Over the past three decades, stakeholder management has increasingly become an important tool to transfer ethics to management practice and strategy. Despite being in management literature since Richard E. Freeman published his landmark book "Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach" in 1984, stakeholder has yet to be fully explored in the public management field (Gomes, 2004).
Generally, Freeman and Reed (1983) defined stakeholders into two perspectives: broad and narrow. From the broad perspective, stakeholders are considered to any party who can effect or have an effect on the organisation (Freeman, 1984). More inclusive definitions expand the scope of the stakeholder group significantly and the broader focus tends to be adopted by public organisations due to a number of factors. Firstly, public organisations have historically engaged with a broad range of clients, including the nominally powerless, interest and pressure groups in delivering servicesthere has been necessity to be inclusive to achieve democratic and socially just outcomes (Bryson, 2004). The impressive research on stakeholder theory has proceeded along three views: descriptive, normative and instrumental (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994; Donaldson and Preston, 1995). However, Jones and Wicks (1999) argument involves discussions on (1) the emergence of two divergent approaches to stakeholder theory (a social science ap-proach and an ethics-based approach), (2) a proposed convergent approach to stake-holder theory development, (3) the extent of integration of normative and empirical theory in convergent stakeholder theory, and (4) the relationship of convergent stakeholder theory to other theories of organization. According to Freeman (2004), the development of the idea of "stakeholders" or "stakeholder management" or "managing for stakeholders" or "stakeholder capitalism" need to be traced and well explained.
Get your grade
or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!
This paper aims to contribute to the discussion on the importance of the stakeholder theory for Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) by delivering empirical evidence on stakeholder attributes, stakeholder salience and stakeholder management strategies. To do so, it presents the results of a survey carried out with executive level of MAMPU. This paper proposes a stakeholder's list with the relevant actors and a stakeholder map in which power and influence are balanced in order to depict the people, groups or organizations that are likely to represent either a threat, or an opportunity to the decision-making process.
1.2 Justification for the Research and Research Problem
Undertaking this research has been justified on the basis of the identification of the theoretical gap in relation to the determinants of stakeholder salience in stakeholder management strategies in organization.
The results of this research will provide a better understanding of the impact of the presence of certain stakeholder attribute variables on the stakeholder salience in organization and the impact of the stakeholder salience on the stakeholder management strategies in organization. Because these issues have not been previously studied in the Malaysian public organization context, this study could be of great value in involving public sector organization what the organization could do to enhance the stakeholder approach in the organisations.
The results may also be of value in informing government policy makers to make a move in assisting organisations to achieve their stakeholder management strategies in their organizations. Furthermore, the research is expected to raise awareness of stakeholder management strategies for MAMPU.
For the past decades, scholars and practitioners has tempted stakeholder concept to describe, explain and prescribe the behaviour of organizations and managers. The important of stakeholders by scholars and practitioners, give new urgency to understanding the relationships between stakeholders and organization. In view of the above, the research objective of this study is to examine the relationship of stakeholder attributes, stakeholder salience on the stakeholder management strategies in MAMPU.
In the event of this research, researcher also will moderate management values with stakeholder attribute and stakeholder management strategies.
2.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This paper aims to contribute to the discussion on the importance and relationship of the stakeholder attributes and salience on stakeholder management strategies in MAMPU. This research also aims to get empirical evidence of management values as moderator towards stakeholder attribute and salience in organization performance. Thus this research hopes to achieve the following objectives:
1. To understand the relationship in stakeholder attributes and stakeholder salience through stakeholder management strategies.
2. To identify the impact of stakeholder salience on stakeholder management strategies.
Always on Time
Marked to Standard
3. To identify differences in management values of stakeholder attributes and stakeholder salience.
3.0 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In addition, in order to achieve the above objectives, the following research questions have been formulated to examine the research objective:
1. What is the nature relationship of the stakeholder attributes in determining stakeholder salience?
2. What is the impact of stakeholder salience on stakeholder management strategies?
3. What is the impact in management values on management perception of stakeholder attributes and stakeholder management strategies?
4.0 DEFINITIONS OF KEY CONCEPTS
4.1 The definitions of Stakeholder
In management literature, the concept of "stakeholder" is being discussed either implicitly or explicitly for a long period. Ansoff (as cited in Freeman, 1984) explicitly used the term "stakeholder" in his theory of corporate planning, while Andrews (as cited in Freeman, 1984) identified stakeholder as a place for shareholders, employees, customers and communities in line with corporate strategy.
