Stakeholder mapping for communications: who needs to hear what

Most organisations have more people to reach than time to reach them. A ministry, a district council, a donor, partner NGOs, journalists, community leaders, staff and the people a programme serves all have a stake, but they do not all need the same message, at the same time, through the same channel.

Stakeholder mapping is the step that makes those choices visible. It is a form of stakeholder analysis for communications: you list who matters, describe how much they can affect your work and how much they care about it, and decide what each group needs from you. The UK Government Communication Service puts it simply in its campaign planning guide: understanding your audience is critical to an effective campaign.¹

Start broad. The Humanitarian Innovation Guide, run by Elrha, groups stakeholders into three types: primary stakeholders, who are directly affected by or have direct influence over a project; secondary stakeholders, who are not directly affected and lack direct influence; and key stakeholders, who may be primary or secondary but can significantly affect or be affected by the outcome.²

Think beyond the obvious. The UK campaign guide suggests considering different kinds of audience, including influencers, users and gatekeepers.¹ In a development programme, gatekeepers might be local leaders whose approval is needed before anyone else will engage. In our own practice, we also list internal stakeholders, because a field team that does not know the key messages cannot repeat them.

The power interest grid is the most widely used stakeholder mapping tool. It is a two-by-two chart that places each stakeholder according to their power to influence the change you are working on and their interest in it.³ Elrha notes that stakeholders with high power and high interest must be managed closely, and that the right approach depends on whether they are hostile, neutral or active champions.³

Elrha also recommends naming specific individuals rather than whole institutions, and considering informal as well as formal power, since informal power is often key to change.³ A permanent secretary's adviser or a respected religious leader may matter more than a title suggests. The exercise works best as a group workshop, and Elrha estimates it takes 30 to 90 minutes.³

• High power, high interest: engage closely and early, with tailored briefings.
• High power, low interest: keep satisfied with short, relevant updates.
• Low power, high interest: keep informed and involved; they are often your best messengers.
• Low power, low interest: monitor, and share general information.

A power interest grid does not show whether a stakeholder agrees with you. ODI's Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) programme developed the Alignment, Interest and Influence Matrix (AIIM) for exactly this reason.⁴ It maps actors by alignment, meaning whether they agree with your approach and goals, and by interest, meaning whether they commit time and money to the issue, attend events or speak publicly about it.⁴ Influential actors are then marked, along with those your team has a direct relationship with.⁴

The Outcome Mapping Learning Community gives useful examples: a stakeholder with high alignment and low interest may share your objective but be unable to commit resources, while one with low alignment and high interest might be a lobby group funding work with an opposing aim.⁵ The guidance suggests focusing effort on actors who are both influential and accessible, and monitoring influential actors who are hard to reach.⁴

A stakeholder map is only as good as the knowledge behind it. The AIIM guidance advises placing actors on the basis of evidence of their behaviour, statements and procedures, and corroborating opinions as soon as possible.⁴ If there is not enough evidence, plot the actor outside the matrix as a reminder to find out more.⁴

Invite people who know different parts of the landscape: programme staff, partners, government liaison officers and community mobilisers. ODI suggests using sticky notes on flip-chart paper so actors can be moved during discussion, and breaking an organisation into teams or individuals if participants disagree about its position.⁴ For audience analysis, the UK guide recommends using your own research, data from elsewhere in government or publicly available information.¹

The map is not the goal; decisions are. For each priority group, write down what you want them to know, feel or do, the one or two messages that matter most to them, the best messenger and channel, and when they need to hear it. The ODI guidance encourages teams to describe the specific change in behaviour they hope to see along each actor's pathway.⁴

Different groups need different content. Digital.gov advises separating content for different audiences, because mixing material for several groups may confuse readers.⁶ A minister may need a two-page policy brief, a district team a short video in Kinyarwanda and a donor a results summary, all built from the same core messages.

Positions change. A new minister, an election, a funding decision or a news story can move a stakeholder from one corner of the grid to another. Elrha stresses that stakeholder analysis should not be a static exercise and should be revisited periodically.² ODI suggests producing a follow-up matrix during review meetings or after-action reviews, which can also reveal mistakes in the original analysis or unreliable evidence.⁴ Build a review into your quarterly planning and update your communications plan accordingly.

• A full list of stakeholders, including internal ones and gatekeepers
• Named individuals where possible, not only institutions
• Each stakeholder placed on a power interest grid
• Alignment noted: champion, neutral or opposed
• Evidence recorded for every placement
• Priority groups chosen, with a message, messenger and channel for each
• Content adapted for each priority audience
• A date set to review the map