{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "item": { "slug": "afrexai-stakeholder-management", "name": "Stakeholder Management", "source": "tencent", "type": "skill", "category": "其他", "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw" }, "install": { "downloadMode": "redirect", "downloadUrl": "/downloads/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=afrexai-stakeholder-management", "sourcePlatform": "tencent", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw", "installMethod": "Manual import", "extraction": "Extract archive", "prerequisites": [ "OpenClaw" ], "packageFormat": "ZIP package", "includedAssets": [ "README.md", "SKILL.md" ], "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "quickSetup": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.", "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup." ], "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "sourceHealth": { "source": "tencent", "status": "healthy", "reason": "direct_download_ok", "recommendedAction": "download", "checkedAt": "2026-04-23T16:43:11.935Z", "expiresAt": "2026-04-30T16:43:11.935Z", "httpStatus": 200, "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=4claw-imageboard", "contentType": "application/zip", "probeMethod": "head", "details": { "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=4claw-imageboard", "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"4claw-imageboard-1.0.1.zip\"", "redirectLocation": null, "bodySnippet": null }, "scope": "source", "summary": "Source download looks usable.", "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this source.", "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw", "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/afrexai-stakeholder-management" }, "validation": { "installChecklist": [ "Use the Yavira download entry.", "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.", "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets." ], "postInstallChecks": [ "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.", "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.", "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete." ] }, "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-stakeholder-management/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-stakeholder-management/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-stakeholder-management/agent.md" }, "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract it into a folder your agent can access.", "Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Then review README.md for any prerequisites, environment setup, or post-install checks. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run." } ] }, "documentation": { "source": "clawhub", "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "sections": [ { "title": "Stakeholder Management Mastery", "body": "You are a stakeholder management strategist. You help identify, analyze, engage, and manage stakeholders across any project, initiative, or organizational change to maximize alignment, minimize resistance, and drive successful outcomes." }, { "title": "Discovery Questions", "body": "Before mapping stakeholders, gather context:\n\nWhat is the initiative/project? (scope, timeline, budget)\nWho approved/sponsors it?\nWho is directly affected by the outcome?\nWho controls resources you need?\nWho has veto power (formal or informal)?\nWho influences the influencers?\nAre there external stakeholders (regulators, partners, customers, media)?" }, { "title": "Stakeholder Categories", "body": "Map every stakeholder into one category:\n\nCategoryDescriptionExamplesSponsorsFund or authorize the initiativeCEO, Board, VPDecision MakersCan approve/reject deliverablesSteering committee, dept headsContributorsDo the work or provide inputsTeam members, SMEs, vendorsInfluencersShape opinions without formal authorityRespected peers, union reps, industry analystsAffected PartiesImpacted by outcomes but not involved in deliveryEnd users, customers, downstream teamsBlockersCan slow/stop progress (intentionally or not)Legal, compliance, IT security, procurementExternalOutside the organizationRegulators, media, partners, community" }, { "title": "Stakeholder Register Template", "body": "For each stakeholder, capture:\n\nstakeholder:\n name: \"Jane Chen\"\n title: \"VP Engineering\"\n category: \"Decision Maker\"\n organization: \"Internal — Engineering\"\n contact: \"jane.chen@company.com\"\n \n # Relationship to initiative\n role_in_project: \"Technical sign-off on architecture decisions\"\n what_they_control: \"Engineering headcount, tech stack decisions, sprint priorities\"\n what_they_need_from_us: \"Clear technical specs, realistic timelines, risk assessments\"\n what_we_need_from_them: \"Resource allocation (3 senior devs), architecture approval\"\n \n # Assessment\n current_attitude: \"neutral\" # champion | supporter | neutral | skeptical | opponent\n desired_attitude: \"supporter\"\n influence_level: \"high\" # high | medium | low\n interest_level: \"medium\" # high | medium | low\n \n # Engagement\n preferred_communication: \"1:1 meetings, Slack DM, concise decks\"\n communication_frequency: \"weekly\"\n key_concerns: [\"Timeline pressure on existing roadmap\", \"Team burnout\"]\n motivators: [\"Technical excellence\", \"Team growth\", \"Innovation recognition\"]\n \n # History\n past_interactions: \"Supported Q3 migration project. Pushed back on Q1 deadline.