Blending issues and stakeholders: in pursuit of the elusive synergy

• Author: John F. Mahon,Pursey P.M.A.R. Heugens,Richard A. McGowan
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1635
• Date: 01 August 2018
• Published date: 01 August 2018

ACADEMIC PAPER

Blending issues and stakeholders: in pursuit of the elusive

synergy

John F. Mahon

1

|Pursey P.M.A.R. Heugens

2

|Richard A. McGowan

3

1

Maine Business School, University of Maine,

Orono, Maine, USA

2

RSM Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The

Netherlands

3

Wallace E. Carroll School of Management,

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts,

USA

Correspondence

John F. Mahon, Maine Business School,

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469‐5703.

Email: mahon@maine.edu

Abstract

Two separate frameworks have existed for the analysis of social predicaments in which busi-

nesses play a role: issues management and stakeholder management. In this paper, we argue that

the chasm dividing these two literatures is artificial, and potentially obstructive to the advance-

ment of our knowledge of the position of business in contemporary societies. The position we

take in the present paper is that all social predicaments have an issues side as well as a stake-

holder side and that a dual focus on both issues and stakeholders is therefore essential to under-

standing the evolution of these predicaments and crucial to managerial dealings with these issues.

We present an integrative co‐evolutionary framework, explaining the dynamics between issues

and stakeholders in all consecutive stages of a predicament's evolution. The framework proposes

a new way of thinking about issues and stakeholders, as such facilitates a deeper understanding

of how the social environment of business is constituted, and offers new insights for the practical

management of issues and stakeholders.

1|INTRODUCTION

When key organizational decision‐makers have to navigate their firms

through the challenging and often uncharted waters of the social and

political environments in which they operate, they face two theoretical

options, with very different practical implications. The first is to iden-

tify all key organizations and groups that are influenced, directly and

indirectly, by the organization's decisions that may affect organiza-

tional outcomes. Sensible managers will recognize that these stake-

holders are sometimes parties with whom the organization already

has a well‐developed, on‐going relationship, whereas at other times,

they are parties that only have relationships with other influential

actors in the organizational network, but whom can exert indirect

influence on the organization through these relationships, and in some

situations, there are no preexisting relationships of any kind. Once

these stakeholders are identified, managers can prioritize them

according to their power over the corporation and the urgency and

legitimacy of their claims (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Realizing that

organizational resources and attention are always scarce, managers

can then use the outcome of this prioritization exercise to accommo-

date the needs of the most powerful and/or urgent of these stake-

holders, provided the organization has carefully identified all the key

stakeholders. Note carefully the use of the term “key stakeholders”—

searching out all of the actual and potential stakeholders, directly and

indirectly impacted, is we believe a futile exercise.

The second option open to key decision‐makers is to focus not so

much on these groups per se, but rather on the social predicaments fac-

ing the organization. Regardless of whether these social predicaments

are called strategic, public, or social issues, they all have the potential

to interfere with the organization's attempts to realize its strategic

intent if they are left unattended. In the traditional issues management

process, decision‐makers first scan the organizational environment for

new predicaments emerging on the horizon. Next, they monitor these

issues throughout their life cycle, in order to interpret their nature and

to evaluate their potential consequences. Finally, they come up with

an appropriate set of responses, timed to the life cycle of the issue

and to the ability of the organization to influence the issue.

Managers will of course realize that separating these two options

is not a practical choice in real life. If they focus on their current set of

stakeholders only, there is a fair chance that they will miss out on new

threats and opportunities emanating in their environments. If they

focus on issues only, they may suffer reputational damage, as they

get known as reactive fire fighters rather than pro‐active fire pre-

venters. Yet in the business and society and strategic management lit-

erature, Chinese walls seem to separate the bodies of work on issues

management and stakeholder theory and practice, to which these

options correspond. In the present paper, we argue that this situation

is conceptually and practically undesirable, as both perspectives can

at best offer only a partial and incomplete understanding of social

predicaments.

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1635

J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1635.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1635

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of9