What is a stakeholder, types of stakeholders. Stakeholders are... Mapping government stakeholders

The concept of a stakeholder (interested person, interested party) in a business as a whole or in some individual business project, as an individual or legal entity that can positively or negatively affect the conduct of business or the progress of a project, is intuitively known to every business leader, every manager project.

The concept of stakeholders and the principles of working with them have been systematically presented in the works of Western researchers.

The concept of stakeholder, which is much broader, is sometimes confused with the concept of shareholder (Shareholder or Stockholder). The authors of the “Stakeholders” section of the 12manage.com website include the following as the main groups of stakeholders:

• shareholders and investors;
• creditors: banks and other credit organizations;
• partners and suppliers;
• buyers and clients;
• managers and senior management of the company;
• company personnel;
• trade unions;
• competitors;
• government and tax authorities;
• professional associations;
• mass media;
• non-governmental organizations;
• public environmental, religious and other organizations;
• local communities.

Obviously, this impressive list does not exhaust the list of all individuals or legal entities that can affect business. The concept of stakeholders, who form both the economic and human, psychological environment of a business or an individual project, is so important that the famous management specialist Edward Freeman formulates the key and only goal of any organization as achieving a balance of interests of stakeholders (quoted in).

The concept of stakeholders becomes absolutely critical in project management, where the environment is characterized by high dynamism. The corporate project management methodologies of some large companies require that key project stakeholders and their requirements for the project be listed in the project baseline (usually in the “communications plan” section). Here's how David Cleland defines the concept of project stakeholders:

Stakeholders (interested parties, shareholders) of a project are people (organizations) or groups of people who have, or believe that they have, legal claims regarding some aspects of the project. The purpose of interest may be to ensure personal interest, a share in participation, or to put forward requirements for the project; this goal can vary from satisfying informal interests in the process of participation in the project to making legal claims.

The quoted definition implicitly contains a very important idea: the attitude of one or another interested person to the project is characterized not only (we allow ourselves to focus the reader’s attention on this) and not so much by objective economic prerequisites, but, on the contrary, by a subjective attitude towards the project, business as a whole or (which is very critical) to the leader of this business or project manager.

The literature describes quite well the tools for analyzing stakeholders at an objective level: division into internal and external stakeholders, primary and secondary, “influence-dynamism”, “influence-interest” matrices, and so on. The tools and approaches we offer are a development of the ideology of stakeholder analysis of the consulting company Strategic Management Group (SMG) and, to a certain extent, are focused specifically on personal psychological analysis of the environment of a business or an individual project.

Analysis of any group of objects, events or phenomena (such as operational or project risks in risk management) begins with their identification. Stakeholder analysis can be carried out independently by the business or project leader, in the process of personal consultation with a consultant or coach, as well as in a group format (for example, at a meeting of the Core Project Team - the project coordination group). In the latter case, if group members do not know the stakeholder analysis tools, they need the help of an experienced facilitator, whose task is not to offer ready-made solutions to the group, but to manage the analysis process and explain the “subtle” aspects of working with the tools.

Both the leader and the group, not to mention consultants and facilitators, should form a clear understanding that the use of stakeholder analysis tools does not provide any additional information about the environment of the business or project, but only allows you to systematize what is already available, sometimes transferring it from subconscious level to the level of conscious perception and, based on this systematized, “sorted out” information, outline an adequate strategy for working with stakeholders. Therefore, all the proposed tools are essentially tools for visualizing information about the environment of a business or project, allowing you to transfer information from “subconscious” to “conscious codes”.

In this work we will look at four tools that have proven themselves in practice:

• stakeholder's map,
• interest table,
• matrix “support × power of influence”,
• an integral measure of assessing the business environment (or project environment) - Alexey Pirogov’s formula.

The last formula was developed during a training with employees of Probusinessbank, conducted by the first of the authors. The assessment methodology contained in this tool was proposed by the vice-president of Probusinessbank, Alexey Pirogov.

A stakeholder map is a tool that allows you to most adequately identify stakeholders. The very concept of “map” leads us to the question of the relationship between symbol and object. There is a well-known expression by Alfred Korzybski, who laid the foundations of general semantics, widely quoted by theorists and practitioners of neurolinguistic programming: “The map is not the territory.” That is, an abstract construction derived from an object, or the subject’s reaction to it, is not the object itself. Thus, the stakeholder map is a subjective representation (image) of an individual (leader) or group about the business environment or project environment. This image is displayed graphically in the form of some diagram (drawing). The process of identifying stakeholders is somewhat meditative. If the work is carried out in a group format or in the format of personal consultation, then the facilitator or consultant suggests presenting to the group (or the person being consulted) the sky, in the center of which the leader (“luminary”) is placed. Stakeholders are the equivalent of “stars” in the sky. At this stage, the main task is not to let out of sight stakeholders, individuals or legal entities that can have a positive or negative impact on the conduct of business or the implementation of the project. Brainstorming technology (for example,) is applicable to the process of identifying stakeholders in a group format. At the same time, each participant in the session develops his own visual picture of the business or project environment. Some of the “stars” turn out to be closer to the “luminary”, some further. Here the consultant or facilitator should ask the question on the basis of what principle the participants in the session placed stakeholders in one or another proximity to the leader. As a rule, the answer given by session participants is: “The more important this or that stakeholder is to us, the closer we place him to the leader.” The principle traditionally embedded in the visual image of the stakeholder map is completely opposite to what is declared - the degree of proximity expresses the degree of the leader’s ability to influence a particular stakeholder.