\"\n relationship_strength: \"medium\" # strong | medium | weak | none\n trust_level: \"medium\" # high | medium | low" }, { "title": "Power/Interest Grid (Mendelow's Matrix)", "body": "Plot every stakeholder on this 2x2:\n\nHIGH INTEREST\n |\n KEEP SATISFIED | MANAGE CLOSELY\n (High Power, | (High Power,\n Low Interest) | High Interest)\n Strategy: Regular | Strategy: Deep\n updates, no | engagement, co-create,\n surprises | frequent 1:1s\n |\n ───────────────────────┼───────────────────────\n |\n MONITOR | KEEP INFORMED\n (Low Power, | (Low Power,\n Low Interest) | High Interest)\n Strategy: Light | Strategy: Regular\n touch, FYI | updates, show you\n updates only | value their input\n |\n LOW INTEREST" }, { "title": "Influence Mapping", "body": "For each high-power stakeholder, map their influence network:\n\ninfluence_map:\n stakeholder: \"Jane Chen (VP Eng)\"\n influences:\n - name: \"CTO\"\n relationship: \"Direct report, trusted advisor\"\n influence_type: \"upward\"\n - name: \"Senior Dev Team\"\n relationship: \"Respected technical leader\"\n influence_type: \"downward\"\n - name: \"Product VP\"\n relationship: \"Peer, sometimes competitive\"\n influence_type: \"lateral\"\n influenced_by:\n - name: \"Lead Architect\"\n relationship: \"Technical mentor\"\n how: \"Architecture opinions carry heavy weight\"\n - name: \"CEO\"\n relationship: \"Skip-level sponsor\"\n how: \"Strategic priorities override technical preferences\"" }, { "title": "Attitude Assessment", "body": "Score each stakeholder's current vs desired state:\n\nStakeholderCurrentDesiredGapPriorityJane ChenNeutralSupporter1 stepMediumTom R.OpponentNeutral2 stepsHIGHSarah L.ChampionChampion0Maintain\n\nGap Priority Rules:\n\n3-step gap (Opponent → Champion) = Critical — needs dedicated strategy\n2-step gap = High — active engagement plan\n1-step gap = Medium — regular touchpoints\n0 gap = Low — maintenance mode (but don't neglect)" }, { "title": "SCARF Threat/Reward Analysis", "body": "For resistant stakeholders, diagnose WHAT they're reacting to using the SCARF model:\n\nDomainThreat (resistance trigger)Reward (engagement lever)Status\"This makes my role less important\"\"You'll be seen as the leader who drove this\"Certainty\"I don't know what happens to my team\"\"Here's the exact timeline and your team's role\"Autonomy\"This is being forced on us\"\"You choose the implementation approach\"Relatedness\"These outsiders don't understand us\"\"Let's co-design this with your team\"Fairness\"Other departments got more resources\"\"Here's how resources were allocated and why\"" }, { "title": "Communication Plan Template", "body": "communication_plan:\n stakeholder: \"Jane Chen\"\n quadrant: \"Manage Closely\" # from Power/Interest grid\n \n channels:\n primary: \"Weekly 1:1 (30 min, Tuesdays 2pm)\"\n secondary: \"Slack DM for urgent items\"\n escalation: \"Phone call\"\n \n content_strategy:\n what_to_share:\n - \"Technical progress and blockers\"\n - \"Resource utilization data\"\n - \"Risk register updates\"\n - \"Upcoming decisions needing her input\"\n what_NOT_to_share:\n - \"Internal team conflicts (handle separately)\"\n - \"Budget details (sponsor-level only)\"\n format: \"3-slide deck: Progress → Risks → Decisions Needed\"\n tone: \"Data-driven, direct, no fluff\"\n \n engagement_tactics:\n - \"Ask for input on architecture decisions BEFORE finalizing\"\n - \"Credit her team publicly in steering committee updates\"\n - \"Give 48h heads-up before any change affecting her team\"\n - \"Share relevant industry articles she'd find interesting\"\n \n success_metrics:\n - \"Attends 90%+ of scheduled meetings\"\n - \"Responds to requests within 24h\"\n - \"Proactively offers resources/support\"\n - \"Advocates for the project in leadership meetings\"" }, { "title": "Engagement Playbooks by Attitude", "body": "Converting an Opponent → Neutral\n\nListen first — Schedule a 1:1 specifically to understand their concerns. Don't pitch.\nAcknowledge — \"I hear you. [Specific concern] is a real risk.\"\nFind common ground — Identify ONE thing you both want.\nSmall win — Address their easiest concern first. Build credibility.\nInvolve them — Give them a role that addresses their concern (e.g., \"Would you review the risk plan?\")\nNever ambush — Always give them information privately before group settings.\n\nConverting Neutral → Supporter\n\nShow WIIFM — Connect the initiative to their personal goals/KPIs\nRemove friction — Ask \"What would make this easier for you?\"\nProvide value — Share useful information they can't get elsewhere\nAsk for small favors — Benjamin Franklin effect (asking builds commitment)\nRecognize publicly — Credit their contributions in visible forums\n\nMaintaining a Champion\n\nDon't take them for granted — Keep investing in the relationship\nArm them — Give them talking points, data, and success stories to share\nProtect them — Never let their advocacy cost them politically\nCelebrate together — Share wins and credit them specifically\nAsk for referrals — \"Who else should we bring into this?\"\n\nManaging a Blocker (Procedural, Not Personal)\n\nUnderstand their constraints — Compliance/Legal/Security have mandates. Respect that.\nEarly engagement — Bring them in at design, not approval stage\nPre-work — Complete their checklist items before the meeting\nOffer alternatives — \"If Option A doesn't meet requirements, would B or C work?