1. A Discussion on Stakeholders and their importance Concepts, operationalisations and implications Leo Goedegebuure, Oslo, March 16

2. 2 Structure of this morning’s session What do we mean by “stakeholders” and why is this relevant? –Drawing on Brugha & Varvazovsky (2000) Theoretical perspectives on stakeholder identification management –Drawing on Mitchell et al (1997) External and internal stakeholders –Drawing on your own analyses Management implications –Drawing on an extrapolation of the previous three components

3. Stakeholders: a definition Stakeholders are those individuals, groups or organizations who –Have an interest (= the stake) in, and –The potential to influence –The mission/objectives and actions of an organization So: –Who are our stakeholders? –What is their relevance or importance? –How does this play out in terms of past-presence-future? 3

4. Stakeholders: old/new wine in old/new bottles? Roots in traditional public administration theories: how to deal with interest groups in designing and implementing policy? –Lindblom’s science of muddling through (1959) –Agenda setting: what get’s on and what not (Hall, 1975) –Kingdom’s visible and hidden participants (1984) But also roots in management literature: –General Electric Company’s (1930s) four stakeholder groups: customers, employees, general public, shareholders –Freeman: they CAN influence, so you better pay attention to them, i.e. strategies to mobilise, neutralise, or defeat them So how do we get a grip on stakeholders? 4

5. Step one: stakeholder identification Seminal article by Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1997 –Identification on the basis of three variables: Power Legitimacy Urgency –Which are: not static, steady state, but change over time socially constructed, not objective reality interrelated to determine salience 5

6. Thus: typology of stakeholders possible Latent stakeholders -- one attribute –dormant (power) –discretionary (legitimacy) –demanding (urgency) Expectant stakeholders -- two attributes –dependent (l & u) –dominant (p & l) –dangerous (p & u) Definitive stakeholders -- all three attributes Context dependent…. 6

7. Three propositions on ”stakeholder salience” Stakeholder salience low where only one of the attributes is perceived by leadership to be present Stakeholder salience is moderate in case of two attributes present Salience is high if all three attributes are present So what does this mean??? –It’s perceptional, not an exact science –It’s quite “ruthless” 7

8. Some implications or consequences Stakeholders change in salience –they may change classes through gain or loss of attributes –perceptions of institutional leaders may change Possibilities for pro-active mapping –how are changes in the environment affecting the power, legitimacy and urgency of particular stakeholder groupings? Hence: an integral part of institutional strategy, policy design and policy implementation! 8

9. So who are our most salient stakeholders? Quick syndicate group exercise, 15 minutes: –Group 1: Head of School perspective –Group 2: Faculty Dean perspective –Group 3: Director of Planning perspective –Group 4: Rector/President perspective Discussion on salience and implications –How robust is all of this? –How can we use it? –What does it tell us in terms of “room to move”? 9

10. Implications for strategy Effective relationship management as complement to stakeholder identification, both external and internal Forging stable relationships under conditions of volatility –reciprocity –responsiveness The networked university: again external & internal External: alliances & partnerships –Regional, national and international –intra & inter sector Internal: alliances & partnerships –the return of the loosely coupled system –uncoupling teaching, research, community service ……..(?!?!?!) 10