Beyond Stakeholders (or Why Accountability Matters More than Alignment)

Written By Gary Zorko

A History of Failure

“The company’s long-anticipated ERP modernization has been described by many as ‘an abject failure’ and ‘a big disappointment.’ Can you pinpoint any causes, and looking back, what would you have done differently?”

This is an imagined but plausible line of questioning. For years, the business technology-focused press has informed us that a worryingly large number of technology projects don’t go according to plan. These efforts—CRM revamp, mobile app launch, website redesign—miss schedule and budget targets to the point where they lose support and collapse or limp across the finish line, diminished in scope and impact (usually tarnishing the credibility and reputations of those involved).

Disappointing outcomes are often blamed on a lack of alignment and failure to include stakeholders during the various phases of a project. Our imaginary Project Manager defends:

“We talked to the stakeholders regularly. We involved them from the beginning - maybe over-involved them. We took their feedback, got alignment, and kept them informed. We’re still looking at the reasons this went sideways, but I can tell you we covered our bases with stakeholders”

Of course, good technology leadership is critical to the ultimate success of these projects. At the same time, the strongest IT leader cannot save a sinking project alone, much less when the ship was built from dodgy timber.

What is a stakeholder? Investopedia sums it up:

“A stakeholder is an individual or a group of individuals with an interest, often financial, in the success of a business. The primary stakeholders in a corporation include its investors, employees, customers, and suppliers.”

Stakeholders are those who stand to benefit from the successful implementation of a project. Stakeholders expect to get, and nothing in that description assumes they give anything. Furthermore, Investopedia goes on:

“A common problem is that the interests of various stakeholders may not align. In fact, they may be in direct conflict.”

Alignment with and between stakeholders is crucial. Alignment is the bedrock of shared reality where projects are concerned, but it is not the key factor. It is incumbent upon us as leaders to look beyond “get” and insist on “give.”

Insisting on “Give”

The surest way to send an enterprise transformation effort down a destructive path is to brand it an “IT project.” To do so puts Technology in an untenable position, trying to dictate requirements, mandate participation, and quantify success when they own neither the expertise nor the institutional power to do any of those things - all of the responsibility, with none of the accountability. While we can’t take those on, we can establish with the company leadership (to the very top) that they must own and model accountability for those things and more.

Executive sponsors? Weak! Sponsorship is permission, not ownership and involvement.

Departmental champions? Ceremonial! Claiming to back something doesn’t mean you’re willing to get your hands dirty.

Before a single requirement is documented, ahead of budget or schedule, “Accountabilityholders” (a term that should be normalized and brandished in tandem with “stakeholder”) must be identified and pledged to service. Accountability holders (and those to whom they delegate some responsibility) are on the hook to give on behalf of those who want to receive. Since some of those folks are naturally stakeholders, a nice overlap in aims occurs.

What are our Accountabilityholders giving? For the enterprise to reach its goals, they must provide what only they can. From sitting through sometimes contentious sessions to hash out requirements and success criteria to devoting precious time to status meetings and user acceptance testing, shared sacrifice pays dividends.

Countering Disappointment

  • Start with constant reinforcement of the notion that whatever you’re working on together is for the greater whole—an enterprise initiative, a corporate effort, a team undertaking—and not an “IT project.”

  • Generating a formal operating agreement describing the rules by which everyone will behave is not a bad idea.

  • Get in front of the finger-pointing over lack of alignment and inclusion by regularly exercising muscles of ownership and accountability and blowing the whistle loudly when there’s a breakdown.

  • Be radically and immediately transparent about hurdles or changes in understanding, allowing for improvisation or more significant strategy shifts to keep things on track. When struggle happens in the dark, resulting failures will not.

Nurturing the Network

None of this is set-and-forget. A fragile network of accountability keeps those gains flowing, and it’s in our interest to constantly nurture that network. We owe our Accountabilityholder partners:

  • transparency

  • honesty

  • constant, prompt communication free from jargon

  • sometimes, tough love

Be humble, open, and willing to be proven wrong, and set the Accountabilityholder example.

This is the way.

Gary Zorko
Next

Sliding into 2024