The Application of Stakeholder Theory to Relationship Marketing Strategy Development in a Non-Profit Organization Author(s): Simon Knox and Colin

Gruar Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Oct., 2007), pp. 115-135 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123980 . Accessed: 03/03/2012 02:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

(2007) 75:115-135 Journal of Business Ethics DOI 10.1007A10551-006-9258-3

? Springer

2006

The AppHcation of Stakeholder Theory to Relationship Marketing Strategy

Development in a Non-profit Organization

Simon Knox Colin Gruar

ABSTRACT.

Non-profit

(NP)

organizations

present

these

differences strategy

sets for

the the

scene future.

for

developing

choices

in

in managing relation stakeholder challenges complex times of environmental ships, particularly change. during a on This which stakeholders places premium knowing matter if an effective strategy reaUy marketing relationship is to be developed. This article successful the presents of a model, which MitcheU's combines appHcation theory of of and Coviello's stakeholder framework saHency contemporary nization used marketing about the to in marketing A the U.K. practices in a leading NP orga is

marketing

KEY tion,

WORDS: relationship saliency

empirical marketing

study,

non-profit strategy

organiza development,

stakeholder

explore practices,

cooperative enquiry stakeholder relationships, and to surface differing marketing strategy.

approach dominant perceptions Resolving

Introduction In the emphasis last decade or so there has been a shift in

organization's

Simon Knox
School number

is Professor of Brand Marketing at the Cranfield

in the UK and is a consultant Levi to a including graduating, Strauss,

theory and practices towards marketing which views the business as a relationship et al., 1991; coalition of stakeholders (Christopher of marketing

Payne

of Management

of multinational companies BT and Exel. DiverseyLever, Upon

he followed

a career in the brands with Unilever marketing of international in a number senior marketing roles in both detergents pic of over and foods. Since joining Simon has published Cranfield, 100 papers and books on strategic marketing and branding and is a regular speaker at international conferences. He is a

et al., 2001; Polonsky, et al., 1995; Polonsky on building and focuses closer customer 2002) 1997). Rela (Berry, 1983; Gronroos, relationships does offer a therefore, tionship marketing theory,
reformist it places for agenda an emphasis stakeholder on management coUaboration since stakeholder

beyond According

the

Director of the Cranfield Centre for Brand Management

Development impact in the School and is currently looking at Man "Com the on Brand Social Responsibility of Corporate two recent books, is the co-author He agement. of

creating across salient 2002), within

of market transactions. immediacy to different authors, the theory involves of mutually beneficial value exchanges stakeholder et al., groups (Christopher direct relationships and through

interactions networks

peting on Value", published by FT Pitman Publishing in the

UK, Germany, the USA and FT China, Prentice-Hall, and "Creating in the UK, a Company Brazil Colin and for Customers", India. for His across Head Colin his Doctorate thesis of Business with in the

et al., 1997; Gummes (CovieUo and building mutual commitment and son, 1999), trust and Hunt, Kotler and 1994). (Morgan of relationship definition Armstrong's marketing (1999, p. 50) makes specific stakeholder relationships: "Relationship maintaining customers marketing The goal reference to strong

is currently studying at the School. Administration developing marketing sector. research strategy Formerly charity, and

Gruar

is concerned groups

stakeholder ofMarketing has also

Notfor-Profit UK medical in sales, sectors supply.

at a major senior roles of

had

marketing including

operations

management services

in a range and

involves marketing creating, and enhancing strong relationships with and other stakeholders. Relationship is orientated is to deliver towards the long-term long term. to value

manufacturing,

financial

energy

116 Simon Knox

customers customer and the measure of success is long-term

and Colin Gruar uses to influ the organization marketing practices ence In this section we them. also discuss the of three, differing 'worldviews' emergence team and conclude the management by
together the main choices open to

satisfaction.

among drawing

However,

in

their

seminal

practices in over marketing et al. (2002) firms, CovieUo

current marketing practices

study of relationship 300 U.S. and European conclude

pluralistic;

the management

that

their

are

relation

has not fuUy replaced conventional ship marketing as the dominant practice but transactional marketing is used where appropriate, as is database and network
marketing their research to a on less extent. These to researchers and do focus not marketing customers

strategy development. relationship marketing FinaUy, we explore the impUcations of our work for theory and practice, its limitations and suggest future
research directions.

for

Marketing In contrast

in NP to

organizations

groups, although other researchers (Day and Montgomery, 1999; Webster, 1978) extol the in wider stakeholder marketing benefits of engaging et al. (2005) argue that stakeholder practices. Payne an espoused is essentiaUy marketing theory more
than a conclusion as far theory-in-action we also draw are aware, from there currently, our are which literature very few is review; substan the

explore stakeholder

how

marketing

has

evolved

across

other of a firm's refocusing to engage more fuUy strategy relationship marketing NP with often face a stakeholders, organizations the gradual bewildering
interacting

array of dilemmas
and recurring stakeholder

as they

deal with
on a

pressures

regular

basis

(Tschirhart, argue

as we

Weinberg stakeholders than the

(1991)

tive

empirical

studies

of

the nature such

of

stakeholder is

generaUy is the case with often have

and 1996). GaUagher in NP organizations, a greater have importance that businesses since

commercial

marketing

pioneering stakeholder future found

economic,

study on et al. (2005) in which the relationship marketing of 33 businesses is financial performance a reflection to be of their long-term
social, and environmental performance.

practices. work of Murphy

One

they complex inter-organizational are intimately with NPs and many relationships in the achievement of organizational involved goals and marketing For this reason, strategy development. differ marketing strategies within NP organizations
from often commercial pursue businesses. multiple, For instance, NPs marketing wiU non-financial

By regressing the company the CEO, their work

holder perceptions

a stakeholder performance forecast against an ROI suggests

a more presage

appraisal of

by provided that higher stake

effective rela

they market for social change, which Liao objectives; et al. (2001) refer to as a 'societal orientation'; and more pubUc attention, both positive and they garner negative, Arguably, than the average business this makes marketing upon with crucial range the determination preceding step a wider (Shapiro, in NPs of 1973). more

strategy tionship marketing among those businesses higher ROIs balance their stakeholder management Our and article contributes to both

across

stakeholders attempting activities.

and to

stakeholder

practices relationship marketing of an integrated model, which application in the NP market strategy development

theory the through enables sector.

contingent stakeholders, a saliency strategy 1991). Ten

influential

of stakeholder in marketing and Weinberg, (1969) first pro concept

development

(GaUagher

issues marketing InitiaUy, we discuss contemporary our in NP behind the rationale organizations, it research model for such organizations, and how
can be operationalized in the context of our research

posed commercial

in the research Charity setting, a major medical the U.K. Then we discuss our chosen methodology, and types of our coUaborative interventions stages we make this longitudinal during study, and our main research the Charity's findings; an outline external stakeholders of the saliency of and the dominant

paper Some 27 years into their organizations. marketing sector is now undergoing later, the NP something in which of a reformation marketing principles are being widely, but perhaps not and practices

beyond a Kotler (1979) published organizations, could introduce about how NPs SpecificaUy

years after Kotler and Levy the marketing broadening

there (Andreasen et al., 2005); universaUy, adopted corners sector where still remain the NP of

Application marketing vocabulary

So why

of Stakeholder Theory reflects that

senior

111

is considered is avoided.
are the more

anathema

and a marketing
NP organi

such environmental shifts, we would argue are two fundamental there tasks which the
management team needs to address prior to

market-sawy

zations

now

choosing

to

embrace

both

stakeholder

keting factors that contribute NP sector.

relationships practices? There

and contemporary are a growing number of to this aspect of change in the

closer mar

articulating

any new marketing

strategy. These

are:

a rigorous to determining Develop approach and agreeing saHencies across the stakeholder
organization.

