9 Stakeholder Landscapes
Map your stakeholder landscapes: understanding your social networks
Because of the complex environment in which the Army operates we use the term stakeholder landscape when we are investigating the needs, wants and mindset of relevant stakeholders. By using geography terms, it reminds us that we need to keep our minds open and start with the big picture before we start focusing on specific people, teams, and other entities.
We encourage you to keep the ‘people’ in mind when you are exploring your stakeholder landscape. We lump groups, teams and leadership bodies into the catch-all of ‘stakeholder’ and that tends to depersonalise our thinking.
To get you started on this part of the learning journey please read this case study, by Barry Laming, in The Cove. Look for the many characters in the case. Ideally make a note of who, where, and what each stakeholder is wanting to achieve.
This case highlights the complexity of a specific scenario.
Here is a key statement from the case:
DECISIVE ACTION TRAINING ENVIRONMENT AND THE HYBRID THREAT OF THE TRANS-NATIONAL CRIMINAL SYNDICATE
This case highlights the complexity of a specific scenario.
Reflection.
Here is a key statement from the case. ‘While interfering with or clashing with ADF missions and personnel is extremely low on their list of priorities, the force that can be brought to bear on ADF missions is potentially catastrophic.’
The power of this important insight is that it shows many players in a complex situation. As in battle, you want to have a three dimensional imagery to be able to shift focus and perspective to see things from many angles. The immediate threat to ADF missions and personnel is low as the statement highlights: low and potentially catastrophic.
From this introduction you want you to remember five key points:
- Stakeholders are people.
- All stakeholders have a stake in the situation and context.
- The degree and relevance of their stake is related to the perspective of other stakeholders and their stake.
- The more complex the context and situation the more significant small things become.
- A landscape metaphor helps the viewer navigate the many views in the stakeholder decision frame.
Here are some definitions for you. We want you to carefully read and consider these definitions as they will help you with the activities and also with you overall understanding the dynamics of a stakeholder landscape.
Stakeholders1
Individuals or groups who have interest or some other aspect of rights or ownership in the project, and can contribute to, or be impacted by, the outcomes of the project.
Stakeholder Landscape2
The context, environment, situation and characteristics in which the stakeholders or stakeholder groups operate.
Influence3
The change in a person’s attitudes, behaviours or beliefs due to external pressure or forces either real or perceived.
Power4
Informal: The ability to get things done!
This may happen using the resources at hand and at times against resistance and the will of others.
Formal: The level of impact within a situation or organisation and ability to direct actions and outcomes. Power comes from multiple factors that can overlap: awareness of information networks within a context, the ability to control and direct information, as well as the impact of informal and formal structural positions.
Legitimacy5
The perception or assumption that a stakeholder’s actions are desirable, proper or appropriate within the given context.
Urgency6
The degree to which delay is unacceptable to the stakeholder, and the importance of the claim or the relationship to the stakeholder.
Interest7
A focus on a concept, activity or situation that may become a focal concentration of attention. Interest groups are that are comprised of groups of individuals or organisations that share and magnify the focal concept.
Why do organisation put so much effort into their stakeholder relations and traditional stakeholder management? Make your way through the list of definitions above and consider why stakeholder understanding is so crucial to you, your teams and the Army generally.
Here are some questions that those who are directly responsible for stakeholder understanding and engagement ask.
Questions8
Which key stakeholders have power and influence? Why?
Why does this stakeholder group affect our organisation on behalf of whom?
What are the desires of key individuals in the stakeholder group?
How does this stakeholder group affect our organisation?
How powerful is this stakeholder group? What gives them this power?
What factors might affect that power in the future?
Overall, the direct stakeholder team needs to decide why the answers are important and what it is that the organisation intends to do as a result of knowing the answer to these questions.
Clearly the answers to these questions also impact you and you have a part to play, however indirect that may be.
You might be wondering the stakeholder landscape is so important to you and the art of good thinking.
Despite your sound reasoning, your logic, your ability to set up conditions where you can have the maximum impact, you need to know who are you setting out to influence [the stakeholder/s], what they are thinking, your level and their level of power, the level of urgency for you and for the stakeholder, the legitimacy of all involved, the perceived urgency and the lever of interest of the parties in the overall stakeholder landscape.
Next section
In the previous lesson you explored a case study set around a complex landscape with a varied and entangled set of stakeholders. You also learned the language of stakeholder engagement. The importance of three-dimensional thinking was a key point. Most of all was the reminder that people are the centre of any stakeholder landscape in which you and others find themselves.
Activity
In this activity we ask you to describe a past situation or an upcoming one where you dealt with or will deal with stakeholders in a specific context for a specific reason and outcome.
We ask you to name the stakeholder groups and also write a short description of the group.
We give you a set of ways that you can classify the stakeholder groups based on several variables. We ask you to then work out some ways that you can put into action the outcomes of your analyses and link that with what it is that you want to achieve.
Action 1
The first thing to do is to write a paragraph about the situation and context you want to examine. Be clear about the people and groups involved, the location, your role, your teams role if that is relevant, the reason for the engagement, and specific points of interest that will highlight why this is important to you.
Action 2
Using Table 1 complete the self-audit based on the situation and context. When you have finished be sure to reread your answers. What do you notice by looking at all your responses? Is there a pattern? Make some comparisons. For example, how does your description of your influence fit with your sense of urgency for the project.
Now write a short statement in the table that sums up your overall sense of your role and stake in the project.
Action 3
Think of the overall stakeholder landscape for this situation and context. Identify the stakeholder groups that you think have a significant direct or indirect impact on the project at hand. Complete Table 2. List the Stakeholder group names and write a short description of the group including why the group might be interested in the project.
