I appreciated the Stakeholder identification and Salience Theory article most of all. Too often our definition of stakeholder is either too broad or narrow to fit in our analysis for change. The broad definition of stake or stakeholders limits an analysts scope to the individual or group who can and are affected by the achievement of an organization (Mitchell, Agle, Wood, 1997). However, on the narrow side of the definition, a stakeholder analyst can “pigeon hole” their scope to those who are voluntary, those who have invested some form of capital, or involuntary, those who are placed at risk by the organizations activities (Mitchell, Agel, Wood, 1997). Yet, this analysis only scratches the surface of stakeholder identification. This information is enlightening to me as this aids in identifying change agents, champions, and those who would on the guiding coalition or core change team, depending on which change model one uses. Kotter (2007) states that 15 to 50 individual are needed in to for successful transformation to see fruition. This could be a daunting number and without some form of analysis, the selected individuals may not provide a strength enough team for successful transformation. Through the application of Stakeholder Salience Theory, that 15 to 50 individuals across the organization becomes a lot easily to identify in terms of their stake to change. In addition, if Stakeholder Salience Theory were coupled with Kotter’s Eight Step Model, establishing a sense of urgency those who are definitive, dependent, dominate, or dangerous stakeholders will be self-identified in the process (Mitchell, Agel, Wood, 1997).
I reviewed the “Transformation Efforts Fail” article from Kotter when I initially posted about his Eight Ste...
... middle of paper ...
...lp but think about Tony Stewart and his encounters with David Duke, specially how Tony used the walk to raise money against Duke’s movement. Thought verbal jujitsu and disruptive self-expression are easy concepts to read, the application is much harder to practice.
These are just three of the articles that resonated me with. Overall, all eight articles provided me with different levels of insight into the beginning stage of change or why there is a need for change when things are good. I remember Michael states that one of his organizations values is Urgency. Urgency not in terms of getting products or people moving fast, but being able to identify the need for change and doing so quickly. “If we need to make a change, let’s do it now rather than later”, is what I believe Michael said at one point. Hemp and Stewart (2004) would strongly agree with that view point.
Leading Change was named the top management book of the year by Management General. There are three major sections in this book. The first section is ¡§the change of problem and its solution¡¨ ; which discusses why firms fail. The second one is ¡§the eight-stage process¡¨ that deals with methods of performing changes. Lastly, ¡§implications for the twenty-first century¡¨ is discussed as the conclusion. The eight stages of process are as followed: (1) Establishing a sense of urgency. (2) Creating the guiding coalition. (3) Developing a vision and a strategy. (4) Communicating the change of vision. (5) Empowering employees for broad-based action. (6) Generating short-term wins. (7) Consolidating gains and producing more changes. (8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
Stakeholders are individuals and constituencies that contribute, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and activities, and who are therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers1. There are several different types of stakeholders associated with a corporation, and those stakeholders can have different views and opinions on what corporation's goals should be and how they should be running. I have interviewed three different stakeholders of Staples Inc., an employee, a customer and a stock holder, to find their relationship between them and the firm. Then, I will use this information to suggest how the firm should proceed and continue to have a better and more beneficial relationship with its stakeholders.
Healthcare industry of U.S. is a complex industry made up of a diverse workforce. Healthcare organizations are constantly in need of new strategies to survive in a competitive environment. For a successful organization, it is important that decisions are made in the best interest of all the stakeholders. According to Celluci & Wiggins (2010), a stakeholder is an individual, group, or entity that has an interest in organization’s success. Stakeholders include all employees, patients, community and healthcare providers.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (June 2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management 10(2), 135–154.
Hence, the stakeholders which are described as those who are affected by the organisation performance ,actions and duties and those actions includes employees, clients, local community and investors as well. The theory of stakeholders also suggests that it is the responsibility of firm to make sure no rights of stakeholders are dishonoured and make decisions in the interest of stakeholders which is also the purpose of stakeholder theory to make more profit and balancing it while considering its stakeholders (Freeman 2008 pp. 162-165). In the other words organisation must also operates in a more socially accountable approach by carrying out corporate social responsibility as (CSR) activities.
Harvard Business School 2005, The essentials of managing change and transition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Hughes, M 2006, 'Strategic change', in M Hughes (ed.), Change management: a critical perspective, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London, pp. 52-63.
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian
Kotter, J. P & Schlesinger, L. (2008). ‘Choosing strategies for change’. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 130-139.
Stakeholders’ analysis is the analysis which tells that how the company is dealing with the people which are directly or indirectly related with the company’s operations. These are called stakeholder and they include the employee, society, suppliers, buyers, shareholders, got and other tax related companies.
Stakeholders are those groups or individual in society that have a direct interest in the performance and activities of business. The main stakeholders are employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, financiers and the local community. Stakeholders may not hold any formal authority over the organization, but theorists such as Professor Charles Handy believe that a firm’s best long-term interests are served by paying close attention to the needs of each of these stakeholders. The modern view is that a firm has responsibilities to all its stakeholders i.e. everyone with a legitimate interest in the company. These include shareholders, competitors, government, employees, directors, distributors, customers, sub-contractors, pressure groups and local community. Although a company’s directors owes a legal duty to the shareholders, they also have moral responsibilities to other stakeholder group’s objectives in their entirely. As a firm can’t meet all stakeholders’ objectives in their entirety, they have to compromise. A company should try to serve the needs of these groups or individuals, but whilst some needs are common, other needs conflict. By the development of this second runway, the public and stakeholders are affected in one or other way and it can be positive and negative.
Middlebrook, B., Caruth, D., & Frank, R. (1984, Summer 85). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Management Journal, 50(3), pp. 23.
One of the first scholars to describe the process of organizational change was Lewin (1974). He described change as a three-stage process that consists of unfreezing, moving and freezing stage. During the unfreezing stage the organizations become motivated to change by some event or objective. The moving stage is like implementation when the organization actually makes the necessary change. Furthermore the freezing stage is reached when the change becomes permanent. Organizational change has also...
Graetz, F, Rimmer, M, Lawrence, A, Smith, A 2002, Managing organizational change, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Queensland.