Stakeholder Mapping (Power and Influence)

A list of hundreds of names cannot be engaged one by one. Segmentation groups stakeholders with similar needs so that each segment can receive messages and involvement suited to it. Common bases are:

• degree of impact on their work;
• role or function, such as managers, front-line staff or support teams;
• location or site;
• attitude toward the change, from supportive to opposed;
• power and interest, which the grid below uses.

At Harbourside Council, staff affected by a new case system fall into three segments: heavy daily users, occasional users and staff who only receive reports. Each segment needs a different depth of training and communication.

Segmentation is not a way to decide whom to ignore. Stakeholder mapping uses segments to tailor engagement, not to ration it.

Power is the capacity to affect the outcome of the change. Influence is how that capacity is used, including through informal channels. A stakeholder can have little formal power but wide influence through networks and reputation.

John French and Bertram Raven described five bases of social power in 1959, and Raven later added a sixth, informational power.

The positional and personal grouping comes from later writers, not from French and Raven themselves. Personal power travels with the person, whatever their job title.

Stakeholder mapping that looks only at positional power will miss the respected expert whom everyone consults.

The grid has two axes: power (or influence) over the change, and interest in it. Each stakeholder or segment is placed in one of four quadrants:

1. Manage closely (high power, high interest): key players. Involve them in decisions and engage them often.
2. Keep satisfied (high power, low interest): consult them on what matters to them and avoid overloading them with detail.
3. Keep informed (low power, high interest): inform them regularly and listen. They often spot practical problems and can become allies.
4. Monitor (low power, low interest): watch for shifts with minimal effort.

Interest means what the stakeholder stands to gain or lose, and how much they care. Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann use a similar power-versus-interest grid with their own labels.

The power/interest grid therefore turns a stakeholder list into an engagement priority for each group.

At Larchfield Logistics, the change team for a warehouse automation program maps its segments in a workshop:

1. Start from the segmented list produced during identification.
2. Rate power and interest for each segment, writing down the evidence behind each rating.
3. Plot the segments on the grid and discuss disagreements; they often reveal missing information.
4. Choose an approach per quadrant and name an owner for each relationship.
5. Decide who should move. The finance director is high power but low interest; the sponsor briefs her on cost impacts so that she does not block the program late.
6. Review the map at each milestone.

Stakeholder mapping is most useful as a team conversation backed by evidence, not as a one-off chart.

The grid is simple, quick and easy to explain, which is why it is so widely used. Its limits come from the same simplicity:

• It is a snapshot. Power and interest change as the change unfolds, so positions need regular review.
• It ignores attitude. Two high-power stakeholders can sit in the same quadrant, one supportive and one opposed. Many teams add attitude as a color or a third dimension.
• Ratings are subjective and can reflect the team's assumptions rather than evidence.
• The monitor quadrant can hide the people most affected. Front-line staff may have little power but must adopt the change.

Mitchell, Agle and Wood proposed a broader view, in which stakeholder salience depends on power, legitimacy and urgency.

The power/interest grid is therefore a starting point for stakeholder mapping, best combined with attitude and impact.