Stakeholder Mapping Template
Two grids, then the comparison that makes running both worthwhile. Quality checks at the bottom.
Provenance
Adapted from prompts/ in the
product-manager-prompts repo.
Grid 1: Power × Interest — how to engage
## Power × Interest: [Initiative]
| | **High Interest** | **Low Interest** |
|---|---|---|
| **High Power** | **Manage closely** — co-design, frequent touchpoints<br>· [who] | **Keep satisfied** — exec briefings, strategic framing<br>· [who] |
| **Low Power** | **Keep informed** — demos, newsletters, transparency<br>· [who] | **Monitor** — light touch<br>· [who] |Grid 2: Impact × Power — whose voice to elevate
## Impact × Power: [Initiative]
| | **High Power** | **Low Power** |
|---|---|---|
| **High Impact** | **Q2** — impacted and empowered; manage closely<br>· [who] | **Q1** — impacted but marginalized; **elevate deliberately**<br>· [who] |
| **Low Impact** | **Q4** — gatekeepers; manage the relationship<br>· [who] | **Q3** — monitor, minimal investment<br>· [who] |Impact is not power. A frontline support agent has high impact and low power. An executive two levels removed has high power and low impact. Collapsing them into one axis is what makes a single grid misleading.
The comparison — why you ran both
### Grid Comparison
| Stakeholder | Power×Interest | Impact×Power | Tension |
|---|---|---|---|
| [who] | Monitor | **Q1** | Low interest, high impact — they don't know this is coming |
| [who] | Manage closely | Q4 | High power, low impact — engaged but not affected |
**Q1 voices to elevate:** [who, and how you'll reach them]
**The mismatch that matters most:** [the one stakeholder whose two placements
disagree most, and what you'll do about it]The most common and most costly mismatch: Monitor on Power×Interest and Q1 on Impact×Power. That's someone deeply affected who has no power and hasn't engaged — usually because nobody told them. The first grid alone says ignore them. The second says they'll bear the consequences.
Engagement plan
| Stakeholder | Quadrant | Engagement | Cadence | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | [co-design / brief / inform / consult] | | |Quadrant migration (optional)
For stakeholders you intend to move rather than merely serve.
| Stakeholder | From | To | Why | How |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [who] | Keep satisfied | Manage closely | Their sponsorship unlocks budget | Bring them into design review |Migration is a deliberate strategy, not a hope. If you can't name the how, you're not migrating anyone.
Quality checks
Both grids
- Both were actually built — a single grid hides the mismatch that matters
- Nobody was placed by seniority as a proxy for power
- Impact was judged by consequence borne, not by attention paid
The comparison
- Every stakeholder appears on both grids
- At least one genuine tension is named. If both grids agree everywhere, one was copied
- Q1 (high impact, low power) is populated — an empty Q1 usually means you looked only at people with titles
Action
- Q1 voices have a specific elevation method, not "gather feedback"
- Every engagement has a named owner and a cadence
- Any migration names a concrete mechanism
Honesty
- Someone in Monitor who is genuinely high-impact has been reconsidered
- The plan is executable by the people named, at the cadence named