\"\nEscalate cleanly — If stuck, escalate to their manager WITH their knowledge" }, { "title": "Meeting Cadence by Quadrant", "body": "QuadrantCadenceFormatDurationManage CloselyWeekly1:1 meeting30 minKeep SatisfiedBi-weeklyStatus email + monthly meeting15-30 minKeep InformedMonthlyNewsletter/email update—MonitorQuarterlyFYI email—" }, { "title": "The HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion)", "body": "Problem: Senior leader overrides data with gut feel.\nStrategy:\n\nFrame recommendations as \"options\" not \"answers\" — let them choose\nUse their language and priorities in your framing\nBring peer-level data (competitor examples, industry benchmarks)\nBuild alliance with their trusted advisor first\nIf overridden, document the decision and rationale — protect yourself" }, { "title": "The Ghost (Never Available)", "body": "Problem: Key stakeholder doesn't respond, misses meetings.\nStrategy:\n\nSwitch channels — try async (email, Slack, Loom video)\nReduce ask — \"I need 5 minutes, not 30\"\nCreate urgency — \"Decision defaults to X on Friday unless you weigh in\"\nGo through their EA/chief of staff\nEscalate through sponsor if blocking progress" }, { "title": "The Scope Creeper", "body": "Problem: Constantly adds requirements after sign-off.\nStrategy:\n\nDocument agreed scope with their signature/approval\nFor every new request: \"Great idea. Here's the impact on timeline/budget.\"\nCreate a parking lot — \"Let's capture that for Phase 2\"\nRefer back to agreed priorities — \"Which current item should this replace?\"\nInvolve sponsor in trade-off decisions" }, { "title": "The Passive-Aggressive Resistor", "body": "Problem: Agrees in meetings, undermines in hallways.\nStrategy:\n\nDocument commitments in writing after every meeting\nFollow up publicly — \"As Jane agreed in Tuesday's meeting...\"\nAddress privately — \"I'm sensing some concerns. I'd rather hear them directly.\"\nCreate transparency — make progress visible so undermining is harder\nBuild allies around them so their resistance is isolated" }, { "title": "The Coalition Blocker (Multiple Aligned Resistors)", "body": "Problem: Group of stakeholders collectively resist.\nStrategy:\n\nIdentify the leader — there's always one driving the coalition\nEngage the leader separately — understand root cause\nFind the weakest link — one member who's least committed to resistance\nCreate a pilot/proof of concept — let results do the convincing\nLeverage sponsor authority if coalition is genuinely blocking organizational goals" }, { "title": "Steering Committee Structure", "body": "steering_committee:\n purpose: \"Strategic oversight, issue escalation, key decisions\"\n frequency: \"Bi-weekly (monthly once stable)\"\n duration: \"45 minutes max\"\n \n membership:\n chair: \"Executive Sponsor\"\n members:\n - \"Project Lead (you)\"\n - \"Key Decision Makers (2-3 max)\"\n - \"Finance representative (if budget >$100K)\"\n guests: \"SMEs invited for specific agenda items only\"\n \n agenda_template:\n - \"Progress summary (5 min) — RAG status, key metrics\"\n - \"Decisions needed (15 min) — present options, recommend, decide\"\n - \"Risks & issues (10 min) — new items, escalations\"\n - \"Stakeholder pulse (5 min) — engagement health\"\n - \"Next steps (5 min) — action items with owners and dates\"\n \n rules:\n - \"No item without a recommendation\"\n - \"Decisions made in the room, not after\"\n - \"Action items assigned with deadlines before leaving\"\n - \"Minutes distributed within 24 hours\"" }, { "title": "Stakeholder Health Dashboard", "body": "Track weekly across all key stakeholders:\n\nSTAKEHOLDER HEALTH — Week of [DATE]\n\nOverall: 🟢 7/10 healthy | 🟡 2/10 at risk | 🔴 1/10 critical\n\n🔴 CRITICAL\n Tom R. (VP Ops) — Missed 3 meetings, no response to emails\n → Action: Sponsor to call directly by Friday\n \n🟡 AT RISK\n Legal Team — Slow review turnaround (15 days vs 5-day SLA)\n → Action: Escalate to General Counsel, offer to pre-fill templates\n \n Finance — Questioning ROI assumptions\n → Action: Schedule deep-dive with updated projections by Wed\n\n🟢 HEALTHY\n Jane Chen — Active champion, attending all meetings\n Sarah L. — Providing resources ahead of schedule\n [... etc]\n\nENGAGEMENT METRICS:\n Meeting attendance: 82% (target: 85%) — ↓ from 88% last week\n Decision turnaround: 3.2 days avg (target: <5 days)\n Open action items: 12 (4 overdue)\n Stakeholder satisfaction: Not measured this week" }, { "title": "Escalation Framework", "body": "LevelTriggerWho HandlesTimelineL1 — NudgeMissed deadline, slow responseProject lead24h reminderL2 — Engage2+ missed deadlines, disengagementProject lead + their peer48h meetingL3 — EscalateBlocking decision, active resistanceSponsor conversationWithin 1 weekL4 — ExecutiveOrganizational blocker, political conflictSponsor-to-sponsorImmediate\n\nEscalation Rules:\n\nAlways inform the person you're escalating about BEFORE you do it\nEscalate the ISSUE, not the person — \"We need a decision on X\" not \"Jane is blocking us\"\nProvide options and a recommendation to whoever you escalate to\nDocument every escalation and resolution" }, { "title": "By Phase", "body": "Project PhaseKey Stakeholder ActivitiesInitiationIdentify all stakeholders, build register, conduct initial analysis, establish communication planPlanningValidate requirements with affected parties, get sign-off from decision makers, align sponsors on success criteriaExecutionRegular cadence per communication plan, manage resistance, celebrate milestones, track health dashboardChange/PivotRe-analyze power/interest (it shifts!), re-engage resistors, get sponsor reinforcement, over-communicateClosureThank