Stratrix

Quick reference

Key formula / structure

Each group's power over the decision (what it could take away) x its interest in it = manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, or monitor

Memory aid

Power is not size or rank. It is what a group can take away from you.

TL;DR

Name the decision. List every group that can affect it or is affected by it, split until each holds one view. Score each group's power by what it could do to support or block the decision, and how fast, and its interest by how much it cares and in which direction. Place them on the grid, give each group that matters a plan and an owner, and redraw the map as the decision moves.

What Is Stakeholder Mapping?

Stakeholder mapping lists everyone who can affect a decision or is affected by it, scores each group on two things, how much power it has over the outcome and how much interest it takes in it, and places them on a two-by-two grid. Each box gets a plan: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, or monitor. The map is redrawn as the decision moves, because groups change boxes.

The grid is only as good as its power column, and most teams fill that column from the org chart and the size of each group: the regulator, the board and the largest customers score high, and a crowd of small users scores low. Ackermann, Eden and McKiernan define power differently, by the actions available to a stakeholder to support or block a strategy, and they warn that stakeholders who look passive and weak may gain power, for example by forming coalitions. Unity is the clearest case of the gap. In September 2023 it told the developers who built games on its engine that it would charge a fee every time one of their games was installed. Each developer was small. Together they made the games Unity's business depended on, and they could build the next one on another engine. Within ten days Unity had removed the fee for its free tier, within a month its chief executive had retired, and a year later the fee was canceled. Etsy's sellers struck over a fee increase in April 2022 and the fee stayed, which is the other half of the lesson: anger is interest, not power. So score power by what a group could take away from you, and how fast, not by how big or loud it is.

The power-interest grid

Power over the decision down the side, interest in it across the top. The usual plan for each box, before you ask what each group could take away.

PowerHigh interestLow interest
HighManage closelyKeep satisfied
LowKeep informed, and ask what they could take awayMonitor

Origin & context

R. Edward Freeman's Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, first published in 1984 in the Pitman series in Business and Public Policy, is described by its publisher as a landmark moment in the development of stakeholder theory; Freeman defined a stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives. The power-interest grid is traced to A. L. Mendelow, whose paper on environmental scanning and the stakeholder concept appeared in the proceedings of the 1981 International Conference on Information Systems. Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann, whose Making Strategy (1998) emphasized stakeholder management, developed the grid for strategy teams; their 2011 version in Long Range Planning is the one their 2024 paper reproduces.

Builds on: A. L. Mendelow (1981), Environmental Scanning: The Impact of the Stakeholder Concept, ICIS 1981 Proceedings; R. Edward Freeman (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann (1998), Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management; Fran Ackermann and Colin Eden (2011), Strategic Management of Stakeholders: Theory and Practice, Long Range Planning 44(3).
What we changed: We score power by one question, what could this group take away from us and how fast, rather than by its size or rank.

Stakeholder Mapping in action

Unity

The small customers who turned out to be the power

Unity makes a game engine, the software thousands of studios use to build their games. On September 12, 2023, it told the people who built games on it that it would soon charge them a fee every time one of those games was installed. The fee was meant to take more from the successful games, the high-revenue titles Unity most needed to keep.

On a grid drawn by size, each of those developers is a small dot in the low-power box. Together they were the reason anyone used Unity, and their next game did not have to be built on it. Innersloth, the studio behind Among Us, said it would be cheaper to hire two people to move the game to another engine than to pay, Game Developer reported.

On September 22 Unity removed the fee for its free tier, spared games made on earlier versions of its engine and apologized. On October 9, John Riccitiello retired as chief executive and chairman. On September 12, 2024, a year to the day after the announcement, Unity canceled the fee and went back to charging by the seat, with Unity Pro up 8% to $2,200 a seat. Its new chief executive, Matt Bromberg, wrote that Unity "can't pursue that mission in conflict with our customers; at its heart, it must be a partnership built on trust."