In fact, three concentric areas are distinguished on the mental map (Fig. 1):

1. Area of ​​authority/responsibility. This area contains stakeholders who report directly to the leader. And the most primitive strategy for the relationship between a leader and a given stakeholder may be administrative coercion (order). It must be well understood that many projects, especially in large organizations, are carried out within the framework of the so-called weak matrix organizational structure, when members of the project team are not functionally subordinate to the project manager. In this case, this area may appear empty when analyzing the project environment.
2. Area of ​​direct influence. There are interested parties here who are not subordinate to the leader, however, in accordance with his status, the leader can use the strategy of resource exchange (“you to me, I to you”) or persuasion when building relationships with them. At the same time, outright manipulation cannot be ruled out. When applied to project management, the area of ​​direct influence includes members of the project team who are not functionally subordinate to the project manager, other company employees whose hierarchical status is not much higher than that of the manager, the project supervisor, suppliers and contractors (if the manager works with them directly) , clients of the company (if the manager works with them directly).
3. Area of ​​indirect influence characterized by the fact that the leader is practically deprived of tools for direct influence on this stakeholder. The very meaning of the adjective indirect indicates that in order to influence a stakeholder, the leader is forced to use the support of a stakeholder located in his area of ​​authority or in the area of ​​direct influence. In a typical situation in this area, project management in relation to the project manager may include the project sponsor, almost the entire top management of the company, representatives of government agencies, and competitors.

Rice. 1.

As you might guess, the formal list of stakeholders in the environment of a business or project is huge, and when visualizing a stakeholder map graphically (for example, when depicted on a flip chart during group work), a geometric breakdown based on the “nearer - further” principle can greatly complicate the picture. It is recommended to connect the leader figure (“luminary”) with stakeholders (“stars”) using triple (area of ​​authority/responsibility), double (area of ​​direct influence) or single (area of ​​indirect influence) lines, neglecting the original geometry (Fig. 1 and 2) . Thus, the number of lines n = 1,2,3 characterizes the degree of possibility of the leader’s influence on the interested party.

As usually happens when using brainstorming technology, the resulting stakeholder map may contain unnecessary, unimportant information. The method for cutting off “noise” information is an expert assessment by the person being consulted or by a group of “importance parameters” of interested parties.

Rice. 2.

“Importance” is assessed on two scales (x / y in Fig. 2), where x = -5 ÷ +5, with a step of 1 (or smaller) characterizes the degree of support/opposition by a stakeholder for a project, a business as a whole, or a leader personally(! ), (–5 is the extreme degree of opposition, +5 is the highest degree of support), y = 0 ÷ 5 with a step of 1 (or smaller) characterizes the degree of influence of the stakeholder on the project, business or leader. At the same time, one should not mechanically cut off stakeholders with zero values ​​for the degree of support / opposition or power of influence, since, as we will see later, zero values ​​can be triggers (signals) of risks emanating from the project environment.

It must be borne in mind that the leader himself is the most important stakeholder and must give a self-assessment according to the x / y parameters, which will show (in case of sufficient frankness with the consultant, group and facilitator) the degree of his interest in the business (project), as well as a subjective assessment of the possibility of management this business or project.

It is the diagram presented in Fig. 2, and in the classical interpretation is called “stakeholder map”.

For small companies doing business locally, the power of influence of internal stakeholders in relation to the manager of an individual project, all other things being equal, can be assessed in accordance with the following principle:

• y = 5 – top officials of the company (president, general director, members of the board of directors),
• y = 4 – second persons of the company (vice presidents),
• y = 3 – heads of functional departments,
• y = 2 – middle managers,
• y = 1 – line managers.

This principle obviously stops working if we are talking about a large, geographically distributed holding company.

A stakeholder map built in this way allows you to visualize the threats emanating from the project environment. Let's look at Fig. 2. As for the threats from the “competitors” stakeholder, they are completely obvious. The situation with the “government agencies” stakeholder is less obvious. The attitude of the stakeholder “government agencies” towards the business or project is weakly negative (x = -2), the power of influence is quite noticeable (y = 4), and the possibility of the leader’s influence on this stakeholder is minimal (n = 1).

The stakeholder map shown in Fig. 2 is illustrative in nature, therefore those who use this tool for the first time should be warned against the temptation of an overly “enlarged” representation of stakeholder groups (“public”, “government agencies”, “suppliers”, etc.) It is clear that within a certain group there are legal entities (organization A or organization B) will have completely different “importance parameters”. At the same time, as for legal entities, it is extremely useful to indicate the decision makers (individual decision makers) on the diagram.

It is also worth paying attention to one sensitive aspect. Drawing a stakeholder map for a business or project demonstrates the leader's understanding of his or her environment. Although, as we have noted, work with this tool can be carried out in a group format, this “understanding” should not be made public, for example, within the organization as a whole. If the leader (project manager) evaluates two status persons of the company, for example, +3/4, 0/3, then there is a great risk that the latter will try to demonstrate to the hapless leader the power of his influence on the project, significantly exceeding his real powers.

The schematic diagram of working with the stakeholder map is shown in Table. 1.