are increasingly First, NP organizations to control their own financial destiny in which eager is the new mantra (Dee, 1998). This is self-funding due to the fact that they face new competition partly tion private sector chaUengers in areas like educa and health care and partly because there is

Audit each

of

their current marketing these stakeholders

practices across and assess their

efficacy.

from

from other NP intensifying competition organiza tions for a 'share of purse' both among donors and Second, NPs have learned government departments. more about the value and techniques of significandy marketing through marketing and NP organizations. businesses nerships between aUiances have come about as a result of the These new approach of firms to their CSR agenda develop et al., 2005). 2002; Knox (Porter and Kramer, aUiances of this type bring pressure on Corporate to change, especiaUy when money comes from marketing activities joint resource corporate marketers budgets; for these or human and HR 'cause-related' part

Research To enable

model,

context,

and

objectives

have

this process within the NP sector, we an integrated model, which incor developed both aspects of this proposed porates systematic re view of marketing This model is presented strategy. in Figure 1 and seeks to Hnk MitcheU's and stakeholder classification saHency et al., 1997) with CovieUo's framework theory of (MitcheU of con

NPs

in the professionals wiU expect deeper involvement NP organization and their joint projects than tradi tional donors may have expected or wanted. Third, a significant number of sector has produced the NP that are lead by professional large organizations CEOs sion who and are highly committed to the NP's mis can see the need for contemporary across stakeholders practices (Drucker, can not only
strategies,

temporary marketing (CMP) (CovieUo practices et al., 2002). In our initial search for appropriate theory and we stakeholder marketing, practices surrounding considered other stakeholder models and relation For instance, Frooman's ship marketing approaches. on resource seminal paper (1999) dependency was in stakeholder management theory appraised work, however, alongside MitcheU's these relationships from an 'outside-in' it views ? perspective the development of influencing strategies among ? stakeholders and MitcheU adopts an 'inside-out', our research protocol the latter fits better with a managerial since we choose focus in identifying since et al. Similarly, Christopher the 'six-markets' model, developed identifies the saHency of certain stakeholders influences. have

marketing 1989). Such organizations

for stakeholder rnarketing

see the need

they can also

to set up marketing and pay the positions salaries that top marketing executives requisite command. For instance, the Salvation Army in the U.S.A. has revenues of more than $2bn per annum and the American turns over about Cancer Society afford of PhUanthropy, Such (Chronicle 2003). are very sophisticated NP leading-edge enterprises to use marketing and do not hesitate concepts not areas such as direct mail in traditional and just $800m in achieving their basic social fundraising, goals (Andreasen and Kotler, 2003). In order for NP to develop an organizations effective which strategy, relationship marketing but also

stakeholder (1991) which in

developing relationship marketing practices. this model in has been cited extensively Although the relationship marketing Hterature, we concluded that its specificity both in prescribing which stake regarded as saHent (without priori that relationship tizing them) and in their assumption is the dominant marketing practice simply does not our knowledge fit with of the NP industry. Our of the saHency of stakeholders among understanding holders can be

118 Simon Knox

Stakeholder Characteristics Stakeholder Classification

and Colin Gruar

, Dormant I

^m^ i Legitimacy

? Dominant
^

\ Uroencv

Dependant> fy?^/, Dangerous

]j JPT S*"**
\ \

j\ _

/Transactional

/ Database
t Interaction \Network /

\ /*-?lV ;K-A * '

\ I

^^^ Strategy
chotets '\.

<

Contemporary Marketing Practices

9 months

Figure 1. An

integrated model

for marketing

strategy development

in the non-profit

(NP) sector.

NPs and rather

suggests that it is both that their marketing

than purely the CorvieUo framework

and temporal are pluralistic practices In the end, we chose relational. contingent on the basis of its broader

management stakeholder driven

of

the

need

for

change

in

their

to relationship marketing the fact despite approach we needed to adapt their research instrument to that stakeholder marketing (see our practices explore 'Research Appendix
instrument).

strategy. This change is being marketing a history of successful research solutions by which has resulted in fewer people dying from the and increasing numbers of people condition medical environ its debiHtating effects. This Hving with to review its mental shift is forcing the organization on greater importance strategic direction, placing resource aUocation for education and care solutions. Increased education and care activities topography of stakeholders in become instrumental relative saHencies, which revision of the Charity's any strategy. marketing Thus, our research objectives the are: the change for the Charity and their

methodology A for the

section and and protocol' research CorvieUo adapted

The U.K. was

unit medical

selected

of analysis of our research is a leading and it research Charity (the Charity) as a single participating to organization

1989; Yin, process (Eisenhardt, access 2002), made possible because ofthe privileged to the researchers This (Balmer, 2001). granted and testing a new defined process is about building explore to relationship marketing development approach across the stakeholders Our of a NP organization. our coUaborative has enabled purposeful sample study to be carried out on a longitudinal basis and fits our method and explanatory of descriptive enquiry in case (Patton and Appelbaum, 2003). However, is also important study research of this type context 2003); Appelbaum, of industry is NPs and choice of participant is based on an acceptance by the Charity's company (Patton sample and the theoretical

a defined

1. To

in of our model vaUdity to of a NP organization enabling managers review their current marketing systematicaUy explore strategy in the face of shifting organizational

goals.

our coUaborative 2. Through enquiry approach, to faciUtate of marketing the development to better fit this changing strategies deemed
environment.

In developing this marketing strategy, ment wiU have to have a clear view

the manage of who and

Application what

of Stakeholder Theory

119

before the reaUy matters carefuUy managing of any strategy shift. In reviewing their consequences strategy, they wiU have to judi existing marketing limited resources ciously reaUocate the organization's their understanding of its various stakeholder key on of the groups stakeholders saUency in the future. are depicted and

of coUaborative proposed methodology enquiry a soft systems approach achievable using provided to evidence of staged progress can be demonstrated
managers.

based needs

of the Charity's Many in Figure 2. Within approach nization

The Soft

research

methodology

and

protocol

the Charity, there is currendy no defined to resolving these issues across the orga a number and consequendy of different

(or what the authors term 'worldviews' perspectives in the findings section) exist across the management team regarding the issue of stakeholder saUency and resource aUocation. This management is chaUenge more getting complex because of increasing turbu lence in the external unpredictable competing health and with environment a greater different change stakeholders resulting number interest in of

(SSM) was Methodology originaUy Checkland and Scholes, (Checkland developed by 1990) and has been used by researchers in business, the civU service and other NP organizations, notably Systems National the U.K.'s Health for over Service, 30 years (Checkland, SSM research has also 2000). been reviewed extensively in the academic Hterature over the years and is generaUy acknowledged as a robust methodology 2002a, (see BergvaU-Karebom, b; Flood, 2000; Flood and Romm, 1996; Munro was and Mingers, 2002). Soft Systems Methodology reasons. chosen here for a number of contextual and an established First, it has a defined epistemology set of advance' constitutive of the rules which intervention are declared 'in (Checkland, 2000). to the the epistemology and adhering Applying to be constitutive rules enables any new knowledge con and translated to other problem recoverable the abUity to generaUze the learn enhancing SSM also has the advantage of a set of ing. Second, methods and inteUectual devices (Root definition; can be CATWOE;3 etc.), which Activity Systems4 selected and used to consciously understand explore, texts,

areas As a and

calling upon the same pool of Umited resource. result of the combined effect of uncertainty need,

more it is becoming difficult for the greater to agree upon a clear defi Charity's management nition ofthe organization's marketing and objectives its relationship marketing more systematic approach saUency the direction of its stakeholders of strategy. Consequendy, to the assessment of and how this a the

supports has marketing development as urgently needed. state been recognized It is this team that of readiness the management among our research makes reaUstic and our objectives

[MRelSrj f_T/,%1
( Volunteers) ^Slm^
General ( Public^| _ _ S \and Prospects/

|j|

\^m^e^^/

^^^H^F
Doctors |? [

^^B^l^
f Beneficiaries)

_^r| The Charity |?

