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.

'People Resist Change' ...Really? Maybe Not

That people naturally resist change is a common held view and one we hear all the time!

But one that does not explain why people adopt new technology faster than never before. Just think about all the madness around the iPhone 5, which was much ado about nothing after all! Still, according to technology news outlets, about half of ALL cell phone users are planning to upgrade to the new iPhone 5 (when it finally comes out). Die hards of all types of technology campout outside stores before opening day to be the first to get the coveted new toy! OK, so, that's not everyone. But does that look like people resist change? No, I don't think so.

Look at the data from February 2008, only a year after the first iPhone (now a relic), and well before the era of the tablet and the surge of the touch screen do-it-all smartphones everybody seems to have now.

Source: Visualizing Economics. Original by Nicholas Felton. U.S. data only. 

A more detailed graph I found reflecting data through 2010 shows the same trend: technology adoption rates continue to accelerate. This is particularly true of high tech for personal use. For instance, while it took many decades for some technologies like the telephone or the clothes washer to become mainstream, other technologies like the VCR or the cell phone took only a few years to become essential necessities.

So, do people resist change? Not really.

WHAT PEOPLE RESIST IS BEING CHANGED!

Think about it. If a company suddenly mandated that all employees must now use a particular type of smart phone, say iPhone, nearly all BlackBerry, Motorola, and other users would be unhappy about giving up their phones! Why is the company in the business of mandating phone usage anyway? Yes, people would object, even resist!

But not on our own. On our own, we happily shell out the money to adopt new technology (most of which we never fully use or understand) and in the process change our habits, sometimes drastically. Why? Well, first because the old solution no longer is good enough (gotta 'upgrade' that old phone I bought only a year ago!), also because we see the benefit, because it's change on our own terms and it's our idea, because we have invested in it, and let's face it, many times it's because we don't want to be outdone...others have one and we want one too!

Then, what's the lesson for organizational change? How can a change leader increase adoption for change?

1. Create Dissatisfaction: Make sure people know that the new is better than the old, really. When people are dissatisfied enough with the status quo, they are more likely to change.
2. Show Benefit: Let people discover the benefit of the change. Don't just tell them...that's like telling your 5-year old to eat his spinach because they are good for his body. How many times has that worked?
3. Create Ownership: Invite people to come to terms with their own reasons for the change. Invite them to  either design the change or how to implement it. Make it their idea, truthfully, do not just 'let them think it's their idea' because they will see right through it.
4. Involve Others: The more they are involved in the design and/or implementation, the more invested they will be. They might even take pride in the change instead of fighting it.
5. Role Model: Show role models, influential people who can exert positive peer pressure on others to adopt the change.

So, let us stop thinking that people will inevitably resist change and do what it takes to increase the chance that they will champion the change. Technology adoption shows us it can be done!