Table 1.

The tools listed along with the stakeholder map in the list above (interest table and support × influence matrix) are often considered as auxiliary, but they carry additional semantic load.

Let's consider the principles of using the table of interests (Fig. 3). The information obtained during the construction of the stakeholder map, of course, can be presented in tabular form. At the same time, based on the obtained assessment of the degree of support/opposition by a stakeholder for a business or project, an assessment of the strength of his influence on the business or project, as well as an assessment of the possibility of influencing the stakeholder, a strategy for interaction with this stakeholder can be developed. However, often (especially if the leader uses the described tools without the help of a consultant) these assessments are formed based on completely formal considerations. For example, at meetings of project groups dedicated to the analysis of the project environment, you can hear the following statements: “The president of the company supports this project (x = +5), since the project is aimed at introducing an innovative product to the market that promises fabulous profits for the company.” In this case, not only the conclusions of professional experts who gave a negative assessment of the technological or marketing component of the project, but also the personal attitude of the company’s top person to the project may be ignored.

Rice. 3.

In the table of interests, the columns “stakeholder interests” and “tools of influence” play an important role. These columns represent a kind of test for the consistency of the estimates given. If the information in them corresponds to the true state of affairs, then the resulting expert assessments will be adequate. In addition, understanding the interests of a stakeholder and describing the tools of his influence on a business or project will help develop an optimal strategy for interacting with him.

The “support × influence force” matrix is ​​an xy coordinate system on a plane on which stakeholders are placed inside a rectangle -5 ≤ x ≤ +5, 0 ≤ y ≤ 5 (Fig. 4). At first glance, the resulting picture does not add anything new to the structure of information about the environment of a business or project. However, it is not. Stakeholders located in the upper left corner of this matrix (relatively speaking, -5 ≤ x ≤ +2, 2.5 ≤ y ≤ 5) pose the greatest threat to the leader.

You should also not neglect working with stakeholders with minimal power of influence, but with an extreme degree of opposition to the business or project. One reason is that these “minor” stakeholders can be used as a tool to put pressure on the leader by other stakeholders whose positions are not clear or are not expressed for political reasons (x = 0), and the power of influence is quite large. Thus, zero values ​​of the “importance parameters” x and y can signal potential risks.

Rice. 4.

If previously (for example, in a table of interests) a strategy for interaction with a stakeholder was written down, then when working with the “support x power of influence” matrix, it is necessary to answer the question of what this strategy is aimed at. The “importance parameters” of stakeholders, as stated above, have two components: the strength of support/opposition and the strength of influence. Theoretically, to reduce the negative impact of a certain stakeholder on a business or project, the strategy of interaction with him can be aimed at either increasing support or reducing the power of influence. However, the latter strategy is quite dangerous, since it obviously leads to conflict.

There are quite a lot of definitions of conflicts in the literature. For example, Olga Allahverdova and Alexander Karpenko define conflict as psychological, emotional (fear) and cognitive (misunderstanding) tension that arises as a result of real or imagined (expected) infringement of one’s interests by the other party.

If we are talking about an intra-company, industrial conflict, then the sources of its occurrence can be described using a simplified model called a conflict iceberg. At the tip of the iceberg, that is, the open position of the conflicting parties, lies the conflict over resources. A typical situation arises in project work in a matrix organizational structure of a company, when human resources are dually subordinate to the head of a functional department and the project manager. A borderline source of conflict, conflict over methods, lies at the “watershed”, when, for example, the parties to the conflict - the functional manager and the project manager - cannot agree on the priority of the tasks performed by the employee. However, the most serious sources of conflict, identification motives, lie in the underwater part of the iceberg and are hidden. These include values, beliefs, negative attitudes and behavioral stereotypes, and the individual’s accumulated experience. These identification motives are transformed into conflict factors: structural (for example, based on differences in the psychotypes of the conflicting parties, on gender differences), informational (when hidden information gives rise to multiple interpretations and assessments), value factors, relational factors (arising from negative attitudes) and so on .

Rice. 5.

In fact, an individual’s behavior in a conflict situation can be roughly divided into two components: the desire to solve the problem underlying the conflict situation and ego defense (Fig. 6). We will not provide a strict psychoanalytic definition of this intuitive term, which dates back to Sigmund Freud. In fact, conflict as such (see the above definition from) does not arise until ego-defense prevails over the desire of the conflict participants to find a solution to the problem. In this case, we can talk about, for example, the inability to maintain a balance of interests, ignorance of the methodology of decision making (Decision Making), and so on. In other words, a classic conflict arises only when the sources of its occurrence contain identification motives (the underwater part of the iceberg). The stages of development of organizational conflicts are well known and described in the literature. The complexity of their resolution is such that even at fairly early stages, conflict resolution is impossible without the participation of an external mediator.

Rice. 6.

It is quite obvious that choosing a strategy for interaction with a stakeholder aimed at reducing the power of his influence leads this stakeholder to the conflict zone shown in Fig. 6. Similarly, the strategy of completely ignoring stakeholders with a very high degree of opposition to a business or project, but with low power of influence, generates additional “human risks”. Ignoring an individual automatically indicates his low status and turns on ego defense mechanisms. And if at a certain moment the influence of this stakeholder increases, then he will immediately fall into the danger zone (upper left corner of the “support × power of influence” matrix, Fig. 5), after which building relationships with him becomes very problematic.

