How do you manage a situation where key stakeholders have opposing views on a communication strategy?

Organisez des réunions sérieuses et bien préparées pour donnez du crédit à chaque idée et chaque perception, le fait de prendre le temps d’avoir des échanges sérieux et constructifs permettra de bien cerner et comprendre le point de vue de chacun. La communication sera plus ludique et efficace après avoir été élaborée en interne en prenant le temps de lever les zones d’ombres sur les divergences entre les différentes parties prenantes. Une approche plus inclusive ou le débat ne prendra pas en considération la hiérarchie, la seule priorité devra être donnée aux idées et aux enjeux de la communication. Les actions seront plus efficaces et plus rapides indépendants de la complexité et des contraintes de sa mise en application

Listening is the first step, and repeating what you heard is an excellent clarifying tool to identify any differences in strategy. I like to use the phrase, "I heard you say," followed by a pause to see where there is common ground. To achieve an impactful and effective communication strategy, it’s important to incorporate elements from both sides. The key is to identify this common ground and recognize opportunities for compromise to create a vision that satisfies both parties. Good communication involves bringing people along with humility, understanding what is mission-critical, and knowing what can be left on the table for compromise.

It is important to understand the root cause of the disagreement. What are the key points of contention? What are the specific aspects of the communication strategy that stakeholders disagree on? Are there conflicting goals, values, or priorities? Dig a little deeper to explore the underlying reasons behind these disagreements. Are there concerns about budget, resources, target audience, messaging, or implementation?

Striving for common ground is one of the most underrated methods, but it is also the most effective one in resolving tricky communication situations. We often hold our own biases and interests and forget to consider the bigger picture in mind. When we look for common ground, we understand that there are different perspectives, and we use empathy in our communications so that it becomes a win-win situation for everyone. Seeking common ground is more important than ever before in this polarized world.

If you are an international brand, be sure to involve your colleagues from around the world/in other key markets in early conversations to get insights on local trends that will shape the strategy and/or initiatives that are underway in those markets that could serve as a model for the rest of the world. Too many times I have seen scenarios where the strategy is set in, say, London or New York, and then "rolled out worldwide." It's only at this point that the creators of the strategy receive pushback, as it isn't "fit for purpose" or appropriate for every country.

Here are some steps to help you navigate this situation: 1. *Acknowledge and validate*: Recognize each stakeholder's perspective and show that you understand their point of view. 2. *Identify common goals*: Find the shared objectives and outcomes that everyone wants to achieve. 3. *Gather feedback*: Encourage open discussion and gather feedback from all stakeholders. 4. *Analyze and prioritize*: Analyze the feedback, identify key themes, and prioritize the most critical aspects. Additionally, consider using tools like: - Stakeholder mapping to visualize perspectives - SWOT analysis to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats - Mind mapping to generate and organize ideas

We tend to default to binaries: us vs. them, my way or the highway. Establish that everyone is there for a common purpose and then use different creative exercises to break out of the rut. As much as possible, build on each others ideas, don't break them.

No matter how much data and insight is available, it’s important to start by acknowledging that communications strategy is often more subjective than scientific! However, one of the biggest challenges to consensus at this stage can be a misunderstanding between the needs and role of Communications strategy, as opposed to asks for a plan or tactics. By reverting to the over arching business strategy as your anchor source of truth, and highlighting the role of communications in supporting that, it’s easier to find agreement for the most critical priorities for the business overall.

Evaluate the inputs objectively and consider how they benefit the organization or align with the proposed goal, maybe even rating them on a scale of 1-5. If something doesn’t meet the required standards, speak up—especially if you have data to back it up. Ensure, your inputs are clear and assertive. The plan must be built on solid insights, not just on trying to please everyone.

Diante a uma vis?o oposta a minha, costumo questionar: Qual é a sua sugest?o para solu??o ? E a maioria das vezes a solu??o é algo rápido e fácil de ser implementada para otimizar a fluidez.

