What are Stakeholders?

Types of Stakeholders

Stakeholders are typically divided into internal and external, and by their level of influence and interest:

• Primary stakeholders — directly affected by the project outcome; clients, end users, the project team
• Secondary stakeholders — indirectly affected; management, finance, legal, compliance
• Internal stakeholders — inside your organization; team members, department heads, executives
• External stakeholders — outside your organization; clients, vendors, partners, regulators, end users
• Key stakeholders — high influence and/or high interest; these people can approve, block, or significantly change the project

Stakeholder Analysis: Power vs Interest

A stakeholder analysis maps everyone relevant to the project on two axes: how much power they have to influence the project, and how interested they are in the outcome. The result divides stakeholders into four groups with different communication strategies:

Stakeholder Communication in Practice

The biggest stakeholder management mistake is treating all stakeholders the same. The CEO doesn't need a weekly status report — they need a one-page summary at each milestone. The day-to-day contact needs weekly updates and access to the project board. The end users need to be consulted before design decisions are finalized.

Establish communication preferences at project kickoff: how often should updates go out? In what format? Who is the single point of contact on the client side? What decisions can the contact make, and which need escalation?

For agencies managing multiple client projects, a simple rule: one stakeholder map per project created at kickoff, reviewed when new people get involved. It takes 20 minutes and prevents weeks of confusion.

Stakeholder Map: How to Build One in 20 Minutes

A stakeholder map is a structured view of everyone with a stake in a project: who they are, how much influence they have, and how much they care about the outcome. Building one before a project starts reduces mid-project surprises because the team already knows who to involve in decisions, who needs updates, and who can block progress if they feel overlooked.

The process takes 20 minutes.

Step 1: List everyone who touches the project. Include internal team members, client contacts at all levels, end users, and third parties (vendors, hosting providers). Aim for completeness — add people you're uncertain about, then filter.

Step 2: Rate each person on two axes. Power: their ability to influence or block the project (1-5). Interest: how much they care about this project's outcome (1-5). This gives you a 5×5 grid.

Step 3: Place each person in their quadrant. Power 4-5 and Interest 4-5: Manage Closely. Power 4-5, Interest 1-2: Keep Satisfied. Power 1-2, Interest 4-5: Keep Informed. Power 1-2, Interest 1-2: Monitor only.

Step 4: Assign communication actions. The communication plan for the project maps directly from this grid — each quadrant has a different meeting cadence, update format, and level of involvement in decisions.

Managing Difficult Stakeholders

Difficult stakeholder behavior follows patterns. Recognizing the pattern makes the response clearer.

The ghost: a Manage Closely stakeholder who doesn't respond to messages and misses review meetings. Response: escalate to whoever has authority over them. A stakeholder who can block the project but won't engage is an unmanaged risk. Address it in week 2, not week 8.

The scope expander: adds new requirements at each review meeting, not through a formal change request. Response: introduce a simple change request process at kickoff and use it consistently. The first time you accept a 'small addition' without a change order, you set the expectation that all additions are free.

The committee: multiple stakeholders who all want to approve decisions, but can't agree. Response: establish one named decision-maker per decision category at kickoff. For design decisions: Sarah. For technical decisions: Marcus. For budget decisions: the client's managing director.

The late arrival: a senior stakeholder who wasn't in the kickoff, discovers the project in week 6, and wants to restart from the brief. Response: prevention is the only cure. At kickoff, confirm all stakeholders with approval authority are in the room. Document who was present and who approved the brief.

The scope reducer: reduces budget mid-project without reducing scope. Response: show the scope-budget relationship clearly. 'With a 20% budget reduction, these three deliverables need to be removed or deferred. Which ones?'

