How to map your stakeholders as a Chief of Staff

Three months into the role, you know forty people by name and things seem fine. Then a VP tells your principal you've been "going around" them on a project, and you realize you never knew what that VP cared about, what they were measured on, or that they'd been against the project from the start.

A Chief of Staff gets almost nothing done through authority, so relationships are the main asset of the job and forgetting who cares about what is the main risk. The fix is a short, living map. This is part of our Chief of Staff toolkit; our guide to context management covers how to capture what you hear.

What is stakeholder management for a Chief of Staff?

For a Chief of Staff, stakeholder management means knowing what the people around your principal need, where they stand on the work in flight, and how to keep those relationships healthy enough that decisions land. You do it on your principal's behalf, which makes it different from managing stakeholders for a project you own.

Project stakeholder management ends when the project ends. Yours doesn't: the same twenty leaders show up in every priority, planning cycle and hard decision, so each interaction builds or spends the trust the next one depends on. And because you speak for your principal, a leader who feels blindsided by you feels blindsided by your CEO.

Our Leveling Framework, built from a survey of 200+ Chiefs of Staff, treats stakeholder management as one of eight core competencies at every level. What changes with level is the circle: earlier-level Chiefs of Staff work mostly inside the company, and at the VP and executive levels investors, partners and customers appear. At no level are you the external face of the company; you build relationships for your principal and hand the important ones back.

Who your principal is reshapes the map. In the Chief of Staff Network's 2026 Pathways Report, only 44% of the more than 700 job postings that name the principal say CEO, founder or president. If you work for a CTO or a CFO, your most important stakeholders include your principal's peers, and some will see you as a rival's deputy before they see you as help.

What should you record about each stakeholder?

Record what each person owns, what they're measured on, what they're working on this quarter, how they like to work, who they trust, where they stand on the decisions in flight, and when you last and next talked. Keep each entry to a few lines; anything longer starts to read like a file on someone.

The field that does the most work is "measured on." If you know the head of sales is paid on new bookings this year, you can predict their reaction to a pricing change before the meeting and shape the proposal so it helps them too. The second is "how they like to work": some leaders want a document two days ahead, others need ten minutes on a call. The "Ring" column uses the five rings in the next section.

# Stakeholder map: [principal], [quarter]
Last reviewed: [date] · Owner: [Chief of Staff] · Shared with: [principal only]

| Name and role | Ring | Owns / measured on | This quarter | How they like to work | Trusts / listens to | Last touch | Next touch | Health |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Name, VP Sales] | 1 | New bookings; owns pricing input | Hiring 4 AEs | Short calls, hates long docs | [Name], [Name] | [date] | [date, purpose] | Good |
| [Name, Finance partner] | 3 | Budget accuracy | Q4 forecast | Wants data 2 days ahead | CFO | [date] | [date] | Building |

## Where people stand on decisions in flight
| Decision | [Name] | [Name] | [Name] | What would move the skeptics |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Pricing change] | Supports | Skeptical | Not yet asked | [What they need to see] |

## Notes
- [Two lines per conversation, dated. Facts and positions only.]

Rules: facts, roles and positions only. Nothing about health, family,
performance or personal life. If you wouldn't read a line aloud to the
person it's about, it doesn't go here.

# Stakeholder map: CEO, Q2
Last reviewed: June 1 · Owner: Chief of Staff · Shared with: CEO only

| Name and role | Ring | Owns / measured on | This quarter | How they like to work | Trusts / listens to | Last touch | Next touch | Health |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Dana, VP Sales | 1 | New bookings; owns pricing input | Hiring 4 AEs | Short calls, hates long docs | Her two top AEs, the CFO | May 27 | June 3, pricing | Good |
| Tom, CFO | 1 | Gross margin and runway | Q3 forecast | Wants data two days ahead | Lead investor | May 29 | June 5, forecast | Good |
| Ana, Head of Customer Success | 1 | Net retention | Platform migration | Prefers written updates | Her support leads | May 12 | June 4, migration and pricing | Strained |
| Jo, EA to the CFO | 2 | CFO's calendar | Board prep logistics | Slack, same day | CFO | May 30 | Weekly | Good |
| Sam, Finance partner | 3 | Budget accuracy | Q3 forecast | Wants data two days ahead | CFO | May 20 | June 9 | Building |

## Where people stand on decisions in flight
| Decision | Dana | Tom | Ana | What would move the skeptics |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12% list price increase from Q3 | Skeptical | Supports | Not yet asked | Open quotes keep their price |
| Second sales manager | Supports | Skeptical | n/a | A hiring plan tied to Q4 bookings |

## Notes
- May 27, Dana: a dozen late-stage deals were quoted at the old price; worried about win rate
- May 29, Tom: wants the increase live before the Q3 forecast locks

Notice the second table: stance is recorded per decision. A finance partner who's skeptical about a pricing change can be your strongest supporter on a hiring plan, and labeling them a "blocker" in general turns a disagreement into a relationship problem you created. Keep "health" to good, building or strained, and give every strained row a next touch with a purpose.

