Augmenting
Stakeholder Analysis
with SCARF
Jeff Stankiewicz
www.ProficiencySystems.com

2 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 A method to identify all parties – persons, departments, or
organizations – who may have influence upon a project and
take the necessary steps to manage their interests and
expectations so that the project runs as smoothly as
possible
What is Stakeholder Analysis?
An important project management tool to
proactively and effectively manage risk,
potentially impacting the delivery of
desired results on time, within budget,
that last

3 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Lack of stakeholder buy-in is one of the most common
project failure modes
 Proactively analyzing stakeholder buy-in allows issues to
be addressed early on, helping to ensure they don‟t hinder
project success
Why Stakeholder Analysis?

4 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process
 Should be conducted early on, and updated throughout the
project as understanding of stakeholders' influence and
attitude evolves
When to Do Stakeholder Analysis?
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process
Project Life

5 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
1. Identify stakeholders
2. Assess their attitudes and
degree of influence
3. Develop the Plan to
address buy-in issues of
high-influence stakeholders
4. Execute the plan
5. Monitor for evolving
attitudes and influence
Stakeholder Analysis Process
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process

6 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
Stakeholder Analysis – Assessment Grid
High-Influence
Resisters
Low-Influence
Resisters
Low-Influence
Advocates
High-Influence
Advocates
Degree of Influence
AttitudeTowardProject
Arik
S.
NW
Mfg
Ande
S.
Nigel
M.
R&D
Jane
D.
Jay
Z.
John
M.
Phil
F.
Sales
Leverage these
stakeholders to
help influence buy-
in of High-Influence
Resistors
Develop a plan to
improve the attitude
(buy-in) of these
stakeholders

7 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 A stakeholder‟s attitude toward the project is determined
based on a consensus best guess of their emotional
position relative to the change
– There is no defined criteria to assess why they may or may
not be bought-in; it‟s just “yes” or “no”
– Without more defined criteria to consider when assessing
degree of buy-in, there is increased risk in a misdiagnosis and
unexpected (potentially damaging) stakeholder behavior later
in the project
Issues with Traditional Stakeholder Analysis
 When High-Influence Resister stakeholders
are identified, there is no guidance on how
to effectively manage them

8 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Augment the traditional Stakeholder Analysis tool with the
SCARF model
Our Suggestion for Improvement…
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process
Augment with SCARF

9 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 SCARF is a brain-based model for
collaborating with and influencing
others
 Developed from hundreds of
neuroscience studies
 Enabled by the advent of functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
in 1992, which made it possible to
study the mental processes of
subjects by looking at brain activity
What is SCARF?
Status
Certainty
Autonomy
Relatedness
Fairness

10 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 The SCARF model was developed by David Rock
What is SCARF? (Cont.)
http://www.your-brain-at-work.com/files/NLJ_SCARFUS.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isiSOeMVJQk&feature=youtu.be

11 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 The “minimize danger and maximize reward”
overarching, organizing principle of the brain
– If a SCARF element increases, the brain‟s
approach response increases
– Likewise, if a SCARF element decreases,
avoidance responses are triggered
Foundation of the SCARF Model
Adapted from various lectures, presentations, and papers discussed in the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Certificate in the Foundations of NeuroLeadership course

12 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Status is about perceived relative importance compared to
others
 The brain‟s reward circuitry is activated when someone
feels „better than‟ another person, leading to a flood of
dopamine. A reduction in status appears to trigger the
same brain regions that correspond to physical pain
Status
Tips:
 When considering a workplace change, seek to understand the, often
subtle, factors impacting individual employees‟ perceived status
 Allow people to give themselves performance feedback, instead of
you giving them feedback
 Provide opportunities for people to learn and improve – and
recognize it when it happens
Adapted from various lectures, presentations, and papers discussed in the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Certificate in the Foundations of NeuroLeadership course

