Power Mapping
Power Mapping is a campaign-strategy exercise that places every relevant person and organisation on a grid of how much power they hold over a specific outcome and how strongly they support or oppose it. Talking through each placement brings out the relationships between the actors and shows where a small group can realistically apply pressure. The version described here follows the handout by James Whelan of the Change Agency; related versions are used by other campaigning and advocacy organisations.
Facilitation script
- 1
Form groups of two or three. Each group agrees one campaign and writes its objective as a single realistic sentence at the top of the sheet.
10 min - 2
Groups write actors on cards, one per card: their own group, the main decision-maker, then everyone else who has a say or an influence.
10 min - 3
Draw the two axes. Place your own group, then the actor with the most power over the outcome.
5 min - 4
Place the remaining cards one by one, saying how each actor relates to the group, to the main power-holder and to the other cards.
15 min - 5
Revise the map. Partners question placements and move cards until the group can defend the picture.
5 min - 6
Mark the two or three places where the campaign can have the most influence and note what would move those actors.
5 min - 7
Groups report back. Compare maps, collect open research questions and agree what changes in the campaign plan.
10 min
Tips
Insist on named people and specific bodies rather than labels like 'the government' or 'management', because nobody can lobby a category.
Hold the group to one objective per map: an actor who is powerful and opposed on one outcome may be neutral on another.
Ask 'how do we know?' whenever a card lands at the far end of an axis, since most placements start as assumptions and the gaps are a useful research list.
Common pitfalls
Mapping without a specific objective, so power and support mean something different for every card and the map cannot guide any choice
Writing institutions instead of people, which leaves the group with targets it has no way of contacting or persuading
Placing cards quickly and silently, skipping the talk about relationships that produces most of the insight
Aiming straight at the most powerful opponent and ignoring the movable actors in the middle, where a small group usually gets the most return
Treating guesses as facts, so the strategy rests on positions nobody has checked with the actors themselves
Variations
Remote: build the grid on a shared whiteboard and give each small group its own frame and breakout room. With a single team, draw one large map on a wall and place cards together. Some groups add lines between cards to show who influences whom, or redraw the map a few months into a campaign to see which actors have moved. If you need to plan communication with project stakeholders rather than pressure on a decision-maker, the power and interest grid of a Stakeholder Map is the closer fit.
Where it fits
When to use it
A campaign or change effort has a clear objective but the group has not agreed who actually decides it
The group is small and has to choose two or three targets instead of trying to reach everyone
People keep talking about opponents and allies in general terms and need to get specific about names
A new coalition needs a shared picture of the field before dividing up work
A campaign has stalled and the group wants to check whether it is still pushing in the right place
When not to use it
The objective is still vague. Agree the outcome first, for example with Backcasting, otherwise every placement turns into an argument about what the campaign is for
You need an engagement and communication plan for project stakeholders who are mostly cooperative. Use a Stakeholder Map with its power and interest grid
The aim is to understand informal collaboration inside one organisation. Social Network Mapping shows who talks to whom
The people being mapped are in the room. Placing colleagues on a support and opposition axis in front of them damages trust, so use Force Field Analysis to talk about forces instead of persons
Nobody in the group knows the actors well enough to place them. Do the research first, then map
Related methods
Further reading
Frequently asked questions
What is Power Mapping?▾
Power Mapping is a strategy exercise for campaigns and change efforts. Small groups place the relevant people and organisations on a grid with two axes: how much power each has over a defined outcome, and how strongly each supports or opposes it. The finished map shows where influence is realistic and who to approach first.
How is Power Mapping different from a Stakeholder Map?▾
A classic Stakeholder Map uses power and interest and leads to engagement categories such as keep informed or manage closely. Power Mapping replaces interest with support and opposition, which suits situations where some actors will actively resist. It also puts weight on the relationships between actors, because the route to a decision-maker often runs through someone else on the map.
How long does Power Mapping take?▾
Plan about 60 minutes for one map including the report back. Allow up to 90 minutes if the group is new to the campaign or if several groups need to compare and merge their maps.
Who should be in the room for Power Mapping?▾
People who know the actors first-hand: organisers, members with contacts inside the target organisation, and anyone who has dealt with the decision-maker before. A map drawn only by newcomers reflects reputation more than reality. Work in groups of two or three so that every placement is discussed.
What do you do with the finished power map?▾
Use it to pick targets and tactics. Supportive actors with power need to be activated, undecided actors near the centre are usually the best use of limited effort, and the lines of influence suggest who can carry your message. Keep the map and redraw it when positions shift.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Power Mapping into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from James Whelan, the Change Agency.