Freeman and Reed (1983) stated that stakeholder is:
"Any identifiable group who can affect the achievement of an organization's objectives or who is affected by the achievement of an organization's objectives"
Later R. Edward Freeman in his book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984) who explained the current concept of stakeholder:
"Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives"
By the definition of stakeholders as entities that can affect or be affected by the organization (Freeman, 1984), we can category two classes of stakeholders: (1) those who are affected by the organization in the sense of their interests with the organization; and (2) those who can affect the organization in the sense of their interests in the organization.
Donaldson and Preston (1995) have identified framework in the scholarly literature: normative, descriptive and instrumental in the stakeholder theory. However, Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld believed normative foundation of stakeholder theory is the departure point to inspire the creation of better theories, methods and tools. Furthermore, Jensen (2002) argued stock value maximization is the organization goal. However according to Attas (2004), stakeholder is a person who has much to lose - financially, socially, or psychologically - from the failure of the firm.
While Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) categorized stakeholder as: (1) real stakeholders have a claim on the organization, (2) pressure groups have influence on the organization and (3) regulators have no claim. In Table 1, the three categories with different element of the typology: legitimacy, power and responsibility.
Differences between three categories of stakeholders
On the other hand, Fassin (2008) has introduced new terminology: (1) stakeholders as those who have a concrete stake, (2) stakewatchers as stakeholders who look after a stake with care, attention and scrutiny like watchdogs do and (3) stakekeepers as gatekeeper.
4.2 The definitions of Stakeholder Attributes
According to Mintzberg (1983), power is the capacity to make someone do what he or she otherwise would not do. He suggests five bases in which power is likely to occur: (1) Control of resources; (2) Control of a technical skill; (3) Control of a body of knowledge; (4) Power from legal prerogatives; and (5) Access to those who can rely on the previous sources of power.
Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) described stakeholder's power is the influence in the organization. Furthermore, Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld (1999) defined stakeholder power exists where one social actor can get another social actor to do something.
Legitimacy of the stakeholder's relationship with the firm (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood 1997, 853). Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997, 866) adopt Suchman's sociological definition of legitimacy 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.
Furthermore, Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld (1999) defined stakeholder legitimacy is a perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definition.
The third attribute identified by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) - the urgency of the stakeholder's claim on the firm is the degree to which stakeholder claims for immediate attention. Examples of variables used in previous research to measure stakeholder attributes include power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood,1997).
This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Examples of our work
Furthermore, Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld (1999) defined Stakeholder urgency is multidimensional notion includes both criticality and temporality. Stakeholder claims considered to be urgent both when it is important and when the delay is paying attention to it is unacceptable.
Based on literature review, Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) have explained well in stakeholder attributes in their research. For this reason, this research will adapt Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) stakeholder attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency.
4.3 Stakeholder Salience
Freeman (1984) original framework included eleven stakeholders on a non-exhaustive basis. To the elements of the managerial capitalism model - shareholders (or financiers), customers, suppliers and employees - Freeman added competitors plus two important external stakeholders: the government and the communities.
In a later version of the model, Freeman (2003) reduced the scheme to five internal stakeholders: financiers, customers, suppliers, employees and communities (dropping competitors), placed a box around these five stakeholders, and introduced six external stakeholders: governments, environmentalists, NGOs, critics, the media and others, without arrows linking these to the central hub. On the other hand, Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) contributed to stakeholder's identification by proposing a model in which attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency are combined. Mitchell, Agle, & Wood (1997) highlighted the identification of stakeholders remains a vexed and difficult question because of the differing paradigms that drive stakeholder activities in organisations.
Furthermore, Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) also defined stakeholder salience as "who or what really counts" which means managers need to determine what they really pay attention to as they weigh stakeholder concern in their organizations. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) also emphasized stakeholder salience definition as the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims.
However, Beach, Brown and Keast (2009) argued that these definitions are not sufficiently to the public good context to be meaningful in complicated stakeholder situations facing public organisations. Therefore, Beach, Brown and Keast (2009) have suggested incorporating the dimensions of stakeholder definition, classification and engagement style, a public management specific stakeholder classification model has been constructed. Examples of variables used in previous research to measure stakeholder salience include key organisational level of stakeholders (government agencies), operational organisational level of stakeholders (employees) and project level of stakeholders (customers) (Beach, Brown and Keast, 2009).
