Power Mapping
Summary
Power mapping is the analytical practice of identifying who has power over your target, who influences them, and who could be moved — the foundational analysis for almost any campaign and the first move in the four-step campaign method.
Body
Power mapping is the analytical practice of identifying who has power over your target, who influences them, and who could be moved. It is the foundational analysis for almost any campaign and the first move in the four-step campaign method.
A power map lists each actor you might influence, their relationship to your target, and the source of their power (positional, economic, relational, expert, charismatic). The Commons Library and Beautiful Trouble stress distinguishing direct targets from intermediate targets — the decision-maker vs. the people who influence them [source: commons-library], [source: beautiful-trouble]. The French Alinsky tradition adds the spectrum of allies as the operational map that grows out of the power map [source: alinsky-fr]. Alliance Citoyenne in France applies this in tenant and labour campaigns across French cities, treating each local landlord, mayor or union local as a separate actor with a discrete relationship to the campaign’s target [source: alliance-citoyenne]. Beautiful Trouble additionally emphasises the pillars of support — the constituencies that hold the target up — as a second cut of the same map [source: beautiful-trouble]. The Commons Library’s framework warns against two errors: confusing public visibility with power (a noisy opponent is often not the decision-maker), and listing organisations rather than the specific individuals who can be moved [source: commons-library]. The spectrum of allies turns the static map into a moving operational board: each campaign move is judged by how it shifts actors along the spectrum [source: alinsky-fr]. Common failure mode: analysis paralysis — producing an elaborate diagram no one uses in planning; the antidote is to keep the map simple enough to revise at every weekly meeting.
Power / Interest grid. A second cut of the same map is the power / interest grid, which sorts stakeholders by whether they can move the outcome and whether the outcome matters to them:
| Low interest | High interest | |
|---|---|---|
| High power | Keep satisfied (don’t provoke needlessly) | Manage closely — your primary targets & key allies |
| Low power | Monitor (low effort) | Keep informed & engage — your base, volunteers |
The Commons Library’s organising modules run this grid as a wall exercise so the team can see the size and disposition of each group at a glance and allocate effort accordingly [source: commons-library]. The same source adds a discipline worth copying: per stakeholder, the team must name a goal (move from X position to Y position) and a channel (the path by which the team will reach them), so the analysis produces action rather than a static map [source: commons-library].
Salience model. For complex stakeholder populations, the Commons Library recommends layering on the salience model — adapted from Mitchell, Agle and Wood’s work in business-stakeholder theory — which scores actors on three axes: power (can they move the outcome?), legitimacy (is the campaign obliged to engage them?), and urgency (does the outcome matter to them now?). The Commons Library treats legitimacy as the most distinctive addition: it separates actors the campaign is bound to engage from actors it merely could, and it explicitly stops the team from writing off constituencies with low power but high legitimacy [source: commons-library].
Stakeholder analysis and power mapping are nested. Stakeholder analysis is the outer directory — every actor that can affect or is affected by the campaign, including funders, media, internal team and other actors who never appear on the power map. Power mapping is the inner subset — only the chain of influence around the target. The Commons Library’s organising modules run stakeholder identification as a structured exercise with categories written on cards and placed on a wall, then narrow the list to the actors that will appear on the power map [source: commons-library].
ENDA Rup’s Guide d’animation communautaire (Senegal) adapts the stakeholder-mapping exercise to a francophone-African community-development context: it provides a sequence of timed fiches (cards) that walk a small group through community diagnosis → stakeholder identification → power mapping → action planning in a half-day workshop. The fiches make the power map a room-scale document — drawn on a large sheet of butcher paper, photographed at the end, and used as the agenda for the next meeting [source: enda-rup-animation]. Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung’s Linkes Organizing adds the German Machtanalyse — a power-analysis exercise built on a two-by-two grid (positional vs. relational power, supportive vs. opposing) that produces a visual map the committee can update at every weekly meeting [source: rls-linkes-organizing]. Both confirm the Commons Library’s discipline: the map is a working document, revised at every meeting, not a static diagram.
Common failure mode: producing an elaborate diagram no one uses in planning; the antidote is to keep the map simple enough to revise at every weekly meeting, and to treat the power / interest and salience grids as living documents, not one-shot exercises.
Use it for
Starting any campaign from analysis rather than reaction; deciding which decision-maker to approach first; choosing between a direct confrontation and an influence campaign; sorting the base from the targets and from the “movable middle”; diagnosing a campaign that has all the activity but no movement (usually: column 1 — high power, low interest — has been ignored).
Related
- theory-of-change
- spectrum-of-allies
- stakeholder-analysis
- pillars-of-support
- public-narrative
- alinsky-fr
- alliance-citoyenne
- beautiful-trouble
- commons-library
- thinkers/saul-alinsky
- thinkers/marshall-ganz
- thinkers/steven-lukes
- thinkers/john-gaventa
- m4bl-toolkit (back-link from T1)
FAQ
What is power mapping?
Power mapping is the analytical practice of identifying who has power over your target, who influences them, and who could be moved. It is the foundational analysis for almost any campaign and the first move in the four-step campaign method. A power map lists each actor, their relationship to the target, and the source of their power — positional, economic, relational, expert, or charismatic [source: commons-library]. The Commons Library and Beautiful Trouble distinguish direct from intermediate targets [source: beautiful-trouble].
What is the power / interest grid?
The power / interest grid is a second cut of the power map that sorts stakeholders by whether they can move the outcome and whether it matters to them. High-power, high-interest actors are managed closely; high-power, low-interest are kept satisfied; low-power, high-interest are the base; low-power, low-interest are monitored [source: commons-library]. The Commons Library’s organising modules run this as a wall exercise so the team sees each group’s size and disposition at a glance.
What is the salience model?
For complex stakeholder populations, the Commons Library recommends the salience model, adapted from Mitchell, Agle and Wood. It scores actors on three axes: power, legitimacy, and urgency — defined as the ability to move the outcome, the obligation to engage, and whether it matters now [source: commons-library]. The Commons Library treats legitimacy as the most distinctive addition, separating bound-to-engage actors from those the campaign merely could, and stopping the team from writing off constituencies with low power but high legitimacy.
What is the difference between stakeholder analysis and power mapping?
Stakeholder analysis is the outer directory — every actor that can affect or is affected by the campaign, including funders, media, and the internal team. Power mapping is the inner subset — only the chain of influence around the target [source: commons-library]. The Commons Library’s modules run stakeholder identification with categories on cards placed on a wall, then narrow the list to actors that will appear on the power map.
What is a common failure mode of power mapping?
A common failure mode is analysis paralysis — producing an elaborate diagram no one uses. The antidote is to keep the map simple enough to revise at every weekly meeting and to treat the grids as living documents [source: commons-library]. ENDA Rup’s francophone guide turns the map into a room-scale butcher-paper document, photographed and used as the next meeting’s agenda [source: enda-rup-animation]. Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung’s Linkes Organizing builds the same revisable map via a Machtanalyse grid [source: rls-linkes-organizing].
Sources & verification
- sources/commons-library — grounding: secondary — RAW (5257 chars)
- sources/beautiful-trouble — grounding: secondary — RAW (2589 chars)
- sources/alinsky-fr — grounding: secondary — RAW (1304 chars)
- sources/alliance-citoyenne — grounding: secondary — RAW (1580 chars)
- sources/enda-rup-animation — grounding: secondary — T1 enrichment (round-2)
- sources/rls-linkes-organizing — grounding: secondary — T1 enrichment (round-2)
Learn more
- On Wikipedia: Power mapping — CC BY-SA 4.0