stakeholder-map

Imported from borghei/claude-skills (project-management/execution/stakeholder-map/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add borghei/claude-skills --skill stakeholder-map. Copyright stays with the author (MIT + Commons Clause).

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

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, settle the inputs below. When one is missing or vague and would change the result, ask about it; when it wouldn't, use a sensible default and say which one you used.

• 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).

Ask about the two or three inputs that matter most for this request, not the whole list. If the user wants a result straight away, produce it and state your assumptions at the top.

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

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.

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

• A Power x Interest 2x2 with 1-5 ratings and four quadrants: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed and monitor
• A support stance per stakeholder from champion to blocker, and the high-power, high-interest, not-yet-supportive group to convert
• Engagement cadence per quadrant and conversion plans for blockers and skeptics
• A map audit for missing roles, blockers without plans, high-power low-interest gaps and quadrant balance (stakeholder_analyzer.py)
• Launch, re-org, enterprise buying-committee and failed-launch post-mortem maps

Out of Scope:

• Assigning decision rights for a specific decision (see project-management/execution/daci-framework/)
• Writing the status updates and communications that the engagement plan calls for (see project-management/execution/status-update-generator/ and project-management/team-communications/)
• Running a sales deal strategy beyond the stakeholder map (see business-growth/sales-engineer/)
• Legal and regulatory review of the initiative (see c-level-advisor/general-counsel-advisor/)

Important Caveats:

• Power, interest and support ratings are judgment calls entered by hand. The tool audits the map it is given and cannot discover missing people.
• The skill recommends building the map with someone politically aware. A solo map often misses lateral resistance.
• Power and stance shift. The map goes stale unless it is refreshed each quarter or project phase.
• The map can hold sensitive opinions about named colleagues. Who sees it is the team's call.

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