Anna Aden, Chief of Staff to the Managing Director for Asia Pacific at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, described the "measured on" move from her work with governments on our podcast about AI policy and humanitarian work. When the language around sustainability shifted, many initiatives carried on, reframed around what each government now cared about, such as supporting local industry. Start from the outcome you want, work out who's involved, and align the outcome to what they care about.

Start by filling in "owns / measured on" for everyone in ring 1. Where you don't know, the gap is your agenda for your next one-to-one with them.

Who belongs on your stakeholder map?

Put the people on the map whose decisions, support or resistance change whether your principal's priorities happen: your principal's peers and direct reports, the people who shape their views from outside the org chart, the owners of the work your priorities depend on, and, through your principal, the board and the most important outside relationships. For most Chiefs of Staff that's 20 to 60 people.

Fewer than twenty usually means you've only mapped the org chart; more than sixty and the map collapses under its own weight. The test for each name: if this person changed their mind about something this quarter, would your principal's plan change? Group the names in rings, ordered by how often each relationship needs attention.

Ring 2 is the one most new Chiefs of Staff miss: the deputy whose opinion a VP always asks for, the executive assistant who knows which meetings matter, the engineer whose skepticism sinks projects. BreeAnne Yek, Chief of Staff at a Series A medtech startup, described on our podcast about managing yourself seeing senior stakeholders in public-sector work set processes that suited them and hardly considered the people who had to run them. The people who carry out a decision are stakeholders in it, even when they'll never be in the meeting.

Build in waves. Crystelle Desnoyer, who was Chief of Staff to the CEO at Techstars and is now a Chief of Staff at Kyndryl, described on our podcast about scaling companies starting with the close circle around her principal and only then widening into stakeholder mapping across the company. Your principal's direct reports come first, because they can make or break your first 90 days. If you support a functional leader, start with that leader's team and the peers whose work collides with theirs, and put the other Chiefs of Staff in ring 2: they're the fastest route to knowing what the rest of the leadership team is about to decide.

Draft your rings, then ask your principal: "Who's missing from this list whose opinion you'd want before a big decision?" The names they add are the ones you'd never have found on the org chart.

How do you map stakeholders for one decision or initiative?

For any decision that crosses teams, list who decides, who shapes it, who has to carry it out and who just needs to hear about it; write down where each person stands today and what would move them; then talk to them one to one, in the right order, before the group meeting.

People defend positions they've taken in public. A one-to-one before the meeting lets a leader raise a concern while it's still a question, and lets you change the proposal before anyone has to win or lose. Start with the person most likely to object, because their concerns improve the proposal and they'll notice if they were asked last. Then the people whose work changes most. Then the decision-maker, with a summary of what everyone said. Our guide to the operating rhythm builds these conversations into any decision that affects more than one leader.

# Stakeholder plan: [decision or initiative]
Decision needed by: [date] · Forum: [leadership meeting, date]

Decides: [name] · Recommends: [principal or owner]

| Person | Role in this decision | Where they stand | What they care about here | What would move them | Who talks to them | By when |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Name] | Decides | Open | [Their number, their team] | [Evidence, a change to the plan] | Principal | [date] |
| [Name] | Shapes | Skeptical | [Concern] | [Pilot first, owner for X] | Chief of Staff | [date] |
| [Name] | Carries it out | Not yet asked | [Capacity] | [Timing, headcount] | Owner | [date] |
| [Name] | Hears about it | n/a | [How it affects them] | n/a | Owner, after decision | [date] |

## Order of conversations
1. [Most likely to object]
2. [Most affected]
3. [Decision-maker, with summary]

## What changed in the proposal after the one-to-ones
- [Change, and who asked for it]

# Stakeholder plan: 12% list price increase for new customers from Q3
Decision needed by: June 15 · Forum: leadership meeting, June 15

