Introduction
The dynamic stakeholder theory, developed by Ronald Mitchell, Bradley Agle, and Donna Wood, revolutionizes how we think about a company's relationship with its environment. Instead of a static list of entities, it proposes a model where a stakeholder's significance is fluid. This significance depends on a dynamic combination of three key attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. This article explains how this concept allows managers not only to identify who matters here and now but also to predict which claims might become crucial in the future.
Power, Legitimacy, Urgency: Key Attributes
Mitchell, Agle, and Wood's theory addresses the problem of stakeholder selection by relying on three characteristics that managers attribute to different groups. The first is power, which is the ability to impose one's will on an organization. The second is legitimacy – the social acceptance of making claims. The third characteristic is urgency, which defines the time pressure and importance of a given demand.
The combination of these attributes creates seven types of stakeholders. Entities with one attribute are dormant stakeholders, often ignored. Those with two attributes are expectant stakeholders, whose voice demands attention. At the top are definitive stakeholders, possessing all three characteristics. They become an absolute priority, and their claims cannot be ignored.
Dynamic Map: Stakeholders Change Categories
The fundamental value of the theory lies in its dynamic nature. Unlike earlier, static models (such as Freeman's broad definition or Clarkson's risk-based approach), Mitchell's model demonstrates that a stakeholder's position is not a fixed characteristic. Groups can dynamically move between categories, gaining or losing individual attributes. For instance, a former employee (dormant) possessing confidential information (power), upon filing a lawsuit, gains legitimacy, and their case becomes urgent, making them a definitive stakeholder.
Law, Political Science, Ethics: Interdisciplinary Reach
This model extends beyond management, becoming a universal tool for analyzing social relationships. In the context of law, a legal process grants legitimacy to claims. In political science, the struggle for influence is a game of power and coalition-building. In ethics, urgency becomes a moral imperative for action. For a manager, this means the necessity of continuously scanning the environment and interpreting changes. The ability to read this dynamic map becomes a key strategic advantage, allowing for crisis avoidance and the building of lasting relationships.
Conclusion
In a world where the boundaries of influence and responsibility become fluid, Mitchell, Agle, and Wood's theory serves as a crucial compass. It reminds us that an organization's strength lies not only in profit but in its ability to read the social pulse and respond to changing expectations. Its main message is simple: significance is variable, and those who are on the periphery today may find themselves at the center tomorrow. This poses a question for us: in a world of conflicting interests, can we build organizations that are not only effective but also just?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF