How to Manage Multiple Stakeholders in Client Interviews

On a Saturday, we just placed a crucial Sr. Director role for a key client of Lazio Search Group – a game-changer for their team. But twice in the final stages, the placement nearly stalled. Unexpected feedback surfaced, a key decision-maker went quiet. It could have fallen apart. We knew this candidate was the one. What saved it? The 7+ stakeholders we'd engaged throughout the process. Key insight: Engaging multiple stakeholders isn't just good recruiting practice. It's placement insurance. Here’s the 9-step stakeholder engagement playbook we leverage at Lazio Search Group for critical hires: Early Leadership Alignment: Don’t wait for roadblocks. We facilitate brief, early check-ins between our leadership and client execs to ensure strategic alignment on the role's impact. This builds trust long before challenges arise. Identify the Real Hiring Team: Stakeholders often emerge mid-process. We proactively ask: "Who else will interview?", "Whose input is critical for buy-in?", "Who will this role impact most?" Uncovering these hidden influencers prevents late-stage surprises. Engage Individuals, Not Just the Group: Individual follow-ups are gold. Our team connects 1:1 with interviewers to understand nuanced feedback, address specific concerns, and tailor communication. Quality over quantity. Listen for Cues & Respond Proactively: When an interviewer mentions a specific need or concern (e.g., "Needs strong financial modeling skills"), we use that signal to proactively share relevant candidate insights or adjust screening criteria. Cultivate Multiple Client Advocates: Relying solely on the hiring manager is risky. We build rapport with HR, influential team members, and anyone invested in the hire's success. They become internal champions for the candidate and the process. Welcome New Participants: When a new person joins the interview loop late-stage? We see it as an opportunity, not a hurdle. We quickly bring them up to speed and integrate their perspective. Keep Leadership Informed (Above-the-Line): Ensure client leaders (VP, C-Suite) understand search progress, market dynamics, and candidate quality via concise updates. It builds credibility and maintains momentum. Value Every Interviewer's Input (Below-the-Line): Feedback from potential peers or junior team members can be incredibly insightful and influential in today's flatter organizations. We give genuine attention to all feedback. Strategic Leadership Intervention (When Needed): If a placement stalls due to internal indecision, a well-timed, strategic conversation between Lazio and the client can reinforce the value prop and regain commitment. Engaging multiple stakeholders isn't a tactic. It’s insurance for your critical hires. A placement defense system. Built relationship by relationship, conversation by conversation. So when hiring hurdles appear—and they will— There's a network within your organization ready to navigate them. That's the Lazio Search Group approach.

"Deal's looking good. I'm in with the CMO." A colleague shared his excitement. I rolled my little eyeballs. "What?" he asked, confused. "Single-threaded deals die," I replied. Three weeks later: "CMO went on leave. Deal's stalled." I wasn't surprised. The average B2B purchase now involves 11+ stakeholders. Yet most reps are still playing the "one relationship" game. Old playbook: Find one champion. Let them "sell internally" for you. Hope for the best. Failure rate? About 80%. A recent client win taught me the better approach: Initial call with the VP of Sales. Great fit, but I asked: "Who else needs to be comfortable with this decision?" The list: - CRO (economic buyer) - IT Director (technical approval) - Sales Enablement (implementation) - 2 Regional VPs (end users) That's 6 people. Each with different: - Priorities - Objections - Questions Rather than pestering my champion to coordinate everything... I created a single digital room with: - Role-specific sections for each stakeholder - Tailored ROI calculations for the CRO - Security documentation for IT - Implementation timeline for Enablement - Quick-start guides for the Regional VPs My champion shared the link. The magic happened silently: Analytics showed the CRO viewed the ROI calculator 5 times. The IT Director spent 15 minutes on security docs. Both Regional VPs watched the training videos. I hadn't spoken to any of them directly. But they were all selling themselves. When we finally had the "decision call," everyone was already aligned. No last-minute objections. No mysterious "other stakeholders." No surprises. Here's what changed: Old approach: Pray your champion effectively represents you to people you never meet. New approach: Give every stakeholder what they need, even without direct access. Multi-threading isn't about scheduling more calls. It's about making yourself irrelevant to the process. The best deals close when stakeholders convince themselves...without you in the room. Are you still gambling on single-threaded relationships? Or building networks that sell for you? Agree?

“Just because you CC’d three stakeholders doesn’t mean you’re multithreaded.” I was reviewing a stalled enterprise deal with a team in Johannesburg. The CRM looked healthy — multiple contacts from different departments logged, emails tracked, even a few meetings booked with adjacent stakeholders. But nothing was moving. We called the champion. He said: “I shared the proposal with finance, but I’m not sure what they thought. Haven’t heard back.” That’s when it hit us: Access was not the issue. Alignment was. ✅ Here’s the difference: – Access means multiple people are involved – Alignment means those people agree on value, urgency, and fit Multithreading isn’t about getting everyone on your calls. It’s about understanding what each stakeholder needs, fears, and prioritizes — and building trust separately with each of them. In this case: – Finance had concerns about switching costs – IT wanted to know about integrations – Ops didn’t want another platform to manage But none of that had been addressed because we treated multithreading like a contact sport, not a strategy. ✅ What we changed: – Mapped each stakeholder’s priorities and blockers – Customized follow-up messages and content for each persona – Crafted responses for possible objections for each persona – Asked our champion who was resisting, not just who was copied 🎯 The behavioral traps: – Vanity Metrics: More contacts ≠ more momentum – False Consensus: Multiple replies can hide silent dissent – Delegation Bias: Assuming your champion is managing alignment behind the scenes Real multithreading is uncomfortable. It forces us to build more relationships, uncover more objections, and personalize more communication. But it’s also how enterprise deals actually close. 📌 If your deal depends on one person forwarding your proposal, you’re one reorg away from dead pipeline. 📥 Follow me for more insights. Repost if this resonated.

How I Balance Multiple Stakeholders Without Dropping the Ball as a Program Manager at Amazon Product wants speed. Science wants rigor. Leadership wants results. And sometimes…none of them agree. As a Program Manager, my job isn’t to make everyone happy…it’s to make sure the program moves forward with clarity. Here’s how I balance competing stakeholder needs…without dropping the ball: 1/ I start by mapping what each stakeholder actually cares about ↳ Product: time-to-market ↳ Science: accuracy ↳ Leadership: customer impact Example: I create a “stakeholder map” doc for every large program. I list priorities, concerns, and success metrics…then share it back to align. 2/ I highlight trade-offs early…not late ↳ “We can move faster, but it may reduce model quality” ↳ Let them weigh the cost, not me Example: In one launch, I gave two timeline options…one fast, one thorough. Instead of me deciding, I let the stakeholders align based on their priorities. 3/ I make decisions visible ↳ Every trade-off, agreement, and change is documented ↳ No “but I thought we said…” Example: I include a decision log in the shared tracker. When direction changes, I update the rationale and tag the stakeholders. 4/ I recap every meeting in 3 lines ↳ Who’s doing what ↳ By when ↳ And why Example: After every alignment call, I post a Slack recap: “Decision: Option B. Launch moves to 6/15. Product to update PRD by EOW.” No confusion. 5/ I check in 1:1 when things get tense ↳ Group settings aren’t always safe spaces ↳ One DM can realign everything Example: When tension built between two teams, I set up short 1:1s to understand each side…then found common ground offline before we regrouped. You don’t need to please everyone. You just need to keep them aligned enough to move forward. What’s your strategy for managing multiple stakeholder voices?