Mendelow’s Matrix

Mendelow’s Matrix is a tool that may be used by an organisation to consider the attitude of
their stakeholders at the start of a project or when they are setting out strategic objectives.

What are stakeholders?

A stakeholder is anyone, as an individual or a collective such as organisation that has an
interest or is concerned with the actions of a business to the extent they are affected by or
they can influence it.
A business is likely to have numerous stakeholders including directors, shareholders,
employees, customers, creditors, the government and the community in which it sits.

A business will frequently find that different stakeholders have different priorities, this often
leads to conflict. For example, an employee would like to be paid more, if this were to
happen this would reduce the company profits and would be to the detriment of the
shareholder’s requirement of increasing profits and resulting wealth.
A business will therefore need to find a way to balance the conflicting priorities of its
stakeholders. Mendelow’s Matrix is a tool that is used to analyse stakeholders and their
attitudes. This will consider factors such as the level of interest a stakeholder has in a project
or organisation’s chosen strategies and are they likely to use their power to influence this in
conjunction with, is the stakeholder likely to use their power.
Mendelow’s Matrix consists of four boxes representing stakeholders with:

 High Interest and High Power; (KEY PLAYERS; CHANGE MAKERS) these will be
considered key players and a business will need to actively engage this group. This
group are likely to have the significant influence; they may be the driver behind the
change or strategy. They will likely have the power to stop the change or strategy
going ahead if they are unhappy.
 High Interest and Low Power; (OBSERVERS; CHANGE AGENTS) this group have an
interest in what is happening, however they are unlikely to have the power to
influence change. This group should be kept informed. Whilst they have little power
themselves they could attempt to join forces with a group with power.
 Low Interest and High Power; (BYSTANDERS; CHANGE ENABLERS) this group of
stakeholders have the potential to move into the ‘High Interest and High Power’
group so it is essential that they are kept satisfied. By keeping them satisfied they are
less likely to gain interest and exercise their power to influence.
 Low Interest and Low Power; (CROWD) this group is unlikely to have an interest in
the organisation and direction; this is often due to their lack of power to influence a
situation. They are likely to accept the position and show little if any resistance.

The matrix is normally completed with regard to the stakeholder impact of a particular
strategy.

The purpose is to assess:

 whether stakeholder resistance is likely to inhibit the success of the strategy

 what policies may ease the acceptance of the strategy?
The following strategies might be applicable to each quadrant:

Box A - Minimum effort

Their lack of interest and power makes them open to influence. They are more likely than
others to accept what they are told and follow instructions.

Box B - Keep informed

These stakeholders are interested in the strategy but lack the power to do anything.
Management needs to convince opponents to the strategy that the plans are justified;
otherwise they will try to gain power by joining with parties in boxes C and D.

Box C - Keep satisfied

The key here is to keep these stakeholders satisfied to avoid them gaining interest and
moving to box D. This could involve reassuring them of the outcomes of the strategy well in
advance.

Box D - Key players / participation

These stakeholders are the major drivers of change and could stop management plans if not
satisfied. Management, therefore, needs to communicate plans to them and then discuss
implementation issues.

The Mendelow’s Matrix for stakeholder mapping is an essential strategic project

management tool.
What factors may dictate whether a shareholder may exercise power?

If a stakeholder has a financial interest this will increase the level of interest, are they an
investor who may consider their investment to be at risk or possibly an employee, their
employment is their livelihood so would not want to risk that. As an example; employee
may be averse to an organisation investing in new technology to increase automation thus
placing jobs at risk.

If a stakeholder does not have alternative options to dealing with or working with the
organisation, an organisation may supply a product that cannot be obtained elsewhere,
would increase customer increase customer interest.

Likewise, if an employee lost their job, they may not immediately find another so employee
interest would increase of their employment was considered at risk.

If an organisation’s strategy is likely to have a high impact on the community that it is

located; these strategies will generate interest with the potential to highlight these
strategies to the stakeholders who have the power to influence. Examples of this would
include job losses which impact on the economy or a change in processes that may impact
on the environment may create interest from individuals, media or
community/environmental groups.

Does the stakeholder have the power?

Power is determined by whether the stakeholder can take action that will make an
organisation sit up and think. Employees can strike, withhold their labour which can be
incredibly disruptive to an organisation and its business potentially damaging relationships
with customers.

Customers can cancel orders if they no longer like, agree with or support a supplier’s
strategies.

Banks and other finance providers can call for repayment or overdrafts or loans.

Investors can withdraw their investments especially if the organisations approach to risk is
no longer aligned with their own.
 a. Identify the different stakeholders in the below given case study and map them in
Mendelow’s Matrix. 5 marks

The Modi government has promised the very ambitious Bullet train project in India that will
connect Ahmedabad with Mumbai. Besides reducing the travel time between the two cities it
will leave thousands of helpless farmers landless. Anand Yagnik is representing the farmers
and is the advocate-on-record for 60,000 Gujrati farmers. On September 22, The New Indian
Express reported that the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has now refused to
release funds citing farmers’ issues. The report further claimed that as of now, the Japanese
agency has only released Rs 125 crore out of the agreed amount of Rs 80,000 crore.
However, on September 25, the National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd (NHSRCL), the
nodal agency for this project, said in a statement “the GoI and JICA have already signed a
loan agreement of about 10 billion yen and no payment is pending from JICA.” On
September 18, 1000 farmers filed an affidavit in the Gujarat High Court raising objections to
the bullet train project and denying Gujarat government’s claim that the farmers were
willingly giving up their land. They also approached JICA as its guidelines specifically
mention that Social Impact Assessment is mandatory. According to Mr Yagnik the state
government is tweaking the land acquisition law to make projects exempt from impact
assessment and consent and it as a bigger issue than just the bullet train project. He added that
“I don’t care if people ride the train or not. But in the name of development, lives and
livelihoods of thousands of farmers are being destroyed. “Reportedly, on 18th September, the
Gujarat HC has asked the centre to reply to the farmers’ petitions by September 26 and if the
centre fails to reply, the court may give some interim relief to the farmers. The Centre in their
reply after almost three months, said that “since there is no prayer against the Centre, they
would prefer not to comment on the matter. On October 2, farmers across Gujarat will protest
against the land acquisition. According to Mr Yagnik, another legal flaw in the Land
Acquisition Act is that the Central government is supposed to take responsibility for a project
that passes through two states. Now the same ordinances and amendments have also been
accepted by the Maharashtra state government on April 2018. The fact of the matter is that it
is a project of the Central government and the Centre is allowing states to go ahead with their
own amended legislation. Anand says, “It is a malicious exercise of the Central government
in tandem with the state government.”