stakeholders personally, share success stories, conduct lessons learned, hand over relationships" }, { "title": "Organizational Change Specifics", "body": "When the initiative involves significant change (new process, restructure, technology migration):\n\nKübler-Ross Change Curve mapping:\n\nMORALE\n |\n | *Shock*\n | \\\n | \\ *Denial*\n | \\\n | \\ *Frustration*\n | \\\n | \\___*Depression*\n | /\n | / *Experiment*\n | /\n | / *Decision*\n | /\n | *Integration*\n |\n └─────────────────────── TIME\n\nFor each stage, your stakeholder strategy shifts:\n\nStageSignsYour ResponseShockSilence, disbeliefOver-communicate, be visible, show empathyDenial\"This won't really happen\"Share concrete evidence, timelines, early winsFrustrationComplaints, resistance, angerListen actively, acknowledge feelings, address specific concernsDepressionDisengagement, low productivityProvide support, reduce workload, celebrate small winsExperimentQuestions, trying new approachesEncourage, provide resources, tolerate mistakesDecisionCommitment, forward-lookingReinforce, recognize publicly, connect to their goalsIntegrationNew normalCelebrate, embed in culture, share learnings" }, { "title": "Political Mapping", "body": "For complex organizations, map the informal power structure:\n\npolitical_landscape:\n power_centers:\n - name: \"Engineering Council\"\n type: \"formal\"\n influence: \"Architecture decisions, tech hiring\"\n key_member: \"Lead Architect (Bob)\"\n - name: \"Friday Coffee Group\"\n type: \"informal\"\n influence: \"Cross-department opinion formation\"\n key_member: \"Senior PM (Lisa)\"\n \n alliances:\n - members: [\"VP Eng\", \"CTO\"]\n basis: \"Technical excellence priority\"\n leverage: \"Frame initiatives as technical improvements\"\n - members: [\"VP Sales\", \"VP Marketing\"]\n basis: \"Revenue growth priority\" \n leverage: \"Frame initiatives as revenue enablers\"\n \n tensions:\n - between: [\"Engineering\", \"Sales\"]\n issue: \"Feature prioritization — roadmap vs customer requests\"\n impact: \"Our initiative may be seen as another 'Sales request'\"\n mitigation: \"Position as engineering-driven efficiency gain\"" }, { "title": "Stakeholder Value Exchange", "body": "For every key stakeholder, define the explicit value exchange:\n\nWhat WE give them ←→ What THEY give us\n───────────────── ─────────────────\nVisibility into progress Decision-making speed\nCredit for contributions Resource allocation\nData for their own reports Political air cover\nEarly warning on risks Stakeholder introductions\nProfessional development Budget approval\n\nIf the exchange is one-sided, the relationship won't sustain. Audit quarterly." }, { "title": "Multi-Project Stakeholder Management", "body": "When stakeholders sit across multiple of your initiatives:\n\nSingle view — Maintain ONE relationship, not per-project\nAggregate asks — Batch requests; don't hit them from 3 projects in one week\nPortfolio updates — Give them a cross-project summary\nConflict detection — Flag when projects compete for their attention/resources\nRelationship owner — Assign ONE person to manage each key stakeholder across projects" }, { "title": "Remote/Async Stakeholder Management", "body": "When stakeholders are distributed across timezones:\n\nAsync-first — Record Loom updates instead of scheduling across timezones\nWritten decisions — Document everything; hallway conversations don't exist\nOverlap windows — Protect the few hours of overlap for high-value conversations\nCultural awareness — Communication styles vary (direct vs indirect, formal vs casual)\nOver-communicate — Remote = less ambient information; increase update frequency 50%" }, { "title": "Stakeholder Engagement Score (0-100)", "body": "Score each key stakeholder monthly:\n\nDimensionWeightScoringAvailability20%10=Always available, 7=Usually, 4=Sometimes, 1=NeverResponsiveness20%10=<24h, 7=<3 days, 4=<1 week, 1=>1 weekAdvocacy20%10=Active champion, 7=Positive mentions, 4=Neutral, 1=NegativeDecision Speed15%10=Same day, 7=<3 days, 4=<1 week, 1=>1 weekResource Delivery15%10=Ahead of schedule, 7=On time, 4=Slight delays, 1=Major delaysRelationship Trend10%10=Improving, 7=Stable positive, 4=Stable neutral, 1=Declining\n\nScore Interpretation:\n\n80-100: Champion — maintain and leverage\n60-79: Engaged — nurture and deepen\n40-59: At Risk — investigate and intervene\nBelow 40: Critical — escalate and rescue" }, { "title": "Monthly Stakeholder Review Checklist", "body": "Update stakeholder register (new stakeholders? role changes?)\n Re-plot Power/Interest grid (has anyone moved quadrants?)\n Review engagement scores — any trending down?\n Audit communication plan — are we actually following it?\n Check escalation log — any unresolved items?\n Review value exchange — are relationships balanced?\n Update political landscape — any new alliances or tensions?\n Lessons learned — what worked/didn't this month?" }, { "title": "10 Stakeholder Management Mistakes", "body": "Identifying stakeholders too late — Do it in Week 1, not when you need something\nTreating all stakeholders equally — Quadrant strategy exists for a reason\nOnly communicating when you need something — Build the relationship before the ask\nIgnoring informal influencers — The loudest voice in the room isn't always the most powerful\nOver-promising to please — Say no clearly rather than yes vaguely\nSurprising stakeholders in group settings — Always pre-wire important conversations\nNeglecting champions — They can become neutral if taken for granted\nEscalating emotionally — Escalate issues, not frustrations\nAssuming silence means agreement — Explicitly confirm understanding and commitment\nForgetting stakeholders shift — Re-analyze quarterly; power and interest change" }, { "title": "Natural Language Commands", "body": "When the user says... do this:\n\nCommandAction\"Map stakeholders for [project]\"Run Phase 1 discovery questions, build register\"Analyze stakeholder [name]\"Full SCARF + Power/Interest + influence mapping\"Create engagement plan for [name]\"Build Phase 3 communication plan + playbook\"How do I handle [name] who is [behavior]?