Complete firstStakeholder Mapping
A stakeholder list with names, roles and relationship to initiative exists (at least 8-15 stakeholders).
Without: Without list, the model becomes brainstorming session and classification lacks basis.
RunsheetFacilitation
Stakeholder Salience Model
ComplexityMedium
Time60-90 min
Participants3-6
FormatWorkshop
MaturityEstablished
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Whiteboard or Miro board with three overlapping circles (Venn diagram: Power, Legitimacy, Urgency); stakeholder cards; definitions per dimension as banner; confidential storage; pens.
People / roles
One facilitator with experience in stakeholder analysis; sponsor or project lead; 3-5 participants with political understanding; scribe for strategy notes.
Pre-read
Stakeholder list; definitions per dimension (Power, Legitimacy, Urgency); known histories and alliances; current escalation topics; past conflict patterns.
Time needed
60-90 min
Setup
Venn diagram with three circles (Power, Legitimacy, Urgency). Mark seven intersections (Dormant, Discretionary, Demanding, Dominant, Dangerous, Dependent, Definitive). Definitions written. Announce confidentiality.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which stakeholders combine which combination of power, legitimacy and urgency, and which strategy follows for each of the eight classes?
04
Flow
Marker: Phase
| Step | Duration | Action | Hint |
|---|---|---|---|
1Phase 1: Calibrate three dimensions | 15 min | Clarify definitions: Power (formal/informal influence), Legitimacy (recognized validity of claims), Urgency (time-critical pressure). Examples per dimension. | Combination of the three dimensions creates eight classes (including stakeholders without all three = non-stakeholder). Mixing definitions creates wrong classification. |
2Phase 2: Classify stakeholders | 25-40 min | Make three yes/no decisions per stakeholder: has Power? has Legitimacy? has Urgency? Position in Venn diagram follows. | When discussing, note rationale. Be honest on Power/Legitimacy/Urgency: making a claim does not automatically create Legitimacy. |
3Phase 3: Interpret classes | 15-20 min | Work out meaning per class: Definitive (all three) = top priority; Dangerous (Power+Urgency, no Legitimacy) = risk stakeholder; Dependent (Legitimacy+Urgency, no Power) = needs protection. | Dangerous class is especially sensitive (actors with power and pressure, but no legitimate basis). They need active conflict management, not ignoring. |
4Phase 4: Strategy per class | 15-20 min | Derive strategy per class. Definitive: close involvement. Dominant (Power+Legitimacy): proactive information. Dangerous: risk mitigation. Dormant (only Power): monitor. Owner and cadence per class. | Strategy without cadence decays. Concrete action and date per class. Definitive stakeholders typically need weekly cadence, others monthly or ad-hoc. |
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Form
Venn diagram as board export, plus table list of stakeholders with class, rationale, strategy, owner, cadence. Confidential storage. Escalation triggers per class.
Versioning / ownership
Re-run quarterly or on mandate change. Archive previous version with date. Class changes with rationale. Confidential. Update immediately on personnel change.
Tool alternatives
- Miro or FigJam with Venn diagram template
- Lucidchart with stakeholder salience template
- Notion database with class property
- Confluence page with table (restricted access)
- Excel or Google Sheet with class filter
stakeholder-salience-model-working-template.md
Compact working template for Stakeholder Salience Model with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.
Stakeholder Salience Model Canvas
Context
What is this method used for?
Core question
Which question should be answered at the end?
Input
Which data, observations, or materials are available?
Working area
- Area 1:
- Area 2:
- Area 3:
- Relationships / patterns:
Output artifacts
- Salience diagram:
- Strategy by class:
Open questions
- ...
Next step
Owner, date, success signal.
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
stakeholder-salience-model-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Stakeholder Salience Model - Compliance migration Q3/2026, 2026-05-18 (CONFIDENTIAL)
Definitions
- Power: formal/informal power over resources, decisions, veto.
- Legitimacy: recognized validity of claims (legal, contractual, moral).
- Urgency: time-critical pressure or critical demand now.
Classification (12 stakeholders)
Definitive (P+L+U) - top priority
- Compliance Lead @sandra: has formal veto (P), legal mandate (L), audit date in Q3 (U). Strategy: weekly 1:1, early involvement on every compliance question.
- BaFin supervision (external): regulatory power (P), legal legitimacy (L), audit pressure (U). Strategy: preparatory submissions, formal quarterly reports.
Dominant (P+L) - inform proactively
- CTO @julia: architecture veto (P), strategy owner (L), currently no urgency (no U). Strategy: monthly architecture review, ad-hoc on risks.
- CFO @michael: budget veto (P), finance responsibility (L), no acute pressure (no U). Strategy: monthly budget status.
Dangerous (P+U, no L) - risk stakeholder
- Large customer @bigCorp: can exert contractual pressure (P), pushes for special solution (U), but special wishes outside contractual basis (no L). Strategy: conflict management, escalation to account manager, clear boundaries.
Dependent (L+U, no P) - need protection
- Customer Success Team: legitimate concern about migration flow (L), under time pressure (U), little formal power (no P). Strategy: protect through sponsor, secure resources, early-warning channel.
Dormant (only P) - monitor
- HR Director: has hiring veto (P), but no relation to initiative (no L, no U). Strategy: quarterly newsletter, involve on hiring need.
Discretionary (only L) - selective involvement
- Industry association: legitimate representation (L), but no direct power or urgency. Strategy: annual industry conference, otherwise no cadence.
Demanding (only U) - ignore or channel
- Former employee with public criticism: pushes (U), but no power or legitimacy. Strategy: PR monitoring, no direct response.
Escalation triggers
- Dangerous class: inform sponsor immediately on new demands.
- Definitive class: escalate to CEO on standstill >2 weeks.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Trap
Power and Legitimacy mixed
Symptom
Senior managers automatically land in "Dominant" because they are high in org chart, without checking legitimacy of current claim.
What to do
Formulate claim per stakeholder and check separately: does this claim have legitimate basis (contract, law, recognized responsibility). Senior position alone is not enough.
Trap
Dangerous class ignored
Symptom
Stakeholders with Power and Urgency but without Legitimacy are excluded because "they have no right".
What to do
Dangerous is the most sensitive class. Risk mitigation is strategy, not ignoring. Define escalation path to sponsor. Actively conduct conflict management.
Trap
Static classification
Symptom
Model is built once, urgency shifts across project phases are not tracked.
What to do
Urgency changes most often. Re-evaluate quarterly or on phase change. Power and Legitimacy are more stable, but must be checked on personnel change.
Trap
Model becomes labels
Symptom
Stakeholders are called "Dangerous", term is used derogatorily.
What to do
Model is analysis tool, not moral judgment. Keep terms internal, use more neutral language outward. Confidentiality central.
Trap
Strategy without cadence
Symptom
Abstract strategy per class, no concrete dates or owners.
What to do
Concrete cadence per class (weekly, monthly, quarterly, ad-hoc). Owner by name. Without date, strategy decays in 4 weeks.
08
Stop criteria
Done signals checkable in under a minute
Fewer than 8 stakeholders, model would be overhead.
Three dimensions cannot be clearly defined, classification would be gut feeling.
Initiative has no political complexity (pure internal team, no external stakeholders), model is overengineering.
Confidentiality cannot be assured, stakeholder harm is possible.
Sponsor not present, escalation strategies would be non-binding.
Power-Interest Grid would be sufficient, Salience Model is overkill for complexity.
Finished the runsheet?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.