---

name: stakeholder-map description: > Map stakeholders by power × interest and design a communication plan that prevents surprise objections. Use when launching a major initiative, navigating an enterprise deal, planning a re-org, or pre-empting resistance to a roadmap change. license: MIT + Commons Clause metadata: version: 1.0.0 author: borghei category: project-management domain: execution updated: 2026-05-27 python-tools: stakeholder_analyzer.py tech-stack: stakeholder-mapping, power-interest, change-management

Stakeholder Map

A 2x2 grid of stakeholders, plus a tactical engagement plan derived from the map. Used to pre-empt resistance, route decisions correctly, and match communication cadence to influence.

When to use this skill

• Major initiative launch (re-platform, pricing change, market expansion)
• Enterprise deal navigation (multiple buying-committee members)
• Org re-design / re-org planning
• Roadmap change affecting multiple stakeholders
• Pre-board / pre-exec strategic decisions
• Post-mortem stakeholder map (who didn't we engage that we should have?)

The 2x2: Power × Interest

	Low Power	High Power
High Interest	Keep informed	Manage closely
Low Interest	Monitor	Keep satisfied

Quadrants

• Manage closely (HP/HI): key decisions; influence + engaged. Highest investment.
• Keep satisfied (HP/LI): authority but not engaged. Don't let them surprise you.
• Keep informed (LP/HI): advocates and detractors who care. Use them.
• Monitor (LP/LI): light touch.

Clarify First

Before mapping, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

• The initiative being mapped — the specific launch/deal/re-org/roadmap change (defines who counts as a stakeholder at all, Step 1)
• Each stakeholder's power source — hierarchy vs veto vs budget vs domain expertise (a compliance lead may outrank a VP; drives the Power axis in Step 2)
• Each stakeholder's stance — champion → supporter → neutral → skeptic → blocker (drives Step 3 and the conversion plans in Step 6)
• Decision/launch deadline — when the verdict lands (sets engagement cadence per quadrant, Step 5)

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.

Workflow

Step 1 — List all stakeholders

Brainstorm:

• Executive sponsors
• Decision-makers
• Influencers
• Implementers
• Users / customers
• Adjacent teams
• External parties (vendors, regulators, partners)

Don't filter yet. List broadly, prune later.

Step 2 — Rate Power + Interest (1-5)

For each:

• Power: can they kill or accelerate this? authority? budget? veto?
• Interest: how much do they care about the outcome?

Step 3 — Add Support (stance)

Each stakeholder is also somewhere on:

• Champion (actively supports)
• Supporter (positive but passive)
• Neutral
• Skeptic
• Blocker (actively opposes)

This complements Power×Interest with directionality.

Step 4 — Identify the matrix sweet spot

The critical stakeholders: high power + high interest + not-yet-supporters.

These are who you need to convert.

Step 5 — Design engagement plan per quadrant

Quadrant	Engagement pattern
Manage closely	Weekly 1:1, deep involvement, co-author key docs
Keep satisfied	Monthly check-in, pre-brief major decisions
Keep informed	Email updates, FYI inclusion, surface their concerns publicly
Monitor	Quarterly newsletter; no proactive

Step 6 — Address blockers explicitly

For each blocker:

• What's their objection?
• What evidence might change their view?
• Who do they listen to?
• Can we convert, neutralize, or out-vote?

Ignoring blockers = late surprise objection that derails the initiative.

Step 7 — Run stakeholder_analyzer.py

Audit for: missing key stakeholders by role, blockers without plans, power-without-interest gaps, no engagement plan.

python3 project-management/execution/stakeholder-map/scripts/stakeholder_analyzer.py \
  --input stakeholders.json --format markdown

Decision frameworks

Power dimensions (be specific)

• Hierarchical authority (CEO/board > VP > Director)
• Budget control (who allocates $)
• Veto power (legal, compliance, infosec)
• Domain expertise (the one person who actually understands X)
• Coalition power (who their faction follows)
• External legitimacy (analyst, customer reference, regulator)

A "low-hierarchy / high-veto" stakeholder (e.g., compliance lead) often has more power than a "high-hierarchy / low-domain" one.

Interest dimensions

• Outcome impact (will this affect their world?)
• Personal stake (career, comp, ego)
• Resource impact (their team, their budget)
• Public visibility (their reputation tied to this)

Common engagement patterns

For executive sponsor (HP/HI):

• Weekly 1:1 (you bring updates + asks)
• Co-author the strategic narrative
• Defend at board level
• Veto power to be used selectively

For powerful skeptic (HP/HI, low support):

• Discover the actual objection (often different than stated)
• Find evidence that addresses it
• Pre-brief before big decisions
• Make their support visible to their peers

For powerless advocate (LP/HI, high support):

• Use them to influence others
• Amplify their voice publicly
• Don't burn them with surprise asks

For powerful absent leader (HP/LI):

• Don't let them tune in late and veto
• Pre-brief before key decisions
• Make engagement low-friction (5-min readouts)

When to escalate vs route around

• Escalate when: stakeholder's authority is structurally needed
• Route around when: stakeholder is tangential and adding friction
• Never route around: legal, security, compliance, finance approvers

Common engagements

"Help me build a stakeholder map for the launch"

1. Brainstorm 20+ stakeholders.
2. Rate Power, Interest, Support per stakeholder.
3. Plot the 2x2.
4. Identify the critical 5-10 (HP/HI).
5. For each blocker, design conversion plan.
6. Document engagement cadence per quadrant.

"Audit a recent failed launch"

1. Map the stakeholders involved.
2. Identify who derailed it (often a HP/LI we missed).
3. Identify who could have helped but wasn't engaged.
4. Update default stakeholder template for next launch.

"Navigate an enterprise deal with 8 buying-committee members"

1. Map all 8 + 4-5 unofficial influencers.
2. Identify economic buyer, technical buyer, user, executive sponsor.
3. Engagement plan per role.
4. Address blockers (legal, security) early; don't wait for procurement.

Anti-patterns to avoid

• No stakeholder map. Trust the org chart; surprised by lateral resistance.
• Map without engagement plan. Knowing isn't acting.
• Ignoring blockers. They surface at the worst moment.
• Treating power as just hierarchy. Vetoes matter; expertise matters.
• No HP/LI engagement. Sleeping authority becomes late veto.
• Static map. Power + stance shift; refresh per quarter / per phase.
• Mapping without input from someone politically savvy. Solo maps miss reality.

References

• references/stakeholder-mapping-framework.md — power dimensions, support spectrum, engagement plans
• references/stakeholder-anti-patterns.md — common failures + worked fixes

Related skills

• project-management/execution/daci-framework — decision-rights model
• project-management/execution/summarize-meeting — communication artifacts
• c-level-advisor/ceo-advisor — executive context
• c-level-advisor/general-counsel-advisor — legal stakeholder navigation
• business-growth/sales-engineer — buying-committee mapping