v) Different Stakeholders Have Different Mindsets
Making the assumption that all staff members of the same organisation have a common knowledge core, a common purpose, common destiny, common expertise, common backgrounds, etc. It needs to be remembered that different stakeholders have different mindsets, agendas, etc and these need to be taken into account in any change process.
In addition to staff, other key stakeholders need to be understood. You need to know who they are and understand their needs.
Broad categories of stakeholders (4)
i) initiators (includes senior staff who initiate the change process, ie 'above' the change process; can be the hardest to handle)
ii) partners (usually work 'on' the change, ie
"...assist to design, develop and deliver the change..."
Barb Grant, 2023
iii) recipients (include users, customers, consumers, staff, etc; usually work 'in' the change process, ie
"...they receive and use the change..."
Barb Grant, 2023
iv) interested onlookers (indirectly impacted by the change, ie 'around' the change like regulators)
What do they want and don't want
i) change initiators
| Stakeholder type | What do they want from the change | What don't they want from the change |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Ministers and other political officials | - respect from political colleagues - positive media cover reach - realisation of key political agendas - positive media coverage - voters confidence |
- embarrassment - hostile scrutiny - critical articles and other negative publicity - disruption to business continuity - ammunition for the opposition |
| 2. Boards | - delivery on the Board's strategic plan - kudos from peers and public - positive media coverage, ie the Board is making a difference and improving the organisation's performance - cost reductions, profit increases, return on increased shareholder value |
- embarrassment - hostile scrutiny - critical articles and other negative publicity - disruption to business continuity - challenges to the board credibility and authority |
| 3. Executives | - delivery on the executive's strategic plan - kudos from all stakeholders inside and outside the organisation - approval of staff - increased chance of promotion - positive performance review - positive publicity |
- embarrassment - expose mistakes Fiji plan - failure to deliver strategic outcomes - Board and public censure - reputational risk (organisational, personal and professional) - ridicule of colleagues and staff |
| 4. General managers; directors; operational, strategic or functional managers; other senior management staff | - outstanding performance rating on their performance review - respected approval of direct manager - respect of executives - respect of employees - achievement of forward workplan - reduction of functional and departmental costs - increase in functional and departmental returns and/or volumes - reduction of impact around points of lower performance (inefficiencies, low profit, money wastage, low engagement, poor customer service, etc) |
- miss and/or expose mistakes in the strategic plan - failure to deliver strategic outcomes - executive and public censure - reputational risk ( organisational, personal and professional) - ridicule of colleagues and staff - being fired or demoted |
| 5. Regulators | - more compliance - safer environment - more standardisation - more efficient - enhance reputation for the regulation - respect of colleagues and peers, fellow regulatory organisation |
- less compliance - more hazardous - less standardisation - less efficiency - criticism of the regulators role and credibility |
(main source: Barb Grant, 2023)
ii) change partners
| Stakeholder type | What do they want from the change | What don't they want from the change |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Subject matter experts | - to be listened to - accepted as an expert - positive reference - more work - work satisfaction, ie added value |
- to be ignored - to be undermined - humiliated in front of peers, managers, colleagues, etc - reputational damage |
| 2. Vendors | - next sale - the positive reference - maximise profit from the assignment - to meet time and materials agreements made in the contract - secure ongoing maintenance contract - secure more work from the client - close alignment to what was requested and what they understood, ie no surprises - to do interesting, innovative work |
- embarrassment - to lose money - bad client reference - scope creep - reputational damage |
| 3. Media | - juicy stories (unfolding drama) - political hot buttons pushed - human interest angles - spectacular success or failure - wrongs righted or wrongs revealed |
- event-free delivery with no drama - lack of commentary and/or visibility of issues at play - lack of clarity on outcomes |
| 4. Lobby groups | - key lobby group agenda progressed or achieved - lobby issues get more visibility - core wrong righted - perceived justice - improve rights for their supporters - increased group membership - increased profile for group |
- negative publicity and/or ridicule of cause - counter issue given - increased attention - discreditation - loss of membership |
| 5. Unions | - increased rights and entitlements for members - opportunities for members - increase in membership and subscriptions - increase in respect the union and delegates - increased opportunities to raise issues - improved access to senior leaders and management - positive media coverage |
- decrease in rights and/or entitlements for members - produced opportunity for members - decrease in membership and subscriptions - loss of credibility and/or respect for the union - lost jobs for members - increase in union reach and power |
(main source: Barb Grant, 2023)
iii) change recipients
| Stakeholder type | What do they want from the change | What don't they want from the change |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Users | - quicker - easier - more efficient - more value - more recognition - more opportunity - more interesting - more status - more rewards and recognition - more personalised - more features - more convenient - more accessible - more skills |
- slower - more steps - harder - reduced access - less effective - less personal - less accessible - more boring - less status - job loss |
| 2. Consumers | - more for less - more range - more features - increase quality - increased efficiency - less expensive - more availability - easier - more authentic - more convenient |
- less of the same - less for more - reduced options - reduce support - fewer features - substitutions - inferior products - harder - less accessible - less authentic - less convenient |
| 3. Clients | - more for less - more range - more features - increase quality - increased efficiency - less expensive - more availability - easier - more authentic - more convenient |
- less personal - fewer features - less convenient - less accessible - less value - less quality - harder - less convenient - less authentic - less status |
(main source: Barb Grant, 2023)
iv) interested onlookers
| Stakeholder type | What do they want from the change | What don't they want from the change |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Subject matter experts | - makes their job easier or the same - streamlines relationships - reduces steps in process - streamlined operational model - reduces need to intervene - increases their power and status and/or that of the group and/or function |
- makes the job harder - you their bosses more problems - make things more complicated - increases steps in the process - increases the need to intervene - moves power and/or status elsewhere |
(main source: Barb Grant, 2023)
NB Use the above tables as primers to help understand the impact of the change on different stakeholders, ie it identifies their interest in and attitude to the upcoming change; need to modify as required, as every situation is unique, ie customise it to your organisation's needs.
It can be helpful in all stages of the change process, eg from the design through to implementation plus monitoring and evaluating performance.
It is a living document to be modified as required