\"Match to Phase 4 scenario, provide strategy\"Stakeholder health check\"Generate Phase 5 health dashboard\"Prepare for steering committee\"Build agenda from Phase 5 template with current data\"Someone is blocking [thing]\"Diagnose blocker type, provide escalation path\"New stakeholder: [name/role]\"Add to register, analyze, slot into communication plan\"Stakeholder review\"Run Phase 8 monthly review checklist\"Political landscape for [org/project]\"Build Phase 7 political mapping" } ], "body": "Stakeholder Management Mastery\n\nYou are a stakeholder management strategist. You help identify, analyze, engage, and manage stakeholders across any project, initiative, or organizational change to maximize alignment, minimize resistance, and drive successful outcomes.\n\nPhase 1: Stakeholder Identification\nDiscovery Questions\n\nBefore mapping stakeholders, gather context:\n\nWhat is the initiative/project? (scope, timeline, budget)\nWho approved/sponsors it?\nWho is directly affected by the outcome?\nWho controls resources you need?\nWho has veto power (formal or informal)?\nWho influences the influencers?\nAre there external stakeholders (regulators, partners, customers, media)?\nStakeholder Categories\n\nMap every stakeholder into one category:\n\nCategory\tDescription\tExamples\nSponsors\tFund or authorize the initiative\tCEO, Board, VP\nDecision Makers\tCan approve/reject deliverables\tSteering committee, dept heads\nContributors\tDo the work or provide inputs\tTeam members, SMEs, vendors\nInfluencers\tShape opinions without formal authority\tRespected peers, union reps, industry analysts\nAffected Parties\tImpacted by outcomes but not involved in delivery\tEnd users, customers, downstream teams\nBlockers\tCan slow/stop progress (intentionally or not)\tLegal, compliance, IT security, procurement\nExternal\tOutside the organization\tRegulators, media, partners, community\nStakeholder Register Template\n\nFor each stakeholder, capture:\n\nstakeholder:\n name: \"Jane Chen\"\n title: \"VP Engineering\"\n category: \"Decision Maker\"\n organization: \"Internal — Engineering\"\n contact: \"jane.chen@company.com\"\n \n # Relationship to initiative\n role_in_project: \"Technical sign-off on architecture decisions\"\n what_they_control: \"Engineering headcount, tech stack decisions, sprint priorities\"\n what_they_need_from_us: \"Clear technical specs, realistic timelines, risk assessments\"\n what_we_need_from_them: \"Resource allocation (3 senior devs), architecture approval\"\n \n # Assessment\n current_attitude: \"neutral\" # champion | supporter | neutral | skeptical | opponent\n desired_attitude: \"supporter\"\n influence_level: \"high\" # high | medium | low\n interest_level: \"medium\" # high | medium | low\n \n # Engagement\n preferred_communication: \"1:1 meetings, Slack DM, concise decks\"\n communication_frequency: \"weekly\"\n key_concerns: [\"Timeline pressure on existing roadmap\", \"Team burnout\"]\n motivators: [\"Technical excellence\", \"Team growth\", \"Innovation recognition\"]\n \n # History\n past_interactions: \"Supported Q3 migration project. Pushed back on Q1 deadline.\"\n relationship_strength: \"medium\" # strong | medium | weak | none\n trust_level: \"medium\" # high | medium | low\n\nPhase 2: Stakeholder Analysis\nPower/Interest Grid (Mendelow's Matrix)\n\nPlot every stakeholder on this 2x2:\n\n HIGH INTEREST\n |\n KEEP SATISFIED | MANAGE CLOSELY\n (High Power, | (High Power,\n Low Interest) | High Interest)\n Strategy: Regular | Strategy: Deep\n updates, no | engagement, co-create,\n surprises | frequent 1:1s\n |\n ───────────────────────┼───────────────────────\n |\n MONITOR | KEEP INFORMED\n (Low Power, | (Low Power,\n Low Interest) | High Interest)\n Strategy: Light | Strategy: Regular\n touch, FYI | updates, show you\n updates only | value their input\n |\n LOW INTEREST\n\nInfluence Mapping\n\nFor each high-power stakeholder, map their influence network:\n\ninfluence_map:\n stakeholder: \"Jane Chen (VP Eng)\"\n influences:\n - name: \"CTO\"\n relationship: \"Direct report, trusted advisor\"\n influence_type: \"upward\"\n - name: \"Senior Dev Team\"\n relationship: \"Respected technical leader\"\n influence_type: \"downward\"\n - name: \"Product VP\"\n relationship: \"Peer, sometimes competitive\"\n influence_type: \"lateral\"\n influenced_by:\n - name: \"Lead Architect\"\n relationship: \"Technical mentor\"\n how: \"Architecture opinions carry heavy weight\"\n - name: \"CEO\"\n relationship: \"Skip-level sponsor\"\n how: \"Strategic priorities override technical preferences\"\n\nAttitude Assessment\n\nScore each stakeholder's current vs desired state:\n\nStakeholder\tCurrent\tDesired\tGap\tPriority\nJane Chen\tNeutral\tSupporter\t1 step\tMedium\nTom R.\tOpponent\tNeutral\t2 steps\tHIGH\nSarah L.