.png)
Built with insights from behavioral scientists worldwide. Practical learning for leaders responsible for communication and trust
.png)
We're working on getting insights, tools, and techniques straight to your inbox on a weekly basis. No commitment required, we'll reach out again when we're ready to see if you still want to receive weekly emails.
By submitting this form, you agree to receive recurring marketing communications from Piar at the email you provide. To opt out, click unsubscribe at the bottom of our emails. By submitting this form, you also agree to our Terms & Privacy Policy
Many campaigns struggle or lose momentum because teams miss the opportunity to map influence and motivation up front. A stakeholder narrative matrix brings order and clarity, helping communications teams identify which players matter most, who holds quiet influence, and where to focus messaging. The academic foundation for understanding these dynamics draws from decades of research on social influence, stakeholder engagement, and network effects.
Herbert Kelman's 1958 research in the Journal of Conflict Resolution identified three fundamental processes of attitude change that remain foundational to influence theory: compliance, identification, and internalization. Compliance occurs when people publicly conform to influence without private acceptance. Identification happens when people adopt behaviors or beliefs because they want to establish or maintain a relationship with an influencing party. Internalization represents genuine acceptance where people integrate new attitudes because they find them intrinsically rewarding or congruent with their value system.
For stakeholder influence mapping, these three processes explain different pathways through which stakeholders affect each other and organizational outcomes. A stakeholder who influences others through compliance (formal authority, control over resources) will lose influence rapidly if that positional power diminishes. A stakeholder who influences through identification (personal charisma, relationship strength) maintains influence as long as relationships persist but struggles to transfer influence to others. A stakeholder who influences through internalization (expertise, value alignment) creates the most durable and transferable influence because others genuinely adopt the perspectives shared.
Research across social psychology, organizational behavior, and network science has identified systematic patterns in how influence operates. Robert Cialdini's extensive work on influence principles, published across multiple peer-reviewed journals, documented six fundamental pathways: reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity.
Reciprocity operates through the powerful norm that people should repay what others provide. In stakeholder contexts, organizations that provide value to stakeholders (information, resources, support) create implicit obligations that influence stakeholder behavior when the organization later makes requests. This influence mechanism explains why relationship-building activities that do not directly advance immediate organizational goals still serve strategic purposes by creating goodwill reserves that can be leveraged during critical moments.
Commitment and consistency reflect people's desire to appear consistent with their previous commitments and stated positions. Stakeholders who have publicly endorsed organizational positions, participated in collaborative initiatives, or made commitments aligned with organizational objectives experience psychological pressure to maintain consistency. Influence strategies that secure small initial commitments before requesting larger ones leverage this principle effectively.
Social proof describes how people determine appropriate behavior by observing what others do, particularly in ambiguous situations. When stakeholders see peers adopting certain positions or behaviors, they experience pressure to conform even without direct influence attempts. This mechanism explains cascading effects where influence spreads through networks beyond direct relationships.
Authority captures the tendency to comply with legitimate authority figures even when personal judgment suggests otherwise. Stakeholders who occupy formal positions, possess relevant credentials, or demonstrate deep expertise exert influence disproportionate to their actual arguments because others defer to their authority. This influence pathway operates most strongly when the domain of authority clearly matches the decision at hand.
Liking reflects the simple fact that people are more easily influenced by those they like. Similarity, compliments, cooperation toward shared goals, and repeated positive contact all increase liking and therefore influence. This mechanism explains why relationship quality matters for influence beyond formal roles or expertise levels.
Scarcity operates through the psychological principle that opportunities appear more valuable when availability is limited. Stakeholders react more strongly to potential losses than equivalent gains, creating influence opportunities for those who control access to scarce resources or time-sensitive opportunities.
A 2022 study in the Journal of Business Research examined social influence and stakeholder engagement behavior, proposing that influencer-exerted social influence manifests as stakeholder engagement behavior conformity, compliance, or reactance depending on the influencee's level of acceptance of the influence.
The research conceptualized stakeholder engagement behavior as a stakeholder's behavioral manifestation toward role-related interactions, activities, and relationships. This framework moves beyond simplistic models of stakeholder support or opposition to recognize that stakeholders actively shape their relationships with organizations through how they engage.
The study proposed that these engagement responses yield cooperation, coopetition, or competition in relationships. Cooperation emerges when stakeholders genuinely accept organizational influence and align their behavior accordingly. Coopetition occurs when stakeholders simultaneously cooperate in some domains while competing in others, often reflecting compliance rather than genuine acceptance. Competition develops when stakeholders actively resist organizational influence through reactance.
