Disengaged stakeholders? Three practical ways to get them engaged

Working with stakeholders is always challenging. Even more so when working with colleagues you are not close to, nor seem interested in striking a closer working relationship. The arch-examples are your executive stakeholders, who see you as a service provider of outcomes and P&L; or SME (subject matter expert) stakeholders, who see themselves as a service provider to get your project a "diagnosis" and then move on to the next.

Disengagement is an attitude that could spread from source to other stakeholders, gradually dragging down overall engagement. It is a genuine hurdle for project leads to overcome. If these stakeholders could be engaged successfully, all other stakeholders will follow.

In this article, we will explore how this hurdle comes into being, and outline three practical ways to overcome them.

The hurdle rises where the "80-20 rule" reaches its limits

When the Industry Box team interviewed SMEs and executives in their involvement of projects, we realised that they are efficiency-minded, with 80-20 rule the maxim in their approach to the project.

80-20 for SMEs - the assembly line operation

SMEs' expertise are often sought after, especially the departments with veto powers such as legal, risk and data privacy. Without an emphasis on efficiency, they could end up providing support to all projects simultaneously, over-stretching their limited resources.

To them, 80-20 means ensuring each project queues up to be served, and each could only queue up once in its tenure. In return, the SMEs would give due focus for the one project on her desk, performing an in-depth diagnosis before passing it to the next colleague in line. 20% of projects in progress would account for 80% of the team's output.

As this approach takes shape, it forms into an assembly line - start with gathering of raw materials through standard questionnaires and project design briefs, then perform a review to identify specific questions, get the answers from the project team, then draft the diagnosis, then get her supervisor to review and edit, then get a sign-off from the head of department, and finally send the report to the project team. This ensures their attention is spent on diagnosing, not waiting.

80-20 for executives - set the business case and track

Executive stakeholders hold the power to distribute resources and prioritise projects. Their foremost concern is appropriating resources to get the best return without excessive risks. Yet they are also a few layers removed from the actual running of projects, making it effort-consuming to nurture projects with their wealth of experience.

Their 80-20 setup is thus to focus 80% of their efforts on the projects' business case, which is the comparison tool at selection stage, and the measurement tool at implementation and launch stages.

Seasoned "executive machines" could thus oversee projects without touching the projects' details - they start by reading the business case, with specific focus on launch timeframe, resource outlay and rate of return; upon approval they will demand a detailed launch schedule; during implementation they will compare actual progress against schedule and actual cost against budgeted cost; after launch it's about P&L tracking against predictions and marketing cost spend.

The limit of 80-20 - processing through, not participating in projects

The 80-20 approach has enabled these stakeholders to play a much bigger role in the company and across projects than they otherwise have time for, but that comes at a cost - they are merely processing through the projects, not participating in them.

When participating in a project, stakeholders are interested in the environment which the project operates in, how the project is responding to environmental changes, and how their contribution could support the project through these changes. It is continuous instead of one-off, pays attention to the project beyond initial planning, and looks behind simple metrics at the project mechanics.

But with the processing approach, they lose touch with the project's actual progress, and the hurdle builds up gradually until it becomes insurmountable.

The rise of hurdle - neglect, reality check and shock

As the project progresses, internal and external environmental changes cause the project to deviate from the original plan. That calls for adjustments (or pivots if drastic shifts become necessary) to the project's design and implementation plan, which require additional contribution from stakeholders. Moreover, in this modern era of uncertain economic environment and technological advances, changes take place at a higher pace, requiring continuous adjustments.

The stakeholders' processing mindset goes against continuous involvement in the project. As environmental changes emerge, the initial deviation from plan is small - these stakeholders apply their 80-20 approach and spend little or no efforts in understanding the deviation. Their preference is to assume the project is still broadly in line and no additional efforts is required. The typical response from executive stakeholders is usually "why can't the project team work a bit harder to get back on track?"

It is only when the deviation between plan and environment becomes so severe that adjustments can no longer be avoided, that they start to pay attention and re-feed the project through their formal processes. The efforts required of them is by now as great as supporting a brand new project, compared with the much smaller efforts needed in continuous adjustments. The typical response from executive stakeholders is usually "what has happened to the project? Why hasn't it gone to plan, and now we have to do a complete re-basing? You should have involved me earlier!"

As these stakeholders are forced to re-double their efforts, the project falls out of favour and turns from "poster boy" to "the troublesome child" in their minds. The project is dreaded and avoided, with a typical response of "it's getting out of control, we should have done a tighter job at the business case approval phase".

The disengagement hurdle is now complete. Let's now think about how to overcome it, and get these disengaged stakeholders engaged.