However, Saidah (2010) research shows that supplier and employee added value have a significant influence on corporate governance ratings, but not so for customer, investor and public added value. The findings reveal that a formalised process is more effective in identifying project stakeholders. On the other hand, Roshana (2009) emphasized priority criteria used to manage the stakeholders' needs and expectations differ between the private and public sectors. The government and consultants are confident that social and political matters are of the greatest importance, whereas the private sector puts a great deal of emphasis on forming project coalitions and lobby tactics mechanisms in managing the stakeholders' needs and expectations.
Based on literature review, the organization is exposed to influences that can alter its form and behaviour. The stakeholder theory may offer alternatives to diminish the complexity of such environmental confusion as it makes it possible to pinpoint individual environmental influences. For this reason, this research identifies the stakeholder salience as: financiers, customers, suppliers, employees and communities, in order to have effective stakeholder management strategies.
4.4 Stakeholder Management Strategies
Savage, Nix, Whitehead and Blair (1991) indicated four essential elements in the stakeholder management process: (1) identify key organizational stakeholders; (2) diagnose stakeholders along two critical dimensions of potential for threat and potential for cooperation, (3) formulate appropriate strategies both to enhance change relationships with those key stakeholders and to improve the organization's overall situation, and (4) effectively implement these strategies. Savage, Nix, Whitehead and Blair (1991) also explained examples of variables used in the research to measure stakeholder strategic management process include potential for threat and potential for cooperation.
On the other hands, Polonsky (1995) believed in his modified stakeholder strategy matrix as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Generic Stakeholder Strategies
Use allianceswithstakeholdersto change the officialrulesgoverningfirm behavior.
Workto involve differentstakeholdersrule establishmentprocess.
Refocusstakeholders, suchthattheyaddress"different" issues.
Integrate morestakeholder input.
Modify stakeholderbeliefsor expectations regardingfirmbehaviour.
Adopt stakeholderobjectivesregardingthe issue ofconcern.
Tie the issue of concernto broader stakeholder strategy, inan attemptto show stakeholdersthattheir supportis consistent withotherobjectives.
Attemptto have more stakeholders input.
Re-enforce stakeholders'positive position.
Tieorganisationalactivitiesto other issuesthat stakeholders are pursuing.
Include stakeholdersin the decisionprocess.
Reduce Stakeholdersstatus, i.e. reduce theirstake.
Don'tchangeorganisationalbehaviour, but monitorstakeholdersfor changesinbehaviour.
Re-enforce stakeholders'existingbeliefsaboutthe firm.
Attemptto minimizethepossibilitythatrulesgoverningfirm activitywillchange.
Attemptto have morestakeholder communication.
Attemptto have stakeholder input.
Attempttoaffectthe perceptionof "other"stakeholderstowardsthe bridging group.
Attempttochange "other"stakeholder expectations directly.
Modified stakeholder strategy matrix
Stakeholders Potential to Cooperate With the Organisation
StakeholderType (1): Mixed Blessing
StakeholderType (1): Supportive
StakeholderType (5): Bridging
Strategy: Mixed Approach
StakeholderType (3): Non Supportive
StakeholderType (4): Marginal
[Source: Polonsky, 1995]
Bryson (1995) suggested a six step process for scanning organizational environment in search of stakeholder identification. The steps are (1) to identify organization's main stakeholders; (2) to specify the criteria stakeholders use to assess the organization's performance; (3) to identify whether the organization is attending stakeholders' demands; (4) To identify how stakeholder's influence comes about; (5) to identify what the organization needs from these stakeholders; (6) to identify how important each stakeholder can be for the organization.
According to Attas (2004), five steps in stakeholder management can be specified as a rough and ready procedure for implementing stakeholder management: (1) Identify the relevant stakeholders. The central marks of stakeholders are their reduced possibility of exit, and their exhibited commitment to the relationship with the firm. (2) Assess the strength of the stakeholder claim to special consideration as insiders. (3) Stakeholder interests are to be ascertained. (4) Evaluate priorities among the divergent and, at times, conflicting stakeholder interests or assign weights and aggregate weighted claims so as to achieve a comprehensive solution. (5) Impose institutional arrangements that would take appropriate account of stakeholder interests. For example, party membership of the board might lead to adequate representation of the various interests.