We conventionally call the last analytical tool that will be discussed in this article the Pirogov formula. During a training session with Probusinessbank employees, the bank's vice-president Alexey Pirogov raised the question of the possibility of creating some kind of integral measure characterizing business risks generated by the human factor. Previously, students analyzed several bank projects in the field of improving IT infrastructure using a stakeholder map. The formula proposed by Alexey Pirogov, and adjusted during the group discussion, is as follows:

Where

In the above formula, the summation is carried out over all stakeholders, excluding the leader himself. Thus, this model evaluates only risks external to the leader of a business or project, without taking into account his own motives (openly expressed or deep, hidden). The x value in the numerator characterizes the degree of support/opposition by a stakeholder for a business or project, the y value is the strength of the stakeholder’s influence on the business or project, the z value is the leader’s ability to influence the fate of the business or project, that is, if the stakeholder’s attitude is positive, then the leader, using his capabilities , increases the effect of support (multiplying by n), but if it is negative, then the leader tries to reduce the effect of opposition (dividing by n).

The denominator represents the normalizing factor (that is, ∆ = -100 ÷ +100). Indeed, the worst case scenario for a business or project of maximum resistance from stakeholders with maximum power of influence (x = -5, y = 5) gives the value ∆ = -100%; best when stakeholders with maximum influence support the business or project as much as possible, (x = +5, y = 5) gives ∆ = +100%.

After this formula was “approved” by the training participants, the students calculated the integral measure of risk ∆ for the previously considered projects. It turned out that projects initiated from below integrally receive a much lower degree of support, despite the formal approval of management, compared to projects initiated from above.

This model is quite tolerant of the figure of the leader and implies that he is able to use his capabilities “to the fullest.” Due to this circumstance, the model is asymmetrical. To assess its viability, a test case “Immobility Company” was developed, which is currently widely used in trainings of the CBSD Thunderbird Russia company. The group of listeners is divided into two subgroups, each of which receives a description of the same business situation. The first pages of the description (general information) are absolutely identical, the subsequent pages contain confidential information that is different for different groups. Moreover, the descriptions are drawn up in such a way that for the first group the situation looks absolutely disastrous, for the second – quite favorable. The statistics accumulated using this case show that the risks of a business or project generated by the human factor are very high if, on average, ∆< +10%. Если же ∆ >+40%, then “human risks” can be considered low.

In conclusion, I would like to make a few comments in order to form in readers the correct attitude towards the tools discussed above. In recent years, Bert Hellinger’s method of family constellations has become very popular in Russia (in the original, without distortions introduced by translators into Russian, the basics of Hellinger’s teachings can be read in books), which is actively transferred by consultants, adherents of the method, and into other areas. The concept of business constellations, organizational constellations, and so on appeared. The essence of the Hellinger method is that during group work, one of the participants states a problem, and uses the rest (perhaps not all) as substitutes for people, organizations and other objects that influence his life. During the session, there is a slow mutual movement of the client and the deputy. The first stage is finding a certain position in which (as is assumed), the substitutes begin to feel themselves in the role of real prototypes (substitute, field perception) in the current situation as is. At the final stage, there is a situation in which all participants feel comfortable, and the client somehow receives, through the final picture of the arrangement, a solution to the stated problem (the desired as-to-be situation). Sometimes, not living people, but inanimate objects are used as proxies. In fact, Hellinger constellations are nothing more than a “revived” stakeholder map or its modification – the “support × power of influence” matrix.

The Hellinger method is often criticized for the impossibility of justifying the phenomenon of substitutive perception by classical methods of psychotherapy and the lack of a wide base of confirmed scientific research regarding the effectiveness of constellations. We will not speak out either in support of the Hellinger method or against it. However, the very existence of the Hellinger method is excellent empirical evidence of the fact that a geometric model of a business or project environment can bring insight into the situation in which a leader finds himself. Here we must make an important caveat: in the presence of high-quality information. Indeed, if you do not rely on semi-scientific and esoteric concepts, then even the experiment with the “Immobility Company” test case, conducted at CBSD Thunderbird Russia, shows how important it is when analyzing the environment of a business or project to have adequate information obtained from adequate sources. Working with a map of stakeholders, a table of interests, a “support × power of influence” matrix, and Pirogov’s formula will not provide a ready-made solution - it will first of all make you think and ask yourself numerous “why?”

Literature

1. Allahverdova O.V., Karpenko A.D. Mediation is negotiations with the participation of a mediator. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Publishing House, 2007.
2. Cleland, D. Project Stakeholder Management. In the book. "Project Management" ed. J.C. Pinto. M.: Peter, 2004.
3. Panfilova, A.P. Brainstorming in collective decision making. M.: Flinta, MPSI, 2007.
4. Gardner, J.R., Rachlin R. & Sweeny, H.W.A. Handbook of Strategic Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986.
5. Hellinger, B., Weber, G., Beaumont, H., Love’s hidden symmetry: What makes love work in relationships. Phoenix, A.Z., Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, 1998.
6. Hellinger, B., Farewell: Family constellations with descendants of victims and perpetrators. Heidelberg, Germany, Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag, 2003.
7. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Sonnenfeld, J.A. Who Matters to CEOs. An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance and CEO Values ​​// Academy of Management Journal (1999), Vol. 42, No. 5, p. 507-525.
8. URL: http://www.12manage.com/methods_stakeholder_analysis.html

Views: 31,860

The modern economy needs radical modernization and strengthening of its competitiveness. This measure is aimed at Russia's technological breakthrough into the world economy. The institutional, financial, managerial, and technological areas of activity of enterprises and industries, reflecting the interests of the company's stakeholders, are subject to modernization.

