As a Recommender, you're often connected to the Performer's group. I've personally observed numerous instances where initiatives bubble up from the bottom of the organization. These ideas frequently originate with engineers, team leaders, or engineering managers. This might seem to contradict my earlier statement that Performers typically struggle to change the existing status quo.
In fact, your team is just one highly motivated group among many working to change everything. You are not alone in your organization. Introducing any software project requires support from compliance, security, infrastructure, and sometimes even datacenter teams. Those responsible for integrating with your system must assist you as well. In the short term, our increasingly connected world with more legacy systems means more manual work across different groups. This represents one of the biggest risks to your proposal - you might secure initial approval, but these groups could keep your project in limbo.
To disrupt or, better yet, shift the status quo, you'll need to approach each stakeholder group individually and secure their commitment to change. Can you think of effective strategies to accomplish this? How might you build the coalition necessary to move your initiative forward?
I have a simple method of dealing with such difficulties. It's called goal alignment. You need to understand the goals of these people, groups, and individuals, and share your own goals with them - why you're doing what you're doing. In certain instances, these goals can match. For example, I know several managers who have told me, "This will change, or I'm leaving this organization. This is the last project I'm proposing here."
Through conversations with various parties in this organization over the past weeks, I've noticed an increasing number of people considering departure because they see no meaningful change in company approach or culture. These individuals, many of whom have been with them for years, have significant personal and professional stakes in the initiatives we've discussed at length in our proposal. They've invested time, energy, and emotional capital into projects they believed would transform their workplace.
While this situation might appear extreme or concerning at first glance, it's actually a positive development in the organizational journey. Such sentiments of frustration and readiness for change aren't as uncommon as you might think - they represent a healthy dissatisfaction with the status quo. In fact, this kind of tension often precedes necessary transformation.
Typically, when you're in a leadership position like yours, people rarely express these feelings directly to you - there's an inherent power dynamic that disables complete transparency. That's why you need to develop the sensitivity to detect these undercurrents yourself, to read between the lines in meetings, to notice changes in engagement levels, and to truly hear what people are saying in their one-on-ones. This ability to sense organizational undercurrents is a critical leadership competency that distinguishes truly effective leaders - regardless of their management level. Without this awareness, even the most technically proficient leader will struggle to catalyze meaningful change.
When you have goals in common with another group, success depends on how you present those goals as shared objectives and ensure your proposal aligns with what the second group wants. If your goals are similar, but you differ on implementation, focus on finding common ground or merging approaches. These situations often present the greatest opportunity for innovation, as the tension between different methodologies can spark creative solutions neither group would have developed independently. Start by acknowledging the validity of both approaches and identifying the strengths each brings to the table. Then work together to develop a hybrid solution that incorporates the best elements of both strategies. Remember that compromise doesn't mean everyone gets less than they wanted - it frequently means creating something better than either group initially envisioned.
But what if your goals directly oppose each other? A common example is when you want significant changes while they prefer to maintain the status quo in slow maintenance mode. Unfortunately, in such situations, these ideas fundamentally clash.
I call this challenge a "status quo shift." How can we navigate this difficult terrain effectively?
The second group needs convincing that your team will help implement changes and then return to maintenance mode. You can point to many instances where your enhanced automation will actually reduce their daily workload—which is typically the case.
For example, in many corporations, domain management and certificate rotation are handled manually through tedious processes. By introducing an automated certificate management system, you can create certificates on demand and handle rotation automatically. This significantly reduces the workload for such teams. They'll essentially maintain their status quo, just with less effort and in a more efficient environment.
In some cases, your solution will only align with the goals of a few people, or even just one person. This is precisely why I emphasized examining individual goals alongside organizational ones. A single motivated individual can be sufficient to introduce a change that specifically addresses your unique needs. This person can then become your advocate, helping you decide whether and how to extend your solution to the entire organization later on.
What if it still doesn't work? You may need to abandon your idea, find a workaround, or develop an alternative solution that doesn't require input from the datacenter team. If they cannot provide you with a dynamic environment automatically, you have two main options: request a large infrastructure that you can manage yourself on-site, or ask for a cloud environment that allows you to work independently of the datacenter team.
Naturally, you might consider escalating to higher-level stakeholders who could push the team to implement changes. This strategy seems logical at first glance - after all, executives and senior managers have the authority to mandate adoption of new processes or tools. However, this approach often leads to conflict rather than collaboration. When team members feel that changes are being forced upon them without their input or consent, they typically respond with resistance rather than enthusiasm. Team members who aren't invested in your idea can still find ways to block implementation, sabotage the project, or create an endless cycle of "problems" that prevent progress. They might technically comply with directives while finding subtle ways to undermine the initiative - perhaps by dedicating minimal resources, highlighting every minor setback as evidence of failure, or simply dragging their feet until momentum is lost. Even with executive sponsorship, the day-to-day execution still depends on the willing participation of the team, and passive resistance can be just as effective as outright refusal in derailing your efforts.
The most effective path forward is to create genuine alignment through understanding and addressing their concerns, rather than forcing compliance through authority. When team members feel heard and valued, they naturally become more invested in the project's success. Taking the time to listen actively to their perspectives, acknowledging the validity of their worries, and collaboratively finding solutions builds trust and strengthens relationships. This approach may require more patience initially, but it ultimately leads to more sustainable outcomes with higher quality work and greater team cohesion. By contrast, simply leveraging positional power to demand compliance might yield short-term results but often creates resentment, reduces creativity, and damages long-term engagement. The most successful leaders recognize that true influence comes not from their title, but from their ability to connect authentically with their team members' motivations and concerns.
What's your experience dealing with resistant stakeholders? Please share your approaches in the comments below.