As a communication specialist, a structured dialogue should be facilitated to understand each stakeholder's perspective, finding common ground, and highlight shared objectives. By proposing a strategy that incorporates elements from each viewpoint, we can create a balanced approach that aligns with the overarching goals.

It is important for stakeholders to feel heard. Engage with their opinions and ask why ... a lot. Their opinions are usually based on a viewpoint that's deeply grounded in their day to day reality. You will get to know them as people and how they see themselves and the parts of the org they deal with. This is vital for building trust and influence. As you do this, build trust and use the insights you glean from your stakeholders to inform your vision & priorities. Credit your stakeholders publicly for insights you gleaned from their input. Once your stakeholder see themselves reflected in your vision & priorities they will become allies who help you fight for your priorities rather than dog piling on conflicting priorities.

Communication requires that information (facts, ideas, feelings) is clearly stated, heard and understood. An open dialogue in a safe and respectful setting can foster that communication. If the participants or issues are emotionally charged, remember to state ground rules such as: no interruptions, all ideas are honored and everyone has the right to speak. Most of the time, disagreements are not about an absolute right or wrong matter. Dialogue allows the participants to be heard while they consider a different angle of the matter.

I believe that one effective way to foster constructive dialogue is to emphasize the unique capabilities and skills of each participant. By recognizing and valuing the strengths of our interlocutors, we can create an environment where individuals feel comfortable and appreciated. This, in turn, encourages open-mindedness and receptivity to others' opinions, facilitating genuine dialogue.

Building consensus is essential when managing opposing stakeholder views to create alignment and foster collaboration. It ensures that all parties feel heard, reduces conflict, and leads to a unified communication strategy that reflects shared goals, increasing the likelihood of success.

It is important to apply win-win-calculus to strategy making, as well. First, go ahead with compromise and set the tone for tit for tat. Second, always, always, always start with similarities and the consensual part. Third, modularize strategy, try to incorporate timelines or sandboxes for people who would love to see their concepts in the strategy. Fourth, enlarge the cake by adding other aspects that were initially not intented to be part of the strategy. Fifth, craft package deals. Finally, it is important to be aware of red lines, beyond which there is no sense negotiating. For example, it is important to establish a no-weapons rule, i.e. bluffing, escalating, exploiting bargaining power, threatening should be considered a no go.

Concensensus is a very dangerous construct. And innovation isn't a democracy. Collaboration, while often touted as a panacea for organizational challenges, can inadvertently stifle innovation when it prioritizes consensus over breakthrough thinking. When teams focus solely on finding common ground, they risk gravitating towards the "mushy center"—a zone of mediocrity where bold ideas are diluted to appease all participants. This approach, while seemingly inclusive, can marginalize high performers and unconventional thinkers whose insights might propel the organization forward. Consensus—often in the from of an intellectual average—feels good, but often drives miserable outcomes...

This becomes easy when you have already identified a goal or the vision/end objective. For instance, two stakeholders might differ in an approach due to being emotional or rational - what will help is to circle back to the end goal to negate any bias. You'll then be doing what's needed to be done instead of picking sides. What will be the best is to address all the opinions while communicating and answering the 'whys' to offer complete transparency. This will help in retaining the trust.

Start by facilitating a meeting to understand each stakeholder's perspective, identifying common goals and potential compromises. Then simply present a balanced proposal that integrates their key concerns and emphasizes the benefits to the overall strategy.

A estratégia na comunica??o é importante porque orienta a forma como as mensagens s?o transmitidas, assegurando que elas sejam eficazes e alcancem os objetivos desejados.

Once consensus is reached, proceed with implementing the agreed-upon communication strategy. Ensure that all stakeholders are kept informed throughout the implementation process and that their feedback is continuously considered to address any emerging concerns.

Harmony isn't required, alignment is. Embrace stakeholder debates to craft a multifaceted message that resonates with diverse audiences, fostering stronger buy-in through shared ownership.

Understand the differences in opinions and whether there is tangible data to back them; be it going for or going against a certain approach, channel, target audience or even framing the messaging. If the conflict is related to how the message is being framed and both are potentially valid, put it to a litmus test.