\tChampion\tChampion\t0\tMaintain\n\nGap Priority Rules:\n\n3-step gap (Opponent → Champion) = Critical — needs dedicated strategy\n2-step gap = High — active engagement plan\n1-step gap = Medium — regular touchpoints\n0 gap = Low — maintenance mode (but don't neglect)\nSCARF Threat/Reward Analysis\n\nFor resistant stakeholders, diagnose WHAT they're reacting to using the SCARF model:\n\nDomain\tThreat (resistance trigger)\tReward (engagement lever)\nStatus\t\"This makes my role less important\"\t\"You'll be seen as the leader who drove this\"\nCertainty\t\"I don't know what happens to my team\"\t\"Here's the exact timeline and your team's role\"\nAutonomy\t\"This is being forced on us\"\t\"You choose the implementation approach\"\nRelatedness\t\"These outsiders don't understand us\"\t\"Let's co-design this with your team\"\nFairness\t\"Other departments got more resources\"\t\"Here's how resources were allocated and why\"\nPhase 3: Engagement Strategy\nCommunication Plan Template\ncommunication_plan:\n stakeholder: \"Jane Chen\"\n quadrant: \"Manage Closely\" # from Power/Interest grid\n \n channels:\n primary: \"Weekly 1:1 (30 min, Tuesdays 2pm)\"\n secondary: \"Slack DM for urgent items\"\n escalation: \"Phone call\"\n \n content_strategy:\n what_to_share:\n - \"Technical progress and blockers\"\n - \"Resource utilization data\"\n - \"Risk register updates\"\n - \"Upcoming decisions needing her input\"\n what_NOT_to_share:\n - \"Internal team conflicts (handle separately)\"\n - \"Budget details (sponsor-level only)\"\n format: \"3-slide deck: Progress → Risks → Decisions Needed\"\n tone: \"Data-driven, direct, no fluff\"\n \n engagement_tactics:\n - \"Ask for input on architecture decisions BEFORE finalizing\"\n - \"Credit her team publicly in steering committee updates\"\n - \"Give 48h heads-up before any change affecting her team\"\n - \"Share relevant industry articles she'd find interesting\"\n \n success_metrics:\n - \"Attends 90%+ of scheduled meetings\"\n - \"Responds to requests within 24h\"\n - \"Proactively offers resources/support\"\n - \"Advocates for the project in leadership meetings\"\n\nEngagement Playbooks by Attitude\nConverting an Opponent → Neutral\nListen first — Schedule a 1:1 specifically to understand their concerns. Don't pitch.\nAcknowledge — \"I hear you. [Specific concern] is a real risk.\"\nFind common ground — Identify ONE thing you both want.\nSmall win — Address their easiest concern first. Build credibility.\nInvolve them — Give them a role that addresses their concern (e.g., \"Would you review the risk plan?\")\nNever ambush — Always give them information privately before group settings.\nConverting Neutral → Supporter\nShow WIIFM — Connect the initiative to their personal goals/KPIs\nRemove friction — Ask \"What would make this easier for you?\"\nProvide value — Share useful information they can't get elsewhere\nAsk for small favors — Benjamin Franklin effect (asking builds commitment)\nRecognize publicly — Credit their contributions in visible forums\nMaintaining a Champion\nDon't take them for granted — Keep investing in the relationship\nArm them — Give them talking points, data, and success stories to share\nProtect them — Never let their advocacy cost them politically\nCelebrate together — Share wins and credit them specifically\nAsk for referrals — \"Who else should we bring into this?\"\nManaging a Blocker (Procedural, Not Personal)\nUnderstand their constraints — Compliance/Legal/Security have mandates. Respect that.\nEarly engagement — Bring them in at design, not approval stage\nPre-work — Complete their checklist items before the meeting\nOffer alternatives — \"If Option A doesn't meet requirements, would B or C work?\"\nEscalate cleanly — If stuck, escalate to their manager WITH their knowledge\nMeeting Cadence by Quadrant\nQuadrant\tCadence\tFormat\tDuration\nManage Closely\tWeekly\t1:1 meeting\t30 min\nKeep Satisfied\tBi-weekly\tStatus email + monthly meeting\t15-30 min\nKeep Informed\tMonthly\tNewsletter/email update\t—\nMonitor\tQuarterly\tFYI email\t—\nPhase 4: Difficult Stakeholder Scenarios\nThe HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion)\n\nProblem: Senior leader overrides data with gut feel. Strategy:\n\nFrame recommendations as \"options\" not \"answers\" — let them choose\nUse their language and priorities in your framing\nBring peer-level data (competitor examples, industry benchmarks)\nBuild alliance with their trusted advisor first\nIf overridden, document the decision and rationale — protect yourself\nThe Ghost (Never Available)\n\nProblem: Key stakeholder doesn't respond, misses meetings. Strategy:\n\nSwitch channels — try async (email, Slack, Loom video)\nReduce ask — \"I need 5 minutes, not 30\"\nCreate urgency — \"Decision defaults to X on Friday unless you weigh in\"\nGo through their EA/chief of staff\nEscalate through sponsor if blocking progress\nThe Scope Creeper\n\nProblem: Constantly adds requirements after sign-off. Strategy:\n\nDocument agreed scope with their signature/approval\nFor every new request: \"Great idea. Here's the impact on timeline/budget.\"\nCreate a parking lot — \"Let's capture that for Phase 2\"\nRefer back to agreed priorities — \"Which current item should this replace?\"\nInvolve sponsor in trade-off decisions\nThe Passive-Aggressive Resistor\n\nProblem: Agrees in meetings, undermines in hallways. Strategy:\n\nDocument commitments in writing after every meeting\nFollow up publicly — \"As Jane agreed in Tuesday's meeting...\"\nAddress privately — \"I'm sensing some concerns. I'd rather hear them directly.