methodatlas
Method guideFacilitation

Stakeholder Salience Model

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium
Time60-90 min
Participants3-6
FormatWorkshop
MaturityEstablished
Plan Stakeholder Salience Model
01

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstBounded subject

The scope and purpose of Stakeholder Salience Model are stated as a concrete question.

Without scope, salience map becomes arbitrary.
Complete firstAccess to relevant perspectives

Concrete claims, Decision scope, Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency and domain decision makers are available.

Without these perspectives, central claims in salience map remain unsupported.
02

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Concrete claims, Decision scope, Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency, shared workspace, source links, and decision log.

People / roles

Facilitator · decision owner · stakeholder experts · rights/compliance perspective

Pre-read

Collect Concrete claims, Decision scope, Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency in advance and mark open assumptions.

Time needed

45–60 minutes

Setup

Prepare three separate attributes per stakeholder claim and a derived salience class visibly and calibrate assessment terms before starting.

03

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which stakeholder claims possess power, legitimacy, and urgency in this decision, and what attention follows?

04

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

The Salience Model describes which claims management prioritises. Power, legitimacy, and urgency are assessed per claim and context; the resulting class is a dated perception rather than a moral ranking of people.

salience map

Fictional worked example

three separate attributes per stakeholder claim and a derived salience class as a precise working structure with a fictional example.

salience map
ClaimStakeholder claimPowerLegitimacyUrgencyClass and response
Shift-planning impact reviewDefinitive claimWorks council requests an impact review before rollout.Co-determination rights can delay approval.Statutory representation of affected employees.Approval in three weeks; later review would be too late.Definitive; immediate joint review, then reassess.

  1. 1. Stakeholder claim

    Shift-planning impact review
    Works council requests an impact review before rollout.

  2. 2. Power

    Shift-planning impact review
    Co-determination rights can delay approval.

  3. 3. Legitimacy

    Shift-planning impact review
    Statutory representation of affected employees.

  4. 4. Urgency

    Shift-planning impact review
    Approval in three weeks; later review would be too late.

  5. 5. Class and response

    Shift-planning impact review
    Definitive; immediate joint review, then reassess.

The example demonstrates the domain logic of Stakeholder Salience Model; worksheets remain blank.

Mitchell, Agle & Wood: Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience

  1. 1

    Frame claims

    Frame claims

    Goal

    Produce claim list so the core question “Which stakeholder claims possess power, legitimacy, and urgency in this decision, and what attention follows?” can be answered with stronger support.

    Inputs for this step

    • Concrete claims
    • Decision scope
    • Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency

    Actions

    • State each stakeholder and concrete claim for one bounded decision.
    • Record source, rationale, and open uncertainty directly in claim list.

    Output

    claim list

    claim list · source · uncertainty · next decision

    Quality check

    Is every claim described separately from the person or group?

    Pitfall

    Stakeholders are labelled important or unimportant without naming their claim. Restore the missing basis, correct the claim, and repeat the step with visible rationale.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

  2. 2

    Assess attributes

    Assess attributes

    Goal

    Produce attribute profile so the core question “Which stakeholder claims possess power, legitimacy, and urgency in this decision, and what attention follows?” can be answered with stronger support.

    Inputs for this step

    • claim list
    • Decision scope
    • Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency

    Actions

    • Assess power, legitimacy, and urgency for each claim using definitions and evidence.
    • Record source, rationale, and open uncertainty directly in attribute profile.

    Output

    attribute profile

    attribute profile · source · uncertainty · next decision

    Quality check

    Are all three attributes justified separately with uncertainty visible?

    Pitfall

    Urgency is confused with loudness, or legitimacy is inferred from formal power alone. Restore the missing basis, correct the claim, and repeat the step with visible rationale.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

  3. 3

    Set attention

    Set attention

    Goal

    Produce attention decision so the core question “Which stakeholder claims possess power, legitimacy, and urgency in this decision, and what attention follows?” can be answered with stronger support.

    Inputs for this step

    • attribute profile
    • Decision scope
    • Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency

    Actions

    • Derive the salience class, add a rights check, and choose an appropriate response.
    • Record source, rationale, and open uncertainty directly in attention decision.

    Output

    attention decision

    attention decision · source · uncertainty · next decision

    Quality check

    Does the response follow the attributes without bypassing rights or impact?

    Pitfall

    The class becomes a final value judgement and marginalises low-power claimants. Restore the missing basis, correct the claim, and repeat the step with visible rationale.