^s.
I

Researchers |? [

^^MMS?MiS2><
Donors JV_^^^__3BB_S_S__a^^r- ;'J

s^~-*\
V ^ . _. )

UNA?
Figure 2. The Charity's key external stakeholders across the value chain.

BMA / Diabetes

120 Simon Knox using awide variety of different of data. Third, SSM is a coUaborative types enquiry that supports a longitudinal methodology approach, of change and the study of the involving observation problem ers to compare situation over time. This enables research 'before' and 'after' states and to draw out the learning from this as weU as engage with as 'researchers' on the journey, practicing managers aUowing the real Hfe complexity a seven-stage from problem of an issue to be to soft fuUy explored. advocates Checkland and act in a situation

and Colin Gruar The Due

sample frame to the size of

a

the Charity
determine

the management population (25 in total), it was first necessary

sample. The researchers

in to

representative

defined

four

selection

criteria for this purpose:

1. Actively 2. Contact 3. Users 4. Relevancy An initial

in driving change. engaged with external stakeholders. of marketing practices and of the issue to their work.

approach situation identi systems appHcations, fication to the actions resulting, and the ethnography B (using of these seven steps is iUustrated inAppendix an example from our research in which actions are of a particular the prominence agreed to improve stakeholder mony across the NP in reporting, around reconfigured which For parsi organization). this seven-stage process has been has the key stages of researcher led to the results reported

assessment of managerial eUgibiUty and Low) was made based on the Medium, (High, and its of the organization researchers' knowledge
structure. A filter of two or more 'Low' scores was

used

the respondents potential a research sample of research sample. This yielded the assessment The basis of sampling, 14 managers. exclude from
and the assessments made were then sense

to

intervention, here. As the Hnear flow of Figure 1 suggests, there are over the intervention three key stages of researcher nine-month period. These stages are:

criteria,

checked
acceptable.

with

other

managers

and

agreed

as

individual managers First, to estabhsh among the saHency of stakeholders of the Charity aHgned
surface

Soft systems protocol: operationalizing to to

the integrated model

to their
the

functional

areas and then

market

perceived

contemporary

(or lack of) currently ing practices these stakeholders.

Second, to reach a team-based consensus

appHed
about

MitcheU's saUency theory of stakeholder Although has been widely accepted by researchers, his work in practice: the authors has had Umited appUcation could not find any substantive, pubUshed its use in the NP sector, which MitcheU communications. firmed through personal chose studies of has con So we

stakeholder

saHency across

the Charity

and its

practices and existing relationship marketing to identify the team's view of the alter Third,
native choices5 open to management as they

their relationship marketing develop to the environmental in response discussed To ensure earHer.

strategy shifts

to operationahze MitcheU's work through the soft systems protocol. foUowing An initial pUot sample of three senior managers from the Charity was asked to identify and prioritize to be top three stakeholders they consider out their duties. Each manager essential in carrying was of the three saUency then given a definition the characteristics asked to rate and Urgency) and (Power, Legitimacy, a stakeholders their priority using

the vaHdity and reHabiHty of the individually such asMitcheU's assessed measurement instruments, stakeholder contemporary saHency and CorvieUo's

practices and the team-based discussions and within the SSM, a constant comparative method borrowed from grounded theory was utiHzed (Barnes, 1996). The responses from a representative the same NP organization sample of managers within marketing reflections were compared
sources.

to encourage them to graphical instrument designed think more deeply about the relative impact of the three characteristics for each priority stakeholder and
their responses were cahbrated on three 7-point

against

each other,

field notes,

and

secondary

MitcheU for prototype (see Figure instrument used in this pdot). To be able to apply MitcheU's theory in practice, to use the score profiles first necessary it was scales 3

the

Application

of Stakeholder Tlteory

121

Prototype Instrument
t ' ; "' " - '"""' .

Z
T

fFW^^iS^j

pOv.-e" ... ecu*:-a-.

\ \ \

Power A letafjonshs)between parties in which on* petty A can get another patty Bto ctosomettang thatB would not haveotherwae done

A peneratsed perceptionor asaumpton Vtattoe actions of a partyate j^^K3i^|j?3^ji^? HhE^mHE^Pdesaabte, pfoper, or appfopnate wttwi some aoaatty constructed systerr

Name Stakeholder

^^P^KW^
"^ The degree towhich stakeholder claims cat for immediateattention

Date ^m Dtodwrn

jrgeriT.

Calibrated

Instrument

'* .

^."' f_.f.-?<?t. : ^
\jjk \ j *

'
Respondent

r'~*&r,
j&0&^^-C"--' ^^^^d^fetA^j

\
\

jl^^^^j* i

Power
Ai?iatonsh^betiwe?npart??iwhchooepartyAc?ortarwewparty B to do sometojng thatB would not haw otherwise done

Stakeholder Name *' * ^*9RM^3S?' v'^*fe f.?^. '<*~<gjffri ?* ume

A gener?M?*d toe percepeon or assumption that actons of a partyare wtfun some socially constructed system desaaole. proper,or appropriate of norms, values, bevels, dehnffions Urgency The degree to which stakeholder claims cal for jmmcdiilcattei<ion

Figure

3.

From

prototype

to

calibrated

instrument:

operationaHsing

MitcheU's

stakeholder

saHency

in

the Charity.

classify that relatively to identify how MitcheU would stakeholder and then to 'sense-check' particular this classification MitcheU's Where manager. didn't the next resonate, predictions to 'recaUbrate' the point on the scale at the attributes (Power, Legitimacy, to exist (and below which to be present). A perceived and with the

in Figure 3) was then used across aU 14 At the same time, individual managers managers. were an adapted form of also asked to complete et al.'s questionnaire CovieUo (1997) of contempo shown In order to rary relationship marketing practices. to understand it easier for respondents make the nuances of the organization's practices to marketing was adapted in two the questionnaire stakeholders,

step was which any of

deemed Urgency) were was not that attribute score of >5 across consistent dictions

the three

vaUdity instrument

the prototype MitcheU itera developed through inductive tion in the pdot study until the instrument yielded the best predictions. This cahbrated instrument (also was

alignment and managerial and reUabiUty of

between

scales yielded the most these theoretical pre the Thus, experiences.

ways:

1. Marketing

'jargon' was

converted

to plain the the

EngUsh. 2. The questions were modified case of stakeholders general specific case of 'customers',

to represent rather than which

has been

122 Simon Knox the main focus of the CovieUo

and Colin Gruar strategy, i.e., to articulate Charity's marketing across nature 'worldviews' of the differing
management team about who reaUy matters

questionnaire

the the

in the past. Again, three the modified was pdoted with questionnaire to 1.5 hours and took about difficulties were identified and remained to record

among

stakeholders

respondents Minor complete.

deployed one of the artifacts appUed to surface

how marketing strategy to influence D them. Appendix

and

is being iUustrates

corrected. unchanged the views

the questionnaire Otherwise, and was used without problems

across the of aU 14 participating managers (see top three stakeholders they regularly deal with A for the modified CovieUo questionnaire Appendix C for an example of responses from and Appendix three respondents). the most tatively practice, tive of which their This instrument form dominant captures quaU of marketing

Despite these distinctive

views,

the SSM was produced when these differing worldviews. in opinion about the primacy of differences (and sometimes
view was reached

conflicting)
about the

world
choices

a consensus

the management

marketing choices needed discussed topology findings

a new relationship has for developing It was acknowledged that these strategy. to reflect

each manager considers representa with these stakeholders. exchanges

the changing environment also cause shifts in the earUer and may ofthe Charity's stakeholders. Our research in the next section.

are discussed

on managerial this could range function, Depending in the recruitment of regular donors, from engaging to lobbying for funds from the Department of Health or seeking by a corporate respondents marketing CovieUo's only to be sponsorship partner. The response from of a TV commercial individual of by is

Research The

findings

saliency of priority stakeholders

produced practices existing expected is about such

rather

forms many divergent not covered currendy framework. This in

or

MitcheU's

classification

since marketing affecting smoking

selling

in this NP social substance

services.

theory of stakeholder saUency has proved in enabUng the organization's priority to be identified in a more stakeholders systematic instrumental The results are shown these priority classification in Figure 4, which are and stakeholders on MitcheU's Usts their theory

organization behaviors,
abuse, etc.

as
than

changes cessation,
products

way. who

saUency

based

at this stage they were However, SpecificaUy asked come to judgment not to about the efficacy of these since the majority of respon practices marketing famiUar with the basics of marketing, dents, although
were non-marketers.

