Rethinking Project Onboarding Through Behavioral Insights

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect the perspectives of IIBA.

Highlights

Effective onboarding depends on understanding stakeholder behavior, not just project processes.
Communication gaps often come from differences in working styles, not technical issues.
Behavioral insights can help teams adapt faster and collaborate more effectively.

Why Onboarding Matters

Project onboarding is a short but very intense stage. Over the course of several weeks, a new team member goes through a kind of full check-up: their hard skills, soft skills, ability to navigate the product, and — no less importantly — their ability to build relationships with the team and stakeholders are all evaluated.

Without proper onboarding, we risk losing several sprints of productivity while the person tries to reconstruct the rules of the game on their own, collecting them from fragments of conversations and observing how others communicate. In such a situation, a new employee inevitably begins to build their own model of the project, and it does not always match reality: they may misunderstand priorities, choose an inappropriate communication style with stakeholders, or incorrectly assess how decisions are made on the project.

In outsourcing development this is especially critical. Teams change regularly, projects start and end. Along with them come new stakeholders — with different expectations, communication styles, and views on how work should be organized. One unsuccessful conversation with a client can affect the perception of the entire team. As a result, the project pays for such onboarding twice: first with the time of the new employee, and then with the time of the team that helps correct the misunderstandings that arise.

But the most difficult part of this process is not learning the tools or immersing oneself in the product architecture — it is understanding the unwritten rules of interaction between people. That is why, without a systematic approach to adaptation, a new team member is forced to learn how to work with stakeholders through trial and error, and in projects such mistakes almost always come at a cost.

The Challenge of Communication Across Teams and Cultures

This problem becomes no less acute in international projects and in collaborations between teams from different business cultures. Even when all participants speak the same language and work according to established processes, differences in communication styles can suddenly “hit like a punch to the gut” or feel like a bucket of cold water poured over one’s head.

When such differences remain unrecognized, they begin to directly affect the efficiency of teamwork: misunderstandings accumulate faster than the project itself moves forward.

And this is exactly the situation where classical stakeholder management tools stop working. We can clearly distribute roles on the project using a RACI matrix, we can identify priority stakeholders along the “Influence–Interest” axes, and we can even prepare a communication plan where the frequency, format, and tools for communication are firmly defined.

After these exercises we will know exactly what needs to be done, but… we still will not know how to do it in the most comfortable and effective way for all parties involved.

A Question Worth Asking

So I asked myself a question:

Is it possible to conduct some kind of discovery of stakeholder interaction as systematically as we analyze processes on a new project?

Not in the format of subjective complaints about “difficult people,” but as a clear model that helps predict behavior and adapt communication.

Lessons from José Mourinho

As an avid football fan, I immediately remembered coach José Mourinho. During his “golden” era, the Portuguese coach’s staff prepared analyses of every player on the opposing team before each individual match. These were not just notes. According to accounts, they were full dossiers describing strengths, weaknesses, psychological tricks, and other characteristics. It was a simple, not particularly innovative, but very effective method of work that brought many trophies to Mourinho and his teams.

At first glance, this practice seems easy to adapt to the IT environment, but in reality it is not that simple. In real projects we usually limit ourselves to basic introductions and then act according to the situation. Why?

The Risks of “Stakeholder Dossiers”

There is a risk of demotivating a new employee by informing them about the existing communication difficulties with certain stakeholders. Let’s be honest: in the outsourcing model employees do not always have the real opportunity to choose a project. And if such a choice does exist, a project with difficult stakeholders will certainly not be a priority.

An initiative such as creating a dossier on a problematic stakeholder can easily turn into a set of short notes consisting mainly of complaints. This will not solve the problem. Moreover, cultivating negativity inside the team is not professional. Therefore, it is often easier not to create such dossiers at all than to risk damaging the team atmosphere.

That is why Mourinho’s methods are not suitable for us. What we need are more or less objective criteria for evaluating stakeholders — criteria that are constructive, not overly emotional, and that can practically help improve communication between teams.

Enter Erin Meyer and The Culture Map

This is where Erin Meyer, the author of the bestselling book The Culture Map, comes in. In her work she identifies eight parameters that describe professional behavioral patterns. The beauty of this methodology is that these parameters describe not so much national cultures as differences in working styles.

Let us briefly review each of them.

