While it is generally acknowledged that stakeholder engagement differs from stakeholder management, some ambiguity remains in the literature, leading to the synonymous use of these terms. Unlike the reciprocal nature of stakeholder engagement, however, stakeholder management tends to be one-sided. When organizations engage in traditional stakeholder management, they primarily act to protect themselves from stakeholders’ demands. It’s a positive that, as practitioners, we have moved away from trying to control how stakeholders perceive us and have instead opted for genuine engagement.

What if we shift our focus from engagement to influence? The phrase “stakeholder engagement” typically highlights the importance of fostering dialogue, building relationships, and maintaining open communication. In contrast, the notion of influence brings attention to power dynamics, decision-making authority, and the subtle ways in which stakeholders can affect project outcomes. This important distinction warrants further exploration, as engagement usually entails responding to stakeholders’ needs, whereas influence is about actively shaping how stakeholders perceive and act according to an organization’s goals. This proactive stance enhances our understanding of persuasion and power dynamics, areas often neglected in stakeholder management discussions (outside of a compulsory, subjective 2×2 matrix).

It is critical to recognize that not all stakeholders possess equal power and influence over project outcomes. Strategically leveraging power and influence within stakeholder networks can provide fresh insights for practitioners operating in complex environments where specific stakeholders hold considerable sway. Concepts like influencing without formal authority become particularly significant in matrixed or cross-functional teams, where power is often distributed.

While engagement centers on nurturing relationships, influence is geared towards outcomes, motivating stakeholders to adopt desired actions or perspectives. Change agents must not only engage stakeholders but also channel their behaviors towards achieving important objectives, thereby facilitating organizational transformation.

Often, our focus is limited to formal stakeholder interactions and communication avenues. A more thorough examination of informal influence, such as discreetly persuading key decision-makers, could illuminate critical insights into the less-visible influence networks essential for success. Tactics may include networking and pinpointing informal leaders within stakeholder groups to gain support, even from those not typically recognized as “key” stakeholders (see my previous articles on identifying informal influencers)..

Another angle for consideration is the ethical side of influence. How can change agents influence stakeholders without crossing ethical lines? Change agents trade on trust, transparency, and integrity as core values. Ethical influence is about fostering genuine commitment by aligning stakeholder goals with the organization’s objectives through honesty and transparency.

Maintaining this ethical approach builds trust and cultivates productive relationships; crossing into manipulation undermines the very foundations of successful change. By continually reflecting on intentions and encouraging feedback, change agents can remain ethical stewards of influence, effectively promoting change without compromising stakeholder autonomy or trust.

As practitioners, shifting our focus from mere engagement to intentional influence allows us to harness a more proactive approach in stakeholder dynamics. Influence is not about controlling or manipulating stakeholders but strategically aligning their perspectives with program goals. When we master the delicate balance of ethical influence, we cultivate deeper trust and stronger alignment, turning stakeholder networks into assets that can propel organizational success.