Power/Interest Grid in Internal Stakeholder Management

What is the Power and Interest Grid?

The Power/Interest Grid is a simple 2×2 matrix that turns a list of stakeholders into a prioritized engagement plan. On one axis, you place the ability to influence decisions, and on the other, the level of interest in the outcome. Then you position each stakeholder in the appropriate quadrant. This gives you a clear view of who must be closely involved, who needs concise updates, who should be informed periodically, and who is sufficient to simply monitor.

The value of the tool is that the assessment immediately translates into an operational tactic. You define the frequency and format of communication, the topics relevant to each stakeholder, the expected contribution, and the risks if a stakeholder is neglected. Do not base the assessment only on titles but on real influence, such as budgets, approvals, and informal leadership, as well as on real interest that shows how much the project changes their work or goals. 

The matrix should be reviewed at project milestones, and the results turned into a communication plan, a RACI map, and a decision log so that engagement remains focused, measurable, and consistent.

The Four Quadrants and How to Engage

Here’s how to turn the Power/Interest Grid into a clear engagement plan. First, define who truly influences decisions and who is most invested in the outcome. Then match the style and frequency of communication to each stakeholder’s position in the grid to reduce risk and speed up agreement.

1. High Power, High Interest — Key players

Engage them early and closely. Co-create requirements, agree on decision criteria, and a risk management plan. Give them a role in major decisions, ensure metric transparency, and keep a regular meeting cadence. Measure success by faster decision-making and fewer specification changes.

2. High Power, Low Interest — Keep satisfied

Provide concise briefs with clear decisions, implications, and next steps. Focus on what affects their goals and avoid time-wasting detail. Set a fixed cadence of short updates and flag in advance when their input will be needed. If you ignore them, a sudden veto or delayed approval can slow the entire project.

3. Low Power, High Interest — Keep informed

Share progress and gather practical feedback. Involve them in pilots and UAT (user acceptance testing) to surface usability issues and operational risks early. Provide a channel for questions and track how feedback is addressed so they see their input being used. Their involvement creates internal ambassadors and eases adoption after launch.

4. Low Power, Low Interest — Monitor

Maintain light awareness through occasional summaries. Do not over-communicate. Increase the cadence only if their interest rises or their influence changes, for example, due to shifting priorities or organizational changes. Prepare a short set of messages in advance in case their relevance suddenly grows.

How to Build Your Grid Step by Step

Before jumping into tools and templates, it’s crucial to clarify who truly influences outcomes and who cares most about the results. Mapping stakeholders by power and interest gives you a practical view of priorities and the right engagement tactics. This reduces misunderstandings, speeds decisions, and builds trust from day one.

1. Start with your stakeholder list from the identification

Start by identifying the stakeholders. Include formal stakeholders (budgets, approvals, IT, legal, control, process users) and “informal” influencers who shape opinions. Next to each name, list their role in decision-making, what the project changes in their daily lives, potential risks/benefits to them, and known preferences.

2. For each stakeholder, assess

Answer the questions for each person and back judgments with evidence, not just gut feel. Use a quick 1–5 scale for each question plus a short comment.

• Do they control key resources or approvals?

Example: budget owner, solution architect, contracts counsel, DPO for compliance.

• Can they influence direction or remove blockers?

Example: someone whose yes or no affects timelines, a team clearing integration dependencies.

• How are they affected by outcomes and timing?

Example: their workflow, KPIs, workload, or quarter-end close windows will change.

• Do they have a personal or professional stake in success?

Example: the project maps to their goals or reputation, or solves their pain points. Finally, roll these into two scores: Power 1–5 and Interest 1–5, plus a brief rationale.

3. Place each stakeholder in the grid

Based on the scores, plot them into the four quadrants:

• High Power and High Interest (top right)
• High Power and Low Interest (top left)
• Low Power and High Interest (bottom right)
• Low Power and Low Interest (bottom left)

If someone sits “on the line,” decide by risk: which mistake would hurt more? Cluster by function (finance, IT, operations) and add advanced tags for “involvement” and “support” (Kearney) to see who is strong but neutral or resistant.

4. Define engagement tactics by quadrant

• High Power, High Interest — key players: Engage early and closely. Co-create requirements, agree on decision criteria, and meeting cadence. Provide metric and risk visibility. Ask for explicit approval or reject at stage gates.
• High Power, Low Interest — keep satisfied: Concise briefs covering decisions, implications, and next steps. Do not overload with detail. Stress impact on their goals and compliance.
• Low Power, High Interest — inform and involve in practice: UAT workshops, demos, structured feedback from real processes, quick wins that resolve pain points, and build adoption.
• Low Power, Low Interest — monitor with minimal effort: Periodic short updates, release notes, a channel for questions. Do not overinvest time unless the context shifts.

5. Validate your placement with colleagues who know informal influence.

Titles often do not equal true influence. Run a 20–30 minute calibration with colleagues who understand informal networks: who influences whom, who can quietly veto, who is a natural ally. Update the grid if you find high influence with low support, which deserves immediate attention. Optionally tag support as resistant, neutral, or supportive.

6. Revisit regularly. Roles, priorities, and interests change as projects evolve

Set a review rhythm, for example, at the end of each phase or monthly. Triggers include scope, schedule, budget changes, reorganizations, new risks, and lagging adoption. Watch signals like skipped meetings, late approvals, or new questions. When interest or influence changes, move them on the grid and adjust your tactics and communication cadence.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

The most expensive stakeholder mistakes usually come from bad assumptions, not a lack of tools. This section highlights the common pitfalls and shows how to avoid them with accurate influence mapping, tailored communication, and regular reviews. The goal is to prevent resistance, speed up decisions, and protect trust.

1. Assuming power from the job title alone

Titles signal formal authority, not real influence. Hidden veto players and informal advisors can shape outcomes more than executives.

2. Treating all stakeholders with the same cadence and detail

Uniform updates waste time for some and starve others of what they need to decide.

3. Skipping re-evaluation at milestones

Interests shift with scope, timing, and leadership changes. Yesterday’s map goes stale quickly.

4. Relying on the grid without conversations and soft skills

The grid is a snapshot, not a relationship. Without listening, empathy, and clear negotiation, you miss root causes and create friction.

Self-Assessment and Development Tools

This table helps you confirm that the right people are on the map, that informal influence is understood, and that each high-power stakeholder has a concrete plan and rhythm of engagement.

This table tests whether your plan is alive in practice. The focus is on tailored communication, visible decision logs, and timely course corrections.

A Practical Example

Early in a procurement project for a new digital tool, one department appeared disengaged. A quick root-cause check showed two issues: their workflow was unusually specific, and past projects had ignored their needs, so trust was low.

Yet they controlled key budget approvals. We mapped them as high power, low interest, and built a tailored plan: short decision-focused briefings, a small focus group, process-mapping workshops, and explicit coverage of their pain points and success criteria.

Over the next few months, trust rose, and they shifted to high power, high interest. Adoption improved, escalations fell, and approvals moved faster, turning a potential blocker into a committed partner.