ARTICLE

NEO MITCHELLIAN APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDERS RELATIONSHIPS IN ORGANIZATIONS

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

12 Pages : 112-122

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).12      10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).12      Published : Mar 2020

Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations

Abstract

    Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed that stakeholder salience is directly proportional to the number of attributes of salience—power, legitimacy and urgency—as perceived by managers. However, till date, researchers have differences about these attributes as determinants of salience. To resolve these differences and to precisely specify the attributes that make a stakeholder salient in the eyes of managers we attempted to gain deeper insights into this phenomenon. For this purpose, we employed multiple case study strategy in a purely quantitative treatment—a unique mix. Our findings suggest that the attributes as conceived by Mitchell et al. (1997) are quite broad and general. Managers identify salient stakeholders based on specific types of these and few other attributes. We found that stakeholders that possess utilitarian power, influence legitimacy, criticality and organized proximity are attended by the managers.

    (1) Anjeela Khurram
    Research Scholar,Department of RITM,University of Paris Saclay, Paris.
    (2) Shahzad Khurram
    Assistant Professor,Department of Air University School of Management,Air University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    (3) Muhammad Naeem
    Assistant Professor,Department of Business Administration,Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R.K. & Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999). Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 507-525.
  • Aldrich, H. E. and C. M. Fiol. (1994). Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670.
  • DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(April): 147-160.
  • Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20:1, 65-91.
  • Driscoll, C. & M. Starik. (2004). The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55-73.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 532-550
  • Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Frederick, W. C. (1998). Moving to CSR4 What to Pack for the Trip, Business & Society 37(1), 40- 59.
  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: Boston.
  • Friedman, M. T. and D. S. Mason: 2004, 'A Stakeholder Approach to Understanding Economic Development Decision Making: Public Subsidies for Professional Sport Facilities', Economic Development Quarterly 18, 236-254.
  • Gifford, E. J. (2010). Effective Shareholder Engagement: The factors that contribute to stakeholder salience, Journal of Business Ethics, 92: 79-97.
  • Golden, B. R. (1992). The Past Is the Past - or Is It? The Use of Retrospective Accounts As Indicators of Past Strategy, Academy of Management Journal 35, 848-860.
  • Graves, S. B. & Waddock, S.A. (1994). Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 37: 4, 1034-1046.
  • Hartman, E. 1996. Organizational ethics and the good life. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  • Harvey, B. & Schaefer, A. (2001). Managing Relationships with Environmental Stakeholders: A Study of U.K. Electricity and Water Utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(3), 243-260.
  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory'. Journal of Management Studies, 29:2, 131-154.
  • Hunt, C. S., & Aldrich, H. E. (1996). Why even Rodney Dangerfield has a home page: Legitimizing the world wide web as a medium for commercial endeavors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH
  • Hybels, R. C. (1995). On Legitimacy, Legitimation, and Organizations: A Critical Review and Integrative Theoretical Model, Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management 38, 241-245.
  • Jiang, R. H. J. & Bansal, P. (2003) Seeing the Need for ISO 14001', Journal of Management Studies 40, 1047-106.
  • Jones, T. M. & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review, 24: 2, 206-221.
  • Jones, T. M., W. Felps & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical Theory and Stakeholder-Related Decisions: The Role of Stakeholder Culture, Academy of Management Review 32(1), 137-155.
  • Khavul, S., Chavez, H., & Bruton, G. D. (2013). When institutional change outruns the change agent: The contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty, Journal of Business Venturing 28 (2013): 30-50
  • Khurram, S. & Charreire Petit. (2017). Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds? Journal of Business Ethics, 143, Issue 3, 485-515.
  • Kirat, T. & Lung, Y. (1999) Innovation and proximity. Territories as loci of collective learning processes, European Urban and Regional Studies 6, 27-38.
  • Miller, C. C., L. B. Cardinal &. Glick, W. H. (1997). Retrospective Reports in Organizational Research: A Reexamination of Recent Evidence, Academy of Management Journal 40, 189-204.
  • Mitchell, R. K, Agle, B. R, & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853-886
  • Neville, B., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377-391.
  • Neville, B.A., S.J., Bell, & Whitewell, G.J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining and refueling and underdeveloped conceptual tool, Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3): 357-378.
  • Pajunen, K. (2006). Living in agreement with a contract: The management of moral and viable firmstakeholder relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 243-258.
  • Pakistan Microfinance Network (2015). Pakistan Microfinance Review. July 26, 2014 http://www.microfinanceconnect.info/assets/articles/PMR_2015_new.pdf
  • Parent, M. M. & Deephouse, D. L (2007). A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1): 1-23.
  • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York.
  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations (Pitman, Marshfield, MA).
  • Phillips, N. and N. Malhotra, 2008. 'Taking Social Construction Seriously: Extending the Discursive Approach in Institutional Theory', in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin and R. Suddaby (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage Publications, Far East Square, Singapore), pp. 702- 720.
  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organization Ethics (Berret-Koehler, San Francisco).
  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 887-910.
  • Ryan, L. V. and M. Schneider: 2003, ‘Institutional Investor Power and Heterogeneity: Implications for Agency and Stakeholder Theories', Business & Society 42, 398-429.
  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Suchman. M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610.
  • Thompson, J. K., S. L. Wartick and H. L. Smith (1991). 'Integrating Corporate Social Performance and Stakeholder Management: Implications for a Research Agenda in Small Business', Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 12, 207-230.
  • Torre, A. Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and Localization. Regional Studies. Vol. 39(1), pp. 47-59
  • Weber, M.: 1947, The Theory of Social and EconomicOrganization (Free Press, New York).
  • Winn, M. I. & Keller, L. R. (2001). A Modeling Methodology for Multiobjective Multistakeholder Decisions - Implications for Research', Journal of Management Inquiry 10, 166-181.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd Edition (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Khurram, A., Khurram, S., & Naeem, M. (2020). Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations. Global Social Sciences Review, V(I), 112-122. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).12

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Khurram, Anjeela, Shahzad Khurram, and Muhammad Naeem. 2020. "Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations." Global Social Sciences Review, V (I): 112-122 doi: 10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).12

HARVARD

    HARVARD : KHURRAM, A., KHURRAM, S. & NAEEM, M. 2020. Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations. Global Social Sciences Review, V, 112-122.

MHRA

    MHRA : Khurram, Anjeela, Shahzad Khurram, and Muhammad Naeem. 2020. "Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations." Global Social Sciences Review, V: 112-122

MLA

    MLA : Khurram, Anjeela, Shahzad Khurram, and Muhammad Naeem. "Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations." Global Social Sciences Review, V.I (2020): 112-122 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Khurram, Anjeela, Khurram, Shahzad, and Naeem, Muhammad (2020), "Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations", Global Social Sciences Review, V (I), 112-122

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Khurram, Anjeela, Shahzad Khurram, and Muhammad Naeem. "Neo-Mitchellian Approach to Understanding Stakeholders Relationships in Organizations." Global Social Sciences Review V, no. I (2020): 112-122. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).12