Stakeholder management: leading without formal authority

A manager must complete a project, but the people on whom the outcome depends report to other line managers. One function needs to validate data, another must make a resource available. A more senior colleague might change priorities without being involved in operational meetings. The manager follows up, updates the plan, and sends more emails. Everyone acknowledges the project's importance, but no one gives it the same priority in their own schedule.

This is where stakeholder management becomes concrete. It is the ability to build collaboration where formal authority is absent or covers only part of the work. The solution is not to add more people to email threads. It requires understanding who can support a decision, who will bear its consequences, and who controls the conditions necessary for its implementation.

A map of the work, not of affinities

Mapping stakeholders begins with actual dependencies. Who has the missing information? Who commits the budget? Who will have to change their way of working? Who is evaluated on a result that might conflict with our own? The formal reporting structure provides only part of the answer.

Categorising people as allies, neutral parties, or opponents can be useful, provided these labels do not become permanent identities. Someone who favours the project may oppose a deadline because it jeopardises another responsibility. An initially distant colleague can become a supporter upon understanding the benefit to their own function. Interests change and must be reassessed, not inferred from people's personalities.

Creating the conditions for a decision

Being right is not enough if you cannot create the conditions for a decision to be supported. A technically sound analysis may arrive too late, request resources that are already committed, or reveal a cost that others have not had the chance to assess. Engaging with others early helps to surface these constraints before they become a public refusal.

The exchange of value can be very concrete: sharing useful information, streamlining a process that burdens another function, or agreeing on a sequence compatible with both sets of priorities. This is not a transactional exchange of favours. It is about making collaboration sustainable even for those who are not evaluated on our objective.

Reputation and dissent

The ability to influence also depends on the history of one's professional relationships. Those who keep their commitments, flag risks in a timely manner, and do not blame others for every delay build credibility. Those who present every request as urgent or consistently escalate to senior management for a response may find short-term compliance but long-term resistance.

An opposing view deserves to be understood before it is overcome. It may signal a real risk, an overlooked responsibility, or a perceived loss of autonomy. Managerial assertiveness helps bring disagreement into the conversation without turning it into a personal conflict. If an escalation is necessary, it is better to clearly articulate the issue and the alternatives, rather than simply asking someone to impose our preferred solution.

Between naivety and over-Calculation

Reading the political and organisational context means understanding interests, constraints, and decision-making levers. This does not require cynicism. Naivety is thinking that a good proposal will stand on its own; excessive politicking is seeking support while neglecting the quality of the proposal itself. Both habits can erode trust.

Horizontal communication is for negotiating dependencies and commitments; vertical communication is for clarifying priorities and decisions that exceed one’s own mandate. Choosing what to bring to each level is part of managerial presence. An update should allow the other person to understand what contribution is being asked of them, not just document how much work we have done.

A manager who is too operational may have little time for this relational work. Before attributing the difficulty to their influencing skills, their workload must also be considered. When time is available, individual development focuses on how to use it: moving beyond purely technical competence to take responsibility for aligning contributions that cannot be commanded.