Work With The Stakeholders

Apart from with the team members, the project leader needs to build and maintain good relationships with others who have an interest in the process and in the outcome. They are often described as stakeholders. The project sponsor (that is the person who, or body that, commissions the project) is clearly an important stakeholder. The others include those who may be affected by the results or have interests in the outcome, and people who supply services to the project team on, say, a subcontracted basis. If you are going to do this part of your job well you will need to be an effective negotiator, manage expectations well and be especially competent at keeping everyone fully informed.

Agreeing objectives and performance criteria might involve a negotiation. Your sponsor and your team may want broadly the same outcome but may differ on the precise wording of the objectives and may wish to establish rather different performance criteria for ensuring the success of the project. There may be other people in the firm with an interest in the project who want to see the results biased in a particular direction that suits them and their immediate colleagues. You may have to use your negotiating skills to deliver an outcome that gives them some degree of satisfaction but does not detract from the broader aims that you, your team and your sponsor wish to achieve. There may also be some negotiations required if you obtain services from suppliers and subcontractors such as externally resourced research.

Whether a negotiation is about contracts or resources, a family matter or even international affairs, it is commonplace for each side to take a position, argue for it and perhaps eventually make concessions to reach a compromise. On the face of it this may sound like a reasonably satisfactory process. After all, a compromise suggests that both parties will get something by looking for trade-offs or splitting the difference. It may produce a moderately good result but it is unlikely to be an optimum settlement. The main problem with bargaining in this way is that people often tend to lock themselves into their respective positions. The more we seek to defend our positions the more committed we become to them. Our egos become involved and the negotiation takes on the characteristic of face saving. As more attention is devoted to positions, the underlying interests of the parties tend to be forgotten. Agreements become less likely or the result is a halfway measure that does not really satisfy either party. The process is sometimes bedevilled with deceits, stonewalling and walkouts. It is a battle of wills. At worst, if the negotiators are ‘hard’ bargainers who use pressure and intimidation then relationships may be strained or even permanently damaged. People may stop talking to each other.

Some people are aware of the danger of bargaining toughly over positions. They go to the opposite extreme of making early offers and concessions and yielding frequently to avoid confrontations. They hope that by building and maintaining a friendly relationship, then mutually satisfactory outcomes will follow. The danger for the ‘soft’ negotiator, of course, is losing out, especially when facing someone who is playing a ‘hard’ game.

At the Harvard Negotiating Project described by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (1982), a different approach is recommended. The method, called principled negotiation, comprises four elements. These are:

  1. People. Separate the people from the problem.
  2. Interests. Focus on interests not positions.
  3. Options. Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
  4. Criteria. Insist that the result be based on objective standards.

People

Separating the people from the problem means trying to get away from the notion that the negotiators are adversaries involved in a personal faceto-face confrontation. Rather it requires the parties to think of themselves as partners in a rational side-by-side search for a fair agreement that satisfies the interests of both. There are two ways that you can try to achieve this. The first is to build and maintain good working relationships before you begin to negotiate. The second is to recommend the benefits of a joint problem-solving approach and to seek agreement on doing it this way before you negotiate about the substantive issues. It is a form of ‘talks about talks’.

Interests

Focus on interests rather than positions. The real problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions but rather in the differences between each party’s needs, concerns, desires and fears. Interests motivate people and they are usually the silent underpinning of positions. Aclassic example of identifying the real interests that underpinned positions was the Egyptian–Israeli peace treaty formulated at Camp David in the United States in 1978. Members of the Harvard Negotiating Project team were advisers. Israel had occupied the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula since the Six Day War in 1967. When Egyptian and Israeli representatives sat down together in 1978 to negotiate a peace, their positions were incompatible. Israel insisted on keeping some of the Sinai. Egypt, on the other hand, insisted that every inch of the Sinai be returned to Egyptian sovereignty. Time and again, people drew maps showing possible boundary lines that would divide the Sinai between Egypt and Israel. Compromising in this way was wholly unacceptable to Egypt. To go back to the situation as it was in 1967 was equally unacceptable to Israel.

Looking to their interests instead of their positions made it possible to develop solutions. Israel’s interest lay in security; they did not want Egyptian tanks poised on their border ready to roll across at any time. Egypt’s interest lay in sovereignty: the Sinai had been part of Egypt since the time of the Pharaohs. Egypt had only recently regained full sovereignty after centuries of domination by the Greeks, Romans, Turks, French and British. It was not about to cede territory to another foreign conqueror. At Camp David, President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel agreed a plan that would return the Sinai to complete Egyptian sovereignty and, by demilitarizing large areas, would assure Israel security. The Egyptian flag would fly everywhere but Egyptian tanks would be nowhere near Israel.

Reconciling interests works because when you examine opposite positions for the underlying motivating interests it is possible to invent options that meet the interests of both parties. It is also possible to discover compatible interests that may be disguised when the attention is placed primarily on positions. Take the example of a project leader negotiating a completion date with the sponsor. The project leader may argue that nine months is needed to complete the project. The sponsor may press for six months. A compromise of seven and a half months if they simply focus on positions would satisfy neither party properly. Examinations of the interests of both might reveal a sensible solution. For instance, it might become apparent that the sponsor’s real interest is a quick completion to satisfy commitments previously given to senior colleagues or clients. The project leader’s motivation might be a highquality piece of work that, given existing resources, requires a longer period for completion. Once these facts are revealed it may be possible to find a mutually satisfying outcome involving, for instance, the subcontracting of some of the project work or the inclusion of one or two extra team members. In this way the six-month deadline could be achieved (the sponsor’s interest) and a quality job could be guaranteed (the project leader’s interest).

