Stakeholder Salience Template - share & edit online FREE

Stakeholder Salience template to identify stakeholders by power, legitimacy and urgency. Define demanding, dangerous, dominant, dependent, dormant, discretionary and dependent stakeholders. Read more on Stakeholder Salience https://www.stakeholdermap.com/stakeholder-analysis/stakeholder-salience.html

马上开始. 它是免费的哦
注册 使用您的电邮地址
Stakeholder Salience Template - share & edit online FREE 作者: Mind Map: Stakeholder Salience Template - share & edit online FREE

1. Sign-up FREE to edit this map

2. Dormant

2.1. Salience

2.1.1. Power

2.1.2. Legitimacy

2.1.3. Urgency

2.2. Stakeholders

2.2.1. [enter name]

2.2.2. [enter name]

2.2.3. [enter name]

2.2.4. [enter name]

2.2.5. [enter name]

2.2.6. [enter name]

2.3. Description

2.3.1. These stakeholders have the power to impose their will through coercive, utilitarian or symbolic means, but have little or no interaction /involvement as they lack legitimacy or urgency.

3. Discretionary

3.1. Salience

3.1.1. Power

3.1.2. Legitimacy

3.1.3. Urgency

3.2. Stakeholders

3.2.1. [enter name]

3.2.2. [enter name]

3.2.3. [enter name]

3.2.4. [enter name]

3.2.5. [enter name]

3.2.6. [enter name]

3.3. Description

3.3.1. Discretionary stakeholders are likely to be recipients of corporate philanthropy. No pressure on managers to engage with this group, but they may choose to do so. Examples are beneficiaries of charity.

4. Dangerous

4.1. Salience

4.1.1. Power

4.1.2. Legitimacy

4.1.3. Urgency

4.2. Stakeholders

4.2.1. [enter name]

4.2.2. [enter name]

4.2.3. [enter name]

4.2.4. [enter name]

4.2.5. [enter name]

4.2.6. [enter name]

4.3. Description

4.3.1. Those with powerful and urgent claims will be coercive and possibly violent. For example employee sabotage or coercive/unlawful tactics used by activists.

5. Dominant

5.1. Salience

5.1.1. Power

5.1.2. Legitimacy

5.1.3. Urgency

5.2. Stakeholders

5.2.1. [enter name]

5.2.2. [enter name]

5.2.3. [enter name]

5.2.4. [enter name]

5.2.5. [enter name]

5.2.6. [enter name]

5.3. Description

5.3.1. The group that many theories position as the only stakeholders of an organisation or project. Likely to have a formal mechanism in place acknowledging the relationship with the organisation or project e.g. Boards of directors, HR department, public relations.

6. Dependent

6.1. Salience

6.1.1. Power

6.1.2. Legitimacy

6.1.3. Urgency

6.2. Stakeholders

6.2.1. [enter name]

6.2.2. [enter name]

6.2.3. [enter name]

6.2.4. [enter name]

6.2.5. [enter name]

6.2.6. [enter name]

6.3. Description

6.3.1. Stakeholders who are dependent on others to carry out their will, because they lack the power to enforce their stake. For example local residents & animals impacted by the BP oil spill. Advocacy of their interests by dominant stakeholders can make them definitive stakeholders.

7. Demanding

7.1. Salience

7.1.1. Power

7.1.2. Legitimacy

7.1.3. Urgency

7.2. Stakeholders

7.2.1. [enter name]

7.2.2. [enter name]

7.2.3. [enter name]

7.2.4. [enter name]

7.2.5. [enter name]

7.2.6. [enter name]

7.3. Description

7.3.1. Demanding stakeholders have urgent claims, but no legitimacy or power. Irritants for management, but not worth considering. Examples are people with unjustified grudges, serial complainers or low return customers.

8. Definitive

8.1. Salience

8.1.1. Power

8.1.2. Legitimacy

8.1.3. Urgency

8.2. Stakeholders

8.2.1. [enter name]

8.2.2. [enter name]

8.2.3. [enter name]

8.2.4. [enter name]

8.2.5. [enter name]

8.2.6. [enter name]

8.3. Description

8.3.1. These are expectant stakeholders who gain the relevant missing attribute. Often dominant stakeholders with an urgent issue, or dependent groups with powerful legal support. Finally those classed as dangerous could gain legitimacy e.g. democratic legitimacy achieved by a nationalist party.