CWS 3.0: December 3, 2014

Print

Ditch the senior-level mandate for true stakeholder support

I want to challenge the assumption of what it means to get “stakeholder buy-in.” I think there’s a better way to think about it, and that is to seek “discretionary effort.” Necessary to building long-term success, discretionary effort is when the stakeholder chooses to support and participate in an initiative independently and in the face of alternatives.

Choice vs coercion. It’s no secret a critical component in any program is a level of involvement and support from all relevant stakeholders. That hasn’t changed. Stakeholders can be internal or external, such as internal engagement managers and (external) staffing suppliers and partners. But the definition can be expanded to include anyone who is touched by your contingent workforce program, not just who uses or sources the workers. Maybe it's your customers, who talk with contingent staff at your call center, for example, or other suppliers that interact with your company through your contingent workforce. The larger your program and the broader your definition of stakeholders, the better equipped you are to handle future issues. But if we consider so many interested parties, how do we gain support? The answer is to meet them where they live.

To meet them where they live means to truly understand and empathize with how your program will affect those things important to them, either negatively or positively. This understanding enables you to best construct a solution to their issues and concerns — or at the very least provide them with an understanding of why the program solution is necessary for the company as a whole while striving to minimize the impact on their business. This is critical. To build support for your program, you need make sure stakeholders feel their concerns are at least considered.

Malicious compliance. Many focus on mandates as a way to force buy-in, believing a senior-level mandate is essential and renders much of the stakeholder concerns irrelevant in the face of the greater program goal. I've heard many category managers who are operating without a mandate gripe the program can't be successful. The belief being there is no way to get full participation without consequences. They say without the proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over hiring managers’ heads, they will inevitably go outside the program. That's a mistake, in my opinion. This may be true in the short term and through outward appearances, but mandates create poor participation, with stakeholders doing just enough to be in compliance with program goals but not enough to ensure success. This is what I call “malicious compliance.” They may say publicly they were forced to comply, but privately, they build negative sentiment among the suppliers. Malicious compliance is where some will participate in the program and either actively sabotage or subtly do the same. This can be done by going around the program, calling suppliers directly or transitioning contingent workers to SOW arrangements inappropriately. Truth be told, a mandate may sound great, and I’ve built a case to support more than a few, but I’ve never relied on them for program sustainability. That’s what true buy-in is for.

Get active. Buy-in is a well-used phrase. Most often it is earned — or perceived to have been bought — when someone says they will participate in a program. Or buy-in may be perceived as earned when someone participates in a presentation and agrees to select a particular strategy. But the definition of buy-in is: "acceptance of and willingness to actively support and participate in something.” So often we may rely on tacit participation to grow and expand their programs or expect that a mandate would be the panacea that would ensure 100 percent program compliance. But that's not sustainable. By engaging stakeholders where they live and seeking discretionary support, your program can be something to be proud of.