How Tight Are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups?

Richard A. Wolfe () and Daniel S. Putler ()
Additional contact information
Richard A. Wolfe: Michigan Center for Sport Management, Division of Kinesiology, The University of Michigan, 401 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2214
Daniel S. Putler: Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of British Columbia, and Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California 95053-0393

Organization Science, 2002, vol. 13, issue 1, 64-80

Abstract: The purpose of stakeholder management is to facilitate our understanding of increasingly unpredictable external environments, thereby facilitating our ability to manage within these environments. We argue that a powerful implicit assumption within the stakeholder literature—that priorities within role-based stakeholder groups are relatively homogeneous—blurs our understanding of organization-stakeholder relationships. Two important and related areas of concern are presented. The first involves the primacy of role in stakeholder definition. This role primacy approach to stakeholder definition is appropriate if, for a particular issue, role-based stakeholder group members have similar priorities. Individual and collective self-interest provides a rationale for this assumption. However, an important problem with this approach arises in situations in which self-interest is not the primary motivator of individuals' priorities. In these instances, subgroups within different role-based stakeholder groups might have more similar priorities than either subgroup has with others within their role-based stakeholder group. In these situations the role primacy approach impedes, rather than facilitates, an understanding of our environment. Our second concern is related to insufficient rigor in the application of stakeholder analysis. Most stakeholder studies, both theoretical and empirical, fall short in the determination of relevant interests and the subsequent subdivision of role-based stakeholder groups into rigorously defined specific stakeholder groups. Having suggested that the role primacy approach to stakeholder definition is less than ideal, we examine the extent to which, and the conditions under which, roles are likely to determine priorities, and thus, the likelihood of relatively homogeneous priorities within role-based stakeholder groups. In addition, we present an illustrative empirical analysis of stakeholder group priorities. The illustrative study is conducted within the context of intercollegiate athletics. Related literature and our empirical results indicate that role-based self-interest frequently is not a sufficient "binding tie" of stakeholder groups. Given this background, we present an alternative approach to stakeholder analysis that borrows heavily from the customer segmentation literature of marketing. Our alternative approach can accommodate heterogeneous priorities within role-based stakeholder groups.

Keywords: Stakeholder Management; Intercollegiate Athletics; Stakeholder Homogeneity; Collective Self-Interest; Symbolic Predisposition (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2002
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (63)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.64.544 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:13:y:2002:i:1:p:64-80

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Organization Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().