Stakeholder Impact & Support Map

Keep a living map of who matters for an initiative that is already running: where each person stands today, where you need them to be, what they have actually said, and the next conversation with a date.

The power-interest sorting is a practitioner grid, commonly attributed to Mendelow (1981) and rarely tested directly. The engagement side draws on stronger change research (Piderit, 2000; Coch & French, 1948; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Stance scales and the calendar are practitioner craft.

Use it when:

• An initiative is running and you need to know who is with you, who is not, and why.
• A decision date is coming and you must build support before positions harden.
• You keep being surprised by objections from people you thought were neutral.

Skip it when:

• You are still planning and need to see who is impacted and how deeply: use 8.6 Stakeholder & Change Impact.
• You need to find hidden influence and sequence a coalition: use 3.1 Stakeholder Map; to understand the causes of resistance, 3.8 Resistance & Support Map.

Support is not a fixed trait of a person. It is a stance that moves, and it moves earliest and cheapest before positions harden in public. The grid sorts stakeholders by influence and interest (commonly attributed to Mendelow, 1981); it is a way of budgeting your attention, not a measurement.

The engagement side rests on stronger research. What looks like resistance is often reasoned ambivalence, with concerns mixed with hopes (Piderit, 2000). Early field experiments suggested that taking part shapes how people respond to change, a reading later critics question (Coch & French, 1948). The response should fit the source of the resistance instead of defaulting to persuasion (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). So a skeptic's stated concern is data about your initiative, often the best you will get. That is why the map pairs current with desired stance and asks what each person cares about in their words, not yours.

Initiative and what changes:

Decision or approval needed by (date), and who decides:

Strong answer: "Move the night shift to a new rota from 1 September. The unit manager decides after the staff meeting on 12 June." Not: "A better way of working."

Illustrative example: the municipality, the roles and the dates are invented.

A unit manager in a Swedish municipal care home plans a new night rota from 1 September. The map lists five roles. The night-shift team leads are High interest, Medium influence, Skeptic now, Supporter wanted. The union-appointed safety delegate and the HR partner are Neutral. The department head (High influence, Supporter) is a Champion in waiting. A coordinator is Low influence, Supporter.

Asked directly, the team leads care about weekend predictability; their concern is that the new rota concentrates weekend shifts. The unit manager brings two rota options and the weekend count per person. The calendar front-loads this: team leads in weeks one and two, safety delegate and HR partner in weeks three and four, a decision paper in week five. Derailer: the team leads. Overall risk: Medium, falling to Low if the weekend counts hold.