Techniques for Managing Stakeholder Expectations in Agile

I’ve had to protect my team in the past, particularly when their time or focus was at risk. I’ve seen this happen at companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, where mandates and initiatives would stack during the same timeframe. While each initiative alone might have been reasonable, together they overburdened the teams. Those compiled costs may be invisible to the folks driving the individual mandates. You may have seen teams get overwhelmed by a major release, a review cycle, and bi-annual business planning all at once. This type of time management stress is usually manageable, but there are times when teams can be stretched too thin and compromise morale and quality. When you witness this, I believe it’s crucial to step in. You will hear from your team and you need to be close enough to the issues to decide how to respond. This can be tricky for a leader: on one hand, you want to ensure your team can succeed; on the other, you’re part of the broader leadership and need to support the decisions being made. Sometimes, you have very little room to maneuver. In those cases, I find it most effective to have a private conversation with key decision-makers. Meeting behind closed doors allows you to present the reality of your team’s capacity without putting anyone on the spot. Armed with clear data or project plans, you can often negotiate more realistic timelines or priorities. Another common pressure is when stakeholders create frequent direction changes. Repeated shifts in goals or features will thrash your team and waste energy. This often reflects deeper issues with strategy, alignment, and communication. However, you may not have time for a complete overhaul of your planning processes, and you still need a way to prevent thrash. A short-term fix is to set firm near-term milestones or “freeze” dates, after which any changes must go through a formal triage process. This ensures that if changes are necessary, they follow a transparent, deliberate sequence rather than blindsiding. After the freeze, broader project changes can be considered. Ultimately, I see my responsibility as a leader as fostering an environment where my team can perform at a high level, stay motivated, and avoid burnout. Part of a leader's role is to protect their team’s capability and long-term health. There will always be sprints and times when you need to push, but you also need to consider the long view and put on the brakes when required. People who feel supported are more productive, more creative, and likely to stay engaged.

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!

How I Balance Multiple Stakeholders Without Dropping the Ball as a Program Manager at Amazon Product wants speed. Science wants rigor. Leadership wants results. And sometimes…none of them agree. As a Program Manager, my job isn’t to make everyone happy…it’s to make sure the program moves forward with clarity. Here’s how I balance competing stakeholder needs…without dropping the ball: 1/ I start by mapping what each stakeholder actually cares about ↳ Product: time-to-market ↳ Science: accuracy ↳ Leadership: customer impact Example: I create a “stakeholder map” doc for every large program. I list priorities, concerns, and success metrics…then share it back to align. 2/ I highlight trade-offs early…not late ↳ “We can move faster, but it may reduce model quality” ↳ Let them weigh the cost, not me Example: In one launch, I gave two timeline options…one fast, one thorough. Instead of me deciding, I let the stakeholders align based on their priorities. 3/ I make decisions visible ↳ Every trade-off, agreement, and change is documented ↳ No “but I thought we said…” Example: I include a decision log in the shared tracker. When direction changes, I update the rationale and tag the stakeholders. 4/ I recap every meeting in 3 lines ↳ Who’s doing what ↳ By when ↳ And why Example: After every alignment call, I post a Slack recap: “Decision: Option B. Launch moves to 6/15. Product to update PRD by EOW.” No confusion. 5/ I check in 1:1 when things get tense ↳ Group settings aren’t always safe spaces ↳ One DM can realign everything Example: When tension built between two teams, I set up short 1:1s to understand each side…then found common ground offline before we regrouped. You don’t need to please everyone. You just need to keep them aligned enough to move forward. What’s your strategy for managing multiple stakeholder voices?

If You Give a Stakeholder a Cookie, He'll Want a Glass of Milk The second principle behind the Manifesto for Agile Software Development (MASD) is: "Welcome changing requirements, even late in development." Stakeholders love to quote the first three words. They treat it like a blank check to change anything, anytime, without consequence - because, you know, "We're Agile." But they skip the next sentence: "Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage." As Lance Dacy wisely pointed out in his earlier post (which inspired this one), that principle could use a small addition: "...for the customer's competitive advantage, but not without consequences." Change isn't free. It costs time, effort, rework, context switching - and sometimes morale. The Deli Counter Imagine you order a sandwich at a deli counter. They start making it, and halfway through you say: "Actually, can you make it a double-decker? Oh, and start again and put the sauce on the side. And could you please add bacon, avocado, a bag of chips, and a cookie?" Would you expect the price to change? Why? All you did was clarify your requirements. They could do it - but there's extra cost, extra time. Other customers will have to wait longer for their lunch. That's what "welcome changing requirements" means - it's allowed, but it comes with trade-offs. Someone is paying - you, the deli guy, or the other customers. The Ripple Effect on Other MASD Principles Abusing "welcome change" undermines the entire MASD foundation. Principle 1: Satisfy customers through continuous delivery of valuable software. Uncontrolled change make continuous delivery nearly impossible. Principle 3: Deliver working software frequently. Frequent changes break cadence. Principle 7: Working software is the primary measure of progress. If scope keeps shifting, "working" becomes a moving target. Principle 9: Technical excellence enhances agility. Rushed changes accumulate tech debt, reducing long-term agility. The Costs Notice the hidden costs: -Sprint Goals corrupted by mid-sprint changes -New tech debt from rushed or poorly-designed work -Velocity gaming as teams sandbag estimates Ask the right questions: -What competitive advantage does this change provide? -What gets displaced to make room? The Discipline In Scrum, changes go through the Product Backlog. The PO prioritizes. Gatekeeper, not order-taker. In Kanban, replenishment policies regulate how and when new items displace others. WIP limits force tough conversations about priority and capacity. When someone waves the MASD like a hall pass: 1) Filter: What competitive advantage does this provide? 2) Impact: How does this affect other team commitments and MASD principles? 3) Triage: What are we comfortable delaying? The question isn't can we welcome change - it's should we? So the next time a stakeholder wants a change mid-sprint, smile and ask: "Would you like a cookie with that?" Yeah... and a glass of milk.