Priority Stakeholders

Saliency

a soft stage of our research protocol, systems approach was again adopted in the form of an interactive The of this purpose workshop. was to provide the basis for a common workshop In the second understanding of stakeholder and to initiate organization or not each were considered whether saUency across the team discussions about

^R^^i

f'MKffBffih.,

,, ?___

to be covered the Charity's market existing practices. As an by was broad agreement about the there outcome, or not these of stakeholders and whether saUency stakeholders were reached tion's dominant FinaUy, shop were marketing the results from discussed with was through activities. the organiza work team. of Figure 4. The
saUency

this second-stage the management to about synthesize the direction

Our

agreed purpose the level of disagreement

a view

Charity's

priority

stakeholder

and their

of the

classification.

Application

of Stakeholder Theory diate

123

E for a fuU explanation of this (see Appendix additional classification classification system). An was to cover added the situation (unclassified) as a a stakeholder was identified qualitatively where priority but was not deemed currently to possess of the three attributes of Power, Legitimacy,
Urgency.

to be an is felt management attention) classification for Influencers (particularly appropriate and journalists with an important story or politicians on important policy initiatives) legislators working and CRM Tesco) who Partners offer large funding Discretionary Stakeholder (no pressure to engage although they can choose to do so) is felt to be an appropriate classification for the saliency of Grant Recipients, Donors, Partner Organi arrangements. for managers zations, (such as the high the potential of street retaUer

any or

research Charity, are perceived to be important the Grant Recipients who for and secure the apply to raise the money research need grants. The seen as being is the next priority through Donors Not surprisingly the most stakeholders be no funds there would are perceived to be in third Infiuencers place because they can create the right external in terms of environment for the Charity, particularly since without to distribute. this money, promoting the General money). increase joint Further awareness Public among (which in turn helps raise more comes Partner Organizations who of the need for itswork

for a medical

and Expert Audiences. In aU cases, the man agement felt that they initiate and sustain interaction with these groups. The General Public and Volunteers are felt to be appropriately classified as Dependent Stakeholders management organization). (depend on the advocacy and have no real voice Both of internal the within

Next

the reach of the Charity's work, providing and further funding opportunities. programs can come

Unclassified. This regard them as being priority stakeholders, they did not register as possessing of the three MitcheU any characteristics. with that The reasons for this were discussed evident to the team and it became the management there are differing views attached

Prospects and Beneficiaries were reflects the fact that whUe managers

in fundraising activity growth from attracting new donors and hence Prospects are seen as being next in importance. Expert Audience, can augment such as the British Medical Association, the authority of the Charity's work and represents an to promote key of opportunities Volunteers, the operations policy decisions. Without and other community fund of the Charity's shops would grind to a halt and the money avaUable raising to Grant Recipients would be severely reduced. influential network FinaUy, the level of funds raised is further augmented through relationships with CRM Partners. The big low managerial gest surprise of aU is the relatively

of Prospects and Beneficiaries. Some feel importance are inadequately in these stakeholders represented to keep the organization it important and consider them as a priority, hence the 'unclassified' category. could also think of relevant examples of Managers MitcheU's had not stakeholder classifications which = some come to light Dormant (e.g., initiaUy potential partner organizations with whom strategic in the future; Demand alliances could be formed = some lines of time to press enquiry, from ing = the Dominant time; Commission; Charity = the anti-animal PETA, Dangerous possibly
research organization), although these were gener

of the importance of Beneficiaries (the perception is ultimately the organization trying to help), people did emphasize that they although some respondents were Next actively we trying
across the

to amplify
organization.

the

'voice

of

the

to be distant neighbors aUy considered stakeholders identified here.

of the priority

beneficiary'

stakeholder

report on the classification of each salient stakeholder group using MitcheU's the model based on appears the observed of to have a good fit alignment stakeholder predictions.

Tlte dominant marketing practices across stakeholders The third main of to report was a clear under dominant practices marketing in their stake the Charity's managers result the activities. are These dominant mar

theory. Again, with practice, between influences Three

perceptions managerial and MitcheU's theoretical are found identified

standing

of the seven MitcheU Dependent) stakeholders

classifications

Discretionary; the priority ment

(Definitive; to be relevant to

adopted by holder relationship keting

team. Definitive

Stakeholder

by the manage irnrne (command

in summary form in shown practices are 5 and the descriptive statistics, which Figure used to identify both the Charity's and dominant

124 Simon Knox

and Colin Gruar

| Stakeholders |

Priority

-J

Sa,iencv &a?ency -J

-iDominantMarketing Practjce

___ ____ _? _____ __ ____! __H____?

wmmMsmmm wmmmmgrnm ?-i_?ag

_^?? _B_H_? |o_abas? ~|

liBB8HHp!?fe

ISWWi^^^_^SSS|
practice by stakeholder group.

Database I

Figure 5. The Charity's

dominant marketing

contemporary marketing I below. Table These results have the Charity's et al.'s CMP

practices,

are presented

in

more

a high

level of resonance

with

aspiration the 10,000 volunteers, between the organization

of

an

than level

over reaUty; with contact of personal is not and the volunteer

that CovieUo management, showing is instrumental framework in explain The observed fit between

ing observed practice. classification CovieUo's

of exchanges and managerial is also good. AU types of these marketing practice are identified as being used (transactional; exchanges interaction and network marketing), dem database; a pluralistic to the Charity's onstrating approach

know Ukely to be high. Individual managers would some volunteers which may help explain personaUy it transpires that there is no this result. However, for managing volunteer single point of responsibiUty to develop there is no mechanism staff; consequently, more formal marketing for communicating practices with these volunteers such as database marketing.

among its priority stakehold relationship marketing ers. Network was common the most marketing used. Grant Recipients, approach being Influencers, Partner Organizations, and CUM Expert Audiences, contact or Partners are managed through personal contacts making it possible and, therefore, productive to establish strong relationships with key individuals. is used for the mass-market Database Marketing to Donors, Prospects, and Beneficiaries; aU of activities which less personal communica typicaUy involve tions with numbers In situations of people. large where there are no connections with (e.g., communicating dominant marketing The through relationships the General Public), the

The

emergence of differing worldviews strategy

about the existing

marketing An

came interesting and unexpected finding, which to Ught during the interactive workshops, was that stakeholder saUency is clearly a social construction the part the Charity's managers. differing groups of the management have different very perspectives of Our 'who and what really matter' of the transcripts analysis these workshops led us of In other popu on the

on

words, lation question nization.

to the orga and artifacts to the con identi

transactional. practice becomes in these results appears to be with only anomaly the Charity's Volunteers who were regarded as being to through interaction. This was felt to be

generated by clusion that three distinct worldviews

can be

marketed

the perceived of a fied, each describing importance to how stakeholder the goals of the according were variously sche organization interpreted. The

Application

of Stakeholder Theory TABLE I

practices

125

Summary

Statistics

of

the

dominant

and

contemporary

rtiarketing

across

the Charity's

main

stakeholders

Stakeholder

Top

stakeholders:

frequency

of mention

Dominant

and

contemporary

marketing

practices

by managers

Transaction

Database

Interaction

Network

Grant recipients
Comment: Recipients. as a member On This of makes

5
aggregate,

6 4 14 21
managers intuitive of sense place as the an emphasis established or on Network practice as individuals is for and Interaction to researchers marketing interact with with practices the organization Grant either

a group

researchers

(Network)

(Interaction).

