The Problem

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Whitehead and Blair (1988; see also Savage, Nix, Whitehead and Blair, 1991) developed a useful matrix across two different dimensions which is extremely helpful in further delineating different types of stakeholders relevant to the management process. Based upon an assessment of a stakeholders’ willingness to cooperate, as well as the stakeholders ability to become a threat to the organization, Whitehead and Blair formulated four categories or types of stakeholders which can be used to explicate and add more depth to our discussion of primary and secondary stakeholders. Stakeholder Management As demonstrated in Figure 4, a stakeholder who scores high on potential for cooperation and low on potential for threat is referred to as a “supportive” stakeholder. These stakeholders, as the label implies, are approving of the network’s goals and are willing to help achieve them. Not surprisingly, the best strategy is to involve these stakeholders in the network’s activities. Reversely, a stakeholder who scores high on potential for threat and low on potential for cooperation is considered a “non-supportive” stakeholder precisely for the opposite reasons. The best management strategy for these stakeholders is to take a defensive stance. Ideally, however, the most effective strategy is to attempt to change the status of these stakeholders’ position towards the network. Stakeholders who score low on both dimensions are considered marginal stakeholders. These are stakeholders who have little reason to support the network’s goals or to mount resources to thwart them. Hence, they remain on the sidelines until some aspect of either dimension changes. The best management strategy for these stakeholders is to monitor them. This simply means keeping a constant reading on where they stand and keeping abreast of any changes in the status of the stakeholder across these dimensions. While all of these categories and the dimensions upon which they are based are fluid rather than static categories, and the potential for stakeholders to shift positions over time or from issue to issue is high, the final category, “mixed-blessing” stakeholders are 16
perhaps the most dynamic. Because they score high on both potential for threat and potential for cooperation, they become both potentially supportive, and potentially nonsupportive at the same time. The most appropriate strategy in these cases is to solicit collaboration with the stakeholder. As a result, very often these stakeholders require a great deal of attention in the management process. That is because managers must become acutely aware of the presence of these stakeholders and the volatility they present to a program or policy. Very often keeping these stakeholders from becoming nonsupportive can tax available resources immensely. Listed below in table 2 are some of the factors affecting a stakeholder’s potential for threat or cooperation (Savage et al, 1991: 64). While certainly not exhaustive, this provides the reader with a glimpse at some of the dynamics involved in managing complex networks of stakeholders. Methodological Instruments Based on this literature, we formulated an instrument and a method for utilizing this instrument which we believe will be of great utility for managers in the public sector. The instrument, displayed in Figure 5, is designed to be used in conjunction with a directed interview instrument discussed below (see Figure 8). Based upon responses to a series of questions related to a particular project, the interviewer will complete this instrument, rating each category either high or low. This instrument involves a distinct two-part analysis. The first is primarily a stakeholder identification/analysis. The second part is designed to help manager’s identify specific management strategies to be used in relation to a particular network. The first matrix explores the dynamics of the three-part category discussed above, and formulated by Michell, Agle, and Wood (1997). This is primarily an identification tool, used to identify and categorize potential stakeholders in a systematic fashion. The second matrix is to be used to further distinguish primary and secondary stakeholders and devise management strategies. Once we have identified the various stakeholders, we want to 17
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 and 14: which aim to capture the richness o
Page 15: stakeholders or a manager who is co
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?