. of what could keep stakeholders up at night.. meaning they have their own bosses to answer to also.
Totally agree with u that bypassing stakeholders is non-constructive and I would never do that unless it is the last resort. Rather understand their issues, their problems and engaging them goes a long way to helping address the issue.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 05, 2016 12:57 AM
Rami Kaibni
...
Got You Jen - Exactly, bypassing them will increase the conflict and their negativity as well.
No matter what we do, there will always be positive and negative stakeholders and we have to deal with them on a case to case basis, whilst assessing them on the Stakeholder influence grid.
But the prime focus should be on the positive stake holders with the maximum authority and influence on the project; if we as a PM can have that stake holder on our side, the minor hiccups in execution and the negative stakeholders, both, will fall in place and become quite manageable.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 05, 2016 12:56 AM
Rami Kaibni
...
Pranav, this is great but I would like to add that focusing should be on high influence stakeholders but not limited to positive ones, negative stakeholders with high influence should be focused on as well. Do you agree ?
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 04, 2016 11:47 PM
Replying to PRANAV VASHI
...
No matter what we do, there will always be positive and negative stakeholders and we have to deal with them on a case to case basis, whilst assessing them on the Stakeholder influence grid.
But the prime focus should be on the positive stake holders with the maximum authority and influence on the project; if we as a PM can have that stake holder on our side, the minor hiccups in execution and the negative stakeholders, both, will fall in place and become quite manageable.
Pranav, this is great but I would like to add that focusing should be on high influence stakeholders but not limited to positive ones, negative stakeholders with high influence should be focused on as well. Do you agree ?
...
1 reply by PRANAV VASHI
Jan 05, 2016 1:40 AM
PRANAV VASHI
...
100% Agreed.
The essence of my comment was that when facing a negative SH of higher degree, it helps a lot if you have a positive SH who trusts you or both of you see the project objectives from the same platform. That advantage negates the hurdles coming forth due to the negative SHs.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 04, 2016 9:16 PM
Replying to Jen Jee Chan
...
Hi Rami, I think u misunderstood my post. When I mentioned reporting to their bosses it was to give an e.g. of what could keep stakeholders up at night.. meaning they have their own bosses to answer to also.
Totally agree with u that bypassing stakeholders is non-constructive and I would never do that unless it is the last resort. Rather understand their issues, their problems and engaging them goes a long way to helping address the issue.
Got You Jen - Exactly, bypassing them will increase the conflict and their negativity as well. Saving Changes...
Pranav, this is great but I would like to add that focusing should be on high influence stakeholders but not limited to positive ones, negative stakeholders with high influence should be focused on as well. Do you agree ?
100% Agreed.
The essence of my comment was that when facing a negative SH of higher degree, it helps a lot if you have a positive SH who trusts you or both of you see the project objectives from the same platform. That advantage negates the hurdles coming forth due to the negative SHs.
Community Champion