Donors
Comment: This This Supporters. a or from targeted profile makes

4
reveals intuitive shot a on Database managerial emphasis are sense as voluntary donations using database technology.

16
and Transactional secured either from

18
marketing * an exchange'

20
practices such with as money Financial in a tin

maU

generated

Influencers
Comment: appropriately This

5 4 6 12 3
profile reveals established the emphasis practice. put on Network marketing in managing relationships with Influencers, again

reflecting

General pubHc
Comment: PubHc, This reflecting

11 9 2 5 3
profile reflects the practice emphasis and estabHshed the put on Transactional use of appropriate and Database techniques marketing for dealing when with with dealing a mass market. the General

Partner orgs
Comment: Organizations, form business This

2 2 62 8
profile reflecting networks represents estabHshed to 'spread the use of Network For and Interaction individual marketing managers wUl techniques interact when and dealing groups with Partner wUl instance, of managers

practice. the gospel'.

Prospects
Comment: prospects

0 8 10 0 2
This profile reflects the extensive use of Database technology to identify, score and target the most attractive

Expert
Comment: estabHshed

audiences
This Network profile

0 0 4 14
reflects the role of personal and professional influence on Expert Audiences and is consistent with

practices.

Volunteers
Comment: higher This

1 4 5 8 2
profile level represents probably the variety the of ways close in which relationship the Charity between communicates a manager and with certain Volunteers, volunteers. with the

Interaction

reflecting

CRM
Comment: the

partners
This

3 12 3 1
profile is pluralistic. CRM partners and be are managed in a variety and the the of different stage in ways, depending of of the the on the nature of For transactional) used in

instance,

tactical, (strategic, relationship specific Database may techniques marketing may and offers be a used higher for a more return.

development stages

transactional/early where the higher

marketing justify

strategic/estabHshed

relationship

investment

relationship. in resources

relationship. Network is easier

to

mata
these

shown
worldviews.

in Figure

6 were

created the

to capture of dif

Worldviews tacit ways

Each worldview
ferent managers

represents
who compete

interests
for

resources.

are rarely articulated but represent the of thinking that managers have developed over time to simplify the complexity of their real world situation. of example, should By way

126 Simon Knox Worldview

and Colin Gruar Worldview 3

1 Worldview 2

I RasinS \\^-l ?^^~l^~^\ f Moneyto] [ I SustainthiJ {??__,, J I j*"Fyto 1 ./ \. \ y

V^-?7 /Fighting'thA^ J^~"\ J^-X disease'in the K^oingVitaK i Medical I Community ^SupportedX byV? ] / f Research V \ Research \ / y

m?p
Figure 6. The three coexisting worldviews

^@3
of the Charity's management.

^s@3

attention management the organization wiU be driven by overaU, satisfying the interests of the research community (Grant Recipients) and the marketing strategy would on them. Thus, marketing be focused primarily then research perspec practices would adopt a medical 2' dominates, tive. If 'Worldview then the organi zation wiU be driven by the need to do the work that appeals most marketing perspective. marketing to Donors strategy, For 'Worldview which and to justify would 3' have this through its a donor the

'Worldview

1' dominate

heuristic, based on the judgment of the management team and has served to guide strategic direction over a period of years. However, particularly as results of the output from reported the final workshop debrief the foUowing the work here, and a

range subsequent post-workshop of marketing strategy choices has been identified by the for further discussion: Charity's management Strategy medical research Choice research 1: Maximize activities the Charity's and constrain non

need the strategy would to of large social marketing programs promotion the general pubUc. These marketing would practices a healthy Uving and health care be about promoting in the community. results are significant as the direction ofthe overaU relationship marketing strategy organization's is contingent upon which worldview garners most activities These

to dominate, to focus on

to the level of 'surplus' activities funds avaUable at any point in time. Continue to grow funds primarily for research purposes. 2: Focus on prevention of Strategy Choice the medical optimum education mix versus condition by of medical community the detennining versus research care activities

attention management conclude by proposing each strategies keting reahstic

within a number of which

the

Charity. of differing mar are regarded as

We

to raise Seek against predetenriined goals. to cover this new mix of the funds necessary activities. 3: Focus on 'root cause' pre Strategy Choice current vention research by mamtaining a more levels (but with focused expenditure and selective research agenda) whUe seeking to grow education care activ and community ities to a similar level within the next 5 years. In effect, this strategy would double the size the Charity and would require doubling to achieve this mix. the funds needed these choices, they have the management by a and thought the However,

for the organization relationship marketing

to achieve. strategy choices

Identifying The

adopted to surface the tacit knowledge and routines within the Charity has resulted in a awareness ofthe consensual greater strategic tensions to foster an inte that exist and in a corrimitment strategy development. states is a simple rule, which that 70% of expenditure should be directed towards research activities and 30% towards non-research as education activities and care). This rule is (such there to marketing

SSM we

of

grated approach At the moment

In articulating been team wider deliberately in order debate

strategy

polarized to promote

in

the organization.

Application evaluation and what of these different marketing have on

of Stakeholder Tlieory
mented across

127
then this central

impact they may is currently an open question and the relationships the scope of this of further research beyond subject article. The purpose of our article is simply to re a port on the choices the Charity has in developing future cludes relationship our research marketing findings. strategy and con

strategies stakeholder

priority

stakeholders,

mission brand

enduring readily as the strategy wiU have from a common starting point (Van Riel, developed 1995). As the NP's brand values build, stakeholder awareness and affinity is likely to increase since new values of the NP information it awareness can be more readily consistently. and affinity is likely to result in greater can lead to loyalty across stakeholder groups, which in both the organization's efficiencies improvements (King, 1991). is communicated processed when This increased

wiU

translate more

into

Implications The work we

for

theory here

and

practice to theory work

and its effectiveness First, MitcheU's development has been successfully operationaHzed and applied in sector for the first time. Second, CovieUo's the NP CMP framework has been applied in a new sector (NP) broader solely FinaUy,
stakeholder now have

report in three ways.

contributes

Limitations The main

the choice

and limitation
we made

future ofthe
to

research work
focus on

directions here is in

reported
only one

and

adapted successfuUy of stakeholders, rather than constituency as it has been previously to customers used. using
the

to accommodate

organi

zation
position

in the NP
since our

sector. However,
research findings

it is a defensible
are concerned as

both
tools

applications
researchers to advance and

together
managers relationship

across
alike mar

much

with

groups,

about output marketing is

keting

theory through management as a research gap in our recognized Our work has

action which introductory

comments.

important framework CMP theory and CovieUo's on these findings sector first and to report that replication comes possible. across other NP Indeed,

as they are and protocol methodology of stakeholder and relationship saliency In our view, it is strategy development. to seek validation of both MitcheU's in the NP in detail so

to management also contributed it surfaces the importance of stake practice in aNP organization in shaping holder management strat the development of its relationship marketing since egy. It has started
among

be organizations nature the embryonic given of stakeholder theory and stakeholder marketing seem to us it would practices in businesses generally, that this model
senior managers

a process
the Charity's

of

engagement

and
team

could
in

now

also be readily used

firms.

by

reeducation

management

profit-seeking

by changing patterns of thinking and actions that are to the study has begun presently weU-established;
chaUenge the status quo and to sensitize management

