Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Stakeholder management models are the conceptual backbone of modern business ethics—and they show up constantly on exams. You're being tested on your ability to understand how organizations identify who matters, why certain groups get prioritized, and what ethical frameworks guide these decisions. These models connect directly to broader course themes like corporate social responsibility, ethical decision-making, and the tension between shareholder primacy and stakeholder inclusivity.
Don't just memorize model names and their creators. Know what problem each model solves: Is it about classification? Prioritization? Engagement strategy? Ethical responsibility? When you can identify the underlying purpose, you'll be ready to compare models, apply them to case studies, and nail those FRQ prompts asking you to recommend a stakeholder approach for a given scenario.
These models answer a fundamental question: Who deserves attention, and how much? They provide systematic frameworks for sorting stakeholders based on measurable attributes like power, interest, or urgency.
Compare: Stakeholder Salience Model vs. Power-Interest Grid—both prioritize stakeholders, but Salience adds legitimacy and urgency as distinct factors beyond just power and interest. If an FRQ asks about dynamic stakeholder relationships, lean on Salience; for straightforward prioritization, use the Grid.
These aren't theoretical frameworks—they're practical processes for gathering intelligence about stakeholders and planning engagement. Think of them as the "how-to" complements to the classification models above.
Compare: Stakeholder Mapping vs. Engagement Assessment Matrix—Mapping is diagnostic (who are they and what do they want?), while the Assessment Matrix is evaluative (are we meeting their needs?). Use Mapping early in strategic planning; use the Matrix to audit existing relationships.
These models emphasize ongoing dialogue rather than one-time classification. They focus on how organizations maintain productive stakeholder relationships through proactive communication and responsiveness.
Compare: Savage et al. vs. Clarkson Principles—Savage focuses on managing perceptions and risks, while Clarkson provides ethical guidelines for conduct. Savage is more strategic; Clarkson is more normative. An FRQ about crisis communication favors Savage; one about ethical standards favors Clarkson.
These models go beyond management tactics to address why stakeholders matter in the first place. They challenge traditional business assumptions and establish ethical foundations for stakeholder-inclusive practices.
Compare: Stakeholder Theory vs. Carroll's Pyramid—both reject pure profit maximization, but Stakeholder Theory focuses on who deserves consideration, while Carroll's Pyramid addresses what types of responsibilities organizations owe. Use Stakeholder Theory for questions about decision-making inclusion; use Carroll for CSR evaluation questions.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Stakeholder Classification | Salience Model, Power-Interest Grid, Stakeholder Circle |
| Prioritization Criteria | Salience Model (power, legitimacy, urgency), Power-Interest Grid (power, interest) |
| Strategic Analysis Tools | Stakeholder Mapping, Engagement Assessment Matrix |
| Communication & Relationships | Savage et al., Clarkson Principles |
| Ethical Foundations | Stakeholder Theory, Freeman's Strategic Management Model |
| CSR Frameworks | Carroll's Pyramid |
| Dynamic Relationship Focus | Salience Model, Savage et al. |
| Visual/Matrix Tools | Power-Interest Grid, Stakeholder Circle, Engagement Assessment Matrix |
Which two models both use visual frameworks to categorize stakeholders, and how do their axes or dimensions differ?
If a stakeholder suddenly gains media attention during a corporate scandal, which model best explains why their importance to the organization has increased—and what specific attribute changed?
Compare and contrast Stakeholder Theory (Freeman) with Carroll's Pyramid: What fundamental question does each model answer, and how might you use both together in an FRQ response?
An organization discovers that its community engagement efforts aren't meeting local residents' expectations. Which model would be most useful for diagnosing the gap, and which would guide the ethical principles for improvement?
How do the Clarkson Principles and Savage et al.'s model both address stakeholder relationships, yet differ in their primary emphasis? When would you recommend each approach?