What stakeholder analysis is
A stakeholder is any individual or group that can affect, or is affected by, an organisation's objectives. The definition comes from R. Edward Freeman's 1984 book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, which argued that managers must consider groups beyond shareholders to succeed over the long term.
Stakeholder analysis is the structured process of identifying these groups, assessing their interests and influence, and planning how to engage them. In MBA work it appears in strategy papers, change management assignments, project management, ethics cases, sustainability strategies and capstone consulting reports. Its value lies in what it tells you about feasibility: a recommendation that ignores a powerful opponent is unlikely to succeed.
Stakeholder analysis is also an ongoing management practice, not a one-off exercise. Project managers revisit their stakeholder registers at each phase, and executives reassess positions whenever a strategy meets resistance. Showing that you would update the analysis as the situation changes signals a practical, managerial understanding of the tool.
Identifying stakeholders
Start broad, then refine. Distinguish internal from external stakeholders, and primary stakeholders (directly affected) from secondary ones (indirectly affected).
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Internal | Board, executives, middle managers, employees, unions, business units |
| Owners and funders | Shareholders, private equity owners, lenders, donors |
| Market | Customers, suppliers, distributors, competitors, partners |
| Societal | Regulators, government, local communities, NGOs, media |
Be specific. "Employees" is often too broad; frontline staff, middle managers and specialist engineers may react to the same decision in different ways. Split groups whenever their interests differ, and name specific organisations where the case allows, such as a particular regulator or a major customer.
The power-interest grid
The most widely used tool is the power-interest grid, often attributed to Mendelow's work on environmental scanning and popularised in strategy textbooks. It plots stakeholders by their power to influence the decision and their level of interest in it.
| Low interest | High interest | |
|---|---|---|
| High power | Keep satisfied: consult on matters that affect them, avoid surprises | Manage closely: key players; involve in decisions, engage regularly |
| Low power | Monitor: minimal effort, watch for changes | Keep informed: regular communication, use their support |
Stakeholders move. A regulator with low interest today becomes a key player if a product causes harm; a disengaged employee group can gain power through collective action. Note likely movements in your analysis.
The salience model
Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) proposed that stakeholder salience, or how much attention managers give a stakeholder, depends on three attributes:
- Power: the ability to impose their will on the organisation.
- Legitimacy: whether their claim is seen as appropriate or proper.
- Urgency: how time-sensitive and critical their claim is.
Stakeholders with all three are "definitive" and demand immediate attention. Those with only one are latent and may need monitoring. The model is useful in ethics and crisis cases, where a stakeholder with low formal power, such as an affected community, can gain urgency and legitimacy quickly, often through media attention.
Assessing positions and interests
Mapping power and interest is not enough. For each key stakeholder, analyse:
- Interests: what they want and what they fear losing.
- Current position: supportive, neutral or opposed to the proposed decision.
- Desired position: where you need them to be for the plan to succeed.
- Sources of influence: formal authority, control of resources, expertise, relationships or public voice.
- Evidence: what in the case supports your assessment.
The gap between current and desired positions shows where engagement effort must go.
Coalitions and relationships
Stakeholders rarely act alone. Groups with modest individual power can combine into a coalition that blocks or accelerates a decision: employees and the local community together, or customers amplified by media coverage. Look for shared interests between groups and for brokers who connect them, such as a respected clinician who sits on a professional body and also speaks to the press. Mapping these links, even with a simple diagram of who influences whom, often reveals that the real risk lies not in one opponent but in an alliance that has not formed yet. Your engagement plan can then aim to address the shared concern early, before the coalition gathers momentum.
Using case evidence
In case-based assignments, the case text is your primary evidence. Quotations from managers, data on employee turnover, union statements, regulatory deadlines and customer complaints all indicate interest and power. Cite exhibits and page numbers where your course expects it. In live organisational projects, interviews, internal documents and public filings serve the same role. Where evidence is thin, state your assumptions and explain how you would verify them, for example through a short consultation round before committing to a plan.
Engagement strategies
| Level | What it involves | Suitable for |
|---|---|---|
| Inform | One-way communication: updates, newsletters, briefings | Low-power, interested groups |
| Consult | Seek feedback before decisions: surveys, focus groups | Groups whose input improves the plan |
| Involve | Work with stakeholders throughout the process | Key players and implementers |
| Collaborate | Shared decision-making and joint solutions | Powerful partners and essential allies |
Tie each strategy to a specific action, owner and timing. "Engage the union" is vague; "the HR director meets union representatives before the announcement to agree redeployment principles" is a plan.
A worked example
A fictional regional hospital group plans to centralise three laboratories into one automated facility to cut costs.
| Stakeholder | Power | Interest | Current position | Key interest | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Board | High | High | Supportive | Cost savings, quality | Involve; regular progress reporting |
| Laboratory staff | Medium | High | Opposed | Job security, relocation | Involve in design; redeployment plan |
| Clinicians | High | Medium | Neutral | Turnaround times for urgent tests | Consult; guarantee urgent test service levels |
| Regulator | High | Low | Neutral | Accreditation and safety | Keep satisfied; early briefing |
| Local community | Low | Medium | Concerned | Local jobs and services | Keep informed; local media plan |
The analysis shows that clinicians are the swing group: powerful but not yet committed. If they come to see slower urgent results as a patient safety risk, their opposition could stop the project. The recommendation should therefore include an on-site rapid testing unit for urgent samples, which changes the plan itself, not just its communication.
Writing it up
- State the decision or change the analysis concerns.
- Identify stakeholders, grouped and specific.
- Present a power-interest grid as a figure, and a stakeholder table with interests and positions.
- Discuss the key players and swing groups in depth, with evidence from the case.
- Set out engagement strategies with actions, owners and timing.
- Explain how the analysis changed or strengthened your recommendation.
Critical evaluation
- Placements on the grid are judgements, so explain your reasoning and evidence.
- Stakeholder positions shift over time, so the analysis needs regular updating.
- Grids can reduce complex relationships and coalitions to simple boxes.
- Ethically, stakeholders with little power, such as future generations or the environment, can be overlooked. Freeman's stakeholder theory and corporate responsibility debates are relevant here.
For ethics cases specifically, see our guide to business ethics case analysis.
Mistakes to avoid
- A list with no analysis Assess interests, power, position and strategy.
- Groups that are too broad Split groups whose interests differ.
- No evidence Support each assessment with facts from the case.
- Generic engagement Name actions, owners and timing.
- Analysis that changes nothing Show how it shaped your recommendation.
- Ignoring less powerful groups Consider ethical obligations and the risk of rising urgency.
If you are working to a deadline and want expert help, you can order MBA strategy or change management help.