    Timing: 10–20 minutes

05

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Stakeholder Salience Model · Power, Legitimacy, UrgencyStakeholder über Macht, Legitimität und Dringlichkeit klassifizieren, um Aufmerksamkeit und Strategie differenziert zu steuern
Stakeholder Salience ModelDas Visual zeigt die drei Dimensionen Power, Legitimacy und Urgency, daraus abgeleitete Stakeholder-Klassen und eine priorisierte Strategie.Stakeholder-Salienz über drei Dimensionen bewertenPower, Legitimacy und Urgency zeigen, welche Stakeholder gerade besondere Aufmerksamkeit brauchen.Stakeholder-Listevorhandene Stakeholder vertraulichbewertenSalience DiagrammPowerLegitimacyUrgencyDormantDominantDiscretionaryDangerousDependentDemandingDefinitiveAufmerksamkeit steuernDefinitive zuerst, Grenzfällebewusst diskutierenKlassen prüfenPower, Legitimität undDringlichkeit können wechselndrei Dimensionen statt nur EinflussAcht Klassenergeben...Grenzfälle nichtmitteln
Form

Versioned salience map with date, sources, owners, and next review.

Versioning / ownership

Retain date, source, assumption state, and decision for every version of salience map.

Tool alternatives
  • salience map as board or document
  • Source and evidence register
  • Decision and action log

stakeholder-salience-model-working-template.md

Plan Stakeholder Salience Model around its domain steps and the concrete decision question.

Stakeholder Salience Model: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Full workshop Time: 45–60 minutes

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

  • Materials: Concrete claims, Decision scope, Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency, shared workspace, source links, and decision log.
  • Roles: Facilitator · decision owner · stakeholder experts · rights/compliance perspective
  • Advance information: Collect Concrete claims, Decision scope, Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency in advance and mark open assumptions.
  • Overall time needed: 45–60 minutes
  • Setup: Prepare three separate attributes per stakeholder claim and a derived salience class visibly and calibrate assessment terms before starting.

Prepare for the work steps

Frame claims: Frame claims

  • Concrete claims
  • Decision scope
  • Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency

Assess attributes: Assess attributes

  • claim list
  • Decision scope
  • Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency

Set attention: Set attention

  • attribute profile
  • Decision scope
  • Evidence about power, legitimacy, and urgency

salience map

ClaimPerson/group · concrete claim · contextCoercive, utilitarian, or normative power base + evidenceWhy is the claim appropriate or recognised?Time sensitivity and criticality + evidenceLatent/expectant/definitive · attention · review
Shift-planning impact review
  • Shift-planning impact review: Definitive claim

Enter only real input, sources, and decisions.

Mitchell, Agle & Wood: Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience

Frame claims: Frame claims

Expected artifact: claim list

claim list · source · uncertainty · next decision

Entry:

...

  • Is every claim described separately from the person or group?

Assess attributes: Assess attributes

Expected artifact: attribute profile

attribute profile · source · uncertainty · next decision

Entry:

...

  • Are all three attributes justified separately with uncertainty visible?

Set attention: Set attention

Expected artifact: attention decision

attention decision · source · uncertainty · next decision

Entry:

...

  • Does the response follow the attributes without bypassing rights or impact?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/stakeholder-salience-model/run-sheet

06

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

stakeholder-salience-model-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example: the works council requests an impact review before a shift-planning rollout. Power: present through co-determination rights. Legitimacy: high through statutory representation. Urgency: high because approval is planned in three weeks. Class: definitive stakeholder claim. Response: immediate joint review; reassess after the draft agreement.

07

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

  1. Frame claimsStakeholders are labelled important or unimportant without naming their claim.View in phase
  2. Assess attributesUrgency is confused with loudness, or legitimacy is inferred from formal power alone.View in phase
  3. Set attentionThe class becomes a final value judgement and marginalises low-power claimants.View in phase
08

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

salience map answers the core question with traceable evidence or explicitly marked uncertainty.
Owners, next actions, and review dates are named for open points.

Where to go next?

Paper illustration for Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation Mapping

Clarifies concrete expectations and possible conflicts for high-urgency stakeholders.

Paper illustration for Communication Plan
Delivery
Communication Plan

Sets channel and cadence for stakeholders with high urgency.

View in playbookPlan Stakeholder and ChangeMove from an unclear stakeholder landscape to influence strategy, communication, and adoption actions.

Finished the method guide?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profileMore methods