Decides: CEO · Recommends: CFO

| Person | Role in this decision | Where they stand | What they care about here | What would move them | Who talks to them | By when |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CEO | Decides | Supports | Margin before the next raise | n/a | Chief of Staff, with summary | June 10 |
| Dana, VP Sales | Shapes | Skeptical | New bookings and win rate | Open quotes keep their price | Chief of Staff | June 3 |
| Tom, CFO | Shapes | Supports | Margin | n/a | CEO | June 5 |
| Ana, Head of Customer Success | Carries it out | Not yet asked | Account managers' time | An FAQ and two weeks to brief them | Chief of Staff | June 4 |
| Head of marketing | Hears about it | n/a | Pricing page and launch emails | n/a | CFO, after decision | June 16 |

## Order of conversations
1. Dana (most likely to object)
2. Ana (most affected)
3. CEO, with a one-page summary

## What changed in the proposal after the one-to-ones
- Quotes issued before June 30 keep the old price (Dana)
- Launch moves two weeks so account managers get an FAQ and time to brief customers (Ana)

Some conversations should come from your principal, especially with peers who'd resent hearing a decision from their colleague's Chief of Staff. Others are better from you, because a leader will tell you a concern they'd soften in front of your principal. Agree the "who talks to them" column with your principal before you start. The last section, what changed after the one-to-ones, is the one I'd show the room, because it tells everyone their input moved the proposal.

Andrea Mayendia, Chief of Staff to the Chief Product and Technology Officer at Dow Jones, described a version of this at company scale on our podcast about driving change. The team worked out its short list of "big rocks" together with stakeholders across the business, posted it where everyone could see it, and reviewed it with them weekly. My read is that the list held because the people who could have fought it had helped write it.

A worked example: a pricing change

This is a labeled illustration, and its plan is the second example above. Your CEO wants to raise list prices 12% for new customers from the start of Q3. The row to watch is the VP Sales: she's measured on new bookings and fears a lower win rate.

You start with the VP Sales. Her concern is specific: a dozen deals late in the pipeline were quoted at the old price, so quotes issued before June 30 keep their price. Customer success needs an FAQ and two weeks to brief account managers, so the launch moves two weeks. Then the CEO gets a one-page summary of both changes and who asked for them. In the leadership meeting the decision takes fifteen minutes, and the VP Sales presents the grandfathering rule herself.

Judgment calls on a decision map

Sometimes the one-to-one shows the skeptic is right. Tell your principal before the meeting and move the item; your credibility with the skeptic is worth more than one meeting slot. Watch the line between preparing a decision and staging it: if every change is negotiated privately and the meeting only ratifies it, the people talked to last feel the room was rigged, so keep the changes visible in the pre-read and leave real choices for the group.

If a leader won't engage before the meeting, ask the decision-maker to invite them to speak first. Rotate who you talk to last when the stakes allow it, and don't use the stance column to keep score of who was right, or people will start guarding what they tell you.

Pick the next decision on your principal's list that crosses two or more teams. Fill in the plan above and book the first conversation with the person most likely to object.

How do you keep a stakeholder map current without it going stale?

Capture two lines after each conversation that matters, let a weekly summary of your notes update the map, and spend thirty minutes once a month reviewing the whole thing with fresh eyes. Re-map from scratch when something big changes: a reorg, a new executive, a new top priority or a new principal.

Most maps die the same way: a careful spreadsheet in month one, two updates, then the daily work takes over. The fix is to update the map from notes you already take, as our guide to context management describes. Weekly, you add facts. Monthly, you ask questions of the whole map: who haven't I talked to in six weeks, whose health has slipped, which decision has a skeptic nobody has talked to, and who's missing. Hold that review on the day you prepare your one-to-one with your principal, so each feeds the other.

Put a thirty-minute stakeholder map review on your calendar every month, and re-map from scratch after any reorg or new executive.

New priorities bring new stakeholders. If your principal's top priority this year involves AI, your ring 1 and ring 3 probably look different from last year's, whether or not anyone redrew the org chart.

AI tools help with the weekly part. Keep the map in one file, add your notes for the week, and ask for proposed updates you approve line by line. I'd use Claude for this, but you can pick any tool you prefer or your company allows, as long as it's approved for internal company information.

Below is my stakeholder map (a markdown file) and my notes from this week's conversations and meetings.

Propose updates to the map. For each change, show: the person, the field, the old value, the new value, and the line in my notes it comes from.

Look for:
- New facts about what someone owns, is measured on or is working on this quarter
- Changes in where someone stands on a decision in the "decisions in flight" table
- Last-touch dates to update, and anyone I haven't talked to in 6+ weeks
- People mentioned in my notes who aren't on the map but may belong on it (say which ring and why)

Rules:
- Facts, roles and positions only. Ignore anything about health, family, performance or personal life, and tell me if my notes contain any so I can remove it.
- Don't guess. If a note is ambiguous, list it as a question for me.