In 2024, games built on Unreal took 31% of game revenue on Steam against Unity's 26% — the first time Unreal had led by revenue since 2018 — although 51% of games released on Steam that year used Unity, according to third-party Steam engine-tracking data (Video Game Insights). The figures do not say how much of the shift the fee caused.

Read the full story: Unity, Unreal and the runtime fee →

Etsy

The loud stakeholders who did not move the fee

On February 24, 2022, Etsy said it would raise its transaction fee on sellers from 5% to 6.5% from April 11. Its chief executive, Josh Silverman, told sellers the money would pay for more marketing, a 20% larger support team and security investment.

Sellers organized a strike for the day the fee rose. Organizers said more than 14,000 shops took part. On April 11 the fee went up on schedule, and Etsy did not reverse it. Its filing for the second quarter of 2022 named the fee increase as one of the drivers of that quarter's revenue growth.

On a grid, the striking sellers scored high on interest. Interest is not power. A stakeholder map that confuses the two will spend its effort on the loudest group instead of the one that can take something away.

The fee increase stood, and Etsy's filings credited it for revenue growth.

Read the full story: Etsy's seller strike →

Microsoft

The regulator in one market that reshaped a global deal

Microsoft's purchase of Activision Blizzard needed approval in many countries. One was the United Kingdom, where the Competition and Markets Authority had a say over the whole transaction.

To win that approval, Microsoft restructured the deal on August 21, 2023. It transferred the cloud-streaming rights to all current and new Activision Blizzard PC and console games released over the next 15 years to Ubisoft, everywhere outside the European Economic Area. A regulator in a single market had reshaped what Microsoft was buying.

Microsoft completed the acquisition on October 13, 2023, for $75.4 billion.

Read the full story: what Microsoft gave up to close Activision →

Using it in the room

Reach for it before announcing anything that changes what customers, partners, staff or regulators get or pay: a price change, a policy, a reorganization, a deal. Draw it before the decision is final, while the plan can still change.

Questions to ask

  • ?Who can affect this decision, and who is affected by it?
  • ?For each group: what could they take away from us, and how fast?
  • ?Which group in the low-power box could act together?
  • ?Which loud group is high on interest but low on power?
  • ?Whose interest could we raise, or lower, before we announce?

The 30-minute version

Write the decision on the board and list every group it touches, splitting any group that holds two views. Draw the grid and place each group in a minute. Then spend the rest of the half hour on the low-power boxes: for each group, write what it could take away and how fast, and move any group with a real answer up the grid.

Core Components

1

The decision

The specific choice or change being mapped. A map of stakeholders in general, with no decision, has nothing to score power against.

Example

A software company plans to move its customers from one-time licenses to subscriptions (invented example: the company is made up to show the method).

2

The stakeholders

Every group or person who can affect the decision or is affected by it, split finely enough that each has one view. 'Customers' is usually several groups.

Example

Large enterprise customers, small businesses, resellers, the sales team, a regulator and an industry forum (invented example).

3

Power

What the group can do to support or block the decision: leave, stop buying, withhold approval, organize others, go public. Score it by what the group could take away, and how fast.

Example

Small businesses each spend little, but together they are most of the user base and can move to a rival product within a quarter (invented example).

4

Interest

How much the group cares about this decision, and in which direction: for it, against it or undecided.

Example

Resellers care a great deal, because subscriptions cut out the margin they earn on each license (invented example).

5

The plan for each box

Manage closely the high-power, high-interest groups; keep the high-power, low-interest ones satisfied; keep the interested but less powerful informed; monitor the rest. Then decide which groups to move: whose interest to raise or lower, and who might join together.

Example

The company meets resellers before the announcement and offers them a share of subscription renewals (invented example).

Ackermann, Eden and McKiernan note that managing stakeholders can mean deliberately lowering a group's interest so it is no longer a stakeholder, or persuading others to become stakeholders. The grid is a map of positions that can be moved, not only a list of who to keep informed.