13 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Certainty helps meet the brain‟s need for identifying
recognizable patterns, to be used in the prediction of the
near future
 Any uncertainty triggers an alert to the Orbital Frontal
Cortex, diverting attention to the abnormality
Certainty
Tips:
 Build and communicate business plans, strategies, and maps
 Make more things explicit
 Work to provide pockets of certainty in uncertain times
Adapted from various lectures, presentations, and papers discussed in the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Certificate in the Foundations of NeuroLeadership course

14 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Autonomy is the perception of one having control over their
environment
 Having perceived control feels rewarding, however a
perceived reduction can result in an intense threat response
linked to the perceived inability to influence outcomes
Autonomy
Tips:
 Don‟t micromanage employees
 Be aware that working in a team naturally results in a reduction of
autonomy. This perceived threat can be counteracted with increases
in status, certainty, and relatedness
 When necessary, seek out ways to provide “structured” autonomy.
For example, instead of stating “this is the solution”, provide two
options and ask “which would you prefer”
Adapted from various lectures, presentations, and papers discussed in the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Certificate in the Foundations of NeuroLeadership course

15 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Relatedness involves the perception of others being „in‟ or
„out‟ of a social group
 People appear to a have a pre-disposition – probably driven
by millions of years of tribal living – for forming and seeking
to belong to groups, where they achieve a sense of
belonging and protection. Correspondingly, „outsiders‟
were viewed as being a threat
 When someone does not feel an adequate amount of
relatedness a threat response, in the form of feeling lonely,
is generated
– Interestingly, countering this loneliness by seeking
relatedness to a new individual often triggers an additional
automatic threat response
Relatedness
Adapted from various lectures, presentations, and papers discussed in the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Certificate in the Foundations of NeuroLeadership course

16 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
Relatedness (Cont.)
Tips:
 When meeting someone new, offer a handshake, swap names,
discuss something in common, etc. to generate some feeling of
closeness, triggered by the release of oxytocin
 Provide team members opportunities to share personal aspects of
themselves
 Utilize formal buddy, mentor, and/or coaching programs to help foster
safe connections
Adapted from various lectures, presentations, and papers discussed in the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Certificate in the Foundations of NeuroLeadership course

17 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Fairness, as exhibited by a number of studies on fair
exchanges, has been shown to be intrinsically rewarding
 Unfair exchanges can generate a strong threat response,
sometimes linked to the same brain region involved with
triggering the emotion of disgust
Fairness
Tips:
 Provide increased transparency
 Establish clear expectations and ground rules
 Provide a perception of fairness by sharing the burden
Adapted from various lectures, presentations, and papers discussed in the NeuroLeadership Institute’s Certificate in the Foundations of NeuroLeadership course

18 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
2. Assess:
 For each influential stakeholder, instead of simply rating his or her level
of buy-in, explore how the changes resulting from the project will likely
impact the stakeholder‟s SCARF dimensions; either positively
(approach) or negatively (avoid)
How to Integrate SCARF into the
Stakeholder Analysis Process
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process

19 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
3. Plan:
 For each High-Influence Resister stakeholder, instead of simply
brainstorming for ways to improve buy-in, use the SCARF model to
develop a more scientific based action plan
 Develop a plan that maximizes each of the SCARF dimensions (in the
positive direction) for the stakeholder
How to Integrate SCARF into the
Stakeholder Analysis Process (Cont.)
Stakeholder
Analysis
Process

20 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 Let‟s assume that a team is conducting an analysis on an influential
stakeholder
 This stakeholder's office will need to be moved as part of a larger
improvement. The team comes up with the following:
SCARF Augmented Stakeholder Analysis
Example

21 © 2014 by Proficiency Systems, Inc.
 For stakeholder with a moderate to high degree of negative SCARF impacts the
team should explore ways to eliminate or offset the negatives and to maximize the
positives:
SCARF Augmented Stakeholder Analysis
Example (Cont.)

info@proficiencysystems.com www.ProficiencySystems.com