LEADERSHIP & INFLUENCE
Stakeholder Management & Influence
Whether you can turn real disagreement into a committed decision across functions with conflicting incentives, not just get everyone to nod in the same meeting.
← All 16 dimensions in the competency frameworkWhat strong evidence looks like
- A specific disagreement and the conflicting incentives actually involved
- How it was resolved, including any escalation or tradeoff that was required
What weak evidence looks like
- Claims "cross-functional alignment" with no specific disagreement named
- Cannot describe how agreement was actually reached, only that it was
A real follow-up question
“What did the other team want that conflicted with what you needed, and how did you actually resolve it?”
Questions like this follow directly from what you just said, not from a fixed script -- they exist to find out whether an answer holds up, not to check a box.
Related dimensions in Leadership & Influence
See where you actually stand on this
A self-assessment only goes so far. The adaptive interview tests exactly this kind of evidence, in your own words, with follow-up questions built to find out whether it holds up.