Ensuring Stakeholder Alignment On Key Issues

Your brilliant strategy means nothing if Sarah from Finance, John from Legal, and the entire APAC leadership team don't fully buy in. This isn't the sexy part of business leadership, but stakeholder alignment is where market-changing initiatives live or die. I learned this the hard way at HP, navigating a project where 13 global business units were locked in a silent war over the same product. Each was convinced their perspective was the only right one. The standard approach? Endless meetings, forced consensus, and thinly-veiled power plays. Anytime lots of people need to agree, it can slow down a project—and I like hitting deadlines. So, I've developed a tactic to speed up decision-making: 1. Map the invisible battlefield first Start by understanding each stakeholder's position privately. This reveals the true constraints and red lines that would never surface in group settings. For enterprise projects, I always interview all business units separately, identify discrepancies, and then bring key findings to the global stakeholder who makes the final call. 2. Design the decision architecture The most contentious projects require clear decision rights. Establish who inputs, who recommends, who decides—and stick to it religiously. Remember: ultimately, there is someone who is the decider. The RACI chart exists for a reason. Understanding what the approver wants is critical, especially since they typically have the least time to give. 3. Create a controlled collision Once you understand the landscape, deliberately bring conflicting viewpoints into plain sight resolves issues faster when the quiet part is said out loud. In my experience, you actually get to the root of the value when people discuss in detail what's different. We specifically drive stakeholders together to discuss discrepancies we've identified. 4. Hunt for the “valuable dissenter” The loudest objector often holds crucial opinions that can elevate your entire approach—if you're willing to listen. On a recent project, there was a stakeholder who was a really “vocal” dissenter. We wanted to know why, we spent considerable time listening to understand their perspective. They didn't get everything they wanted, but they made a significant impact on the final direction—and both sides ended up satisfied. By taking the time, I am confident we delivered a better product for everyone. 5. Know when to move forward Perfect alignment is a myth. Recognize when you've reached critical mass. I've learned that if there's one dissenter out of a dozen stakeholders and everyone else is aligned—especially if the concerns aren't catastrophic—then it's usually time to move forward. These principles have helped me navigate enterprise-level projects that seemed politically impossible. What's the most difficult stakeholder alignment challenge you’ve ever faced, and how did you handle it?

“Just because you CC’d three stakeholders doesn’t mean you’re multithreaded.” I was reviewing a stalled enterprise deal with a team in Johannesburg. The CRM looked healthy — multiple contacts from different departments logged, emails tracked, even a few meetings booked with adjacent stakeholders. But nothing was moving. We called the champion. He said: “I shared the proposal with finance, but I’m not sure what they thought. Haven’t heard back.” That’s when it hit us: Access was not the issue. Alignment was. ✅ Here’s the difference: – Access means multiple people are involved – Alignment means those people agree on value, urgency, and fit Multithreading isn’t about getting everyone on your calls. It’s about understanding what each stakeholder needs, fears, and prioritizes — and building trust separately with each of them. In this case: – Finance had concerns about switching costs – IT wanted to know about integrations – Ops didn’t want another platform to manage But none of that had been addressed because we treated multithreading like a contact sport, not a strategy. ✅ What we changed: – Mapped each stakeholder’s priorities and blockers – Customized follow-up messages and content for each persona – Crafted responses for possible objections for each persona – Asked our champion who was resisting, not just who was copied 🎯 The behavioral traps: – Vanity Metrics: More contacts ≠ more momentum – False Consensus: Multiple replies can hide silent dissent – Delegation Bias: Assuming your champion is managing alignment behind the scenes Real multithreading is uncomfortable. It forces us to build more relationships, uncover more objections, and personalize more communication. But it’s also how enterprise deals actually close. 📌 If your deal depends on one person forwarding your proposal, you’re one reorg away from dead pipeline. 📥 Follow me for more insights. Repost if this resonated.

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 transformed chaos into a high-trust environment (Just by asking better questions.) Stakeholder alignment is not easy And this situation tested everything I knew about it. I was leading a critical project with tight deadlines. But one stakeholder was not aligned. She didn’t trust her team. She believed control delivers results. Her working style caused chaos: → She’d would approve a plan, then reverse it. → She would micromanage every detail. → Decisions were emotional, not strategic. This had a negative impact on the project: → The team was frustrated. → Deadlines were slipping. → Team morale was dropping. Here’s how I shifted her mindset and got her to trust the process: 1/ Addressed the fear behind the behavior ↳ I asked: “What’s your biggest concern right now?” ↳ She admitted she feared the project would fail and reflect poorly on her. ↳ Identified what was driving the micromanagement. 2/ Created structure that builds confidence ↳ I shared a clear roadmap with milestones. ↳ Then I asked: “Can we agree to revisit changes only in our weekly syncs?” ↳ She agreed, and we avoided frequent disruptions. 3/ Shifted her from control to contribution ↳ I asked: “Which part of the project would you like to own?” ↳ She chose one area and took full responsibility. ↳ Sharing regular updates reduced her doubts. 4/ Made progress visible ↳ Each week, I presented results in data, not opinions. ↳ Her trust grew as she saw the team’s delivery data. The result? → Frantic emails stopped. → Last-minute changes stopped. → She started trusting the team and the plan. This wasn’t just a project win. It transformed how we worked together. The lesson: You don’t manage stakeholders. You align them. So, always= Ask questions → Set boundaries → Build trust. PS: Ever turned a difficult stakeholder into a champion?

As I am coaching PMs, I often get the question on how I navigate alignment challenges between cross-functional partners. I spent many years at YouTube building products where safety and user value must coexist. Finding common ground when the stakes are high and opinions diverse felt draining but over time I’ve come to enjoy the process. There is both an art and science to aligning stakeholder. One of the key things I've learned is thinking of alignment at three levels - Problem, Principles, and Product. 1️⃣ Problem - Starting with the Right Question I can't tell you how many times I've been in a room where we've spent hours debating solutions only to realize we weren't even solving the same problem. I remember one particular project where our team had many meetings of increasingly tense discussion before someone finally asked, "Wait, what problem are we trying to solve here?" It was a weird question to ask and felt like we are going backwards. But in that moment we realized how misaligned we were on the problem itself. 2️⃣ Principles - Your North Star in Difficult Terrain Clear principles are non-negotiable, especially for products focused on Safety and Responsibility. They serve as guardrails when you hit those inevitable crossroads where all paths forward involve tough trade-offs. A good way to test whether the principles are written well is to see if they can help answer questions like "Do we delay launch to address this use case? Are we ok to miss the near term opportunity?" 3️⃣ Product - Where the Rubber Meets the Road This is where alignment gets really tested. In my experience, developing options is the secret weapon for driving alignment at the product level. I typically spend hours in 1-1’s trying to understand everyone's perspective before bringing the group together to review options. Something I learned listening to Lenny’s podcast with Ami Vora is that pushback often indicates the other person knows something you don't. So rather than getting defensive, try to approach disagreements as learning opportunities. In evaluating options, I've found that simple pros and cons lists don't help much. Every option will have pros and cons! Instead, I define a few key dimensions that matter based on our product principles and company priorities. Then I grade each option against these dimensions (e.g high/med/low impact). This approach leads to much richer trade-off discussions. It's very rare for one option to be "green" on all dimensions, and that's where the real alignment work happens - deciding what matters most to the company and what you're not willing to compromise on. 👉 Alignment isn't about getting everyone to agree with you. It's about creating a shared understanding of the problem, establishing clear principles, and facilitating informed decisions about the product. Thanks James Beser for coaching me on the art and science of driving Cross-Functional Alignment. Link to the detailed post in my comments.