The Problem

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Legitimacy can be defined as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions” (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997: 866). Hence, legitimate stakeholders will be viewed as having “a right” to participate. Finally, urgency exists “when a relationship or claim is of a time sensitive nature and…when that relationship or claim is important to the stakeholder” (p. 867). Hence, these attributes of time sensitivity and criticality are important in assessing a stakeholder’s overall urgency with respect to a given project. This framework, then, establishes a three-part classification system in characterizing stakeholders and assessing their potential impact. The first is an assessment of the total number of attributes on which a stakeholder scores high. Scoring high on all three characteristics identifies a primary or definitive stakeholder (p. 874). These are the most “important” stakeholders and almost always should be included in the process. The second classification is labeled secondary or expectant stakeholders. These are stakeholders who score high on two of the three attributes. The final grouping, based on scoring high on only one attribute, are tertiary or latent stakeholders. In addition, within each category of secondary and tertiary stakeholders are different combinations of attributes. Hence, we get an additional framework for classifying stakeholders. Expectant or Secondary Stakeholders Dominant stakeholders are those who are considered powerful and legitimate stakeholders and tend to be the most influential stakeholders within this secondary realm. Hence, despite not being a definitive stakeholder, given their place in the framework, we would expect that were they to acquire some sense of urgency, their interests would become of significant importance to managers, moreso than others in this expectant phase. Dependent stakeholders are those with urgent and legitimate claims and are characterized as being dependent because they are essentially reliant upon other powerful 14
stakeholders or a manager who is considerate of their claims on the process at hand. Dangerous stakeholders score high on both the urgent and powerful attributes are classified as dangerous because they lack legitimacy in the process. These stakeholders are likely to use coercive or utilitarian power to influence a process as opposed to symbolic power. It is important to note that these are subjective descriptions. Thus, classifying a stakeholder as “dangerous” does not automatically imply that they should be excluded from the process. Many “dangerous” stakeholders are critical to a fair and equitable stakeholder process. How and when these types of stakeholders are included will ultimately depend upon the needs and the stage of implementation. Latent or Tertiary Stakeholders Within this category, there are also three possible categories under which stakeholders can be classified. Dormant stakeholders score high only on the power category. These stakeholders are unlikely to exercise any of their power without any sense of urgency or legitimacy with respect to the process, but possess the potential to change status rapidly. The second category is discretionary. These stakeholders score high on legitimacy, and as such, have no power to assert their claims, nor a sense of urgency to make themselves be heard. Demanding stakeholders are those who are neither powerful nor legitimate, but perceive a deep sense of urgency with respect to a particular issue, and hence, try desperately to enter the field of legitimate and powerful stakeholders, and generally have to rely on others to help them voice their concerns. While these categories are most easily described in categorical terms, the reality of stakeholder management tells us that these characteristics occur across dynamic continuums (Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1997). Any stakeholder, at any time, can move in or out of a different classification or may simultaneously occupy more than one category depending upon the nature of the problem. Identifying Threatening and Cooperative Stakeholders 15
Page 1 and 2: Stakeholder Analysis: A Tool for Ne
Page 3 and 4: Stakeholder Analysis - A Tool for N
Page 5 and 6: public administrator, however, are
Page 7 and 8: while at the same time calling for
Page 9 and 10: y an “objective” inquirer manda
Page 11 and 12: public. Different constraints are i
Page 13: which aim to capture the richness o
Page 17 and 18: perhaps the most dynamic. Because t
Page 19 and 20: implementation process. Snowballing
Page 21 and 22: which is a private sector entity, t
Page 23 and 24: unhelpful. As Melissa Powell notes,
Page 25: Figure 1 - Time, Energy, and the Im
Page 28 and 29: Figure 4 Diagnostic Typology for Pr
Page 30 and 31: Table 1 Who Is A Stakeholder? Sourc
Page 32 and 33: Table 3 Sample Directed Interview I
Page 34 and 35: Goldenberg, Sheldon. 1992. Thinking
Page 36: Timney, M.M. (1996). “Overcoming

The Problem

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?