How to Align Stakeholders in Change Management Communication

A PM at Google asked me how I managed 30+ stakeholders. 'More meetings?' Wrong. Here's the RACI framework that cut my meeting load by 60% while increasing influence. 1/ 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙫𝙨 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 Most PMs drown because they invite everyone who's "interested." Instead, split your stakeholders into: - R: People doing the work - A: People accountable for success 2/ 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙥 Stop asking for approval from everyone. Create two clear buckets: - C: Must consult before decisions - I: Just keep informed of progress 3/ 𝘿𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 > 𝙈𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 For "Informed" stakeholders, switch to documented updates. They'll actually retain more than in another recurring meeting. 4/ 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙋𝙝𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙚 "𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲, 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲." Use this in every email. Watch the right people emerge. 5/ 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙖𝙡 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 Build your approval flows around your R&A stakeholders only. Everyone else gets strategic updates. --- This isn't about excluding people. It's about respecting everyone's time while maintaining momentum. If you found this framework helpful for managing stakeholders: 1. Follow Alex Rechevskiy for more actionable frameworks on product leadership and time management 2. Bookmark and retweet to save these tactics and help other PMs streamline their stakeholder management

Aligning executive stakeholders with conflicting priorities is a puzzle many product people face. How do you solve it? When stakeholders pull in different directions, the secret isn't in aligning immediately around a product vision. Instead, elevate the conversation: align first on company goals. What outcomes do we aspire to achieve as a company? This unified understanding of company priorities becomes your north star. Here's how you can approach this: 1️⃣ Level Up the Discussion: Before diving into a product vision, ask stakeholders to agree on broader company goals. What did your CEO emphasize as priorities for your business? This context is crucial. It sets the stage for aligning individual goals to the bigger picture. 2️⃣ Connect Back to Product Vision: Once unified on company objectives, demonstrate how the product vision helps achieve these goals. "Here's our shared goal. Based on customer insights and priorities, this vision drives us towards it.” This shows your vision isn't just arbitrary—it's informed and intentional. 3️⃣ Seek Constructive Feedback: Encourage dialogue. Why might a stakeholder disagree with the vision? Is it truly about priorities, or personal impacts and unmet goals? This feedback refines your approach but remember, the product vision isn't a committee decision. It's guided by data and customer needs. 4️⃣ Give Credit and Build Back: Stakeholders feel valued when their input shapes outcomes. Make sure to recognize their contributions. This fosters trust and buy-in. Being stuck in the build trap often arises from chasing outputs over outcomes. Aligning on higher-level goals ensures your product strategy isn't just a list of features but a pathway to delivering real value. 🎯 So, next time conflicting priorities emerge, remember: align at the top, then articulate a product vision that navigates towards those shared company goals. How have you managed stakeholder alignment in your organization? Share your experiences!

Your stakeholder register is lying to you. Because you can’t spreadsheet your way out of sabotage. PMs love stakeholder registers ✔️ Name ✔️ Title ✔️ RACI role ✔️ Comms plan ✔️ Influence level It looks like alignment. It feels like control. But it’s fantasy. And completely out of touch with how power actually moves. Because your spreadsheet doesn’t capture: – The VP who nods in meetings but blocks you behind closed doors – The “low influence” engineer who derails everything with one Slack thread – The exec who only listens when the request comes from his favorite lead – The silent skeptic who’s secretly lobbying against the project – The director who delays initiatives to protect their turf – The architect quietly blocking progress because they weren’t consulted – The sponsor who “supports you” but vanishes when things get political – The “neutral” stakeholder who’s been quietly rallying dissent – The teams that pretend to align, then stall in silence This isn’t project management. This is political warfare, & most PMs are walking into it unarmed. Stakeholder maps lie. They ignore power that isn’t on the org chart. They reduce human complexity to color-coded rows. And here’s the truth: If you’re not actively managing workplace politics, they are actively managing you. ✅ Real stakeholder management means – Reading body language in meetings – Anticipating objections before they’re voiced – Knowing when to elevate & when to backchannel – Earning trust before you need it – Navigating ego and insecurity – Building coalitions before pushback happens – Reading the org chart & the shadow org – Knowing who to ask, who to influence, & who to stay the hell away from 📌 Because not every stakeholder wants you to succeed. 📌 Not every decision is made in meetings. 📌 Power is emotional. 📌 Influence is earned, & lost, off the record. 📌 And not every title equals real power. So how do you navigate the politics? ✅ Map the shadow org: Who really makes decisions? Who can block you informally? ✅ Pre-align before meetings: The real work happens in 1:1s, not in the room. ✅ Identify “ego risks”: Who needs to feel heard, respected, or “right” to stay cooperative? ✅ Speak their language: Translate your project goals into their priorities. ✅ Build alliances early: You don’t win power by asking for it, you earn it through trust. ✅ Know when to go around, not through: Not every fight is worth having head-on. Politics aren’t a side quest. They’re the main event. This is the game behind the Gantt chart. And no spreadsheet will play it for you. If you don’t know who’s holding the real levers, You’re just project managing in the dark. Influence isn’t captured in rows & columns. It’s built in quiet conversations, earned trust, & power you don’t see on the slide deck. Lead the people. Not the list. ♻️ Repost to help other #PMs navigate #officepolitics 🔔 Follow Elizabeth Dworkin for more on #strategicvisibility #TechPM #projectmanagement