Who are the stakeholders?

In short and succinctly, a stakeholder is a group, organization or individual that can be influenced by a certain company that is dependent on them.
There are two large segments: primary and secondary. The primary stakeholder is the immediate circle that has a direct impact on the business:

Owners, investors, shareholders, clients and employees of the company;
business partners.

A secondary stakeholder is a distant circle that has an implicit influence on the business:

Representatives of local and state authorities;
competitors;
The media, public and charitable organizations, activists, on whose opinions the people rely.

The main stakeholders can be represented by the local authorities of a particular region, on which the direction and development of the business depends. The most successful companies look at relationships not only within the firm, but also broadly outside of it. Taking into account the interests of clients, shareholders, employees and officials, businessmen develop their business more successfully. Not all stakeholder relationships are financial in nature.

Internal stakeholders are represented by top managers, employees, board of directors, owners, investors and shareholders. Their interests often do not coincide. Management craves freedom, shareholders crave more control. Employees want higher wages, management wants to cut costs. To resolve such disagreements, a system of incentives and motivations is being introduced. Thus, the company’s development goals become common.

Shareholders and investors

Shareholders bought the company's shares, invested their funds in its development and expect to receive financial profits. They are also interested in the growth of annual dividends and the growth in the market value of the company's securities. After all, if the shares were purchased at a speculative rate, the shareholder expects the value of the shares to increase, which means there is an opportunity to make money on resale.

The role of stakeholders who financed the company with their own funds is clear. Investors are interested in a quick return on business and constant growth. They risk their investments, so they are interested in stabilizing their investment portfolio.

Top management and employees of the company

The company's management is interested in the stability of the company's operation and the implementation of monthly and quarterly development plans. It is this factor that determines the size of the bonus bonus. The manager also strives for freedom of action and is very interested in his area of ​​responsibility.

The company's employees expect timely payment of wages and the availability of bonuses, social and insurance guarantees from management. Each employee is endowed with a special level of responsibility and authority within a narrow specialization.

Consumers, dealers and partners

The final stakeholder plays an important role. This is the consumer. This group uses products manufactured by the company. This segment is quite extensive, since it can include both manufacturing companies and individuals using the company’s products. The consumer expects from the company a quality product at an affordable price and fulfillment of warranty obligations.

The company's dealers and partners sell and supply the company's products to their counterparties. They are interested in the stability of the company, the quality of the product and service.

Suppliers and financial corporations

Suppliers of raw materials and products are interested in the company constantly purchasing from them, paying according to concluded contracts. Each supplier hopes to grow and develop the company in order to conclude more profitable deals and increase the volume of supplies.

Financial structures are interested in the stable operation of the company. If a bank has issued a loan to a company, it is also interested in timely monthly payments under the loan agreement.

Power structures and public groups

The activities of stakeholders and representatives of local authorities are to expect the company to replenish the city budget with tax revenues, provide the local population with new jobs and conduct business legally and transparently.

Public groups of the local population can be represented by both political parties and charitable organizations. These stakeholders want the company to accept their views. For example, environmental centers may oblige a company to eliminate emission sources. Or a sick fund may apply for funding for an operation.

All types of stakeholders, one way or another, are able to influence the dynamics of business development. Nowadays, many companies are faced with a paradox where the public is replaced by groups of individuals, representing a narrow target audience. The company's problem is to discern its potential clients in the mass of groups. This means accurately segmenting the portrait of the target audience. By correctly highlighting the interests of stakeholders, the company's business growth is ensured.

As a result of mastering the material in Chapter 5, the student should:

know

• o principles for identifying organizational stakeholders;
• o interests of typical stakeholder groups;
• o methods of influence of stakeholders on the strategic process and their consequences for the organization;

be able to

• o identify and systematize organizational stakeholders;
• o build a hierarchy of their meaning to achieve the strategic goals of the organization;
• o plan the use of stakeholder relationship management methods;

own

o methods of using power when making strategic decisions.

Stakeholders or influence groups

There are many definitions of stakeholders, or “coalition members” as they are sometimes called, but for our purposes we will define them as any group or individual that can influence or be influenced by an organization.

Stakeholder theory argues that the goals of organizations must take into account the diverse interests of various parties who will represent some type of informal coalition. The relative power of different pressure groups is a key consideration in assessing their importance, and organizations often rank them in relation to each other, creating a hierarchy of relative importance. There may also be certain relationships between stakeholders, which are not always cooperative in nature, but can also be competitive. However, all stakeholders can be considered as a single contradictory whole, the resultant interests of the parts of which will determine the trajectory of the organization's evolution. Such a whole is called a “coalition of influence” or “coalition of business participants” of the organization.