When to Use Stakeholder Mapping

Scenario 1

A price or policy change for customers or partners

Problem it solves: The team plans for the large accounts and assumes the many small ones will absorb the change.

Real-world application

Before announcing, the team scores each small-customer segment by what it could take away and how fast, and tests the change with the segments that score high.

Scenario 2

A merger or acquisition

Problem it solves: The deal team maps shareholders and the board, and treats regulators in smaller markets as a formality.

Real-world application

Every regulator with a say over the deal goes on the grid as high power, with the remedy it might ask for.

Scenario 3

An internal reorganization

Problem it solves: Leaders map the executives and miss the teams whose cooperation the change needs.

Real-world application

The map lists each team whose work the change depends on, and what it could withhold.

The low-power box hides the surprises

A group scored as low power because each member is small can be decisive together. Before you settle a score, ask what the group could take away from you if it acted at once: its business, its work, its approval, its silence.

How to Apply Stakeholder Mapping: Step by Step

Before you start

  • →One decision or change, stated in a sentence
  • →People who know the customers, partners and regulators involved
  • →Any record of how these groups reacted to past changes
Tools:A whiteboard or a two-by-two templateA short list per group: what it could take away, and how fast
1

Name the decision

Write the choice being mapped. Power and interest are always power and interest over something.

Tips

  • ✓Map the decision, not the company

Common mistakes

  • ✗Drawing one map for every project
2

List the groups

List everyone who can affect the decision or is affected by it. Split broad groups until each holds one view.

Tips

  • ✓Ask who would call the press, a regulator or a rival the day it is announced

Common mistakes

  • ✗Leaving customers, staff or partners as a single dot
3

Score power by what they could take away

For each group, write what it could do to support or block the decision, and how fast. Score power from that list, not from size or rank.

Tips

  • ✓Score a group of small members by what they could do together

Common mistakes

  • ✗Copying power from the org chart
4

Score interest and direction

Score how much each group cares about this decision, and mark whether it is for it, against it or undecided.

Tips

  • ✓Ask a member of the group, not only people who deal with it

Common mistakes

  • ✗Treating loudness as power
5

Place them and set a plan

Put each group on the grid and give it a plan: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed or monitor, with an owner for each group that matters.

Tips

  • ✓Write the plan as an action and a date, not a label

Common mistakes

  • ✗Stopping at the picture
6

Redraw it as things move

Revisit the map at each milestone and after any surprise. Draw arrows for groups that are moving, and watch for groups that could join together.

Tips

  • ✓Keep last month's dots on the map, faintly

Common mistakes

  • ✗Treating the first map as fixed

Showing the result

One grid with each group as a labeled dot and an arrow for any group that could move. Beside the grid, one row per group that matters: what it could take away, the plan, and the owner.

On the slide

  • ✓The decision, in one line
  • ✓Every group that could change the outcome
  • ✓What each high-power group could take away
  • ✓The plan and owner for each

Left off

  • ✕Groups that are only listed for completeness
  • ✕Scores to decimal places
  • ✕Names of individuals outside the company

Value & Outcomes

Primary benefit

It shows, before a decision is announced, which groups could change the outcome and what each one needs, so the team spends its effort where the outcome is decided.

Additional benefits

  • ✓Splits broad groups into the ones that will react differently
  • ✓Makes the team's assumptions about power open to challenge
  • ✓Gives each group that matters an owner and a plan

What you'll learn

  • →How to score power by what a group could take away
  • →Why a crowd of small stakeholders can be decisive together
  • →How to move a stakeholder from one box to another

Typical outcomes

A grid of the groups that can affect the decisionA plan and an owner for each group that mattersA short list of groups to test the decision with before it is announced

Best Practices

📋 Preparation

  • •Tie the map to one decision
  • •Gather how each group reacted to past changes
  • •Include people who deal with each group every day

🚀 Execution

  • •Score power from what each group could do, not from its size
  • •Split any group that holds more than one view
  • •Mark the direction of each group's interest

🔄 Follow-Up

  • •Redraw the map at each milestone
  • •Watch for groups that could join together
  • •Record which scores proved wrong, and why

💎 Pro Tips

  • •Ask of every dot: what could they take away from us, and how fast?
  • •A group that can leave cheaply has more power than its size suggests
  • •A loud group is not always a powerful one
Anger is interest, not power

A loud group scores high on interest. Score its power separately, by what it can do. Etsy's sellers struck over a fee increase in 2022, and the fee stayed.