Stakeholder map:
[paste]

This week's notes:
[paste]

What should stay out of a stakeholder map, and who should see it?

Keep the map to facts, roles, interests and positions on decisions, and share it only with your principal. Anything about health, family, personal lives, performance or your private read on someone's motives stays out of writing entirely, and out of AI tools.

The test I'd use is the one from our context guide: if you wouldn't read a line aloud to the person it's about, it doesn't go in the file. Files get shared by accident, and in many countries notes about named people count as personal data your company is responsible for. Your read on people still matters, so say it out loud: your principal needs to know the head of product feels sidelined. Our guide to briefing your principal covers briefing on people and politics while keeping the written brief clean.

Leaders talk to a Chief of Staff because they believe it helps them, and they stop the day they think you're keeping a file on them for the boss. Elyse Levine, who served as deputy Chief of Staff to the president at the University of Southern California while also working as Chief of Staff to the chair of its board of trustees, described on our podcast about ownership how the person between two leaders can't be pulled into keeping one side's secrets from the other. Decide the sharing rule up front:

• Your principal sees the whole map, and should. It's their relationships you're tracking.
• The leadership team never sees the map. They can see decision plans for work they're part of, without the stance column.
• Your successor gets a cleaned version in your handover, described in our context guide, so relationships survive your move.
• AI tools get the facts-and-positions version only, and only if they're approved for internal company information.

How do you build relationships when you have no authority?

Be useful to each stakeholder before you need anything from them, learn what they're trying to achieve and help them get there, carry information both ways, and close every loop you open. Influence builds when you've been useful to someone more times than you've asked them for something.

Ena Patel, who did Chief of Staff work in sports before becoming Team President at Innovation Baseball Partners, put the starting point plainly on our podcast about the leap to president:

Her answer was to learn what mattered to each business unit and come at every suggestion from the angle of helping them hit their targets. Because she had no department to protect, people could believe her suggestions were for the organization as a whole. Four habits do most of the work:

1. Give first. In the first conversation with each ring 1 stakeholder, ask what would make their quarter easier, and do one small thing about it within a week.
2. Carry signal both ways. Bring leaders' concerns to your principal accurately, and bring your principal's reasoning back to them, so nobody hears about a decision affecting them from the rumor mill.
3. Never trade on your principal's name. "The CEO wants this" works once. After that, people start checking every request with the CEO, and you've made yourself a messenger.
4. Close loops. If you said you'd find out, find out and tell them, even when the answer is no. Stakeholders forgive a no much faster than they forgive silence.

When a leader sees you as the CEO's spy

Sooner or later, a leader will treat you as the CEO's eyes and ears, which is a fair assumption from where they sit. Nick Greif, former Chief of Staff at InStride, said on our podcast that he wouldn't automatically trust a Chief of Staff himself. He was explicit up front about how he'd handle what people told him, and when something needed to go higher without a name on it, he'd raise it as if he'd noticed it himself. People saw quickly that nothing leaked.

I'd make that explicit with every ring 1 leader in your first month: what you'll keep between the two of you, what you'll take to your principal with their name on it, and what you'll raise without it. Then keep to it every time. If a leader routes everything around you straight to the CEO, ask your principal to send those requests back through the agreed process. If they're actively working against you, that's a conversation with your principal about the leader, and the map won't solve it.

[SCOTT: optional, the relationship at Spring that took longest to build, and what finally worked?]

Our post on what senior Chiefs of Staff own makes the case that the role leads through influence at every level, and our older piece on lessons from political Chiefs of Staff covers how political staff build trust around their principal. Before you meet a skeptical stakeholder, spend ten minutes on what they're measured on and what they need to hear; this prompt helps.

I'm a Chief of Staff preparing for a one-to-one with a leader who is skeptical about a decision my principal is proposing. Help me prepare.

Here is what I know (facts and positions only):
- Their role and what they're measured on: [paste]
- What they've said about this decision so far: [paste]
- The decision and our current proposal: [paste]

Give me:
1. The two or three concerns they most likely have, including ones they haven't said out loud, tied to what they're measured on.
2. Three open questions I can ask to understand their position before I respond to it.
3. What we could change in the proposal that would address their concerns without losing what matters to us, and what we shouldn't change.
4. One sentence I can use to open the conversation that shows I understand their side.

Keep it practical and short. Don't write a script.

Then go and listen. This week, pick the ring 1 stakeholder you know least well, ask what would make their quarter easier, and do one thing about it before Friday.