Stakeholder Mapping
Summary
Stakeholder mapping visualises every actor who affects or is affected by the campaign — decision-makers, allies, opponents, influencers, beneficiaries — as positions on a grid so the team knows who to move, who to neutralise, and who to build relationships with. It is the operational output of a stakeholder analysis.
Body
Stakeholder mapping turns a list of actors into a spatial or grid representation that makes relationship strategy visible. BetterEvaluation’s guidance on understanding stakeholders and political networks treats stakeholder mapping as a core evaluation planning skill: identifying the network of actors around a policy issue, locating who has power and legitimacy, and understanding the channels through which influence flows [source: betterevaluation].
The power/interest grid is the workhorse tool: actors are positioned by how much power they have over the outcome and how much interest they have in it. The four quadrants map to different engagement strategies:
| Low interest | High interest | |
|---|---|---|
| High power | Keep satisfied (don’t provoke needlessly) | Manage closely — primary targets and key allies |
| Low power | Monitor (low effort) | Keep informed and engaged — your base and volunteers |
The salience model (Mitchell, Agle and Wood — referenced by BetterEvaluation) adds a third dimension: urgency. An actor with high power and high interest but no urgency is still not a primary target until they signal urgency. This distinction prevents over-investing in actors who have not yet activated.
Political network mapping (BetterEvaluation’s specific contribution) goes beyond the two-axis grid: it maps the informal relationships, alliances, and communication channels between actors. This is the tool for understanding how influence actually flows in your specific context — not who should have power but who actually exercises it.
Stakeholder mapping vs. power mapping: Power mapping focuses on the specific target and the chain of influence around them. Stakeholder mapping is broader: it covers everyone who matters to the campaign including internal team, funders, media, and affected communities. The two tools are complementary — run the stakeholder map to build the full cast, then run the power map to understand how to move the specific target.
The engagement plan: For each stakeholder, record: current position, desired position, the owner responsible for the relationship, the communication channel, and the review date. The Community Tool Box stresses that a map without an engagement plan is a decoration.
Use it for
Building the coalition map; identifying who can block the campaign; designing the engagement strategy per actor; preparing for coalition negotiations.
Related
Open Questions
BetterEvaluation’s specific stakeholder mapping tools (the political network mapping methodology) need deeper scraping to ground this page properly. The Commons Library and People Power Manual both cover stakeholder analysis exercises — check their planning modules for a campaigning-specific mapping exercise.
Learn more
- On Wikipedia: Stakeholder analysis — CC BY-SA 4.0
FAQ
What is stakeholder mapping?
Stakeholder mapping is the visual grid that places every actor who affects or is affected by the campaign — decision-makers, allies, opponents, influencers, beneficiaries — as positions on a chart so the team knows who to move, who to neutralise, and who to build relationships with. It is the operational output of a stakeholder analysis. BetterEvaluation’s guidance on understanding stakeholders and political networks treats stakeholder mapping as a core evaluation planning skill [source: betterevaluation].
What is the power/interest grid?
The power/interest grid is the workhorse tool: actors are positioned by how much power they have over the outcome and how much interest they have in it. The four quadrants map to different engagement strategies. High-power, low-interest actors are kept satisfied (don’t provoke). High-power, high-interest actors are managed closely as primary targets. Low-power, high-interest actors are the base. Low-power, low-interest actors are monitored. BetterEvaluation uses the grid as a wall exercise [source: betterevaluation].
What is the salience model?
The salience model (Mitchell, Agle and Wood — referenced by BetterEvaluation) adds a third dimension: urgency. An actor with high power and high interest but no urgency is still not a primary target until they signal urgency. This distinction prevents over-investing in actors who have not yet activated. The Commons Library applies the same model in its organising modules and treats legitimacy as the most distinctive addition, separating bound-to-engage actors from those the campaign merely could [source: commons-library].
How does stakeholder mapping differ from power mapping?
Power mapping focuses on the specific target and the chain of influence around them. Stakeholder mapping is broader: it covers everyone who matters to the campaign including internal team, funders, media, and affected communities. The two tools are complementary — run the stakeholder map to build the full cast, then run the power map to understand how to move the specific target [source: betterevaluation]. The Community Tool Box stresses that a map without an engagement plan is a decoration.
Sources & verification
- sources/betterevaluation — partial: stakeholder analysis methodology present in scraped content
- Reference: campaign-methods-reference §1.5