• Ghost: escalate to their manager in week 2, not week 8
• Scope expander: introduce and enforce a change request process from day one
• Committee: assign one named decision-maker per decision category at kickoff
• Late arrival: confirm all approval-authority stakeholders are at kickoff before it happens
• Scope reducer: make the scope-budget trade-off explicit and ask them to choose what to cut

Stakeholder Meetings: What to Cover and How Often

Two stakeholder meeting mistakes are most common: meeting too often with too little substance, or meeting too rarely and surprising stakeholders at delivery. Both erode trust. The fix is a structured cadence matched to each stakeholder's quadrant.

For Manage Closely stakeholders: biweekly project meetings at 30-45 minutes. Agenda: progress since last meeting with a brief demo or sample (5 minutes); current status covering what's in progress, blocked, and at risk (10 minutes); upcoming decisions that need input in the next 2 weeks (10 minutes); questions and concerns from the stakeholder (10 minutes); next steps and confirmations (5 minutes). This meeting should produce 1-3 written decisions or action items. If it doesn't, the meeting didn't serve its purpose.

For Keep Satisfied stakeholders: monthly written update and an ad-hoc call when needed. The monthly update runs one page or less: project status in one line (on track, at risk, or off track), key milestones completed, key milestones planned for next month, decisions made that affect this stakeholder, and any action required from them.

For Keep Informed stakeholders: a monthly email. One paragraph: current status, what was completed, what's next. No meetings unless requested.

Four rules that apply to all stakeholder meetings. Send an agenda 24 hours in advance. Start and end on time. Send a written summary within 24 hours covering decisions made, open questions, and next steps with owners. Don't cancel more than once per quarter.

Unscheduled meeting triggers: a significant risk emerges affecting delivery or budget; a decision needs to happen faster than the next scheduled meeting; a key person on the client side changes; or the project scope, timeline, or budget needs to change.

• Manage Closely: biweekly, 45 min, 5-section agenda, must produce 1-3 written decisions
• Keep Satisfied: monthly written update (1 page max), ad-hoc call on request
• Keep Informed: monthly email, one paragraph, no recurring meetings
• All meetings: agenda 24h in advance, start and end on time, written summary within 24h
• Don't cancel more than once per quarter
• Unscheduled triggers: significant risk, fast decision needed, client team change, scope/timeline/budget change

When Stakeholders Disagree: A Process for Resolution

Stakeholder disagreement is normal. Two decision-makers with different priorities will want the project to go in different directions. The problem isn't the disagreement itself. The problem is when the delivery team gets caught in the middle and work stalls.

Step 1: Write down exactly what they disagree about. Write one paragraph: 'Stakeholder A wants [specific position]. Stakeholder B wants [specific position]. The decision that needs to be made is [specific decision]. The deadline for this decision is [date].' Send it to both parties before any resolution meeting and ask them to confirm it's accurate.

Step 2: Separate requirements from preferences. Ask each stakeholder to split their position into two lists: things the project must deliver for their work to function, and things they'd like if possible but could accept not having. Requirements are non-negotiable. Preferences are negotiable. In most disagreements, both parties have far more preferences than requirements.

Step 3: Present trade-offs to both parties at the same time. Don't run separate conversations — each stakeholder assumes their preference will win. State trade-offs factually: 'Option A achieves [result] but has these limitations. Option B achieves [different result] but has these limitations. Both are viable. We need a decision by [date].'

Step 4: Establish who has final authority. When stakeholders are stuck, one person must have the final call. Ask this at kickoff, before any disagreement arises.

Step 5: Document the outcome and move. Once a decision is made, document it the same day and send to all stakeholders within 24 hours.

• Write the disagreement as one paragraph — confirm both parties agree on the description before meeting
• Separate requirements (non-negotiable) from preferences (negotiable) for each stakeholder
• Present both options in one meeting, both parties present — separate sessions let each assume they'll win
• Identify who has final authority at kickoff, before any conflict arises
• Document the decision the same day and move forward on the authorized call
• Ongoing conflict: escalate to most senior client contact with a 2-week resolution window