Overcoming the hurdle - the standard approaches, and our alternative

"Disengaged stakeholders" is an oft-discussed topic in corporate organisational workshops and mentoring sessions. The suggestions on offer could be summarised into 2 approaches:

Standard approach I - Satisfy these stakeholders

This approach is based on the Power - Interest matrix which dissects stakeholders into four segment (photo credit: https://www.projectmanagement.com/wikis/368897/Stakeholder-Analysis--using-the-Power-Interest-Grid):

Our disengaged stakeholders lie in the "high power - low interest" zone and calls for "keep satisfied" - provide them with information they ask for, answer questions they raise, and persuade them take interest in arising adjustments.

It's all good in theory, except that satisfying these stakeholders does not remove them from their processing mindset. They might be satisfied most of the time, but extra efforts at time of adjustments still give them pain, which keeps them dis-engaged and the project still suffers.

Standard approach II - communicate, communicate, communicate

There is a belief that providing information about the project incessantly could gradually accrue stakeholders' attention and engagement, like a sponge soaking up water. This eventually turns into the saying of "if in doubt, over-communicate".

This works for most stakeholders, but our disengaged stakeholders have optimised their processing mindset to insulate themselves from "noise", like a sponge with a plastic coating. We could be over-communicating, but they would simply skip the emails and continue to focus on their scheduled work.

Our alternative - weave change into the project fabric

The processing mindset is a barrier to engagement. Our goal is to transition them into participating mindset, practising continuous involvement. All these without upsetting their 80-20 efficiency-minded way of work.

If we could remove the false sense of completion at the initial planning stage, be it our perfectly drafted business case or their meticulous diagnosis report, and get them to take interest in the first emerging deviation, they would have self-started continuous involvement.

This approach is about highlighting the inevitability of change as the project progresses, and structuring the project so that they could face inevitability with their existing processes.

Time to get practical and apply this approach in projects.

Three practical ways to weave change into project fabric

Practical Way I - make assumptions and uncertainties prominent from the beginning

Move them out of the appendix RAID log. Stakeholder skip it upon reading the water-tight business plan or project design brief.

As you draft the business plan or design brief, introduce the assumptions made and likely environmental changes in the sections where they arise. The aim is for these stakeholders to realise that their assessments and diagnostics are built on a movable setup, and understand which are the movable points.

They will feel uncomfortable with potential substantial re-work or going over-budget, and may ask for assumptions to be locked down and uncertainties to be removed before starting their process. Practical Way II now comes into play.

Practical Way II - lighten upfront work and outline how uncertainties will be addressed

Practical Way II is critical - it is an exchange. We want them to go through their process despite the uncertainties, they want to keep their processes efficient. We satisfy their wish by reducing the extent of upfront and subsequent efforts.

For example, where heavy uncertainties exist, assessment in that area could be skipped for later or changed to high level guidance. Milestones could be re-structured so that the uncertain portions (e.g. unsure about customer acceptance of the product) could be launched at a small scale first, so that any adverse result could prevent further wasted investments.

Stakeholders are more concerned about a small number of key assumptions and uncertainties than the rest. Set out ways to close down those points, with timeframes where possible. Also discuss how their assessments or decisions would change if those points deviate.

We demonstrate that uncertainties are neither permanent nor effort-draining. Instead, continuous monitoring, distributing efforts along the project stages and mentally preparing for key deviation scenarios are ways to fit uncertainties into their efficient processes. Less about re-working, more about saving work for later.

Practical Way III - present visually the journey of uncertainty lockdown

Practical Ways I and II are about setting up the stakeholders in the initial planning stage. Take note of which stakeholders would be impacted by which uncertainties, and keep them specifically involved accordingly.

When uncertainties start to lock down and deviations occur, keep the necessary stakeholders informed, and identify how the deviation points towards adjustment options. If adjustment scenarios had been discussed in Practical Way II, dig them out to help everyone get to an adjustment agreement sooner.

This is a demonstration that uncertainties need not be energy-draining - it is not re-work but adjusting specific points, as long as they maintain a continuous interest in the project. It is also a demonstration of your ability as a project lead in managing uncertainties so that they do not spin out of control, but are closely tracked to minimise the efforts expected of the stakeholders.

About Industry Box:

Industry Box is dedicated to introducing streamlined & frictionless stakeholder management, as we believe this to be a hidden productivity blackhole for most companies and managers.

Apart from raising awareness about this issue and promoting industry best practice, we have also designed a digital tool with all the best practices built in, so that managers & leaders can introduce and benefit from best-in-class stakeholder management without the learning curve.