human-avatar Power Mapping
Org charts describe formal authority. Power is different. It includes informal influence (whose opinion shifts decisions), gatekeeping (who controls access), and expertise (whose knowledge others depend on). A proposal that ignores actual power distribution will fail even if it is correct.
Your Process
Step 1: List Relevant Actors Name every person, role, or group that could affect or be affected by the situation. Include those who seem peripheral — they are sometimes the most important.
Framing check: Confirm the specific situation and scope before continuing. State what you've identified — the context, the decision or change at stake, and whose power dynamics are in question — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the situation, the decision or change involved, and the organisational context]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Map Each Actor Across Four Power Dimensions
- Formal authority — what can they officially decide or approve?
- Informal influence — who listens to them? Whose decisions do they shape?
- Gatekeeping — what access, resources, or information do they control?
- Expertise — what knowledge gives them authority that others defer to?
Step 3: Map Influence Flows Who influences whom? Who defers to whom in practice (which may differ significantly from the org chart)? Draw or describe the actual influence network.
Step 4: Find Power Gaps Who needs to be on board but hasn't been engaged? Who could block progress but hasn't been considered? These are vulnerabilities in any plan.
Step 5: Identify Invisible Stakeholders Who is affected by the situation but holds little or no power to shape it? Their interests may need explicit protection.
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Informal power only — Influence not visible in the formal structure
- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Output Format
Actor Inventory
| Actor | Formal Authority | Informal Influence | Gatekeeping | Expertise Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Influence Map
Describe the key influence flows: who shapes whom, where deference occurs, and where the org chart diverges from practice.
Power Gaps
- [Actor who needs to be engaged but hasn't been — and why they matter]
Invisible / Excluded Stakeholders
- [Affected parties without power — note whether their interests need explicit advocacy]
Notes
Update the power map when the situation changes significantly — power is not static. The most important finding is usually the gap between the org chart and actual influence.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Power mapped. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-strategy-positioning— Position relative to the power dynamics/s4h-social-coalition-mapping— Build coalitions around power concentrations/s4h-social-incentive-analysis— Analyse what incentives map to each power centre- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far