What do you do if your decision affects senior stakeholders negatively?

Decisions should be grounded in thorough impact assessments and clear justifications, irrespective of initial perceptions. While some decisions may appear to yield short-term setbacks, they often lead to long-term benefits. Senior stakeholders are inclined to support decisions when they perceive their underlying value However, if a mistake occurs, it's essential to acknowledge it transparently and take corrective measures promptly. Fabricating justifications to save face only undermines credibility and not otherwise. Admitting mistakes and taking proactive corrective actions are crucial for maintaining trust and integrity.

In my experience, doing your homework is VERY important. Prepare and document the impact of your decision on multiple fronts with clearly articulated pros and cons. Doing this will ensure that your decision is looked objectively and not a personal choice.

Your stakeholders are extremely busy. It is vital, especially if you have unfavorable news to make sure you have sufficient time to present your findings, but also to allow for follow-up questions and discussion time. You may want to consider setting more than one meeting. Perhaps one to present your findings and answer immediate questions, a second meeting to review and discuss what everyone has been digging into since the original presentation, and maybe more meetings after that to continue the discussion process and how to best address the unfavorable news and the next steps forward.

I can only think of one “negative” communication from a PM. Trough vigilance, diligence and an ever growing portfolio of experience we manage crises. Vigilance - what can go wrong,how do I deal with it- we do, day in day out. Clearly explaining these risks, clearly presenting the options and demands to mitigate, eradicate or accept these risks is a core part of stakeholder communication. Taking the stakeholders along a pragmatic journey to a realistic acceptable delivery of use to the business a key skill all PMs need. The energy confusion, shifting demands, budget and staff cuts create - thats the reason we get up. The only negative news I can think of is “we did not deliver what was agreed on time”- that is failure.

There is always a Plan B, even before Plan A is agreed. Indeed there should be a Plan C and possibly even a “ D”. In so doing we demonstrate the appreciation of the demand, the ability and availability of the resources the demand creates for and the obstacles all well meaning organisation innocently create as part of their operating model and available budgets. When Plan A is settled upon and signed off, it will already be associated with risks and possibly issues- and the PM needs to have established clear criteria with stakeholders which trigger execution of a mitigating activity. As additional risks and issues arise each has a options which mitigate and as part of stakeholder discussions agreed triggers executing mitigation.

Open dialogue between stakeholders and project managers manages the delicate balance between progress and the impact of risks and issues. The PM’s transparent reporting on progress, achievements, and potential setbacks allows stakeholders to shape and form the progress reports they provide in their management meetings. An accountability/responsibility matrix clearly identifies key actors and communication channels through which agreement on impacts and mitigation plans are achieved. Such collaborative efforts cultivate a shared understanding of project dynamics, fostering accountability at every stage and all levels within an organization. Alignment and informed decision-making across the organization lead to positive outcomes.

When your decisions negatively impact senior stakeholders, prioritize transparency, communication, and accountability. Engage in honest dialogue, explaining the rationale and acknowledging the impact. Agree on actions to mitigate negative consequences or leverage positive outcomes. Demonstrate accountability by taking responsibility and executing agreed-upon measures effectively. Your committed follow-through will be closely observed, presenting an opportunity to showcase leadership qualities like integrity and resilience. Manage the aftermath diligently to sustain and enhance stakeholder relationships for the future.

My experience - I would say follow the decision process. The purpose of a programme governance is to deal with the decision process. In a robust system - a decision is made by steering committee involving senior stakeholders and sponsor, while it is expected that a programme manager (takes team along) to provide recommendations involving scenarios/ options (best, base, worst cases) built around impact to cost, timeline and risk such that the senior stakeholders are able to assess and take an informed decision. It does not matter if it impacts stakeholders negatively or positively - what matters for decisions is the impact to programme benefits and therefore to the business. If there is no programme, there is no stakeholders!