Ave acknowledge the nature of our limit the generalizability of our results, other methods that could possibly have engaged a Although study does
more representative sample of NP organizations,

to

the need

for

a change
strategy At a broader

in direction
as the level, external there

of

their
envi

relationship ronment

marketing changes.

is con

of NP scope for other senior management to review their stakeholder marketing organizations siderable this integrated model, strategy by deploying partic charities that compete for ularly among research-led
their donors' 'share of waUet'. Moreover, such a

such as quantitative survey techniques, would simply lack the necessary depth. To unravel the complex across issue of identifying stakeholders priority and formu by surfacing tacit knowledge consensual view of marketing strategy lating refec requires cycles of management development tion and action; a very difficult task to quantitatively a achieve
techniques

functions

is likely to surface the presence of systematic 'tribal' behaviors, which may not fully manifest any the organization's in their marketing central mission review to different reached stakeholders. If a consensus about how the marketing is agreement is imple strategy

through
for

surveys
that matter.

or many

other

quaUtative research

However, methodology that most

the

of our generalizabiUty is a different question. We of NPs wiU

managers

suggest the recognize

128 Simon Knox in this paper and conundrum outlined management wiU be facing a bewildering array of they, too, stake (and potentiaUy poorly defined conflicting) holder needs insufficient
important ences over

and Colin Gruar A Stakeholder

Appendix CovieUo

and competing for the aUocation of resource. who their most Knowing
are-their successes in needs changing and influ social future

adapted CMP Questionnaire: Practices Communication Respondent: Company: Department/Role Priority 1. The Stakeholder ID:

stakeholders

behaviors

and what

resources

should

be allocated

an agreed relationship marketing strategy through as wiU also be acknowledged other NP managers by a critical strategic issue to resolve. Indeed, many NP wUl have wrestled with these issues but managers a utilitarian if any, wiU have developed ap a rigorous with theoretical basis (Gruar, proach few,
2005). For this reason alone, we offer our integrated

of purpose to: stakeholders is

communicating

with

this

Generate income or other forms of support or provide with beneficiaries information,

help, or support.

model use

and research sector. have

approach identified

to others a number

for general of areas for

in the NP FinaUy, we
research:

supporter Acquire Build a long-term

ers or beneficiaries.

or beneficiary relationship

information. with support a number in the field

further

Continue stakeholder MitcheU's Develop framework Continue holder

the case of internal investigate in NPs and to develop saliency to cover this research gap. theory an application CMP of CovieUo's to to these to research internal stakeholders. the link between stake

strong relationships with Forming of partner organizations engaged of health improvement.

2.

Our

communication

activities

with

this

stake

holder

involves:
to the mass market.

practices

marketing at the rela by looking specificaUy of saliency and the portfolio tionship between (or level of relationship marketing practices saliency resources) applied by marketing sector. in the NP

and contemporary

Communicating

Targeting
Individuals

SpecificaUy supporter(s) or beneficiary(s).

at various levels

identified
in

segment(s)
our organiza

of

marketing management As with businesses

tion personaUy interacting with in health improvement. engaged Senior managers

from

stakeholders with other

engaged

in general move towards engaging this future their stakeholders more effectively, agenda may weU firms as weU. find application in profit

networking
partner organizations

managers

in health

research seeking

improvement.

3. Contact with Acknowledgements would We particularly

managers their who contributed

this stakeholder no

is best described

as:

Hke
to

to

thank
this

the Charity's
through reflections competing Hugh School in Wil of

Impersonal
contact).

(e.g.,

individual

or personal

research timely and Dr

and corrimitment, participation, schedules their work heavy despite on In our their time. rewrite, pressures son and Dr Iain have to our present bHnd Davies also been the of the very

Somewhat Involving
to-one account

(e.g., by direct mail). personalized in the one individuals nominated

of the activity (e.g.,

management management).

Cranfield helpful

Management how by one best of

suggesting suggested

descriptive reviewers.

statistics

(e.g., involving Interpersonal ment of strong relationships

key decision makers on

the often

establish between
basis).

a one-to-one

Application 4. When we

of Stakeholder Theory wider

129 network of in

interaction

communicate with this stakeholder the is such thatwe beUeve they expect: contacts with no future contact with
us. contact with

partners

engaged

health work. 7. Our communications is focused

market.

Impersonal
as a result.

stakeholder personalized
personal one-to-one contact personal

on

for this planning issues relating to:

Some
(e.g., One-to-one Ongoing

future
direct mail).

contact
with

us
The mass

people
network.

in our

organization

and our partner

groups of supporters or beneficiaries. in the general population individuals Specific or decision makers we deal in organizations we need. with whose support Particular The relationships
in our

between
partner

individuals
network.

and

5. The

interaction

we

have with

this stakeholder
8.

organizations

is best described formal

as :
Our communication resources (e.g., people,

Mainly

contact
adverts,

at arms length
and mailers.

through

time, money)
One or

for
of

this stakeholder are invested in:

our core activities of Educa

correspondence,

Formal with nominated A named

occasionaUy individuals. or contact

direct

contact with who with is

several

individual

Care. tion, Awareness, Fundraising, Community & systems to improve commu Technology
nication with any of our audiences.

for the overaU responsible limited social contact. A mixture the of formal of the development to both parties. important departmental this stakeholder
new or

relationship

and social

contact with being

and Establishing sonal relationships Developing

across our

one-on-one building with individuals. organizations

network.

per

relationship

our
Partner

relationships

6. Our with
Attract

activities communication are primarily intended to:

existing supporters or

9.

Our

communication

activities

for

this

stake

holder
Functional

are carried out by:

marketers (e.g., marketing manager,

retain

beneficiaries.

Get

information

to new

supporters with
or other

or bene

head of marketing, Marketing have primary People who other aspects

(e.g.,

Director). for responsibUity and undertake

part of a broader

ficiaries. Develop
supporters holders. Coordinate customers, activities and other between parties ourselves, across our

of

the business
activities as

stronger
or

relationships

existing
stake

communication remit Many The General, Legacy

beneficiaries

Manager). across the business. team (Director

employees senior

management and Heads

Directors,

of Department).

130 Simon Knox B of the ethnography of Checkland's

and Colin Gruar

Appendix An

Ulustration

seven-step,

soft systems applied

to the Charity.

SSM

Research process11 series of meetings as part ofthe process aUocation

mechanism

Researcher

reflections

Step

Problem identification

situation

with Charity's where of

key

manannual

The need the iency 'what' Having

agers planning the of

starting point to prioritize 'who') ofthe the and key

was

recognition (i.e., how

ofthe define the sal affect

stakeholders understand stakeholders chooses

process resources was underway

the

organization recognition second research of a step

might to do.

Step

Problem

situation

Definition to expressed conduct

of the

scope

and

agreement

gained the of as the

ofthe was

problem the was of

research

situation, scope defined rebranding

agreeing which project

work bigger

part

the Charity.

