Strategically Communicating

There are many definitions of the word “stakeholder.” Some definitions – like R. Edward Freeman’s – are broad and all encompassing. Others are narrow, focusing on specific areas of an organization’s or business’ influence. Here’s a short, cute video discussing stakeholder importance: http://wwwyoutube.com/watch?v=VHGTsEwbOJY.

After reading through numerous articles on stakeholders and stakeholder analysis, it appears the real question isn’t “who is a stakeholder?” but rather “who isn’t a stakeholder?” Regardless of the industry, when viewing stakeholder theory in its broadest sense, the pool of possibilities is pretty deep. Strategic management theory would argue that it’s essential to pay attention to, and provide value to, all stakeholders. But regardless of how large your organization and how substantial your resources, addressing all potential stakeholders simply isn’t feasible.

The Mitchell, Alge, and Wood, 1997, Dynamic Theory of Stakeholder Salience attempts to refine the definition of stakeholders by categorizing them into three main categories: Power, legitimacy and urgency. Those categories are fluid, and there is significant overlap. The Dynamic Theory attempts to address that overlap by identifying seven additional stakeholder categories. While this theory provides tools for management to identify/prioritize stakeholders, the researchers stressed the importance of developing managerial skills to increase perception, awareness and general leadership skills as it relates to both identifying, prioritizing and increasing value for stakeholders.

Does the Dynamic Theory of Stakeholder Salience narrow the definition of stakeholder analysis sufficiently? How can it be further refined? Dynamic theory aside, what other tools can managers use to help them prioritize stakeholders?

Who would have thought restaurant menus might ultimately decide where one spends one’s vacation? While I believe there are more factors to that decision than the gastronomic dimension (unless you’re a serious foodie), Baiomy et al’s study on “Menus as Marketing Tools” drives home the point that in marketing a product like a resort hotel that relies so much on the anticipation of a special and total experience, nothing is too tactical or insignificant for the marketing strategist to overlook. Everything has to “hang” together in the perception of the prospective hotel guest in terms of conveniences, like knowing in advance what manner of beast or vegetable matter is on the menu, and of intangibles like “sense of place.”

The researchers staked out a modest claim, and justifiably so. They can take this research in a far more fruitful direction not only by studying the reactions of the guests to the menu (as they apparently intend to do) but by studying online menus (or the lack of it) in relation to online customer reviews. Will it ultimately matter if a restaurant does a great job of publishing its menu if the restaurant gets only a two-star rating in Yelp?

The dichotomy might even open the restaurant to criticisms of false advertising, especially when there are sensory / affective words used. While a menu might truly serve as a restaurant’s “signature,” there might be more dynamics to consider when it goes online.