Stakeholder Communication and Governance
This domain tests whether you can identify stakeholder needs, design deliberate communication and run governance that produces decisions rather than status theater.
Stakeholder analysis and communication
- Use a power/interest grid: high power and high interest are managed closely; high power and low interest are kept satisfied; low power and high interest are kept informed; low power and low interest are monitored.
- A communication plan names audience, message, channel, frequency and owner.
- Tailor the message: executives need variance, forecast and decisions required; delivery teams need detailed dependencies and impediments.
Governance
Governance assigns decision rights and escalation paths. A steering committee should resolve escalated trade-offs, approve stage gates and remove blockers, not review task status. Maintain a decision log so rationale survives staff changes. Reporting should show actual versus baseline, forecast to completion and the decisions requested.
Worked example
A regulator has high power but low interest in daily delivery detail. The correct approach is concise quarterly compliance evidence with a named contact, not daily stand-up invitations. The reasoning: the power/interest position calls for keeping them satisfied with targeted, evidence-based communication; over-communicating operational detail erodes attention and creates unnecessary scrutiny.
Traps
- Assuming more communication is always better; irrelevant updates dilute key messages.
- Hiding bad news until it becomes an issue, destroying credibility.
- Running governance meetings as status readouts with no decision rights.
- Omitting a decision log, so the same debate recurs and accountability blurs.