Evaluating the processes and outcomes of stakeholder management often reveals the difficulty of proving a negative.
Best practice is so often hidden from view, making it hard to discern whether success is due to diligent effort or simply good fortune.
And there are reasons for this.
Identifying and prioritising stakeholders
Firstly, the identity of stakeholders and the priority afforded to them are not obvious – particularly to outsiders.
One of the reasons why stakeholder mapping is such a vital methodology is that often, it is only when exposing your situation to the rigours of that process that you discover who exactly they are and what you might wish to achieve with them.
For many organisations, there might be an infinite number of potentially significant stakeholders. Only you get to appreciate the trade-offs between concentrating on a few key stakeholders and trying to address a wider community.
Critics may claim that you are obviously getting something wrong because you seem to be neglecting stakeholders they think are important. Without knowing your assessment of your stakeholder base, they are in no position to make a judgement.
The disconnect between effort and outcome
Secondly, there is no direct causation link between effort and reward.
Rather like political lobbying (and there is, of course, an overlap), a failure to persuade does not mean that you are not observing best practice. Some of the most brilliantly executed campaigns - from a professional standpoint - fail to achieve their objectives. And, conversely, spectacular ‘wins’ can be secured by organisations deploying poor methods and displaying poor standards. Such is the serendipity of public, political and commercial life.
What is success?
In consequence, there is a dearth of literature on what exactly constitutes success in stakeholder management.
In essence, can you have a successful programme and yet fail to achieve your desired outcomes? It’s a little like asking if you can be a successful surgeon if your patients do not always survive. The clinician would presumably respond that his or her professional duty would have been to provide the best possible treatment given the condition of the patient and the likely range of outcomes. Such probably is the situation with those undertaking stakeholder management in many places.
Those who fail to secure particular results seldom mention it in public. The PR message will always be positive, but internally, questions may be asked. Was it an unwinnable argument? Or did we mishandle the dialogue? Indeed, are we good at doing this type of thing? After all, many companies and institutions outsource the task. Witness the growth of specialist ‘public affairs’ consultancies.
But not all stakeholders are ‘political’. Many are not, and there is less scope to hire someone else to undertake the necessary dialogues. Regardless, however, of who actually handles the contacts, they are conducted on behalf of your organisation, and it is your reputation that is at risk if they go wrong.
From time to time, there are public rows between organisations and their stakeholders.
Remember when farmers went public to complain about their treatment by the large supermarkets. Or when railway companies faced militant protests from angry passengers. Notice the deterioration in relations between Water companies and their Regulator – OfWAT. Or the long-running disenchantment of teachers and headteachers with OfSTED.
A distinction must be drawn between policies and practices which may be problematic for your stakeholders and the ongoing relationship which may need to be sustained at a reasonable level of effectiveness. If the substance of the dialogue is difficult, all the more reason to keep the relationship at as even a keel as possible.
The best analogy may be with the diplomatic service – where effort has to be expended creatively designing an environment where serious disagreements can be considered without destroying the means to discuss them.
So, we are left with substantive outcomes – and procedural outcomes. Best practice as observed in the process may or may not be relevant to what happens, but it is fair to expect that – all other things being equal - the better the process, the better the outcomes.
What practices can help?
Are there, therefore, best practices we can expect to enhance the likelihood of achieving good results? And, if so, what might they be? Here are some suggestions:
- Maintaining accurate information about the stakeholder. Sounds pretty basic, but not always easy. Unlike physical addresses or traditional telephone lines, people are nowadays more prone to change preferred contact points, and some are regarded as ‘promiscuous’ in the way they switch allegiance to social media platforms and the like. Have you developed a regular method for picking up such changes. Do you ever ask, “Are these still your contact details?” as my utility provider regularly does?
- Monitoring key events in the life of the stakeholder. Whether it is a company, a public body or even an individual, there are some developments, ignorance of which can prove embarrassing. A media monitoring service can provide some of this, but clued-up stakeholder management teams create their own schedules to ensure they look at Annual reports or regular milestones like public gatherings or press conferences.
- Setting minimum contact intervals for routine relationships. There are times of intensive interaction with specific stakeholders, but for many organisations, the relationship is more passive. It is a case of maintaining a ‘watching brief’ – always aware that if something happens, it is possible to swing into action and make immediate contact. For others, however, there may need to be a plan to maintain contact appropriate to the relationship. It could be a monthly or quarterly newsletter. Or maybe an annual briefing? Maybe a meeting at an industry conference; Or an annual social event?
It is so easy to let simple processes like this lapse, especially for less prominent contacts that are effectively on a ‘care-and-maintenance’ basis. Distractions or crises can tempt people to take their eyes off the ball; headcount reductions or changing priorities can reduce the available resources and suddenly, stakeholder management has lost some of its coverage.
Bring-up features on stakeholder management systems can obviously help but without engagement specialists, it is only too possible to lose focus and limit the visibility you have of the forces that can impact your organisation.
Best practice is often hidden away – in the knowledge and skills of stakeholder management professionals.
In simple terms, best practice equates to the best people with the best tools and the best training. When they aren’t there, it can become very noticeable very quickly. Extended reaction times or a compromised capability to respond to events can cost money, credibility and reputation.
This is the ultimate fear—an underlying risk that is often overlooked but can have serious consequences if not addressed.
In the third article, I focus on what your stakeholders themselves expect and how to build and maintain the most appropriate relationships with them.
Written by Rhion Jones
Rhion Jones was the Founder Director of the Consultation Institute and is an acknowledged authority on all aspects of public and stakeholder engagement and consultation. He advises Tractivity and will be contributing expert analysis and commentaries on current issues.
Rhion now publishes thought leadership articles regularly as the Consultation Guru.