Why I'm Breaking Up with Feedback After years of loyally asking for "feedback" during change initiatives, I've made a decision: we're breaking up. It's not you, feedback. It's me. I've found someone else: Advice. ✨ Here's what sparked this relationship shift: I recently learned how Pixar transforms their creative process by showing early storyboards to their "Brain Trust" - not for feedback, but specifically for advice. This seemingly small linguistic shift creates a fundamentally different dynamic: 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸: - People become critics evaluating our work - Responses feel obligatory and often generic - Contributors don't know how their input will be used - The power dynamic positions us as seeking approval 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲: - People become collaborators sharing expertise - We acknowledge their specific knowledge or experience - The request feels more intentional and targeted - We signal genuine interest in their perspective 🤔 Think about it: when a friend asks for "feedback" on a presentation, it feels like homework. When they ask for your advice on making their presentation stronger, you feel valued for your expertise, right? People love giving advice! In change management, this distinction is particularly powerful. Instead of: "We'd like your feedback on the new process" 💡 Try: "Based on your experience with the current workflow, what advice would you give us to make this transition smoother?" The first approach invites criticism. The second invites partnership. This isn't just semantics. It represents a fundamental shift in how we engage stakeholders during change. By requesting advice rather than feedback, we: 1. Signal that we value specific expertise 2. Create psychological ownership in the solution 3. Transform critics into collaborators 4. Receive more actionable input I'm testing this approach in my current transformation project, specifically asking different stakeholders for advice based on their unique perspectives rather than generic feedback. Have you experienced the difference between these approaches? Would you be willing to experiment with asking for advice instead of feedback in your next change initiative or project? #ChangeManagement #LeadershipDevelopment #StakeholderEngagement #OrganizationalChange #Feedback

Clear strategy. Solid plan. Adequate resources. Yet your transformation is still struggling. The missing ingredient? Effective communication. I've learned that communication can make or break your change efforts. Here are the critical dos and don'ts that separate success from failure: 1. DO start with why before what DON'T jump straight to implementation details 2. DO tailor messages to different stakeholder groups DON'T use one-size-fits-all communication 3. DO address the "What's in it for me?" question DON'T assume people automatically see personal relevance 4. DO communicate regularly and consistently DON'T go silent during difficult phases 5. DO create two-way dialogue channels DON'T rely solely on top-down messaging 6. DO acknowledge concerns and resistance openly DON'T dismiss or minimize people's fears 7. DO use visual communication tools DON'T depend only on verbal or written messages 8. DO prepare leaders at all levels to communicate effectively DON'T expect executives alone to carry the message 9. DO celebrate early wins and progress DON'T wait until the end to recognize achievements 10. DO communicate honestly about challenges DON'T sugarcoat difficulties or overpromise results Communication isn't just part of change strategy — It IS your change strategy. Which do you find most challenging to implement in your organization?