The Stakeholder Who Is Not Supportive
Riverside Council is replacing its revenue and benefits system in two go-live waves. The stakeholder register lists 14 groups. The operations manager for the largest service area is recorded as supportive with high influence. A pulse survey of 420 frontline staff shows 38% believe the new system will remove their roles, and the three union representatives have asked for a formal consultation they have not yet had. The communications plan consists of a monthly one-page newsletter, a quarterly steering committee deck and a project intranet page. The newsletter open rate is reported as 62%, but that figure counts only delivered emails that were not bounced; there is no readership or comprehension measure. Three sites operate in another country and a second language; translated material was promised for wave 2 but not produced. Two weeks ago an inaccurate rumour that the council will outsource the service reached the local press, and the project has been answering media queries without a communications lead in post since month 2.
1. How would you reassess the engagement level of the operations manager and the frontline staff, and what evidence would you gather?
Read the worked answer
Start from evidence, not the register. The register says supportive because someone typed it, probably at initiation. Reassess from three sources:
- Behavioural evidence - attendance and contribution at design workshops, response times to data-cleansing requests, escalation history, and whether the operations manager raises issues in the steering committee or only in corridors.
- Attitude evidence - a short structured conversation using open questions ('what would make this fail in your area?'), plus the pulse survey cut by team and site rather than as a single average.
- Influence mapping - who frontline staff actually ask when they are unsure. That is likely the union reps and shift supervisors, not the manager.
Record the result on an engagement scale (unaware, resistant, neutral, supportive, leading) with a date and a source, and replace 'supportive' with the assessed level. For 38% of 420 staff expecting role losses, the defensible reading is resistant; the operations manager is likely neutral at best, or publicly supportive and privately hedging.
Implication: the current plan treats a resistance problem as an information problem. A newsletter cannot move a belief about job security. Only visible decisions about redeployment, consultation and role design will - so the intervention changes, not just its frequency.
2. Redesign the communication approach: what interventions, channels and measures would you put in place for the next 60 days?
Read the worked answer
Diagnosis: the current approach is one-way, corporate, low-frequency, and measured on delivery rather than effect. Redesign around the two audiences that carry the risk.
Frontline staff and unions (next 60 days):
- A formal consultation with the three reps, timetabled and minuted. This is an obligation, not a communications tactic.
- Face-to-face briefings at each site, in the local language, run by line managers with a script and an FAQ that addresses role impact directly, including what is not yet decided.
- Named champions per shift and a two-way channel with a response commitment (for example three working days).
- Publish what changed because of feedback - the only credible proof that consultation is real.
Operations manager: a weekly 20-minute one-to-one, a specific role in wave-1 readiness (data validation, cutover acceptance), and shared accountability for one plan metric.
Steering committee: decision-focused rather than status theatre - one page, decisions requested, risks with named owners.
Measures that mean something: attendance and question volume at briefings, a three-question comprehension check rather than an open rate, sentiment by team and site, ageing of unresolved issues, and escalation counts. Retire the 62% figure, which measures delivery and not communication.
3. The rumour has reached the press. What is your immediate and short-term response, and what boundaries apply to your role?
Read the worked answer
Immediate (24 hours): establish the facts with the interim communications lead and HR - what was said, where, to whom. Agree a single holding line with the chief executive or service director, issued in the project's name, stating what is decided and what is not, and when the next update will come. Do not speculate about outsourcing. Brief the unions before the line goes public: they will be asked to comment, and being surprised converts a rumour into a dispute.
Short term (two weeks): a named spokesperson; a short Q&A for managers so the same answer is given everywhere; a written note to all staff; a scheduled update cadence that keeps a genuine channel open. Log the rumour and its spread as a stakeholder issue with an owner in the issue log.
Boundaries: the PM's job is accurate, timely and consistent information plus a functioning consultation - not crisis PR, and not making commitments about staffing or outsourcing that belong to the executive. If the executive will not front the message, say so in writing and escalate. Silence will be filled by the rumour, and the project will carry the cost of it in wave-1 adoption.