By now you should already have interesting insights to the situation.
The next action involves using a ranking model to identify overall the level of importance each stakeholder group may have in the project.
Action 4
Using Table 3 apply the scoring model of 1 to 10, with 1 : Low, and 10 : High, score each Stakeholder group on the attributes in the list, from 1 to 10.
You will notice that you are also scoring yourself, or your team or group in this action.
When you have scored each group calculate the total for each group.
You now have some form of ranking of overall level of importance the Stakeholder group has towards the project.
This is a simple ranking approach. The process has some face validity but should not be considered as input to any form of statistical model. The scoring is designed as a way to assist you with your categorisation of and discernment with the stakeholder landscape.
Action 5
Now that you have some reasonable form of insights into the groups, you can start putting the groups into the various categorisation models.
The first of these is the Power and Interest matrix.10 use this one.
insert templates
Add the Stakeholder group to the matrix. To keep things simple use the assigned number from Table 3 to add the group.
Repeat the exercise for the Interest and Influence matrix.12 use this one – same as below.
The next diagnostic is the most complex of the stakeholder analyses we want to you perform. This Power Legitimacy Urgency diagnostic helps you to apply create a strong overall view of the landscape. It helps you to bring it all together. A word of caution: this should be kept for your insights only. You certainly don’t want anyone or any group seeing your insights or observations of a stakeholder landscape that is relevant to you.
Action 6
Using your Table 3 scoring, categorise your stakeholders in the various categories. The title of each category should be an indicator for you!
This is the approach for you to use.
The Power Legitimacy Urgency Categorisation Calculator.
|
Non-stakeholder |
These are the stakeholder group/s that have a score of less than 4 in every category |
|
|
Legitimacy only: Discretionary |
These are the stakeholder group/s that have a score of less than 4 in every category and have a score of 5 or more for Legitimacy
|
|
|
Power only: Dormant |
These are the stakeholder group/s that have a score of less than 4 in every category and have a score of 5 or more for Power
|
|
|
Urgency only: Demanding
|
These are the stakeholder group/s that have a score of less than 4 in every category and have a score of 5 or more for Urgency
|
|
|
Legitimacy & Power: Dominant |
These are the stakeholder group/s that have a score of less than 4 in Urgency and have a score of 5 or more for Legitimacy & Power
|
|
|
Legitimacy & Urgency: Dependent |
These are the stakeholder group/s that have a score of less than 4 in Power and have a score of 5 or more for Legitimacy & Urgency
|
|
|
Urgency & Power: Dangerous |
These are the stakeholder group/s that have a score of less than 4 in Legitimacy and have a score of 5 or more for Urgency & Power
|
|
|
Definitive |
These are stakeholder group/s that score 5 for more in all categories. |
|
14
As you are allocating the Stakeholder groups to the categories, if you end up with a group that doesn’t fit any of the scoring above please go and reread your Table 2 descriptions and make a judgment call of where to allocation the group.
The Power Legitimacy Urgency diagnostic15
Now that you have completed this activity we want you to read over all your observations. What do you notice? Overall, what do you conclude about your stakeholder landscape? What impact did it have or might it have one you and your team for the context and situation and the project you were considering in this exercise?
The power of this important insight is that it shows many players in a complex situation. As in battle, you want to have a three dimensional imagery to be able to shift focus and perspective to see things from many angles. The immediate threat to ADF missions and personnel is low as the statement highlights: low and potentially catastrophic.
From this introduction you want you to remember the following five key points:
-
bullet
Stakeholders are people.
-
bullet
All stakeholders have a stake in the situation and context.
-
bullet
The degree and relevance of their stake is related to the perspective of other stakeholders and their stake
-
bullet
The more complex the context and situation the more significant small things become.
-
bullet
A landscape metaphor helps the viewer navigate the many views in the stakeholder decision frame.
Here are some definitions for you. We want you to carefully read and consider these definitions as they will help you with the activities and also with your overall understanding the dynamics of a stakeholder landscape:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
So, why is the stakeholder landscape so important?
Despite your sound reasoning, your logic, your ability to set up conditions where you can have the maximum impact, you need to know:
- who are you setting out to influence (the stakeholder/s)
- what the stakeholders are thinking
- your level and their level of power
- the level of urgency for you and for the stakeholder
- the legitimacy of all involved
- the perceived urgency and the lever of interest of the parties in the overall stakeholder landscape.
In the next lesson we get you to describe a situation where you had to work in a situation where you have to carefully understand the stakeholder landscape, or an upcoming situation where you will have to understand what is happening around you.
References
- Laming, B. (2020). Decisive Action Training Environment and the Hybrid Threat of the Trans-national criminal syndicate, retrieved 23 July 2020, from https://cove.army.gov.au/article/decisive-action-training-environment-and-the-hybrid-threat-the-trans-national-criminal
- Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. (2008). Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
- Brower, J., & Mahajan, V. (2013). Driven to be good: A stakeholder theory perspective on the drivers of corporate social performance. Journal of business ethics, 117(2), 313-331.
- Cialdini, R. B. (2001). The Science of Persuasion. Scientific American, 284(2), 76-81. www.jstor.org/stable/26059056
- Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.
- Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 342-369.
- Wood, R. K. M. B. R. A. D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886
- Ibid.
- Yoho, J. (1998). The evolution of a better definition of “interest group” and its synonyms. The Social Science Journal, 35(2), 231-243.
- Hubbard, G., Rice, J., & Beamish, P. (2008). Strategic Management. Pearson Education.