Limitations & Pitfalls

⚡

The power scores are judgment, and teams tend to take them from the org chart and the size of each group.

Mitigation: Score power from a written list of what each group could do to support or block the decision

⚡

It is a snapshot. Stakeholders move, and a group with little power can gain it by joining with others.

Mitigation: Redraw the map at each milestone and after any surprise

⚡

Broad groups hide different reactions. 'Customers' or 'staff' as one dot is usually several stakeholders with different power.

Mitigation: Split each group until every dot holds one view

⚡

The map shows positions, not what to do about them.

Mitigation: Give each group that matters a plan, an owner and a date

What comes before and after

Run first

PESTEL analysis

Surfaces the regulators, governments and social groups that belong on the map.

Scenario planning →

Shows the futures in which a quiet stakeholder would gain power.

Run next

Stakeholder interview guide →

The questions to ask each group before the decision is final.

Pre-mortem →

Asks the team to imagine the decision failed and say who stopped it.

RACI matrix →

Sets who decides and who does the work once the outside groups are mapped.

Building a stakeholder map →

A worked method and a template for the map itself.

Where this comes fromR. Edward Freeman (stakeholder theory); A. L. Mendelow (the power-interest grid); Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann (its use in strategy making) introduced this (1981 to 1998).

Sources & further reading

More Management Frameworks

Other frameworks in the Stratrix library.

Goal Setting & Measurement

V2MOM

A strategic alignment tool that documents Vision, Values, Methods, Obstacles, and Measures on a single page, creating clarity and alignment from the CEO to individual contributors.

Sustainability & Ethics

Triple Bottom Line

A sustainability framework that measures organizational success across three dimensions — social (People), environmental (Planet), and financial (Profit) — rather than profit alone.

Business Models & Revenue

Unit Economics

Unit economics is the profit or loss on one unit of a business: one customer, one order, one subscription. It shows whether growth adds profit or multiplies a loss. It describes the customers you have today, and growth can bring different ones.

Organizational Effectiveness

Weisbord's Six-Box Model

An organizational diagnostic framework that examines six critical areas — Purpose, Structure, Relationships, Rewards, Leadership, and Helpful Mechanisms — to identify and address organizational dysfunction.

Business Models & Revenue

Subscription Business Model

A revenue model where customers pay a recurring fee (monthly/annually) for ongoing access to a product or service, creating predictable revenue streams and long-term customer relationships.

Risk & Governance

Three Lines Model

A governance model that structures an organization's risk management and assurance activities into three distinct lines: management controls, risk oversight functions, and independent assurance.

Tools to try

More from Stratrix

Ask Stratrix

Three questions a month are free.

Test a decision, free

Set a live decision against the companies that made it before you.

AcquisitionsThe Distance TestDivestituresThe Divestiture TestDiversificationThe Diversification TestMake or buyThe Make-or-Buy Test

Stratrix Team

Every Casebook, three Strategy Packs a seat each year and Ask Stratrix, for teams that face these decisions all year.

$1,999 a year · $499 a seatWhat is included →

New analyses, by email

The defining moves in business, and what they teach, as they publish.

We'll email you a link to confirm. Unsubscribe anytime. Privacy policy.

See Stakeholder Mapping in the wild.

Follow Stakeholder Mapping across the companies and lenses where it actually shaped the strategy — the decision, the rationale, and how it played out.

Explore the lenses →