Stakeholder analysis involves identifying and organizing key stakeholders, assessing their goals, collecting information about them, using this knowledge in the strategic management process, and applying the adopted strategy. Stakeholder management involves communication, negotiations, contacts and relationships with stakeholders, motivating their behavior in order to determine the greatest benefit for the organization. Unlike stakeholder analysis, which is carried out for the purpose of better adaptation to the organizational environment, stakeholder management is a direct interaction with stakeholders. In reality, these two processes overlap. The importance of effective stakeholder analysis and strategic management of relationships with them will be discussed in more detail below.

Stakeholders can be divided into four main categories:

• o pressure groups financing the enterprise (for example, shareholders, investors);
• o managers who manage it;
• o employees working at the enterprise (at least that part of them that is interested in achieving the goals of the organization);
• o economic partners.

The latter category, by definition, includes both buyers and suppliers, as well as other economic entities. Each of these groups has different parameters for measuring performance, which will influence the types of tasks they set.

The behavior of pressure groups or coalition members is determined by their interests. These interests are relatively stable over time, and different groups are willing to exert different efforts to pressure the organization to adjust organizational behavior in accordance with these interests. Let's consider the typical interests of the main influence groups (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1

Organizational stakeholders and their interests

From the table 5.1 shows that each stakeholder group has specific interests, but there are also some areas where these interests overlap.

Now let's look in more detail at how stakeholder theory reflects the positions of some of the most important such groups.

Owners. The rational approach on which economic theory is based makes a number of important assumptions about owners. In particular:

• - the company exists for the benefit of its owners;
• - the owner’s only task is to maximize his financial well-being;
• - owners are interested in maximizing profits;
• - owners exercise full control and make all important decisions;
• - the owners' decisions are based on perfect knowledge, unlimited experience and abilities.

Top management. Modern thinking suggests that it is not the owners, but the top management that has the greatest weight in the strategic management of the organization. Ownership and management do not go hand in hand. It often happens that owners do not attend annual general meetings and senior management has the freedom to pursue their interests. Top managers can independently carry out the following important actions: receive higher salaries, payments in the form of various bonuses and change the structure of the organization in accordance with their own interests; launch projects approved by them; benefit from various activities.

It is assumed that senior managers can pursue their goals through the organization's objective of maximizing sales revenue. The argument is that increased sales mean greater prestige, higher salaries, a better position in dealings with financial institutions and an easier to manage staff.

Employees. The company sets goals and acts in response to the influence exerted by its personnel and their actions. Divisions (such as financial, production, etc.) are aimed at attracting part of the resources distributed by the company.

G. Mintzberg defines the leadership of an organization and its employees as an “internal coalition” and identifies six such groups from them.

Top management. Those who are the key strategists of the organization.

Operators. Those who produce products (services).

Line managers. Those who coordinate production activities.

Analysts. Those who develop planning and control systems.

Support staff. He provides indirect support to production as well as the rest of the organization.

What unites all these groups, according to Mintzberg, is ideology, which exists as if on its own and is made up of a set of beliefs shared by people within the organization.

Buyers. Buyers expect products or services from the organization that represent the acquisition of goods with their money. They are interested in the products (services) purchased that increase their standard of living in proportion to the price paid.

Suppliers. The problem of the organization-supplier relationship is not well theoretically developed. However, M. Porter points out that suppliers are concerned about their power in relation to the organization. They take into account the level of substitutability of products from different suppliers, their concentration, the existence of switching costs and the creation of dependency relationships (the costs associated with switching from one supplier to another).

Stages of system analysis.

The transition from the state of a problem situation to the state of the desired final goal must be carried out systematically, in an orderly manner, through the sequential implementation of certain steps. Moreover, each stage also has its own structure of smaller steps, which should be observed quite strictly - its violation can negatively affect the quality of the result of one stage and, consequently, the entire process as a whole. In addition, at every stage there are dangers of making a mistake or falling into a trap; you need to be aware of the possibility of committing such unsuccessful actions and use techniques to avoid them.

Having come to a systems analyst with a problem that he could not solve himself, the client initiates the analysis procedure. The analyst will take on the work of solving any problem, but only under certain conditions. These conditions are necessary for success. Without them, experienced analysts simply don’t get to work.

Conditions for success of system analysis:

1. Guarantee of access to any necessary information (in this case, the analyst guarantees confidentiality on his part),

2. Guarantee of personal participation of the organization’s top officials - obligatory participants in the problem situation,

3. Refusal of the requirement to formulate the required result (technical specifications) in advance, since there are many improving interventions and they are unknown in advance, especially which one will be chosen for implementation.

System Analysis Operations

If the client agrees to the terms of the contract, the analyst proceeds to the first stage, which, having completed it, begins the second and so on until the last stage, at the end of which the implemented improving intervention should be obtained. The presentation of each stage is standard: its input is specified; it describes what and what quality the output should be; indicates what actions and how should be performed; Attention is drawn to possible difficulties, mistakes, “traps” and advice is given on how to overcome them.

It would be wrong to think that a sequential linear progression of all stages will always lead to the desired result. In the practice of applied systems analysis, the final result is not known to anyone in advance; it will gradually be formed during the analysis (therefore, system analysts refuse to accept technical specifications from the customer at the beginning of the work, which defines what should happen). As a result, at subsequent stages of analysis, incomplete completion or an error in one of the previous stages may be discovered; you will need to return to it and correct the discovered flaw, again going through the stages already completed. The more complex the problem, the more returns will be required.

Stage 1. Fixing the problem.

The task of this stage is to formulate the problem and document it.