Step 3
Step 4

Root definitions of relevant purposeful activity systems

Conceptual models of named systems (liolons) the root definitions the in

Root

definitions and 'holons' were drawn up collaboratively between the

researchers and reviewed workshop. and by the a group relevant managers in a with. of managers work

Exposure of SSM to the managers was held in the background, with thefocus being on dis
cussing erally found situation. the problem gen Managers to the approach easy and useful A few in acquiring greater on ology and went problem situations. commented the ously 'holons' been to seen describe as a on the 'power' had previ almost of managers expressed interest

SSM

of knowledge to use the approach

the method in other

Step

Comparison

of models

SSM

workshop and the

Managers real world

what complex, -

indescribable problem
up' discussion about improvements.

and how
cross

it 'opened
functional

Step 6

Changes:
desirable

systematically
and culturaUy

SSM workshop
subsequent

and
feasible

The need
beneficiary' strategic

to strengthen
was surfaced for priority a cornerstone

the 'voice of the

and has become the of the organization, 3-year 'voice This of at other busi a

meetings

Step

Actions:

to

improve

the

Business

planning

process problem situation

forming ness plan. initiative An beneficiary' adding ries to

to has the

ampUfy started.

the

of

the

includes beneficia forums.

representation level and

at CouncU

Application Appendix Illustrative C to the CovieUo

of Stakeholder Tlteory

131

responses

questionnaire

from

three respondents

I Respondent Stakeholder_ Group

I I

Contemporary IDatabase

Marketing Practice I Interaction INetwork

Transaction

|R1 Financial
Database

Supporters 1_|_ |_|_ Comment: This profile reveals the emphasis

marketing a mass are to communicate market secured; with

|5

\0|0 |4

placed on Transactional and

It also reflects to face illustrates

this audience. The

the lack of use of Interaction and Network marketing, which

with expected donations which database situation. either through profile a face

is to be
in

the way transaction

such as 'money ina collection tin' or through the use of targeted mail shots
using

Prospects Comment: treatment

contemporary

4 , 0 0 1 1 1 This profile reveals there is little difference between in terms of of current supporters and prospects [5
marketing practices adopted by management._

technology._

the the

2 Community I
Care_|_|_[__|_ provides transcending a range the of services of

[~2
which are

|2 [~3
delivered marketing in a variety practices. of ways, the E.g.

Comment: This profile is pluralistic and to be expected. Community Care

gambit contemporary

purchase of medical monitors (transactional); the mailing of registered patients with health advice (Database); the visit of a nurse to a patient (Interaction); and the work of a nurse with Partner Organizations to _ _ progress health education in the community (Network) I 0 Financial f~4 i~6 |R2 p5 Supporters |_|_|_|_ Comment: This is a different manager illustratinga similar profile to
respondent 1._ Here,

Prospects j Comment:

\3
the respondent

I6
puts

0 I

[0
emphasis on database

a greater

1); marketing when dealing with prospects (compared to Respondent reflecting a different type of prospect within the prospect stakeholder group

Volunteers

|2

I3

1 I

I3

Comment: This profile is pluralistic. Volunteers are subject to a variety of marketing practices including transactional (agreeing the hours of work); Interaction through working with their via newsletters; database colleagues; and Network marketing though their work with other partner
_ organizations Comment: Network

|R3

Influencers | 1
This marketing

(Network)_ reveals profile to communicate

I1
the

[5 I2
the manager emphasis with this stakeholder group_ places on

Partner
Organizations
Comment: Network This

|o
|_]_|_|_
profile reveals

I8 Tlf~0
by the respondent_

an even

stronger

emphasis

placed

on

marketing

Expert Audiences
Comment: This

I0 \_|_|_|_
manager

|6
communicates

f~8 |~1
with Expert Audiences using

I_1

similar practices as those he uses for Partner Organizations_|

132 Simon Knox

and Colin Gruar

Appendix
An example

D
of a soft systems strategy development To preserve the anonymity ofthe Charity artifact about the Charity: root definition, CATWOE, and activity systems in

marketing

r-r^
J Of ?***-*

TT^iT
I y^fe^UfW-^-

{*?'***?-?I
I ._-.-?

<__ c

? MBfr***-t*la-'-s

|(

*n2?5 L^

/<^_r _ ___^f~f''

4*^l I

^v_______~___Z^

**---?***

*
y

<^ /

_^c____-nno**s>_^

) ZZS?3 ?^fys

(~g******t

Application Appendix MitcheU E et al. (1997) stakeholder Power classification

of Stakeholder Tlteory

133

by saliency and description Notes ^y/^ ^^\ Legitimacy

^^ Stakeholder /nominanA \ / / ,? f / / Stakeholder

/ Dormant
/

\ Stakeholder\ \
Discretionary\
>v /

\ / y/\
\ \

/ \ Stakeholder \
/Dependent \ / Stakeholder]/

Definitive

/ Dangerous \. / Stakeholder

X^

\ \
\.

Demanding Stakeholder
;/

/ /
Urgency

Stakeholder

typology

Stakeholder

classification

Description Possess need. holders firm.

& managerial but power Httle no

implications claim Dormant with of or urgent stake the their

'Latent

stakeholders'

Dormant

power, Their have

legitimate is unused. no

or

interaction be cognizant attribute. or to

potential Discretionary Posses There though most

Management to acquire

should a 2nd

not but power legitimacy on managers is no pressure they likely can to be choose to do of

urgency. engage group phi al is

so. This

Demanding

such lanthropy' Possess urgency These are the

recipients as non-profits not but

'corporate and CRM. or in the

legitimacy buzzing

power. ears bother of

managers' some but 'Expectant stakeholders' Dominant Possess

'mosquitoes irksome but

not

dangerous;

attention. only warranting passing and legitimacy and therefore both power to managers. influence. This group matters They a formal to interact wUl have mechanism with They attention. expect and receive much man

managers. agement Dependent Possess Depend management Dangerous Possess Coercive rate 'Definitive stakeholders' Definitive Possess mand likely holder tain predict

and legitimacy on advocacy, values urgency and and possibly Management legitimacy for

urgency guardianship influence. but

but

no or

power. internal

power

not

legitimacy. The corpo

destructive. need and to

terrorist. power,

contain. Com Most a stake cer

urgency. attention. of

immediate occurrence from conditions. these

management is the movement

expectant Managers

to definitive need

under to understand/

conditions/situations.

134 Simon Knox

The be disclosed. Route definitions are a method used to clarify in the has asked for its not to

and Colin Gruar

J. M. T.:

organization

identity

Balmer,

2001,

'Corporate

Identity,

Corporate

Branding and Corporate Marketing: Seeing Through Fog', European Journal ofMarketing 35 (3-4), 249-291.
Barnes, D. M.: Method 1996, and Theory 'An Analysis the Concept of the Grounded Quali of Culture',

the

definition general 3 CATWOE

of a purposeful is a mnemonic

activity. that defines greater

the elements of a purposeful specificity activity. 4 are a or Activity Systems diagrammatic representation of a defined models purposeful activity. A detaUed of the implementation of any of discussion the new in the conclu discussed strategies marketing sions per section and wUl is considered be reported outside elsewhere. the scope of this pa

tativeHealth Research 6(3), 429-441.

BergvaU-Kareborn, B.: 2002a, 'Enriching the Model

buUding Phase of Soft Systems Methodology',

Research and Behavioral B.: Science 2002b, 19(1), 27?43. BergvaU-Kareborn, SSM ModeUing 'QuaUfying Study', Systematic

Systems
in and

Function Practice

a Case

Action Research 15(4), 309-324. Marketing

of four RJ. ex and Mar Journal Berry, L. L.: 1983, in L. 'Emerging L. Berry, into one Brodie, Contemporary Scheme", Marketing', Perspectives L. G. on Shostack Service and

CovieUo

et al.

(1997)
[CovieUo,

Contemporary
N.E.,

Practices change Munro, keting;

Framework categories: H.J.: 1997,

is classified

G. D. Upah
pp. 25-28.

(eds.), Proceedings ofAMA

(Chicago,

IL), A
and

Development

"Understanding of a Classification

Checkland,
Thirty Behavioral

P.: 2000,
Year

'Soft Systems Methodology:

Systems Research

Marketing Management, of
Transactional: and impersonal. information yet distant. an on interactive trust. an economic

13, 501-522.]
transaction, at arm's length

Retrospective', Science 17, sll?s58.

Checkland,
Christopher,

Database: sonalized

and

economic

P. and J. Scholes: 1990, Soft Systems Meth inAction (WUey, Chichester, UK). odology
M., A. Payne and D. BaUantyne: 1991, Marketing (Butterworth-Heinemann,

transaction,

per

Interaction: face and based

relationship,

often

face-to

Relationship Oxford).

