What's Wrong with Stakeholder Analysis?

Recent work with a client reminded me of something I wanted to share with others. Many years ago when I started giving change management seminars, I noticed a pattern that I did not like. When we covered the concept of stakeholder analysis, inevitably someone (usually more than one) would express concern, even fear about using this most commonly used tool. Their concerns?

• What if someone sees the document?
• What if so and so found out we labeled them as "not supportive"?
• How do we even know for sure they aren't supportive?
• Why would you NOT want anyone to be 'strongly supportive' anyway?

You see, traditional stakeholder analysis (see example below), a key staple in change management, works like this: The group makes a list of stakeholders. They then agree on the current vs. the desired level of support of each stakeholder using either a numbered scale or a labeled scale. Labels can vary from quite benign such as 'supportive' to 'non-supportive', to quite pejorative such as 'laggards' or 'resistors.' What's worse, often these evaluations are based on hear-say and group think. So, my students had a point!

And we'd usually spend several minutes of class time addressing the concerns for which I really didn't have a good answer. After a while, I tired of trying to defend the tool, so I abandoned the traditional stakeholder analysis tool for good and developed a different, more useful (I think) approach. Instead of labeling, I wanted to empathize. Instead of analyzing, I wanted to understand. I wanted to empathize with the stakeholder and understand why they would or would not support the change effort.

The approach? Have a conversation with them or with someone who really understands them. The questions?

1. IMPACT: How will they be affected or impacted? How is the stakeholder involved in the change effort? What will they need to do differently?
2. BENEFIT: What will be a gain or benefit to the stakeholder? What would they consider a real win?
3. CONCERN: What concerns might the stakeholder have about the change? What would they consider a losing proposition? What issues do they see related to the change?

There is more to stakeholder work than this, but the key concept is this:

Maximize the benefits + Minimize the concerns = Support

That's it! No fancy Os and Xs, no psychoanalysis, no labels, no risk. Just plain old fashion communication that gets to the real reasons for why stakeholders decide to support or not support the change. Sure, it may not look as nice as an Os and Xs chart. However, this approach has several benefits:

1. It provides much more and richer information through real discussion.
2. It uncovers and challenges assumptions.
3. It is non-judgmental, no need to label people.
4. Best of all, after the dialogue, you'll have a very good idea about how to influence someone who might not be excited about the change.

Give it a try next time you need to influence people to 'buy into' a change that is not their idea. You might be surprised how well it works. I'd love to hear your comments and your experience.