Stakeholder Management
This section covers cross-functional collaboration and stakeholder relationship management for product managers. PMs operate through influence rather than direct authority.
Stakeholder Overview
| Stakeholder | Primary Concerns | Common Friction Points |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | Feasibility, quality, technical debt | Timeline promises made without consultation |
| Design | User experience, craft | Treatment as production department |
| Leadership | Business outcomes, strategy | Surprises, lengthy explanations |
| Sales | Deal closure, competitive features | Ignored feedback, unclear roadmap |
| Customer Success | User satisfaction, escalations | Unresolved escalation follow-up |
| Legal/Compliance | Risk, regulations, privacy | Attempts to circumvent review |
Relationship Building
Proactive Engagement
| Action | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Regular 1:1s with key partners | Build rapport before needs arise |
| Understand stakeholder pressures | Anticipate concerns |
| Provide assistance without expectation | Build goodwill |
| Follow through on commitments | Establish reliability |
Anti-Patterns
| Behavior | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Only engage when needing approval | Perceived as transactional |
| Treat stakeholders as obstacles | Creates adversarial dynamics |
| Ignore stakeholders until they block | Causes escalations |
Executive Communication
Communication Structure
| Component | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Lead with ask | State what you need (decision, approval, information) |
| 2. Brief context | 1-2 sentences, not full history |
| 3. Options | 2-3 choices with trade-offs |
| 4. Recommendation | Your position |
Example: "I need your decision on a launch delay. We found a bug affecting 5% of users. We can ship on time and fix in follow-up, or delay two weeks to fix first. I recommend delaying because this affects first impressions for new users who would churn before patch."
Executive Communication Errors
| Error | Impact |
|---|---|
| Burying the point in context | Wastes time, loses attention |
| No opinion on recommendation | Appears unprepared |
| Surprising with bad news | Damages trust |
Disagreement Resolution
Resolution Process
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| 1. Understand position | Ask: "Help me understand what's driving this concern" |
| 2. Find shared goal | Anchor on what both parties want |
| 3. Use data | Evidence carries more weight than opinion |
| 4. Offer alternatives | Provide options, not just "no" |
| 5. Escalate appropriately | Involve tiebreaker if alignment fails (inform other party first) |
Common Situations
"This is the highest priority"
Everyone claims their request is most important.
Response: "I understand this is important. Help me understand the impact so I can prioritize against other asks. What happens if we don't do this?"
Then make a principled trade-off decision with transparent reasoning.
Executive Mentions an Idea
Casual mentions get treated as mandates.
Response: Follow up directly. "I heard you mention X in the meeting. How important is this relative to current priorities? Should we reprioritize?"
Most casual mentions are ideas, not directives.
Competing Requests
Sales wants feature A. Customer success wants feature B.
Response: Use transparent prioritization criteria. "Here's how we prioritize: user impact x reach / effort, weighted by strategic alignment. Based on that, here's the ranking."
When stakeholders understand the framework, they accept outcomes more readily.
Scope Creep
"Can we also add this one thing?" repeated until scope doubles.
Response: "We can add that, but it means cutting something else or pushing the timeline. Which trade-off do you want to make?"
Make the cost explicit. Additions are not free.
Escalation Without Discussion
A stakeholder goes to your manager without talking to you first.
Response: Follow up without defensiveness. "I heard there's a concern about X. I'd like to discuss directly. What's going on?"
Escalations often occur because someone did not feel heard. Address the root cause.
Function-Specific Guidance
Engineering
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Explain the problem, not your solution | Prescribe technical implementation |
| Understand constraints before committing | Promise timelines without input |
| Be available for questions | Disappear after writing spec |
| Celebrate their wins | Take credit for their work |
Design
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Involve early | Treat as "make it pretty" |
| Share user problems, not solutions | Dictate specific UI elements |
| Give goal-focused feedback | Say "I don't like it" without explaining why |
| Trust their expertise | Micromanage visual decisions |
Sales
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Listen to customer feedback | Promise features to close deals |
| Explain roadmap and priorities | Keep roadmap confidential |
| Help position what you're building | Blame them for unhappy customers |
| Follow up on requests | Ignore input |
Leadership
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Lead with the ask | Bury the conclusion |
| Bring data and recommendations | Present problems without solutions |
| Inform early when things go wrong | Surprise with bad news |
| Be concise | Ramble |
Interview Questions
"Tell me about a time you influenced without authority"
STAR Response Structure:
- Situation: Needed infrastructure team buy-in for API change, their backlog was full
- Task: Get prioritization without formal authority
- Action: Met with tech lead to understand constraints, learned they cared about tech debt, reframed request as mutual benefit, got engineering lead to advocate as joint win
- Result: Prioritized in next sprint, feature shipped on time, built better relationship
"How do you handle pushback?"
Response Framework:
- If missing context: Dig into concerns, often reveals misalignment on goals
- If priority disagreement: Use transparent framework, not opinion vs. opinion
- If fundamental disagreement: Escalate to tiebreaker after exhausting other options, always inform other party
"How do you communicate a decision people won't like?"
Response Framework:
- Affected stakeholders hear directly, not through grapevine
- Explain reasoning (people accept decisions they disagree with if logic is clear)
- Acknowledge trade-off ("I know this means X won't happen this quarter, and I understand why that's disappointing")
Do not pretend there is no downside or blame others for the decision.
Company Decision-Making Cultures
| Company | Culture | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Amazon | "Disagree and commit" | Once decided, everyone commits fully even if they disagreed |
| Consensus | Requires "working the doc" - share, incorporate feedback, iterate | |
| Apple | Secrecy | Information compartmentalized, less cross-functional visibility |
| Netflix | "Context not control" | PMs expected to make decisions with provided context, more accountability |
| Startups | Informal | Fewer formal functions, "stakeholder management" is direct conversation |
Organizational Politics
Realities to Navigate
| Reality | Implication |
|---|---|
| Power dynamics | Who has executive ear affects ability to execute |
| Information as currency | Strategic sharing is a skill |
| Credit/blame distribution | Perception management is part of the job |
| Personal relationships | Trust accelerates approvals |
Senior PM Behaviors
| Behavior | Description |
|---|---|
| Multiple moves ahead | Position current requests for future needs |
| Build coalitions early | Outcome determined before formal decision meeting |
| Manage skip-level relationships | Understand politics above direct manager |
| Pick battles carefully | Preserve political capital for what matters |
| Create clarity | Build structures that reduce ambiguity for everyone |