Power–Interest Grid
Map stakeholders by how much power they have over the outcome and how much they care, and engage each group differently.
To an executive
Projects fail late when a powerful person who was never engaged objects. Sorting stakeholders by influence and interest tells you who needs close attention and who needs a brief.
To an engineer
Map stakeholders by power and interest, and plan contact for each group. Pay special attention to powerful, low-interest parties such as security or finance who can block late.
The idea
The power–interest grid, often called Mendelow's matrix after Aubrey Mendelow's 1991 work, plots stakeholders on two axes:
- Power — how much they can influence or block the outcome.
- Interest — how much they care about it.
Each quadrant suggests a different approach:
- High power, high interest — manage closely. Involve them early and often.
- High power, low interest — keep satisfied. Brief them before they need to ask.
- Low power, high interest — keep informed. Share progress and listen to what they know.
- Low power, low interest — monitor. Check occasionally whether that has changed.
Why it works
Attention is limited. You cannot have deep conversations with everyone; the grid tells you where they matter most.
It finds the hidden blockers. A powerful stakeholder with low interest today — security, finance, a regulator — can kill a project late if nobody kept them satisfied.
It makes engagement deliberate. Instead of copying everyone on everything, each group gets the right level of contact.
Where it applies
- Starting a large change, such as a migration or platform programme.
- Vendor and build-or-buy decisions, where procurement, legal and finance hold quiet power.
- Before a key decision meeting, to plan who needs to hear what first.
How to apply
- List everyone affected — include those who only care when something goes wrong.
- Place each on the grid, ideally with a colleague to challenge your guesses.
- Plan engagement per quadrant: workshops and early drafts for manage closely; short briefings for keep satisfied; updates for keep informed.
- Revisit it at each milestone; people move as the work changes.
Example scenario
A data platform migration was going well with the engineering teams. Mapping stakeholders, the architect placed the data protection officer in keep satisfied: high power, little interest so far.
A short early briefing revealed a retention requirement the new platform didn't meet. Fixed in the design, it cost two days. Found at go-live review, it would have delayed the migration by a quarter.
Questions to ask
- Who could stop this, and do they know about it yet?
- Who cares most, and who are we leaving uninformed?
- Who might move from one box to another as the work goes on?
When not to use it
- Small decisions within one team, where everyone is already in the room.
How it misleads you
The grid can turn people into boxes to be "managed". Low-power, high-interest stakeholders — the teams who live with the system — often have the best information. Keeping them informed is the minimum; listening to them is usually worth more.
Further reading
Last reviewed · Suggest an improvement