Communication

How directly people express their thoughts. At one end of the scale is low-context communication: clear, direct wording with minimal room for interpretation. At the other end is high-context communication, where a significant portion of meaning is conveyed through hints, context, and tone.

Feedback

In some cultures it is common to give direct negative feedback. In others criticism is softened or expressed indirectly. If this difference is not taken into account, feedback may be perceived either as rudeness or as an unclear hint.

Persuasion

People structure their arguments differently. Some begin with a general concept and then move to conclusions. Others start with facts and examples and only then formulate the general idea. This difference affects the structure of presentations and negotiations.

Leadership

Different cultures perceive hierarchy differently. In egalitarian environments a leader is seen as “first among equals.” In hierarchical systems status and position determine the style of interaction.

Decision-Making

In some teams decisions are made through discussion and consensus. In others decisions follow a top-down model where the leader has the final word.

Trust

Trust can be built on different foundations. Sometimes it is based on competence and the quality of work. Sometimes it grows from personal relationships and informal interaction.

Disagreement

In some cultures active debate is considered a normal way to find the best solution. In others open disagreement may be perceived as a disruption of harmony.

Time Management

Some teams strictly follow schedules and deadlines. Others treat planning more flexibly and allow plans to change during the course of work.

Why These Differences Matter Everywhere

At first glance it may seem that this model is useful only for international teams. But in practice differences in behavioral patterns appear even within one country and even within one company.

For example, an IT startup, a large corporation, and a government organization may occupy completely different positions on the scales of leadership, feedback, and decision-making. Formally they belong to the same cultural environment, but their expectations about work can differ significantly. If we add generational differences to this picture, the situation becomes even more complex.

That is why Meyer’s parameters are relevant for analyzing interactions between teams both within the same business environment and when aligning expectations between teams from different environments. It is precisely for this reason that her work has resonated with thousands of people around the world. It is an excellent desk book that helps people reflect and improve their understanding of colleagues.

Turning Theory Into Practical Tools

While reading the book, I caught myself thinking that these parameters could be turned into simple tools that would help account managers or project managers conduct better onboarding on projects and quickly align a newcomer’s expectations with the requirements of other stakeholders.

A Simple Stakeholder Mapping Approach

One could start with a simple table in Google Sheets listing stakeholders and indicating their inclination toward one side or another on each of Meyer’s scales. Such a profile can help predict how a person may behave in different working situations.

After receiving initial feedback from the newcomer and from their stakeholder colleagues, we can then build the “Culture Map” itself by comparing the newcomer with a colleague with whom certain friction or misunderstandings arise. For example, such a map can quickly be assembled in draw.io.

The advantage of this approach is that we do not need precise numerical measurements of each parameter — the map can be filled in schematically based on the experience of the newcomer’s colleagues. Nevertheless, this approach allows us to see the largest gaps in behavioral patterns, prioritize them, and develop an action plan that significantly simplifies the adaptation process.

Learning to “Play the Game”

Difficult situations begin to be perceived not as an unpleasant surprise but as expected features of interaction. Over time people come to understand a simple truth: sometimes achieving results requires not changing another person but adjusting one’s own communication style. In other words, learning to play the game.

At a certain level of maturity an employee learns to see the situation from both sides and accept aspects of a colleague’s behavior. At that point the problem may largely disappear.

The Business Impact

For the company this approach can lead to broader effects:

reducing the time required for approvals
reducing communication gaps and potential conflicts
increasing employee satisfaction
and potentially increasing the share of time the team spends building new functionality rather than fixing existing implementation issues.

Onboarding is only one direction where these tools can be applied. They may also be useful when preparing a Professional Development Plan (PDP), Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), annual Performance Review, and similar processes.

Final Thoughts

The key idea I would like to emphasize is this: a difficult stakeholder is not always a problem. Sometimes it is simply a person who operates on a different “communication operating system.” The team’s task is not to reinstall that system, but to learn how to interact with it.

After all, successful projects are built not only on technology and processes. They are built on people’s ability to understand each other and reach agreements.

About the Author

Artem Rynkovskii is a Senior Business Analyst at Exadel.

He is an IT Business Analyst with over 8 years of experience in IT consulting and product development. Throughout his career, he has worked across multiple domains, including fintech, e-commerce, retail, healthcare, and pharma.