This framework has direct implications for stakeholder mapping. Traditional approaches that simply categorize stakeholders as supportive, neutral, or opposed miss the dynamic nature of stakeholder responses to influence. A stakeholder may cooperate on some initiatives while competing on others. The same stakeholder may shift from cooperation to reactance if organizational influence attempts become too heavy-handed. Effective stakeholder mapping captures these nuances rather than assigning static positions.
Research from Washington University in St. Louis and Brown School of Social Work, published in BMC Health Services Research in 2017, established a stakeholder engagement continuum that has become widely adopted across fields. The framework identifies three broad categories: non-participation, symbolic participation, and engaged participation.
Non-participation includes situations where stakeholders are manipulated or passively receive information without genuine engagement opportunity. The usual purpose is not to engage stakeholders in planning, implementation, or decision-making but rather to educate or treat them. While some organizations consider these activities stakeholder engagement, the research argues they do not constitute genuine engagement.
Symbolic participation affords stakeholders a place at the table allowing them to hear plans and have a voice, but provides no assurance that voices carry weight or that input influences decisions. When stakeholder engagement operates in this category, there are no guarantees of changes to the status quo. If stakeholders are allowed to advise but researchers or organizational leaders retain ultimate decision-making power, the presence of stakeholders gives the appearance of engagement without meaningful influence.
Engaged participation occurs when stakeholders traditionally having limited power receive shared decision-making authority with powerful stakeholders. These stakeholders collaborate as genuine partners in shaping direction and outcomes. The research emphasizes the critical difference between going through empty rituals of obtaining stakeholder feedback and giving stakeholders real power to affect processes and outcomes.
For communications professionals mapping stakeholder influence, this continuum provides a diagnostic framework for assessing current engagement levels and identifying opportunities. Are stakeholders genuinely shaping campaign direction, or are they being consulted pro forma after decisions have been made? The answer reveals much about whether stakeholder mapping should focus on understanding existing influence patterns or on creating opportunities for different stakeholders to gain influence.
A 2019 qualitative study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine analyzed 58 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute studies to understand stakeholder influence in research contexts. The study identified 387 discrete examples of influence and classified them into five types: co-learning, refining, steering, confirming, and limited or no influence.
Co-learning occurred when partners and researchers learned together, with stakeholder input genuinely expanding organizational understanding. Refining happened when partners improved existing plans through critique and suggestion. Steering involved partners guiding overall direction through their priorities and concerns. Confirming meant partners validated plans, providing confidence that approaches aligned with stakeholder needs. Limited or no influence described situations where organizational constraints prevented implementing stakeholder input despite consultation.
The research found that partner influence shifted over time, taking different forms as projects progressed from planning to execution to evaluation. Early-stage influence focused more on co-learning and steering. Later stages saw more refining and confirming behaviors. This temporal pattern suggests that stakeholder influence mapping cannot rely on single-point assessment but must account for how influence needs and opportunities evolve throughout campaign lifecycles.
Across studies examined, steering and refining represented the most common influence forms. This suggests that stakeholders most frequently affect direction within parameters rather than fundamentally redefining objectives. For campaign planning, this implies that stakeholder mapping should identify who can nudge approach and execution even if they cannot determine fundamental strategy.
Not all influence attempts succeed. Research on psychological reactance demonstrates that people resist influence when they perceive threats to behavioral freedom. This resistance can manifest as simple non-compliance or as active opposition where individuals deliberately adopt positions opposite to those advocated.
Holland's 1967 research replicating Milgram's obedience studies found that individuals with internal locus of control (belief that they control their own outcomes) showed greater resistance to authority-based influence than those with external locus of control (belief that external forces control outcomes). The research showed that 37% of participants with internal locus of control refused to deliver maximum shock levels compared to 23% of those with external locus of control.
However, subsequent research by Rutter demonstrated that locus of control only predicts resistance in novel situations. When people have previous experience with the influence domain, that experience proves more influential than generalized control orientation. For stakeholder mapping, this suggests that influence patterns established through previous organizational interactions matter more than assumed personality traits.
Research on social support as a buffer against influence demonstrates that having allies significantly reduces conformity pressure. Classic studies by Asch showed that conformity dropped from 32% when facing a unanimous majority to 5.5% when just one other person provided correct answers. This suggests that stakeholder mapping should identify not only individual stakeholder positions but also coalition patterns and social support structures that might buffer against organizational influence.
