joellewis/stakeholder-review

Overview

Stakeholder-review is the "Group IQ" gate that ensures deliverables are stress-tested by the organizational ecosystem before finalization. It moves feedback from a friction-filled "push" (giving) to a high-value "pull" (seeking), focusing on alignment, safety, and clear resolution of conflicting inputs.

Iron Law

NO FINAL VERSION WITHOUT DOCUMENTED STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND RESOLUTION

Violating this law leads to "shadow vetoes" later in the process, misalignment on success metrics, and the exclusion of critical cross-functional insights that improve the Group IQ.

State Machine

digraph stakeholder_review_flow {
    "Deliverable Drafted" [shape=doublecircle];
    "Step 1: Prepare Pre-read" [shape=box];
    "Step 2: Align Purpose" [shape=box];
    "Step 3: Review Session" [shape=box];
    "Gate: Resolution" [shape=diamond];
    "Step 4: Close the Loop" [shape=box];
    "Final Version Approved" [shape=doublecircle];

    "Deliverable Drafted" -> "Step 1: Prepare Pre-read";
    "Step 1: Prepare Pre-read" -> "Step 2: Align Purpose";
    "Step 2: Align Purpose" -> "Step 3: Review Session";
    "Step 3: Review Session" -> "Gate: Resolution";
    "Gate: Resolution" -> "Step 1: Prepare Pre-read" [label="revise"];
    "Gate: Resolution" -> "Step 4: Close the Loop" [label="resolved"];
    "Step 4: Close the Loop" -> "Final Version Approved";
}

When to Use This Skill

• Before finalizing high-stakes documents (PRDs, Strategy Memos, Pitch Decks).
• When a project involves multiple cross-functional dependencies.
• During Quarterly Business Reviews (QBRs) or project post-mortems.
• When you notice "silence" or "violence" in response to a proposal.

When NOT to Use This Skill

• For low-stakes, iterative internal team updates.
• For pure brainstorming sessions (use problem-framing instead).
• When seeking emotional support rather than technical or strategic critique.

Core Process

Step 1: Prepare the Pre-read

• Distill the Narrative: Draft a concise (roughly 5-page) document or presentation that covers both backward-looking metrics and forward-looking goals. (Source: Johnson, Scaling People)
• Advance Distribution: Share the document 24-48 hours before the meeting. If no pre-read occurred, dedicate the first 15-20 minutes of the session to silent reading. (Source: Johnson, Scaling People)

Step 2: Align the Purpose

• Label the Feedback Type: Explicitly state whether you are seeking Appreciation (acknowledgment), Coaching (advice to improve), or Evaluation (assessment against standards). (Source: Stone, Thanks for the Feedback)
• Negotiate Expectations: Check in: "I'm looking for coaching on the strategy. Is that what you prepared to give?" This prevents "cross-transactions" where one party gives evaluation when the other wants coaching. (Source: Stone, Thanks for the Feedback)

Step 3: Conduct the Review Session

• Swap "Feedback" for "Advice": Ask "What advice do you have?" rather than "Do you have feedback?" This lowers social friction and attracts more actionable input. (Source: First Round Review, Berry)
• Look Together, Not Oppositional: Stand "next to" the stakeholder to look at the work together. Use "Go Meta" tactics: "It feels like we're not talking about the big issue. Is there a challenge here we're avoiding?" (Source: Johnson, Scaling People)
• Maintain Safety: If stakeholders move to silence or violence, step out of the content and restore safety using Mutual Purpose and Mutual Respect. (Source: Grenny, Crucial Conversations)

Step 4: Close the Loop

• Document Decisions: Record notes with explicit decisions and next steps. (Source: Johnson, Scaling People)
• Share the Action Plan: Distribute a summary of the feedback received and how it will be resolved. "Closing the loop" gets stakeholders invested in the final outcome. (Source: First Round Review, Berry)

Cross-Skill Invocations

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: stakeholder-discovery — To ensure the right people are in the room. RECOMMENDED SUB-SKILL: assumption-audit — To validate claims raised during the review. RECOMMENDED SUB-SKILL: feedback-coach — To manage difficult interpersonal dynamics during the session.

Rationalization Table

| Thought | Reality | |---------|---------| | "I'll just get approval over Slack/email." | Asynchronous feedback lacks the "Group IQ" and nuance of a live, structured review. | | "The stakeholders are too busy for a meeting." | Skipping the gate now leads to expensive rework or late-stage "shadow vetoes." | | "I'll talk to them once the version is finished." | This is too late. The iron law requires feedback before finalization to be effective. | | "I already know what they're going to say." | Confirmation bias blinds you to the 10% of feedback that is often critical for success. |

Red Flags

These thoughts mean STOP — you are about to shortcut:

• "This is just a formality to check a box." → You are ignoring the "Group IQ" value.
• "I'll filter their feedback before the team hears it." → You are compromising transparency and trust.
• "I'm preparing my defense while they are still talking." → You have triggered a "Truth Trigger" and are no longer listening.

Diagnostic Checklist

• [ ] Has a pre-read been distributed at least 24 hours in advance?
• [ ] Have we explicitly agreed on the type of feedback (Appreciation, Coaching, Evaluation) being sought?
• [ ] Are we using "Advice" language to lower friction?
• [ ] Is there a dedicated scribe recording decisions and next steps?
• [ ] Has the "elephant in the room" (the thing you think you cannot say) been named?

Sources

• Johnson, Scaling People, Ch. 2 & 5 — QBRs, pre-read culture, and internal comms.
• Stone & Heen, Thanks for the Feedback, Ch. 2 & 3 — Feedback triad and purpose alignment.
• Grenny et al., Crucial Conversations, Ch. 5 — Safety and Mutual Purpose.
• First Round Review, "The Best Leaders are Feedback Magnets" — Advice vs. Feedback and closing the loop.