---

name: "grad-strat-stakeholder" description: "Apply Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984) and the Mitchell et al. (1997) salience model to identify, classify, and prioritize stakeholders based on power, legitimacy, and urgency. Use this skill when the user needs to map stakeholders for a project or strategy, determine which stakeholders demand immediate attention, balance competing stakeholder interests, or when they ask 'who are our key stakeholders', 'how do we prioritize conflicting demands', or 'which stakeholders can block this initiative'." metadata: category: "WP-23 策略管理理論" tags: ["strategy", "stakeholder-theory", "Freeman", "Mitchell", "salience", "power-legitimacy-urgency"]

Stakeholder Theory

Overview

Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) argues that firms must manage relationships with all groups who can affect or are affected by the organization — not just shareholders. Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) introduced the salience model to solve the practical problem: which stakeholders deserve managerial attention?

When to Use

• Mapping stakeholders for strategic decisions, projects, or crises
• Prioritizing stakeholder demands when they conflict
• Designing stakeholder engagement strategies
• Evaluating CSR or ESG initiatives through a stakeholder lens

Assumptions

IRON LAW: Not all stakeholders are equal — salience determines
prioritization. A stakeholder's claim on managerial attention
depends on the combination of power, legitimacy, and urgency
they possess. Treating all stakeholders equally is strategically
incoherent.

Key assumptions:

1. Firms have obligations beyond shareholders
2. Stakeholder attributes (power, legitimacy, urgency) are variable, not fixed
3. Managers perceive and weigh stakeholder attributes — perception matters

Methodology

Stakeholder Identification

A stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives.

Mitchell et al. Salience Model

Attribute	Definition	Indicators
Power	Ability to impose will on the relationship	Coercive (force), utilitarian (resources), normative (social)
Legitimacy	Perceived appropriateness of the stakeholder's claim	Legal, moral, or presumed right
Urgency	Degree to which the claim demands immediate attention	Time sensitivity + criticality

Salience Classification

Attributes Possessed	Class	Type	Priority
P + L + U	Definitive	Highest salience	Immediate
P + L	Dominant	High salience	High
P + U	Dangerous	Coercive, may act without legitimacy	High (risk)
L + U	Dependent	Relies on others for power	Moderate
P only	Dormant	Unused power	Monitor
L only	Discretionary	No power or urgency	Low
U only	Demanding	Urgent but no power or legitimacy	Low

Analysis Steps

1. Identify all stakeholders — Brainstorm broadly, then categorize
2. Assess each stakeholder on P, L, U — Use evidence, not assumption
3. Classify salience — Map to the 7-type taxonomy above
4. Design engagement strategy — Proportional to salience class
5. Monitor dynamics — Attributes shift over time; re-assess periodically

Output Format

## Stakeholder Analysis: [Context]

### Stakeholder Map
| Stakeholder | Power | Legitimacy | Urgency | Class | Priority |
|-------------|-------|-----------|---------|-------|----------|
| [name]      | H/M/L | H/M/L    | H/M/L   | [type] | [level] |

### Engagement Strategy
| Class | Stakeholders | Strategy |
|-------|-------------|----------|
| Definitive | ... | Active engagement, co-creation |
| Dominant | ... | Keep satisfied, regular dialogue |
| Dangerous | ... | Risk mitigation, containment |
| Dependent | ... | Support, coalition building |

### Dynamic Risks
- Stakeholders likely to gain attributes: ...
- Coalitions that could shift power: ...

Examples

Good Example

Hospital expansion project: Definitive stakeholders (regulators: P+L+U), Dominant (medical staff: P+L), Dependent (patients: L+U), Dormant (media: P). Strategy tailored per class with specific engagement tactics.

Bad Example

Listing "community" as a stakeholder without assessing whether they have power, legitimacy, or urgency in this specific context. Salience requires context-specific assessment of each attribute.

Gotchas

• Stakeholder attributes are dynamic — a dormant stakeholder can become definitive overnight (e.g., media exposing a scandal)
• Managerial perception mediates salience — biases affect which stakeholders get attention
• Dangerous stakeholders (P+U, no L) are often overlooked but pose real risk (activist hackers, hostile regulators)
• Do not confuse stakeholder analysis with shareholder primacy — the framework explicitly broadens beyond shareholders
• Coalitions between stakeholders can aggregate attributes (e.g., dependent stakeholders gaining power through alliance)

References

• Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
• Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
• Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. Berrett-Koehler.