The tool starts with a blank 2x2 grid. One axis represents "Interest," the other represents "Influence." Begin by naming every group or decision-maker connected to the campaign. Place each one in the quadrant that best matches their role at this moment. High-influence, high-interest groups go in the top right. Low-influence, low-interest sit in the bottom left.
Research on network analysis provides theoretical foundation for why this simple matrix works. Network position affects both influence capacity and influence vulnerability. Stakeholders occupying central network positions (connected to many others, positioned between key groups) can amplify or block information flow, creating disproportionate influence relative to their formal authority. Stakeholders at network periphery (few connections, connected only to similar others) struggle to influence beyond their immediate circle even if they possess relevant expertise.
The interest dimension captures motivation to engage with the campaign. High-interest stakeholders pay attention, seek information, and respond to communications regardless of their influence level. Low-interest stakeholders ignore information and remain disengaged unless directly affected. Influence without interest represents potential that will not activate without specific triggers. Interest without influence represents energy that could be channeled if linked to influential stakeholders.
Patterns appear fast when teams complete the mapping exercise. Outspoken critics with little formal authority might land in "Keep Satisfied" or "Keep Informed" quadrants. Small groups with strong interest often build momentum when included early. This mapping process protects time, shows where priorities sit, and keeps last-minute shifts from derailing a campaign.
The research on stakeholder salience from the Academy of Management Review provides theoretical grounding for why influence and interest matter. Stakeholder salience (prominence in organizational attention) depends on three attributes: power (ability to impose will), legitimacy (appropriate relationship to the organization), and urgency (time-sensitivity of claims). The influence-interest matrix simplifies this framework while capturing essential dynamics.
Research on social influence in networks demonstrates that influence operates differently depending on network structure. In hierarchical networks, influence concentrates among authority figures and flows primarily top-down. In flat networks, influence distributes more evenly and flows in multiple directions. In hub-and-spoke networks, central connectors have disproportionate influence because information flow depends on them.
For stakeholder mapping, understanding network structure reveals who serves as information brokers connecting otherwise disconnected groups. These brokers gain influence from their unique structural position even if they lack formal authority or expertise. Campaign messages that reach brokers can spread rapidly through the network. Messages that miss brokers may fail to penetrate specific stakeholder clusters regardless of content quality.
Research from education contexts examined how social influence operates through network structures. Studies show that exposure to behaviors through friendship networks associates with individuals' own behaviors even controlling for selection effects. This suggests that stakeholder mapping should identify network patterns that might amplify or dampen campaign message spread.
The mathematical framework for network influence models demonstrates that network position affects susceptibility to influence, with individuals connected to many influencers experiencing cumulative pressure while those in homogeneous clusters receive reinforcing rather than diverse influence. Campaign planning can leverage these patterns by strategically sequencing which stakeholder groups receive messages when, allowing influence to cascade through networks rather than attempting simultaneous broad reach.
Research in behavioral economics reveals systematic patterns in how people make decisions under uncertainty. These patterns create predictable influence opportunities. Loss aversion (losses loom larger than equivalent gains) means framing proposals in terms of avoiding negative outcomes often influences more effectively than highlighting positive benefits. Status quo bias (preference for current state when uncertain) means change proposals face inherent resistance that must be overcome through demonstrating clear advantages. Availability heuristic (relying on readily available examples when estimating probabilities) means recent events and vivid stories influence more than statistical evidence.
For stakeholder influence mapping, these behavioral patterns suggest that influence strategies should account for how stakeholders process information and make decisions, not just what information they receive. A stakeholder might intellectually agree with a proposed direction while emotionally resisting change due to loss aversion. Mapping should identify which stakeholders face genuine losses from proposed changes versus which perceive losses due to framing or incomplete information.
The team can revisit and adjust the grid as projects evolve. New names enter or leave, and priorities change with each phase. Use the notes gathered to adjust message content, timing, and delivery for each group that matters most.
For printable templates and simple step-by-step guidance, download the Decision Frameworks for PR Leaders resource at https://www.piar.co/resources.
…
Tanzeel “Tan” Sukhera is the Co-founder & CEO of Piar. Tan is based in Montreal, and has 7 years of experience in Media Monitoring & Social Listening, PR & Comms Measurement, Strategy &Analysis. Through events and workshops, Piar helps PR and communication leaders apply behavioral decision science to real-world campaigns, messaging, and stakeholder work. Learn more or reach out at piar.co.
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tsukhera/ 👈
