Organization Align
Stakeholder Mapping
Stakeholder mapping places the people around a decision by power and interest, so engagement goes where it can change the outcome.
The questionWho can affect this decision, how much do they care, and what engagement does each one need?
Also called a power-interest grid or a Mendelow matrix. Related grids plot influence, impact, or attitude instead of interest.
When to use it
- A change, bid, or investment depends on people outside the project team, and engagement is currently "update everyone" or "the sponsor will handle it."
- A previous attempt was blocked by someone the plan had treated as a recipient of information.
- You need to decide who is in the room for a decision, who gets a briefing, and who should not be copied on every note.
- The list of "stakeholders" has grown past twenty names and nobody has said which ones can actually change the outcome.
When to avoid it
- The question is who owns each task inside a known team. RACI names roles on work, and this grid names influence on a decision.
- You are mapping a complex sale and need buying roles, not power against interest. Miller Heiman names economic, user, and technical buyers.
- The group will use the grid to write people off. "Monitor" is a current posture, not a judgment that someone does not matter.
- Power is about to shift, as in a union ballot, a regulator's consultation, or a CEO succession, and a single snapshot would freeze the wrong picture. Draw it twice, now and after the event.
Overview
Stakeholder mapping plots the people around a decision by two questions: whether they can change the outcome, and how much they have at stake. The four boxes then set an engagement posture: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, or monitor. The point is to spend scarce contact time where it can still change the result, and to stop sending the same pack to everyone on a long list.
The common citation is Mendelow, 1991. Mendelow’s 1981 paper used power and dynamism. Johnson and Scholes popularized the power-interest version with the four postures. Plot roles with evidence, not titles, and treat support as a separate fact from interest. An opponent with high power and high interest is a close-management problem, not a candidate for the monitor box. The map is a snapshot, and power moves.
The two axes and four postures
Power
Ability to change the outcome, by authority, budget, veto, information, or the ability to organize others. Job title is a clue, not the measure. A regulator, a works council, or a scarce expert can outrank a sponsor on a given decision.
Interest
How much the person has at stake in this decision, and how closely they will watch it. Interest is not the same as support. An opponent with high interest belongs in the same quadrant as an ally with high interest, and needs a different conversation, not a different box.
Manage closely
High power, high interest. These people shape the decision. Involve them in options, not only in a readout. There should be few of them. If half the list is in this box, the power axis has not been used.
Keep satisfied
High power, low interest. Give them what they need to stay comfortable, in a short form they will actually read. Flooding them creates interest you then have to manage, or irritation that turns into a veto.
Keep informed
Low power, high interest. They rarely decide, and they often see operational problems early. A genuine two-way channel here is cheaper than discovering their issue in a go-live week. Do not confuse informing with asking permission.
Monitor
Low power, low interest. Do not spend the program's scarce meeting time here. Do watch for a shift in power or interest that would move them, such as a union that was quiet until rostering rules changed.
What it is not
- A map of supporters and opponents. Attitude is a third dimension. Two people in "manage closely" can disagree, and both still need close work.
- A substitute for a responsibility chart. Placing someone as high power does not make them accountable for a task.
The steps
-
Fix the decision
Name the decision or change the map is for, and the time horizon. A map for "the digital program" mixes people who care about different decisions. What comes out is one sentence the team can plot against.
-
List people and groups
Include those who can stop it, those who have to operate it, and those who think they should have been asked. Use roles where one person fills one role, and named people where power is personal. Aim for a number you can plot, often between ten and twenty.
-
Score power and interest
Place each name with evidence, not title. Ask who could stop this last time, who holds the budget, who will live with the result, and who has organized others. Mark uncertainty rather than forcing a box.
-
Set the posture and the contact
Give each quadrant its posture, then write one concrete action per name in the two high-power boxes and for anyone in keep informed who can break operations. Name who owns that contact.
-
Watch for movement
Set a date to plot again, and the events that would move someone, such as a ballot, a leadership change, or a go-live date. A map made once describes last month's politics.
In practice
A seven-hospital network was replacing its nurse rostering system. The program listed eighteen stakeholders and sent all of them the same monthly pack. The consultant plotted power against interest in a two-hour session with the program lead and the chief nursing officer.
The CEO sat in keep satisfied: high power, low interest in rostering mechanics, and wanted a one-page monthly exception report, not the pack. The CNO and two union representatives sat in manage closely. Ward clerks sat in keep informed: low formal power, high interest, and they would be the people who could make the new roster unworkable on the first weekend. Facilities sat in monitor. The first draft had put the unions in keep informed, on the theory that rostering was an operations matter. A previous rostering change in two hospitals had been stopped by those same representatives. The program cut the eighteen-name pack to four named relationships, put the unions into the design group for exception rules, and gave the clerks a weekly demo. The board still saw one page.
What you leave with
- A list of people and groups, plotted, with a one-line reason for each placement.
- A posture and a named owner of contact for everyone in the two high-power boxes.
- A short channel for the keep-informed group that actually does the work.
- Triggers that would move someone between boxes.
Failure points
Title standing in for power
The grid reproduces the org chart. Informal vetoes, unions, regulators, and scarce experts sit in the wrong box, and the plan is surprised by them.
Interest standing in for support
Opponents are pushed into monitor so the team does not have to engage them. High-interest opposition belongs in manage closely or keep informed, with a different conversation.
Everyone in manage closely
Nobody will rank power, so the grid gives permission to meet everyone. Engagement time then follows whoever asks, not whoever can change the outcome.
A pack for all quadrants
The same thirty-page update goes to the CEO and the ward clerks. The CEO stops reading, the clerks cannot find the one process change that affects them, and both boxes have been missed.
A map that never moves
Interest and power change at go-live, in a consultation, or when a senior person leaves. Last quarter's grid drives this quarter's meetings.
The failures above are usually Stakeholder Algebra: while the analysis was precise, the people who decide were not handled correctly.
Origin
The grid used in most consulting work plots stakeholders by power and interest, then assigns an engagement posture to each quadrant: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, or monitor. Textbooks and training materials usually call this Mendelow's matrix and date it to 1991. Aubrey L. Mendelow's paper "Environmental Scanning — The Impact of the Stakeholder Concept" was presented at the International Conference on Information Systems in 1981. That paper asked how to scan the environments of powerful stakeholders. Its grid was power against dynamism, meaning how fast the stakeholder's position could change, not interest.
Gerry Johnson and Kevan Scholes, in Exploring Corporate Strategy, set out the power-interest version that carries the four postures used today. Later editions and later authors kept Mendelow's name on it, and 1991 became the usual citation even though 1981 is the conference date for Mendelow's paper. The matrix is not licensed and carries no trademark. Other maps exist, including Mitchell, Agle, and Wood's salience model of power, legitimacy, and urgency. This note is the two-by-two that teams actually draw in a workshop.
Further reading
- Stakeholder analysis
Wikipedia's overview of stakeholder types and mapping methods, including the power-interest matrix often labeled Mendelow's. Free. Check its sources before quoting.
- Power versus interest
An Open University page that draws the four-quadrant grid and the four postures, and flags that interest can move. Free, and clear enough to use in a workshop.
Last updated