Network: tions, active

connected and adaptive.

relationships

between

Christopher, organiza

M.,

A.

Payne

and

D.

BaUantyne:

2002,

Relationship
2nd edn

Marketing:

Creating

Stakeholder
Oxford).

Value,

Although
stakeholders, been A that voice reported supporter gives time

it has also been possible

such here is (e.g., as employees and are the someone volunteer), lobbyist) to could influencers, bodies, the and

to identify
they

internal
not

(Butterworth-Heinemann,

Chronicle
CovieUo, 2002,

trustees,

have

of PhUanthropy:
N., R. Brodie, Firms 'How

2003, October
P. Danaher to their

27.
Markets: Johnston: An

and W.

research. of further subject or (a corporate) something money the cause. include government, research and other (e.g., donor) or

Relate of

Empirical

Examination

Contemporary

Marketing

Practices', Journal of Marketing 66(July), 33?46.

CovieUo, N. E., R. J. Brodie and H. J. Munro: 1997, Develop of Marketing Contemporary Marketing: 'Understanding ment of a Classification Scheme', Journal Management 13, 501-522. B. Montgomery: 1999, 'Charting New

(e.g., Relevant

poHtical

organizations auditors, professional policy

regulators, institutions,

medical NHS,

voluntary organizations. 10 in Marketing planning are most 'who' we deciding target audience) and what

this

context

is the in

process to to

of (the them

Day,

G.

S. and D.

Directions 63(Special
Dee, J. G.:

interested we are going

talking to say

for Marketing', Issue), 3-13.

1998, 'Enterprising

Journal
Nonprofits',

of Marketing
Harvard

are shown in bold; systems thinking about the real world are shown in italics (Steps 3 and 4).

(the offer we wiU make). 11 Real world activities

Business Review 76(1), 54-66. Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989, 'Budding Theories from Case Management Review 14(4), Study Research', Academy of
532-550. Drucker, Nonprofits', P. F.: 1989, 'What Business Business Review can 67(4), Learn 88-93. from

Harvard

References
A. R., R. C. Goodstein andj. W. to Wilson:

'A Brief Review of Peter B. Flood, R. L.: 2000, to Systemic Thinking', Checkland's Contribution
2005, Systemic Practice and Action Research 13(6), 723-731. 'Marketing Knowledge' Review 2003, the Nonprofit 46-67.

Andreasen,

'Transferring Sector', Andreasen,

R. L. FloodN. R. Romm:
Current Frooman, Research J.: 1999,

1996, Critical Systems Tliinking:

(Plenum, New York). Strategies', Influence

Californian A. R.

Management and

47(4),

and Practice 'Stakeholder

P. Koder:

Strategic Marketing

for Non-Profit Organizations 6(Prentice HaU, NJ).

Management Review 24(2), Academy of

191-205.

Application GaUagher, K. and C. B. Weinberg:

Success: New ChaUenges Review ship Marketing Sloan Management Gronroos, C: 1997,

of Stakeholder Tlteory
Marketing

135

1991,

'Coping With
Marketing',

Performance',

European

Journal

ofMarketing

for Nonprofit 27?42. Fall,

39(9/10),
Patton, E. Case Studies

1025-1048.
and S. H. Appelbaum: in Management 2003, Research', 'The Case for

Mix 'From Marketing a Towards Paradigm

to Relation Shift in Mar

Management

Research News
Payne, A., Value Employee, Enterprise

26(5), 60-71.
and P. Frow: 2001, the Shareholder Journal 'Relationship Integration Value of and Exploring and

keting', Management Decision 35(3/4),

Gruar, C: 2005, 'The Strategic Management

148-152.
of Stake

S. Holt Management; Customer

holder Relationships

in a British Not
doctoral UK). 'Total a Synthesis Relationship

for Profit
thesis

(NfP)

Organisation', Unpublished School of Management, Gummesson, Experimenting Australasian E.: 1999, with Marketing

(Cranfield

Performance

Models',

of Marketing

Management
Marketing: Frontiers', Payne, A., D. of Research 7(1), 72-85.

17(7/8),
BaUantyne

785-818.
and M. Christopher: 2005,

Journal

to Relationship Marketing 'A Stakeholder Approach 39(7/8), European Journal of Marketing Strategy',
855-884.

King,

S.: 1991,
1979,

'Brand Building
7, 3?13. for 'Strategies Organizations',

in the 1990s', Journal of

Introducing Journal Marketing of Marketing

Marketing P.: Koder, into

Management

Polonsky, M. J.: 1995,

to Designing

'A Stakeholder Theory Approach

Marketing Strategy', The

Environmental

Nonprofit

Journal of Business & IndustrialMarketing

Polonsky, M. J., D. S. W. Schuppisser

10(3), 29-42.
S. Beldona:

43(January), 37-44.
Koder, P. and G. Armstrong: 1999, Principles ofMarketing

and

2002,
Marketing

'A Stakeholder
Relationships',

Perspective
Journal

for Analyzing
of Market-focused

8(Prentice-HaU, Upper
Koder, P. and S.J. Levy:

Saddle Paver, NJ), pp.

1969, 'Broadening

550.

the Concept

Management
Porter, M. and Advantage ness Review Shapiro, zations', October, Tschirhart, M.: B. P.:

5(2), 109-126.
M. Kramer: 2002, PhUanthropy', 'The of Corporate 57-68. 80(12), 1973, Harvard Competitive Busi

of Marketing',
Knox, S. D.,

Journal of Marketing 33 (January), 10-15.

and P. French: 2005, 'Corporate

S. Maklan

Social Responsibihty:
tionships and Programme

Exploring
Reporting

Stakeholder
across

Rela
Leading

'Marketing Business

FTSE Companies',
Liao, M.-N., versus Societal

Journal of Business Ethics 61, 7-28.

and A. in Sargeant: 2001, 'Market Sector', Sector the Nonprofit and Voluntary

Harvard 123-132. 1996,

for Nonprofit Organi Review September

S. Foreman Orientation

Artful

Leadership:

Managing

Stake

International

Journal

of Nonprofit

holder Problems inNon-Profit Art Organizations

University Press, C. B. M. Van Riel, Bloomington). : 1995, Principles of Corporate

(Indiana
Com

Marketing 6(3), 254-269.

MitcheU, 'Toward R. a K., B. R. of Agle and D. J. Wood: Identification 1997, and Theory Stakeholder

munication (Prentice HaU, Upper

Webster, F. E.: 1978, Journal 2002, 'Management ofMarketing Case Study Marketing', K.: R. Yin,

Saddle River, NJ).

Science 42, 21-27. ? Design and in Industrial

Salience: Defining
ReaUy 853-886. Morgan, ment-Trust R. M. and Theory and Counts',

the Principle

of Who

and What
22(4),

Academy

ofManagement

Review

Research

S. D.

Hunt:

1994,

'The Marketing',

Commit Jour

Methods
1-4, pp.

(Sage PubUcations,
1-108.

Thousand

Oaks),

Chaps.

of Relationship

nal of Marketing 58(July), 20-38.

Munro, I. methodology Practitioners', J. Mingers: in Practice The Journal use 'The of Multi 2002, Results of a survey of the Operational Research

Simon Knox
of

and Colin Gruar

Society 53(4), 453-469.

Murphy, M. B., Jinwu P. Maguiness, Wang: C. 2005, Pescott, 'Stakeholder S. Wislang, Percep and R.

Centre for Advanced Research in Marketing, Cranfield School ofManagement, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 OAL, U.K. s. knox@cranfield. ac. uk

tions

Presage

Holistic

Stakeholder

E-mail:

Relationship