The formulation of the problem is developed by the client himself; The analyst’s job is to find out what the client is complaining about, what he is dissatisfied with. This is the client’s problem as he sees it. At the same time, you should try not to influence his opinion or distort it.

The worst mistake at this stage would be to immediately begin to solve the problem at hand. This cannot be done for a number of reasons.

· Not enough information after fixation

· Client's representations are not accurate

· During the research, it may turn out that in order to solve the client’s problem, it is necessary to solve not his problem at all, but someone else’s completely different problem.

Stage 2. Diagnosis of the problem.

The task of this stage is to make a diagnosis - to determine what type of problem it is.

Sometimes the solution to this issue lies on the surface. But often diagnosing the problem is not easy. An error in diagnosis will lead to incorrect actions and will only cause harm.

Making a diagnosis is a difficult matter. Since it is difficult to give any general theoretical recommendations for performing this stage, diagnostics turns out to be more of an art than a science; intuition, experience and luck play a large role in it.

Stage 3. Compiling a list of stakeholders.

All direct participants in a problem situation are called in one word - stakeholders.

The main difficulty in compiling a list of stakeholders is associated with the assessment (and therefore subjectivity) of the characteristics of belonging to the class of stakeholders.

Tips to make your work easier:

1. The list of stakeholders is a black box model for a problem situation.

2. Silent stakeholders

· Future generations

· Past generations

· Environment

3. Mnemonic clue “PIERCE”

P – users

I - performers

R - managers

C – owners

4. Tip from the European Commission

v What do you, as a planner, need to know? Whose opinions and experiences would be helpful?

v Who will make decisions about the project?

v Who is supposed to be the executor of these decisions?

v Whose active support is essential to the success of the project?

v Who is eligible to participate in the project?

v Who might perceive the project as a threat?

By answering these questions in relation to the situation, you will include among the stakeholders: the participants in the situation you need as experts; representatives of problem-solving systems; the same from problem-containing systems; who would be desirable to have as assistants during the implementation of the project; entities legally related to the situation; those who may be negatively affected by careless (non-improving) interventions.

The “elevations” of project structures are interspersed into the organizational architecture of the company. These “islands of business development” stand out on the “surface” of operational activities. The top projects are headed by their leaders - project managers. Connections with people who are directly or indirectly related to the project extend from them in concentric rays. This is the virtual image of modern enterprises in which the culture of project management is developed. Stakeholder analysis is important for PMs due to its relevance to the outcome of the task being reported.

Concept of stakeholders in a project

It is useful to recall the concept of stakeholders in an enterprise management system. These are employees or third parties (individuals and legal entities) who have a certain interest in the company as a system, its elements or their properties. Such interest, associated with the expectations and needs of people, comes down to a positive or negative impact on performance results.

Project management takes into account stakeholders who have interests and sometimes responsibilities, and who exercise their own roles in relation to projects. Stakeholders, also known as project stakeholders (PS), as an object of management, acquire particular importance due to their high dynamism, limited time and resources. The shortest list of interest holders in projects is as follows:

• The project team;
• investors;
• public organizations;
• authorities;
• business partners;
• consumers;
• competitors;
• customer.

Stakeholder analysis must take into account important methodological implications. It consists in the fact that the actions of stakeholders are based not so much on the economic interest of a group or company, but on a subjective position in relation to the PM, the project, the top person of the company or the business as a whole.

There are several classifications of project stakeholders. The most working classification is based on the factor of individuals entering the project and the company. Based on this, management and interaction with stakeholders is built. It is necessary to distinguish between internal, intra-corporate and external groups of interests and influences. I bring to your attention a model of project participation of external and internal stakeholders.

Composition of project stakeholders and relationships with external and internal aspects

Intra-project stakeholders (for example, the supervisor and project manager) act individually and in groups. Let us remind you that a working group, a project management team and a project team are created sequentially. The manager is responsible for analyzing the project as an object of management, must understand its features and, most importantly, imagine the opportunities and threats emanating from the environment.

PMs are also concerned with external stakeholders and their sources of influence. Let us remind you that these are entities that are not directly involved in the project, but can influence the implementation of the project. Their interests and leverage need to be analyzed. The stakeholder map, like other analysis tools, is based on the concept of stakeholders.

Promotion of the interests of the corporation (enterprise) in the form of social development of the team and increased participation in the life of civil society is embodied in the doctrine of CSR (corporate social responsibility). In modern society, corporate social responsibility is gradually becoming increasingly important. It is growing due to the emergence of diverse challenges in the global and local human environment (ecology, geopolitics, socio-economic problems, etc.).

CSR involves a multifactorial systematic approach to the issues of personnel development, their health and safety in the workplace, the environment, and social responsibility in the regions of operation. Social responsibility involves close cooperation with authorities, government agencies and public organizations in matters of social security.

The CSR paradigm takes a completely new look at business development, its restructuring and organizational transformation. Their context increasingly includes approval procedures with partners, suppliers, customers and workforces. In other words, a generation is growing up among the top management of global and Russian business that seriously takes into account the responsibility of business to society and personnel. Gradually this becomes the norm for business style.

How are the project stakeholders involved? The fact is that the concept of stakeholders was a logical addition and development of CSR. Stakeholders are the subjects invited to the CSR system to take into account their interests on a ranked basis. Whether we take on a mega project or a small scale project task, CSR as a new ideological model is gradually permeating their organizational fabric.

