Are We Aligned?

Stakeholder alignment—or lack thereof—can be the difference between project success and failure. In today’s dynamic business environment, projects face multiple stakeholders and constituencies. Often, these groups have competing or divergent interests.

Project managers often focus on the “hard skills” to ensure adherence to the triple constraints of scope, schedule, and cost. However, stakeholder engagement and communications' “soft skills” are the differentiators. Poor performance in these areas leads to project failure [1].

Stakeholder support and alignment are often assumed but not tested. Successful project managers assess stakeholders' needs, interests, and desired outcomes. Strategies are developed to influence, engage, and effectively communicate with critical individual stakeholders and groups. Monitoring mechanisms are implemented to identify issues proactively.

Imagine you are the project manager for a large infrastructure program—a highway, bridge, or high-speed rail line. Nominally, you would expect the project to have broad community support. However, once you start digging in, crosscurrents will appear. Conflicting objectives or disagreements arise, and regulatory bodies may impose significant constraints. Differences in vision and approach may divide the leadership team.

Understanding Alignment

Stakeholder theory [2] is based on the principle of creating value by aligning the interests and well-being of all impacted parties, which requires understanding how people perceive the project and their motivations.

Stakeholder engagement can be defined as a range of support along a continuum.

Champions are enthusiastic advocates who actively support and promote the project.
Supporters agree with the project and provide passive support by endorsing it without actively promoting it.
Neutrals are individuals who are either uninformed about the project or indifferent. They do not hold a strong opinion or take a side.
Resisters disagree with the project, have reservations, or express concerns but do not actively hinder its progress.
Opponents are actively engaged detractors who oppose the project and take deliberate actions to disrupt, block, or undermine its progress.

The primary differentiator between these points along the continuum is the level and intensity of activity. Supporters and resisters hold opinions but are passive in their actions. Champions and opponents vocally and actively engage—they demonstrate, influence, and lobby.

My house is near a bike trail and park. Several years ago, some neighbors petitioned the county to build a bocce ball court (champions). Regulation-size courts are 90 feet long, and the area adjacent to the trail was a seemingly perfect location. I enjoy a good game and attended a community meeting to show my support. Other neighbors expressed fears (opponents) that the court would attract the wrong element and effectively killed the idea.

Effectively engaging the resisters and opponents requires understanding their motivations. The project's actual or perceived impact drives the assessment of this engagement.

Actual impacts can be measured as tangible or financial changes. Widening a roadway may require demolishing homes, shortening yards, or removing trees. Being closer to a major roadway or increased traffic may lower real estate values.

Perceived impacts may be tangible or financial and are often emotional responses to a project. Like risks, perceived impacts can be described as having a likelihood of occurrence and an impact. Cognitive biases tend to amplify these expectations—a tendency to overestimate benefits and threats. Biases against uncertainty and preferences for the status quo can also influence perceptions.

Proximity can affect both actual and perceived impacts. People may be in favor of a project as long as it’s not in my backyard (NIMBY [3]).

Understanding Misalignment

Understanding the sources of misalignment provides insight and is the first step to reframing and addressing these concerns.

Adverse Impact

A project or one of its components may adversely impact a single stakeholder or community. These impacts are zero-sum. One stakeholder’s gain comes at another’s loss. Or the broader community’s benefit may come at the expense of some members.

The impacts can be tangible, financial, and physical. The Cross Bronx Expressway [4], while speeding transit, is often blamed for the downfall of the South Bronx. Construction of the DC Metro along U Street [5] was very disruptive, and few businesses survived. However, those that did witnessed, the revival of this historic neighborhood.

Reorganizations and other organizational change initiatives have intangible impacts. People may lose power or prestige. They may miss working with colleagues who have become their friends. Resistance to change dooms many change efforts because the culture is concerned with its survival [6].

Disagreement

Disagreements can be outright opposition to a project. They can also occur when stakeholders are generally supportive but differ in the exact end-state outcome or approach. Our community liked the idea of redeveloping an old, decrepit supermarket. However, they disagreed with the scale of the proposed mixed-use building.

Destructive conflict enters when a debate about options and alternatives turns into personal attacks. The impact can derail or scuttle the effort. Our elected officials would all support the economic goals of high employment, low inflation, and economic growth. However, there is little consensus on achieving these goals, and the debate is acrimonious.

Conflicting Incentives

Incentives drive behavior. They can be financial, operational, or psychological. Formal reward and recognition systems are designed to incent behavior. Salespeople are commissioned. CEO performance is linked to stock performance. However, we have seen that individual-based incentives can create barriers to collaboration.

Lack of Resources

There may be agreement on the objective and approach, but more resources are needed. This may be a lack of funding, people, or people with the necessary skills. These issues can be articulated directly as important project constraints that must be addressed. However, direct confrontation is often avoided, and they become quarrels over approach or objectives.

Creating Alignment

Understanding our stakeholders’ needs, wants, wishes, and aspirations is the first step in creating alignment. We should not assume agreement or support. We must actively engage our stakeholders and identify and map out their interests, influences, and impact on the project.

Influencing and negotiating with stakeholders to achieve alignment is the next step. What are the points of agreement and disagreement? What are the strengths of those positions? What are the options and alternatives?

Facts and data are essential when negotiating. However, it is equally important to allow stakeholders to be heard and voice their feelings. The human brain is hardwired to respond emotionally to conflict before analyzing and responding thoughtfully.

Take the time to understand the needs versus the wants. Identify opportunities to think differently. Explore solutions outside the current range of options. Engage stakeholders to be part of the process and feel ownership of the outcome.

See related articles:

To learn more about our training and consulting services or subscribe to our newsletter, visit our website: http://www.pmessentials.us/ [13].

Image generated by ChatGPT