However, Beach, Brown and Keast (2009) have revealed that government agencies undertook a wide range of activities to engage with stakeholders. From the research, Beach, Brown and Keast (2009) emerged that stakeholder initiatives were undertaken for the following purposes: strategic, engagement, communication and measurement as explained in Table 2.
Stakeholder Engagement Initiatives
Stakeholder/ client/ community/ servicetrackersurveys
From the literature review, the organization is exposed to influences of various stakeholder management strategies. For this research, the organization needs to identify the stakeholder management strategies based on: (1) Collaborate; (2) Involve; (3) Defend; (4) Monitor; and (5) Bridging.
4.5 Management Values
Management values in this research will be based on ISO 9000 family of standards. It consists of standards and guidelines relating to quality management systems and related supporting standards. ISO 9001:2008 is the standard that provides a set of standardized requirements for a quality management system, regardless of what the user organization does, its size, or whether it is in the private, or public sector. The ISO 9001:2008 standard provides a tried and tested framework for taking a systematic approach to managing the organization's processes so that they consistently turn out product that satisfies customers' expectations based on these principles:
Principle 1: Customer focus
Principle 2: Leadership
Principle 3: Involvement of people
Principle 4: Process approach
Principle 5: System approach to management
Principle 6: Continual improvement
Principle 7: Factual approach to decision making
Principle 8: Mutually beneficial supplier relationships
(cite from <http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/ iso_9000 _iso_14000/ qmp.htm>)
Based on the above ISO 9000:2008 principles, researcher will moderate management values based on ISO 9000 quality management system values with stakeholder attributes and stakeholder strategic management process. Examples of variables used in this research to measure management values include customer focus, leadership Involvement of people, factual approach to decision making, and mutually beneficial supplier relationships (ISO 9000 family standard, 2008).
From the literature review, the organization is exposed to influences of various management values. For this research, the organization needs to identify the management values based on: (1) Customer focus; (2) Leadership; (3) Involvement of people; (4) Process approach; and (5) System approach to management; (6) Continual improvement; (7) Factual approach to decision making; and (8) Mutually beneficial supplier relationships.
5.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This research embarked on the assumption that high management perception of stakeholder attributes such as power, legitimacy and urgency influence stakeholder salience including customers, employees and government agencies. Thus, management perception of stakeholder attributes together with stakeholder salience will lead to the high organization performance. Besides this, management values consist of ISO 9000 values can act as moderator to management perception of stakeholder attributes and stakeholder strategic management process. The conceptual framework of this research is shown as Figure 3.
This research consists of hypothesis are shown as below:
Hypothesis 1a: The stakeholder attribute of power will be positively related to the stakeholder salience of customers, employees, suppliers, financiers and communities.
Hypothesis 1b: The stakeholder attribute of legitimacy will be positively related to the stakeholder salience of customers, employees, suppliers, financiers and communities.
Hypothesis 1c: The stakeholder attribute of urgency will be positively related to the stakeholder salience of customers, employees, suppliers, financiers and communities.
Hypothesis 1d: The cumulative number of stakeholder attribute of power, legitimacy and urgency will be positively related to the stakeholder salience of customers, employees, suppliers, financiers and communities.
Hypothesis 2: Stakeholder salience as perceived by management will be positively related to Stakeholder management strategies.
Hypothesis 3: Management values will affect management perceptions of power, legitimacy and urgency and thus related to the stakeholder salience of customers, employees, suppliers, financiers and communities.
This paper presents an investigation which will be out with executives (ranked grade 54 and above) of MAMPU. Its main aim has been to identify and gather evidence concerning stakeholder salience and stakeholder management strategies based on criteria of power, legitimacy and urgency.
The research raises two types of contributions to the current literature. An empirical contribution is identifying the stakeholder salience who is able to influence strategic management strategies and therefore able to raise issues in the strategic management of such organizations.
A theoretical contribution of the findings will be related to the stakeholder theory. Evidence gathered in this investigation corroborates Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) defined stakeholder salience as "who or what really counts" which means managers need to determine what they really pay attention to as they weigh stakeholder concern in their organizations.
From the findings, we expect to uncover the relationships with stakeholders are to be managed employing different strategies because they are playing different roles with organization and have different degrees of importance based on stakeholder attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency).