Stakeholders

Stakeholders have power to influence, enhance or curtail an engagement. They can operate in both an overt and covert manner, often driven by their personal values and goals as opposed to those of the organization. Like beauty, stakeholders are viewed from a subjective rather than objective position. They are only viewed as stakeholders if perceived as having power over the perceiver.

When attempting to clarify the issues that surround any problem, it can help to develop a map that indicates who can influence the outcome of the change and to what extent they might wish to wield their power. Consider the consulting firm about to undertake a critical piece of work with a multinational client. Although the client might have set out the basic structure of the organization, indicating the key figures involved in the project, the consultant will need to take this a step further and understand who the real power brokers are and to what extent they can amplify or attenuate the flow of the project.

It can pay to map the organization's key stakeholders against the criteria used in the change ladder (see Chapter 5). It then becomes possible to use the five attributes of the change ladder to build a deeper understanding of each stakeholder group and how it might affect any proposed change. By constructing a simple matrix, the consultant can quickly understand which of the key stakeholders need to be influenced.

For each of the four stakeholders listed in the matrix, it is possible to infer what effect they might have on your project. The benefit in producing the profiles is that it makes it easy to quickly share the impact of the stakeholders with other members of the change team.

• Stakeholder 1 (key person): A critical player. Has both the power and ability to affect the change dramatically. The question is, which way will they choose to exert their influence? Will they act as the powerful benefactor, bestowing their grace and favour on the project and so help speed it to a successful conclusion? Alternatively, have they yet to be convinced about the need for change and so will they be a powerful force to oppose it? The golden rule in this situation is to get to the person as quickly as possible. Make time to meet the individual, understand their orientation and what action needs to be taken to ensure they will support the change.

• Stakeholder 2 (loose cannon): Such people are a real problem. They hold all the aces in the deck but don't understand how to use them. They manage the assets used in the engagement, the procedures and have a real desire to be involved. The problem is that they don't have the appropriate knowledge and they don't have a real appreciation of the need for the transformation. As such, you might need to make a rapid and effective change to ensure they don't inadvertently derail the process by taking inappropriate action.

• Stakeholder 3 (little interest): This person is on the fringe. Although they have the ability to affect the change, their interests lie elsewhere and they have no desire to get involved. While in some cases this is useful, the downside is that they can turn into a loose cannon if they choose to get involved later. Like a time bomb, the stakeholder might decide the day before implementation to disagree with the change and withdraw assets from the transformation. Your approach with this person might be classed as softly-softly. A low-key relationship must be formed and maintained over the life of the change, such that you will have the ability to sniff out if the stakeholder is being energized and in what direction their energy will be directed.

• Stakeholder 4 (Desperate Dan): The stakeholder has a high desire to get involved in the engagement but little capability, power or understanding of the need for change. Depending on how they are used, this person is a liability or an asset. In the way that a willing person is worth ten pressed people, it might make sense to use them simply because of their energy and desire to help. However, if their association becomes too high profile it is possible for the stakeholder to make inappropriate statements that are associated with the project. In this case, you need to make a decision whether their involvement in the project adds real value or could end up taking more time and trouble.

This methodology takes what is a very complicated and emotional process and turns it into a simple but practical diagnostic model. The value comes not from the map but the dialogue you go through with the client in developing the shared model. It helps to dispel many of the unspoken concerns about the stakeholder group and allows the client and consultancy team to operate on a common platform.