How do you deal with conflicting or competing interests among your stakeholders?

In addition to analyzing your stakeholders, I generally go straight to the source, the SPONSOR, and present the competing views for them to decide. The sponsor is footing the bill so they are normally high on my list of who I want to please. They can help me navigate which stakeholder they are most interested in keeping happy. Armed with that knowledge, I sit down and try to come up with a win-win for both stakeholders that can be the basis for opening negotiations. If I'm forced to pick one over another, at least I have some direction on which stakeholder holds the most sway.

During the implementation of a software development project, the project manager encountered conflicting interests among two key stakeholders: the marketing team and the finance team. The marketing team wanted to include additional features to enhance customer experience, while the finance team insisted on minimizing costs to meet budget constraints. The project manager organized a meeting where both teams expressed their concerns. Through open communication and facilitated discussions, they identified common objectives, prioritized project requirements, and agreed on a compromise that met both teams' needs within the allocated budget. This collaborative approach resolved the conflict and strengthened stakeholder relationships.

In leadership, conflicts aren't clashes but problems to solve. The goal is outcomes that meet most priorities, regardless of their origin. Prioritization and open communication are key. Prioritizing isn't devaluing needs; it's about arranging tasks based on their importance to the project, aiming to accommodate as many stakeholders as possible. However, this process leans heavily on open communication. By encouraging a culture where stakeholders freely share thoughts, we gain insights to guide our prioritization. Prioritization and communication, work in tandem. They are like two sides of the same coin, each helping us navigate through conflicting interests and keeping the project on track.

Keeping the user/beneficiary at the forefront of stakeholder analysis has been essential, in my experience, for managing conflicting interests. This stakeholder category is often not synonymous with the sponsor. The user/beneficiary is who the sponsor is having the project executed for. One example that comes to mind in my chosen field is the government (sponsor) commissioning a new clinic in a certain community. Stakeholders include NGO groups, clinicians etc. But when interests start to compete, reorienting everyone around the needs of the user/beneficiary, i.e. the people who will actually be using the clinic, has been very effective in smoothing over conflict.

When dealing with stakeholders, I have often found a thorough analysis helpful. This analysis will break down each stakeholder and their interests, enabling the project manager to clearly understand the conflict and know the ones that ought to be kept in the loop, those that might alter the project's scope and those that might not. Each stakeholder has a clear interest in a project and is useful in creating a common ground and an avenue for compromise and consensus in critical problem solutions. It is vital to note that as a project manager, it is my duty to keep their eyes and mind on the project goals, therefore necessary to act as the mediator, ensuring all have been heard and their ideas and thoughts are taken into consideration.

Totally agree on the acknowledging everybody’s views and feelings. I think one of the biggest reasons conflicts arise is because people don’t feel heard or valued rather than an unwillingness to compromise. I often find having a one on one or smaller group sessions with a focus on a specific stakeholder allows them to express their views / concerns / frustrations more openly. This means when bringing a decision to a bigger forum (where there will inevitably be compromise), stakeholders are more accepting knowing they’ve had the opportunity to put their point across.

It is also important to be empathetic and conduct a stakeholder analysis to understand their perspectives and priorities. By making communication a two-way conversation, building trust, being prepared for questions, and keeping stakeholders informed, project managers can improve their relationships with stakeholders and ensure effective communication. Providing ongoing and meaningful opportunities for communication and input allows stakeholders to contribute as experts in their field, have their issues heard, and contribute to the decision-making process.

In this case, the most crucial is good level of communication. Share all insights transparently and clearly and involve all key stakeholders to the retrospective session. And moreover, review all provided information regularly.

In an ideal situation, all stakeholders are transparent with their known risks and interests. The PM can document the risks and interests, any and intersections/dependencies. The resulting matrix/dashboard can be used during stakeholder meetings and in status communications to align the different groups and facilitate effective communication. When conflicts occur, there is less friction when the risks/interests were already known and planned for.

In a recent project, I faced stakeholder conflicts that could hinder our goals. To overcome this, I prioritized trust and relationships. > Firstly, I showcased my competence and credibility by thoroughly understanding the project. > Secondly, I fostered open communication through workshops and meetings, valuing stakeholders' input. > Lastly, I built strong relationships by recognizing their contributions and celebrating milestones. These efforts reduced conflicts and fostered collaboration, leading to project success. Trust and relationships are vital when addressing stakeholder conflicts, creating a foundation for innovation and achievement.

Open and honest communication is key to build trust in relationships. Be transparent and clear in your communication. Even about negative things. Keep it simple and straight to the point. I have faced several projects where Project Managers wanted to share only positive things to show Project is in a good shape. This is one of the most frequent mistakes. You need to learn how to communicate both positive and mainly negative outcomes - how to present, navigate and challenge your stakeholders is essential.

Number talks. In most arguments people tend to insist on their own importance which is not a constructive way of communication. Try to quantify the impact of each stakeholder's perspective into numbers and ask questions like what's the benefits of implementing this feature, how often it will be used, what will be the cost not doing it. If you create a table to measure the benefits and costs for each stakeholder, it will be much easier to build consensus with them and let them compare and select the best solution from a global view of your project.

Clearly communicate Escalation ladder - to explain what will be escalated, by whom and when and on which meeting you can discuss the details. Do not hide anything and create open-minded atmosphere within your projects so that anybody can share their feedback and expectation.

After collecting and solving escalations do not forget to monitor / report all in Lessons Learned Log to prevent repeating similiar issues in future.

Before the general partnership is put togheter, there must be who does what, who refuses to do what and are all aspects of the GP company covered sufficiently. The best buddy may not be a good partners. Too many partners like to do the same tasks. Big NO on this being a good team. Stakeholders need to express their expectations and the deck must have what the outcomes are to be and the risks which might put on pause the outcome. The right team will get the job done, the wrong team will struggle and break up eventually. Don't risk the wrong team which won't risk the stakeholders.