How would you navigate conflicting feedback from different stakeholders in a problem-solving project?

It is very important that all stakeholders has to be one page in a problem solving project. All the stakeholders needs to be approached with an open mind and listened carefully. Their feedbacks should be noted down carefully. Definitely an open dialogue will bring a lot of clarity and minimizes the conflict.

Identify Stakeholders: Clearly identify who the stakeholders are and understand their roles, interests, and priorities. Knowing what each stakeholder values helps contextualize their feedback. Gather Comprehensive Feedback: Ensure you collect feedback from all relevant stakeholders. This provides a complete picture of the different perspectives and concerns.

When collecting feedback, explicitly ask stakeholders to frame their input in the context of the project's goals. This encourages them to think critically about how their suggestions or concerns align with the project's success criteria.

Most of the conflicts arise and further complicates due to the eagerness of a party to prove their point as the most optimum solution. Focus is more towards pressing over their point rather than understanding the key project scope and other's point of view. In such conditions, someone has to take onus to note and understand the core interests of the conflicting parties. This provides enough clarity to - 1) Point out gaps in project scope understanding, if any. 2) Identify common benefits for both parties. 3) Analyze any critical underlying concern. 4) And finally deducing a win-win condition for all. Probability of conflict resolution increases multifold if you actually understand the root of the feedback.

Do not assume the feedback is automatically conflicting; examine it instead. For instance, let's assume you are researching an answer to the question: "Should we invest in X asset?" Stakeholder 1 says yes because she is thinking long-term. Stakeholder 2 says no because he worries the upfront expenditures are too high and would disrupt liquidity reserves (and the returns too distant). Upon first examination, stakeholder 1 and 2 seem to be at odds with one another. Look more closely. Stakeholder 2 did not say no to purchasing the asset; he really said no to upfront costs. Perhaps a solution to reconcile the two views is, "Let's obtain advantageous financing terms to mitigate burning our near term cash reserves."

I stress validation and examination. Why is one concern more critical to address than others? Second, what makes that concern addressable in the first place? Question 1 is designed for you to deeply understand the operative context in which the concern lives. Question 2 ensures that you are framing the concern in a way that allows stakeholders to view it as actionable. Another facet to keep in mind when prioritizing a concern is to choose one which, if resolved, has an outsized effect in remedying other concerns in the list. To cite a medical example, imagine three health concerns: high blood sugar, stress, and inflammation. The high blood sugar should be top concern because lowering it equals lower stress and inflammation.

Every stakeholder is the main character of their hero's journey. It's why different parts of a company often vie for influence instead of amicably collaborating. Consensus happens when you can convince each stakeholder that, while their quest feels individualistic, the collective is moving towards the betterment of all. If that does not work, learn to speak the "dialects" of different stakeholders. For instance, a pitch to a marketer peppered with finance-speak may do better if more marketing relevant concepts (e.g., customer lifetime value) were used. If your back is against a wall, a common external threat will unite your stakeholders.