The Importance of Stakeholder Management

Stakeholder management can be described as a collection of actions and interventions that seek to include key stakeholders in decisions as well as the implementation of strategies. These efforts include communication, bridge-building, early collaboration, shortened feedback loops, and transparency. 

Stakeholder involvement assists leaders in making better decisions and more effectively deploying implementation efforts. Stakeholder consensus is a decision-making process in which affected parties (stakeholders) seek to reach agreement on a course of action. In a consensus process, the stakeholders work together to find a mutually acceptable solution. This article will look at how to best work through the stakeholder consensus process. 

Be specific. Consider surveying stakeholders and providing a summary containing elements from each contributor so inclusion and value is given to each participant. Where needed, find the underlying cause of the issue by meeting with members 1-on-1, careful to avoid defensiveness brought about in larger group meetings. Use the phrase “joint-fact finding” to resolve technical and factual questions and help the group focus on the development of feasible options. Later, this will be the beginning of your full collaboration. Building consensus is often a two-part activity, the logical or quantitative and the “make it personal” or emotional stage. Be sure to have all your facts ready for open debate. Bring proof and supporting data to your quantitative portion. Do not overplay the emotional aspects that lose value if overplayed. 

DEFINE YOUR STAKEHOLDERS

The most common stakeholders in companies are:

• Founders and owners

• Customers 

• Employees 

• Creditors 

• Families 

• Competitors 

• Community  

It is hard to think about how you measure a company's contribution to its community even though healthcare organizations are required to formally assess community needs and design programs to address them. Identifying stakeholders, assessing their interests, capacities, and potential for reaching consensus-based agreements is key to being able to successfully gain consensus. 

BUILDING CONSENSUS

Consensus building is a way to structure and facilitate the process of multi-stakeholder, multi-issue negotiation. It is important to define consensus before opening the discussion so all involved will understand the goal. Consensus, typically defined as 70% of the stakeholders comfortable or agreeable to the decision made, can also take the form of unanimous decisions, supermajority (considerably more than 50%), or a simple majority (anything over 50%). Define consent as the greater good or better if the group and you agree to move forward with the decision (ensure it does not become an us-versus-them mentality). 

While consensus takes time and effort, the process leads to better decisions. The resulting proposals can address the concerns affecting the decision when considering the group perspectives. Unanimous decisions, while wonderful, are rare. Collaboration builds better group relationships rather than competing relationships. It builds closer relationships through the process, minimizes resentment and rivalry between winners and losers, and encourages better implementation of decisions when widespread agreement is achieved through everyone’s participation in the process. There are usually strong levels of cooperation when follow-through is consistent. There are not likely to be disgruntled losers who might undermine or passively sabotage effective implementation of the group's decision. All of which makes the process worth the effort. 

Occasionally a consensus forms from a single meeting, but oftentimes it takes more time and effort. A fact-finding pre-assessment is wise to prepare for the logical presentation of the issue in question. Defined details can lead to effective meetings with stakeholders in a 1-on-1 setting to avoid defensiveness and discover where their interests lie. These meetings create a suitable place to break the leadership bubble, show true humility, and see and treat others as equals. During the early phases of the conversation, it is important to identify the antagonists and vocal opinions.  

MANAGING THE ANTAGONIST

Each solution to the issue at hand will have supporters and antagonists. During the survey and 1-on-1 meetings conducted early in the process, it will become obvious where stakeholders stand on each option. Begin by defining why there is disagreement. Are the stakeholders not hearing each other or other options clearly? Do they hear and understand but have different experiences or values which create different options? Or is it more personal between stakeholders? Are personal issues between the stakeholders creating friction?

If it is personal, consider bringing in a third party, taking a break, and not trying to resolve the issues in a single session. Personal issues need time to tease out. No matter the reason for initial disagreement, by bringing in the outliers and vocal antagonists early, people can get comfortable with other opinions and dissension as well as feel included in the conversation. This will also show you where additional 1-on-1 sessions are needed to create consensus. 

WHEN CONSENSUS CANNOT BE REACHED

If stakeholders do not hear each other or bring unique perspectives, unique solutions, and dissension to the table, consider the following process to arrive at consensus:

• Define Alternatives. Discover what everyone does agree and disagree on.

• Write the issue in a visible place with alternative options listed. Be sure to define how much, how long, who, and what will be involved.

• Keep in mind that sometimes a go-forward decision must be made from the best of bad choices when none of them are ideal.

• Check for consensus. If consensus is not reached, discuss strengths and weaknesses for each alternative. Do not allow a supporter of a particular alternative to define its strengths, instead, have the antagonist do so. This may encourage agreement. For many disagreements, the weaknesses are equivalent to the strengths of the competing alternative. Once the group identifies this relationship, you can save time discussing the weaknesses.

• Check for consensus. If consensus is still not reached, merge alternatives wherever possible. Create a new alternative from the pros and cons of the individual alternatives and the new merged options. Choose the best option.

• Check for consensus. If you still do not have consensus, go back to your issue’s description, and build a criteria list based on the decision needed. Score the alternatives listed based on their ability to meet the criteria.

• Survey the group to see if the highest-scoring alternative will win consensus.

• If consensus cannot be reached, consider using a mediator.