Before choosing a public-action tactic, define the requested change, identify who can authorize it, and map the people, institutions, and relationships that may influence the decision.
Start With the Change You Want and the Authority Required
Begin by writing one clear, specific change the congregation wants. Then ask which person or governing body has direct authority to approve that result. This is the primary target. It may not be the most visible official or institutional leader, so examine the relevant authority and organizational structure instead of relying on public prominence.
Record the target by name or role and state precisely what that target can decide. Keeping the objective and the required authority together helps the campaign team distinguish the person who can deliver the change from people who can only support, oppose, or influence it. This is the foundation of a useful power analysis: understanding who holds power over the issue, how that power operates, and where participants might shift it.
Map Influencers, Gatekeepers, and Stakeholders
Next, identify secondary targets: people who may not authorize the requested change but can influence the primary target. Research the institution’s structure for relevant staff members, assistants, and other gatekeepers with direct access to the decision-maker. These relationships may help the congregation find the correct contact or a path toward engagement when direct access is limited.
Build a shared stakeholder map around the campaign objective. Include allies, constituents, targets, and opponents, then compare both their position on the objective and their relative influence. Keep roles distinct: a supportive person with little influence presents a different strategic situation from a gatekeeper with access or an influential opponent. The map gives campaign participants a common view of who matters, why they matter, and how each actor relates to the desired decision.
Look Beyond Individuals to Institutions and Relationships
A decision-maker map should also show the larger environment surrounding the issue. Add institutions and systemic forces that influence or sustain the current situation, including relevant agencies, courts, media organizations, businesses, and community institutions. Connect these bodies to the primary target, secondary targets, and stakeholder groups where the available research establishes a relationship.
This wider view prevents the team from treating power as something held only by prominent individuals. It also brings separate observations into one shared analysis: which institutions shape the issue, which actors influence one another, and where the congregation’s constituents or allies stand. Use that analysis to inform strategy while keeping the primary target—the person or body with authority to grant the specific request—clearly visible.
Conclusion
Before contacting the decision-maker or selecting a public-action tactic, turn the map into a prepared request. Draft the key points the congregation needs to communicate, anticipate likely questions, and identify which elements are negotiable and which are not. The request itself should be clear and specific.
Gather a small campaign team and create a shared first draft. Write the requested change, name the primary decision-maker, and add secondary targets, gatekeepers, allies, constituents, opponents, and relevant institutions. Check that the primary target truly has authority to act and that the team can explain what it is asking that target to do. Then use the completed map and prepared request to guide the next engagement decision.
Disclosures and limitations
- This article was prepared with AI assistance and is based solely on the three sources identified in the supplied research package.
- Source IDs are retained with each section and FAQ answer to show which supplied materials support its substantive claims.
Related reading
- Campaigns for Courageous Public Action
- How Can Faith Communities Identify and Organize a Public Around a Shared Justice Issue?
Sources
- How to engage your decision maker effectively — Change.org
- Section 3.2: Power Analysis and Stakeholder Mapping – Museum of Protest — Museum of Protest
- Stakeholder analysis | Activist Handbook — activisthandbook.org
- How Can Community Engagement Improve Local Decision-Making? — SLATE-Z