How do you explain change to stakeholders?

I feel that people miss out on developing the need for change. Without developing the need you will encounter more resistance. If this need is created and developed using all stakeholders it makes it easier to implement. Develop the need through Communications planning Sowing the seeds for change (Creating the need narrative) Stakeholder engagement starting in an informal way moveing towards a more formal setup when stakeholders are engaged and want to change. Stakeholder input and feedback essential.

1. Understand the Purpose 2. Identify Key Stakeholders 3. Address Concerns 4. Provide Context 5. Present the Change 6. Share the Implementation Plan 7. Mitigate Risks 8. Foster Two-way Communication 9. Highlight Collaboration 10. Show Past Success 11. Visual Aids 12. Maintain Transparency 13. Address Resistance 14. Offer Support 15. Communicate Regularly 16. Seek Feedback 17. Follow Up 18. Express Gratitude

A lack of understanding with stakeholders leads to constantly shifting priorities and changing initiatives, which can create a sense of uncertainty and frustration among employees. True integration with stakeholders also conveys a higher level of care and understanding. It represents a level of interconnectedness that the stakeholder not only demands, but deserves. From a business standpoint this can lead to higher sales and/or revenue. If you listen to any mainstream ‘thought’ leader, the desire to provide value and service to your stakeholder should/must be the highest priority, which in turn leads to increased revenue. But the revenue cannot be the driving motivation.

I agree, and would add, Stakeholder communications are integral in an effective business organization. By completing a Stakeholder analysis, you will have an actionable list of expectations and create a positive working relationship to further enhance business relationships.

I agree and it all starts with communication. Communication should have already been happening well before the changes were needing to be made. Through discussion the upcoming change should have already been being mentioned to the stakeholders. Understanding what the change is and how it affects the main vision is what will need to be tied together. Being able to clearly articulate the necessity, the impacts, and how each stakeholder can benefit from the change is crucial.

Without a doubt, I feel that highlighting the opportunities that arise from unanticipated changes develops the ability to find positive outcomes. I’ve often mentored young individuals that instead of focusing on the change they should try and find the opportunities that they now have. This was also important in the military. Often we find ourselves facing changes in the fluid operational environment.

It's important not to oversell a change programme. Don't exaggerate the upsides and don't downplay or mask the risks. What I've seen on many occasions is a strong, persuasive campaign to get through the door of approval and get moving with a change initiative. But the risk of such a persuasive campaign is it can begin to convince the sponsors themselves of overgrown positives and under-appreciated risks. Later, as execution unfolds and downsides start to appear, stakeholders are doubly disappointed because they didn't see the issues coming. Being transparent and relying on data and evidence to tell the story can help change advocates avoid this risk, which I have seen totally kill a change initiative when it defies expectations by too much.

Involvement it huge because it promotes stakeholder buy in. When the stakeholders have been involved and have contributed to the change they now own a piece of it. This keeps them empowered, but also bought in to the necessity of change and growth.

I will argue that the most important stakeholder group consists of those who will execute the change initiative and carry it forward. A common mistake is to conceive of a change campaign in a small council setting or senior leader working group, then communicate it to execution stakeholders after all of the major decisions have been made, assumptions formed, and project boundaries drawn. This leaves those charged with executing it voiceless at the key stages of collaboration, leaving them disempowered and the project underinformed. In the event things start to go wrong in the execution phase, they may not feel enough ownership in the decision process to fuel the discretionary effort to rescue a change, especially if they didn't agree to it.

The path to truly valuable outcomes lies in building relationships, fostering collaboration, and maintaining continuous engagement. While it requires a significant investment of time, the rewards are worth it. By actively participating in meetings and events, personally engaging with stakeholders, and showcasing authenticity, trust is nurtured and genuine connections are formed. Collaboration empowers stakeholders to contribute insight, shaping initiatives in alignment with strategic intent. When strategic planning is conducted with stakeholders, priorities remain synchronized, enabling a unified approach. Lastly, maintaining engagement facilitates the timely sharing of information and amplifies the volume of valuable feedback received.

Part of the change process is the approach vector. During the time on this vector, training and preparation cannot be overstated. People need to believe the change is relevant; they are ready for the change; the leader is reliable and prepared to guide and mitigate the unexpected.

I am a huge advocate of using data and evidence to illustrate the potential value of a change. This forces us to be appropriately constrained in our persuasion of others. It also forces us to define the assumptions upon which our change initiative is based. This is critical. We need to know as the change unfolds whether those assumptions have become invalidated, and in turn whether this means we need to reverse, adjust, or continue. In presenting these assumptions to stakeholders, including those who will carry out the change, we stand the best possible chance of identifying a flawed assumption which could undermine the project, and we are more likely to accurately assess and assign risk.

Financial accountability for change performance is important. As organizations grow, they try to stay committed to a spirit of innovation. This creates a market for well-meaning people to propose changes. It also creates a market for careerists and organizational pragmatists to propose changes for the sake of earning a promotion or gaining recognition. Sometimes, the excitement and promise of some of these proposals proves overblown or hollow in execution. As a leader, force change agents to quantify their proposals in financial terms over time, and hold them to account for their performance against these projections. This not only creates clarity in the change portfolio, but ensures learning about how assumptions differed from actuals.

Start by highlighting the major developments or events that have affected the company's performance or financials. Explain the factors or circumstances that contributed to the changes. This could include market conditions, industry trends, or specific internal and external factors impacting the company. Interpret the data and provide insights into the implications of the changes. Explain how these changes align with the company's strategic goals or how they might impact future prospects. Anticipate potential questions or concerns that stockholders may have and address them proactively. Be transparent about any risks or challenges associated with the changes, and offer mitigation strategies if applicable.

It's important to assess whether a change is reversible after initiating it, and up to what point it can still be reversed. How well a change will perform is obviously an estimate, because if it were fully knowable there would be no need of proposals, plans, or debate about whether to do it. This means we have some degree of equity attached to reversing the change if it ends up being net contrary to our interests. Thinking about a change as a "one-way" or "two-way" door is a useful mental model. If it can't be reversed, our understanding of the risks must be more exhaustive. Thinking this way encourages us to walk the change forward and understand it in more detail, which informs much better decision making.