Stakeholder Map

Score the people around your initiative on power and interest, look for the influence an org chart does not show, and leave with a short, ordered plan for the conversations that matter most.

Practice, not research: the power-interest grid is practitioner craft commonly attributed to Mendelow (1981) and rarely tested; reviews such as Bryson (2004) argue for the practice, not for the grid. French and Raven's (1959) bases of power have mixed evidence. The 1 to 5 scales, the quadrant labels and the row counts on this page are rules of thumb.

Use it when:

• You are starting a project or change that needs people outside your own control to say yes, or at least not say no.
• An initiative has stalled and you suspect you have been talking to the wrong people.
• You are new in a role or an organization and need a quick picture of who matters for your first big piece of work.

Skip it when:

• You already have the map and need tactics for one powerful person: use 3.2 Power & Influence Grid.
• The question is the unwritten rules and alliances in the organization, not one initiative: use 3.3 Political Landscape Notes.

The grid makes a simple claim: two judgments about each stakeholder, how much power they have over your initiative and how much they care about it, are enough to decide how much attention they get. It is commonly attributed to Mendelow (1981), though the quadrant labels cannot be traced to that source, and it is practitioner craft: the grid itself has rarely been tested as a predictive tool. Its mechanism is economy of attention. You cannot engage everyone deeply, so you ration effort toward the people who can move the outcome.

Its blind spot is that it says nothing about where power comes from or how it travels. Typologies such as French and Raven's (1959) remind you that expertise, relationships and information give people power no org chart records, though the evidence on each base is mixed. That is why Step 3 hunts for the influencers the grid misses, why Step 2 rates support separately from power, and why Step 4 ends in an order of conversations rather than a picture.

Say what you are trying to get done and what it requires from people you do not control.

Strong answer: "Move the regional depots to one shared spare-parts stock by September. I need the depot managers to release shelf space and the finance controller to approve a new cost center." Not: "Get buy-in for the parts project."

Initiative and deadline:

The next decision, and who makes it:

Your role in it:

What success requires from other people:

Illustrative example: the organization, the roles and the details are made up.

A fleet engineer at a regional bus operator in Finland wants one shared spare-parts stock for four depots.

Step 1: shared stock live by September; the next decision is the cost center, which the finance controller approves at the monthly cost review.

Step 2: finance controller, power 5, interest 2, neutral. Depot managers as a group, power 4, interest 5, blocker (they fear losing parts at night). Head of operations, power 5, interest 3, supporter. Purchasing, power 2, interest 4, supporter.

Step 3: the opinion leader is the longest-serving depot foreman, not any manager. The gatekeeper is the controller's assistant, who sets the cost review agenda. Missing from Step 2: the night shift supervisors.

Step 4: 1. Depot foreman, who cares about "never waiting for a part at 2 a.m."; ask for a one-month trial at his depot. 2. Controller's assistant; ask for a slot at the next cost review. 3. Finance controller, with the trial results. Strongest blocker: the depot managers as a group; involve them in setting the reorder rules. Review every Friday.