Manage Stakeholders at Every Level

Proof required

Submit: (1) a stakeholder conflict map: the two or more parties involved, what each party wants, what each party believes is true, and what each party's non-negotiable constraints are (if known); (2) a cause diagnosis (150 words minimum): which of the three root causes — information gap, priority difference, or undisclosed constraint — you believe is driving the misalignment, with the evidence that supports each identified cause; (3) a pre-committed resolution strategy: the specific approach you will use to resolve this conflict, written before any resolution attempt begins. Note: the conflict must be real and current — a hypothetical or a historical conflict resolved before this milestone was started does not satisfy the standard.

What gets checked

• Conflict map documents each stakeholder's position, beliefs, and constraints separately — a single summary description of 'the conflict' does not reveal the underlying structure; each party's view must be documented independently
• Cause diagnosis identifies the dominant cause with supporting evidence — 'it might be priorities' without evidence of what each stakeholder is optimising for is not a diagnosis; the evidence must show which cause accounts for most of the friction
• Resolution strategy is pre-committed and cause-specific — a strategy of 'have more conversations' is not cause-specific; a strategy of 'run a joint session where both stakeholders review the same usage data together' is specific to an information-gap cause

Common mistakes

• Selecting a conflict that was already resolved before starting this outcome — a historical conflict documented from memory is not a real-time proof; the conflict must be live and unresolved at M1
• Diagnosing the cause based on who the submitter sympathises with, not on evidence — a diagnosis of 'stakeholder B is being unreasonable' is not a cause diagnosis; the standard requires understanding what stakeholder B believes is true and why that belief is driving their behaviour
• Resolution strategy that addresses the symptom rather than the cause — if the root cause is an undisclosed constraint, a resolution strategy of 'present better data' will not work; the strategy must be designed to surface and address the actual cause

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Conflict liveness: confirm the conflict was real and unresolved at the time of M1 documentation — ask the submitter what the state of the conflict was when they wrote the conflict map
• Cause diagnosis quality: ask the submitter to describe what stakeholder B believes is true and why they believe it — a submitter who cannot describe the opposing view's logic has not understood the conflict structure
• Strategy specificity: ask how the chosen strategy would fail if the cause diagnosis is wrong — a strategy that cannot fail given any other plausible cause is probably too vague; the strategy should be visibly wrong if the cause is not what was diagnosed

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) a resolution log with at least 3 dated entries: for each intervention, what happened, what it was designed to change, and what actually changed in the conflict state afterward; (2) evidence of at least one direct stakeholder interaction that was designed to advance alignment — a meeting summary, a shared document with comments from both parties, or a message thread showing the exchange; (3) an update to the M1 conflict map showing how each stakeholder's position, beliefs, or constraints changed (or did not change) as a result of the interventions so far.

What gets checked

• Resolution log entries describe specific interventions with specific outcomes — 'had a meeting with stakeholder A' is not a log entry; 'ran a 30-minute session where both stakeholders reviewed the same retention data for the first time — stakeholder A acknowledged that the attrition figures were higher than they believed' is a resolution log entry
• Updated conflict map shows actual movement — a conflict map that is identical to M1 after interventions either means the conflict did not move (in which case the M2 period should continue) or the interventions are not being documented at the right level of detail
• Stakeholder interaction evidence comes from both parties — a summary written by the submitter alone about a meeting does not constitute two-party evidence; a shared document with comments, a thread with replies from both stakeholders, or a co-signed meeting summary does

Common mistakes

• Escalating the conflict upward and calling it a resolution — a conflict resolved by going to the stakeholders' shared manager is not a TEAMS-standard stakeholder alignment proof; the standard requires resolution at the level of the conflict without external authority intervention
• Logging process steps rather than conflict-state changes — 'sent the stakeholders the Q3 metrics deck' is a process step; 'stakeholder B updated her position after seeing the Q3 metrics — she now agrees on the problem statement, though not yet on the solution' is a conflict-state change
• Treating 'agreement to disagree' as resolution — a conflict where both parties remain in their original positions but stop arguing is not alignment; the standard requires either convergence on a shared view or a decision-making process both parties have accepted

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Conflict movement: compare the M2 updated conflict map to the M1 map — if they are identical, ask what changed in each stakeholder's position or understanding as a result of the resolution work
• Escalation check: ask whether the resolution involved anyone with authority over both parties — if yes, the proof may not satisfy the 'without escalation' standard
• Stakeholder evidence: ask the submitter to describe one specific thing a stakeholder said or did that indicated their position moved — this distinguishes genuine alignment progress from submitter-side optimism

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) the alignment outcome document: the shared view or decision both parties agreed to, the evidence that confirms each party accepted it (a message, a meeting summary they co-signed, a decision logged in a shared tool), and whether the original conflict cause was fully addressed or only partially resolved; (2) a 300-word retrospective on the resolution: what technique worked and why, what the critical moment in the resolution was, and what you would do differently if the same conflict recurred; (3) documentation of a real-time Q&A session with a named reviewer who has ≥3 years of PM or leadership experience and a verifiable professional profile — the documentation must include specific challenge questions and your responses; the reviewer must not be a direct report or close personal friend.

What gets checked

• Alignment outcome document includes evidence from both parties — a unilateral statement by the submitter that 'alignment was achieved' without any evidence from the other parties does not satisfy the standard
• Retrospective identifies the critical moment — a retrospective that only lists 'what I did' without identifying which specific action shifted the conflict is not a learning document; there should be a clear 'turning point' that the submitter can name and explain
• Q&A documentation shows the reviewer probed the cause diagnosis and resolution logic — a reviewer who only confirmed the outcome without challenging the methodology ('why did you approach it this way?' rather than 'it sounds like it worked out') did not meet the adversarial standard

Common mistakes

• Partial alignment declared as full resolution — if only one of the original conflict causes was addressed and the others remain, the resolution is partial; the outcome document must be honest about what was and was not resolved
• Alignment document written only by the submitter — a 'summary of what we agreed to' written after the meeting, without any form of the other parties' acknowledgement, is a reconstruction, not evidence
• Reviewer who knew the outcome before the session — a reviewer who was briefed on the resolution before the Q&A session cannot provide adversarial challenge; the session must present the evidence cold and allow the reviewer to probe without coaching

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Alignment evidence: check that the alignment outcome comes from both parties, not just the submitter — a message or comment from the other party confirming the shared view is the minimum standard
• Retrospective depth: ask the submitter to name the specific moment or action that shifted the conflict — a retrospective with no identifiable turning point is a summary, not a learning document
• Reviewer Q&A quality: look for questions that probe the cause diagnosis and resolution choice ('why did you run a joint session rather than work each stakeholder separately first?') — not only outcome validation

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.