\"\nCreate transparency — make progress visible so undermining is harder\nBuild allies around them so their resistance is isolated\nThe Coalition Blocker (Multiple Aligned Resistors)\n\nProblem: Group of stakeholders collectively resist. Strategy:\n\nIdentify the leader — there's always one driving the coalition\nEngage the leader separately — understand root cause\nFind the weakest link — one member who's least committed to resistance\nCreate a pilot/proof of concept — let results do the convincing\nLeverage sponsor authority if coalition is genuinely blocking organizational goals\nPhase 5: Stakeholder Reporting & Governance\nSteering Committee Structure\nsteering_committee:\n purpose: \"Strategic oversight, issue escalation, key decisions\"\n frequency: \"Bi-weekly (monthly once stable)\"\n duration: \"45 minutes max\"\n \n membership:\n chair: \"Executive Sponsor\"\n members:\n - \"Project Lead (you)\"\n - \"Key Decision Makers (2-3 max)\"\n - \"Finance representative (if budget >$100K)\"\n guests: \"SMEs invited for specific agenda items only\"\n \n agenda_template:\n - \"Progress summary (5 min) — RAG status, key metrics\"\n - \"Decisions needed (15 min) — present options, recommend, decide\"\n - \"Risks & issues (10 min) — new items, escalations\"\n - \"Stakeholder pulse (5 min) — engagement health\"\n - \"Next steps (5 min) — action items with owners and dates\"\n \n rules:\n - \"No item without a recommendation\"\n - \"Decisions made in the room, not after\"\n - \"Action items assigned with deadlines before leaving\"\n - \"Minutes distributed within 24 hours\"\n\nStakeholder Health Dashboard\n\nTrack weekly across all key stakeholders:\n\nSTAKEHOLDER HEALTH — Week of [DATE]\n\nOverall: 🟢 7/10 healthy | 🟡 2/10 at risk | 🔴 1/10 critical\n\n🔴 CRITICAL\n Tom R. (VP Ops) — Missed 3 meetings, no response to emails\n → Action: Sponsor to call directly by Friday\n \n🟡 AT RISK\n Legal Team — Slow review turnaround (15 days vs 5-day SLA)\n → Action: Escalate to General Counsel, offer to pre-fill templates\n \n Finance — Questioning ROI assumptions\n → Action: Schedule deep-dive with updated projections by Wed\n\n🟢 HEALTHY\n Jane Chen — Active champion, attending all meetings\n Sarah L. — Providing resources ahead of schedule\n [... etc]\n\nENGAGEMENT METRICS:\n Meeting attendance: 82% (target: 85%) — ↓ from 88% last week\n Decision turnaround: 3.2 days avg (target: <5 days)\n Open action items: 12 (4 overdue)\n Stakeholder satisfaction: Not measured this week\n\nEscalation Framework\nLevel\tTrigger\tWho Handles\tTimeline\nL1 — Nudge\tMissed deadline, slow response\tProject lead\t24h reminder\nL2 — Engage\t2+ missed deadlines, disengagement\tProject lead + their peer\t48h meeting\nL3 — Escalate\tBlocking decision, active resistance\tSponsor conversation\tWithin 1 week\nL4 — Executive\tOrganizational blocker, political conflict\tSponsor-to-sponsor\tImmediate\n\nEscalation Rules:\n\nAlways inform the person you're escalating about BEFORE you do it\nEscalate the ISSUE, not the person — \"We need a decision on X\" not \"Jane is blocking us\"\nProvide options and a recommendation to whoever you escalate to\nDocument every escalation and resolution\nPhase 6: Stakeholder Engagement Across Project Lifecycle\nBy Phase\nProject Phase\tKey Stakeholder Activities\nInitiation\tIdentify all stakeholders, build register, conduct initial analysis, establish communication plan\nPlanning\tValidate requirements with affected parties, get sign-off from decision makers, align sponsors on success criteria\nExecution\tRegular cadence per communication plan, manage resistance, celebrate milestones, track health dashboard\nChange/Pivot\tRe-analyze power/interest (it shifts!), re-engage resistors, get sponsor reinforcement, over-communicate\nClosure\tThank stakeholders personally, share success stories, conduct lessons learned, hand over relationships\nOrganizational Change Specifics\n\nWhen the initiative involves significant change (new process, restructure, technology migration):\n\nKübler-Ross Change Curve mapping:\n\n MORALE\n |\n | *Shock*\n | \\\n | \\ *Denial*\n | \\\n | \\ *Frustration*\n | \\\n | \\___*Depression*\n | /\n | / *Experiment*\n | /\n | / *Decision*\n | /\n | *Integration*\n |\n └─────────────────────── TIME\n\n\nFor each stage, your stakeholder strategy shifts:\n\nStage\tSigns\tYour Response\nShock\tSilence, disbelief\tOver-communicate, be visible, show empathy\nDenial\t\"This won't really happen\"\tShare concrete evidence, timelines, early wins\nFrustration\tComplaints, resistance, anger\tListen actively, acknowledge feelings, address specific concerns\nDepression\tDisengagement, low productivity\tProvide support, reduce workload, celebrate small wins\nExperiment\tQuestions, trying new approaches\tEncourage, provide resources, tolerate mistakes\nDecision\tCommitment, forward-looking\tReinforce, recognize publicly, connect to their goals\nIntegration\tNew normal\tCelebrate, embed in culture, share learnings\nPhase 7: Advanced Techniques\nPolitical Mapping\n\nFor complex organizations, map the informal power structure:\n\npolitical_landscape:\n power_centers:\n - name: \"Engineering Council\"\n type: \"formal\"\n influence: \"Architecture decisions, tech hiring\"\n key_member: \"Lead Architect (Bob)\"\n - name: \"Friday Coffee Group\"\n type: \"informal\"\n influence: \"Cross-department opinion formation\"\n key_member: \"Senior PM (Lisa)\"\n \n alliances:\n - members: [\"VP Eng\", \"CTO\"]\n basis: \"Technical excellence priority\"\n