Stakeholder theory has a large number of developers, but R. E. Freeman (University of Michigan, 1984) is considered the founder. The concept considers the relationship of the project as an object of management with people, groups of people and organizations whose interests are determined by the project event itself, its realities as such. The project itself and its management turns into a special abstract phenomenon, a certain set of interactions between its stakeholders.

Strategic management as the supreme methodology is one of the key areas of application of the AP concept. And one of the tools of the concept is the Mitchell model. The developer of the methodology proposes to establish the importance of stakeholders through several attributes: legitimacy, urgency and power. These attributes of belonging to stakeholders are in dynamic equilibrium. A visual interpretation of the model is presented to your attention below.

Stakeholder Importance Identification Model

Procedures for primary analysis of AP

By analyzing the actual state of affairs using the Mitchell model, analysts are able to identify the most significant stakeholders and groups. Naturally, these include the parties with the greatest legal power, whose demands are fulfilled in the shortest possible time. The analysis is guided by peer review and brainstorming techniques. The combination of concentric circles with stakeholder groups included in them provides the first message for developing a strategy for interacting with them and achieving the best result for the project’s goals. In order to better establish the belonging of stakeholders to a specific group, it is advisable to use the following classification table.

Key stakeholders of the project and their interests

A good method for primary analysis of stakeholders is G. Savage’s method. It involves not only an in-depth classification of stakeholders, but also strategic models of working with stakeholders based on a matrix approach. The method is based on assessing APs from the point of view of their ability to pose certain threats to project events or interact in the interests of a common cause. As a result, G. Savage suggests, depending on the assessment, choosing one of the standard strategies: “Involvement”, “Interaction”, “Observation” and “Protection”.

Thanks to this logic, a stakeholder analysis matrix is ​​built. This matrix is ​​a table graph with the four sectors mentioned above. If the diagnostics shows an AP with a low level of readiness for cooperation and a low degree of threat, a strategy of monitoring the party and tracking its dynamics is chosen. When a party strives for interaction, but at the same time poses great threats to the project, it is advisable to choose active interaction with it. Here is an example of the Savage matrix.

Analysis of the ES according to G. Savage’s model

The AP analysis matrix also includes a diagram of connections between the parties and an image of the level of their influence on the project. The radius of the circles corresponding to each ES indicates the magnitude of its influence. Influence is formed as a result of multifactor integration in terms of the legality of the requirements of the AP, their significance and urgency.

Analysis of the project environment based on the AP map

In order to correctly identify project stakeholders, a stakeholder map (SSM) is used. It depicts certain subjective images of the project manager and stakeholders, groups as the environment of the project task. Typically, work on a map is carried out as part of a working group, the first task of which is to fully identify people who can influence the project. It is necessary to find out to whom control should be applied or attention should be given. At this stage, it does not really matter what kind of influence is likely: positive or negative.

Then the “interest holders” in the project begin to be divided into three levels of gradation. The first level includes APs that are directly subordinate to the RM. Naturally, team members have a special relationship with the project manager, who is responsible and exercises assigned powers in relation to them. This connection is marked on the map with a triple line.

Map of stakeholders and groups. First stage

A double line on the map marks connections with persons available to the project manager in the area of ​​direct influence. These individuals are not directly subordinate to the PM; the manager is forced to apply persuasive influence to them to achieve assistance or negotiate the exchange of resources. Finally, a single line marks connections with stakeholders who fall within the area of ​​indirect influence of the project task manager. Here, management as such is impossible, and the Republic of Moldova is forced to seek support from persons in areas of responsibility and direct influence.

To summarize, it is worth noting that the primary diagnosis of stakeholders, marked on the map, allows us to establish the degree of influence of PM on stakeholders. The level of influence is expressed by the number of communication lines. At the same time, in addition to the influence of the project leader on the stakeholders, there is a counter-influence of stakeholders on the results of the project. And they should also be analyzed and evaluated.

Two more types of expert assessment, implemented at the second stage of working with the map, deserve special attention. Responsibility for results also lies with the project manager. In the first case, the strength of stakeholders' support or opposition to the project (parameter X) is assessed in the range from -5 to +5. In the second – the level of influence of the stakeholder (parameter Y). Understanding that the project manager himself is a key stakeholder, he is also given a similar assessment. How will the AP map change at the second stage?

Map of stakeholders and groups. Second phase

Thus, the AP map allows the RM to present in a schematic visual form the threats that come from certain individuals and groups. Managing the situation and reducing the risks of such threats is one of the key functions of a leader. This map itself is fraught with some danger.

Although the expert work is carried out in a working group, the project manager must make efforts to ensure that the resulting information does not become disseminated. The fact is that the APs in power, who received a lower rating than their peers at the same level, will not hesitate to demonstrate the power of their influence, which can have undesirable consequences for the project.

In this article, we focused on the phenomenon of the project environment and the importance of stakeholders in achieving the results of the project task. The classification of project stakeholders allowed us to outline the halo of presence and their main interests. The genesis of the stakeholder concept as a logical development of the CSR theory is traced. Particular attention is paid to the analytical models of Mitchell and Savage. Stakeholder analysis methods enable the PM, as the main stakeholder, to build effective management and interaction with stakeholders.