Options

Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. When people bargain over positions they are, in effect, negotiating about moving up or down a scale. Should the target date be brought forward or put back? Is the price of the house too high or too low? Should the lease period be increased or reduced? There is a tendency to see the exercise in terms of winning or losing. If identified interests are to be satisfied then the parties need to set time aside during the negotiation to brainstorm possible ways of doing just that and then evaluating the options before deciding what they are actually going to do. The techniques involved are those described in Chapter 8. This problem-solving approach to negotiating is only possible if good working relationships have already been established and if agreement has been reached to treat the negotiation as a cooperative rather than as an adversarial exercise. This may not always be possible in negotiations between strangers or between different institutions, but should be feasible in those between project leaders and sponsors working in the same firm.

Criteria

The final element in the Harvard Negotiating Project’s approach to principled negotiations is to insist that the result be based on objective criteria. If this is not done there is a danger of horse-trading. For instance, the project sponsor may say to the project leader, ‘I went along with you on cost and deadlines and it is now your turn to go along with my wording of the project objective’. This is unsatisfactory. The outcome of each part of the negotiation needs to be based on principle rather than pressure. It is helpful for you to propose that your agreement be based on criteria such as professional standards, precedents, corporate values, scientific judgements, market values and equitable treatment. Clearly, getting agreement on the objective criteria against which the substantive outcomes may be judged is in itself a negotiation. You and the person with whom you are negotiating may find it difficult to agree on objective criteria. If so, one way of overcoming the problem is to ask a third party, someone you both regard as fair, to choose criteria that are appropriate to your situation. You are not asking that person to settle your substantive issue but rather to advise you on what standards to use to settle it.

In a negotiation between a project leader and a sponsor there may be precedents within the firm that provide guidance. These might include the amount of time that people typically give to part-time project work, the degree to which work can be subcontracted to outsiders and the ways in which information should be presented and communicated. It is helpful to base the negotiated results on such criteria to avoid outcomes being biased by pressure, the exploitation of power and contests of will.

You will have met the stakeholders’ expectations if you and your team achieve the agreed objectives and the performance criteria. But this will not be the whole story. People have other expectations as well. When as clients we seek the service of a professional adviser, we are not only interested in that person’s reputation for technical competence. We are also keen to know if we are likely to be kept fully informed regularly about progress, whether or not our adviser is going to be easy to contact, if we can expect jargon-free and easy-to-read documents and whether or not we can anticipate pleasant and comfortable interactions. In other words there are a number of less tangible service criteria that are important to us, as well as the reputation of the adviser for providing outstanding advice. It is exactly the same in project management. It is helpful to pay attention to the intangibles as well as the tangibles. Agood starting point is to get an idea of the stakeholders’ preferences for the ways that you and they will relate. You can do this by chatting and observing. For example, some stakeholders like to be kept informed about progress in writing. Others prefer a discussion. Some like details spelt out and others prefer a synopsis. Some only want to be kept informed if major changes or delays occur. Others like to be advised routinely on progress. Some prefer formal presentations and others welcome informal chats. Know your stakeholders’ preferences and act accordingly. The success of your project may be just as dependent on meeting these sorts of expectations as achieving the formal objectives and performance criteria. Knowing the preferences of your stakeholders is at the core of building good working relationships.

If major changes such as a delay in completing the project become unavoidable then it is vital to inform the stakeholders at the earliest opportunity. It is helpful to bring expectations into line with reality. It is a bit like the difference between being kept informed about progress on a delayed aeroplane departure time and not being told. Neither situation is appealing but I get far more frustrated with the latter than the former. When I am told what the new take-off time is then my expectations change and I can do some shopping, go for a snack or read a book. When I am not told, I hang around and get irritated because I don’t know what is happening. I find it difficult to make other arrangements. The important thing is to advise stakeholders of significant changes at the earliest opportunity and then keep them up to date about progress.

Of course, if you are lucky enough to exceed expectations with a project then not only will you and your team receive well-deserved plaudits but quite possibly your career will receive a boost as well. One way in which you can influence expectations, so that you stand a better chance of exceeding them, is not to over-promise and under-deliver. Some project leaders fall into the trap of promising to meet unrealistic deadlines in order to create a favourable early impression. It is usually prudent and more effective to do the reverse.

There are a couple of other points about communicating with stakeholders that are worth bearing in mind. For those of your stakeholders who wish to be kept informed about progress on a regular basis, a convenient way is to link communications with milestones or phased stages of project completion. Your communications could follow the review meetings that you have with the project team. The second point is that it is all too easy to forget to communicate when you are busy. If you really do not have the time to talk personally with the stakeholders or to write a report, then send them e-mails to reassure them that the project is going well. Tell them that you will be in touch with more detailed information within the next week. And then make sure that you do it!