leverage: \"Frame initiatives as technical improvements\"\n - members: [\"VP Sales\", \"VP Marketing\"]\n basis: \"Revenue growth priority\" \n leverage: \"Frame initiatives as revenue enablers\"\n \n tensions:\n - between: [\"Engineering\", \"Sales\"]\n issue: \"Feature prioritization — roadmap vs customer requests\"\n impact: \"Our initiative may be seen as another 'Sales request'\"\n mitigation: \"Position as engineering-driven efficiency gain\"\n\nStakeholder Value Exchange\n\nFor every key stakeholder, define the explicit value exchange:\n\nWhat WE give them ←→ What THEY give us\n───────────────── ─────────────────\nVisibility into progress Decision-making speed\nCredit for contributions Resource allocation\nData for their own reports Political air cover\nEarly warning on risks Stakeholder introductions\nProfessional development Budget approval\n\n\nIf the exchange is one-sided, the relationship won't sustain. Audit quarterly.\n\nMulti-Project Stakeholder Management\n\nWhen stakeholders sit across multiple of your initiatives:\n\nSingle view — Maintain ONE relationship, not per-project\nAggregate asks — Batch requests; don't hit them from 3 projects in one week\nPortfolio updates — Give them a cross-project summary\nConflict detection — Flag when projects compete for their attention/resources\nRelationship owner — Assign ONE person to manage each key stakeholder across projects\nRemote/Async Stakeholder Management\n\nWhen stakeholders are distributed across timezones:\n\nAsync-first — Record Loom updates instead of scheduling across timezones\nWritten decisions — Document everything; hallway conversations don't exist\nOverlap windows — Protect the few hours of overlap for high-value conversations\nCultural awareness — Communication styles vary (direct vs indirect, formal vs casual)\nOver-communicate — Remote = less ambient information; increase update frequency 50%\nPhase 8: Metrics & Continuous Improvement\nStakeholder Engagement Score (0-100)\n\nScore each key stakeholder monthly:\n\nDimension\tWeight\tScoring\nAvailability\t20%\t10=Always available, 7=Usually, 4=Sometimes, 1=Never\nResponsiveness\t20%\t10=<24h, 7=<3 days, 4=<1 week, 1=>1 week\nAdvocacy\t20%\t10=Active champion, 7=Positive mentions, 4=Neutral, 1=Negative\nDecision Speed\t15%\t10=Same day, 7=<3 days, 4=<1 week, 1=>1 week\nResource Delivery\t15%\t10=Ahead of schedule, 7=On time, 4=Slight delays, 1=Major delays\nRelationship Trend\t10%\t10=Improving, 7=Stable positive, 4=Stable neutral, 1=Declining\n\nScore Interpretation:\n\n80-100: Champion — maintain and leverage\n60-79: Engaged — nurture and deepen\n40-59: At Risk — investigate and intervene\nBelow 40: Critical — escalate and rescue\nMonthly Stakeholder Review Checklist\n Update stakeholder register (new stakeholders? role changes?)\n Re-plot Power/Interest grid (has anyone moved quadrants?)\n Review engagement scores — any trending down?\n Audit communication plan — are we actually following it?\n Check escalation log — any unresolved items?\n Review value exchange — are relationships balanced?\n Update political landscape — any new alliances or tensions?\n Lessons learned — what worked/didn't this month?\n10 Stakeholder Management Mistakes\nIdentifying stakeholders too late — Do it in Week 1, not when you need something\nTreating all stakeholders equally — Quadrant strategy exists for a reason\nOnly communicating when you need something — Build the relationship before the ask\nIgnoring informal influencers — The loudest voice in the room isn't always the most powerful\nOver-promising to please — Say no clearly rather than yes vaguely\nSurprising stakeholders in group settings — Always pre-wire important conversations\nNeglecting champions — They can become neutral if taken for granted\nEscalating emotionally — Escalate issues, not frustrations\nAssuming silence means agreement — Explicitly confirm understanding and commitment\nForgetting stakeholders shift — Re-analyze quarterly; power and interest change\nNatural Language Commands\n\nWhen the user says... do this:\n\nCommand\tAction\n\"Map stakeholders for [project]\"\tRun Phase 1 discovery questions, build register\n\"Analyze stakeholder [name]\"\tFull SCARF + Power/Interest + influence mapping\n\"Create engagement plan for [name]\"\tBuild Phase 3 communication plan + playbook\n\"How do I handle [name] who is [behavior]?\"\tMatch to Phase 4 scenario, provide strategy\n\"Stakeholder health check\"\tGenerate Phase 5 health dashboard\n\"Prepare for steering committee\"\tBuild agenda from Phase 5 template with current data\n\"Someone is blocking [thing]\"\tDiagnose blocker type, provide escalation path\n\"New stakeholder: [name/role]\"\tAdd to register, analyze, slot into communication plan\n\"Stakeholder review\"\tRun Phase 8 monthly review checklist\n\"Political landscape for [org/project]\"\tBuild Phase 7 political mapping" }, "trust": { "sourceLabel": "tencent", "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/1kalin/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "owner": "1kalin", "version": "1.0.0", "license": null, "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record" }, "links": { "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/afrexai-stakeholder-management", "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-stakeholder-management/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-stakeholder-management/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/afrexai-stakeholder-management/agent.md" } }