Dear Jaharkanti. Perhaps you can find a useful information on this subject in the paper entitled "The Importance of Adopting a Good Management Strategy". A copy of the paper can be found in my page on Research Gate.

I think "stakeholder" analysis too typically pretends to represent diverse interests, but in fact is set up in a way which ignores the interests of anyone with little ability to organize and force their way to a position at the table. Like, everyday people in the communities impacted by the activities of "stakeholders".

Some entities are very explicit in efforts to put these stakeholders in key positions at key tables. Profit maximizers may have a different view of who are relevant stakeholders. So, for example, often there are municipal rules which require diffusion of information so that people can be made aware of relevant developments and get involved if they think it is important.

My 2c.

Creio que vá depender a situação local, nem sempre as necessidades estarão dispostas para a sua aceitação. a flexibilidade nesse momento é para mim o mais importante, respirar o bom senso.

In order to think clearly about any issue you need to state the problem using clear language. Business jargon, words like 'strategic' and ghastly meaningless terms like 'strategic driver' and 'stakeholder value', is designed to obscure the true meaning and prevent clear thought. Anyway, I think that if you translate your question into plain English (or Portuguese for that matter) you will see immediately that the answer has to be 'no': the idea that the way in which businesses choose which kinds of assets to acquire determines the extent to which they are good neighbours, good employers and good citizens (presumably that is the meaning of 'stakeholder' value, or did you mean to say shareholder value?) is absurd.

I think Julian Reece presented interesting ideas, with which I agree in essence. Only add that the rampant use of tools such as "BCG Analysis", whereby several companies divested themselves of products taken in the model as "Pineapple" is just simple and terrible: the attempt to replace a human manager, 24 hours a day ahead of a business by a quantifiable and capable of being executed by a computer model. In other words, the "temptation" behind the model is to create a kind of generalized forms of management, which diminish the importance of the figure of the manager.

I agree with Julian Reece on the lack of clear definitions. Assuming you adhere to Freeman's definition of strategic management and the term stakeholder, stakeholder value not only represents the added value provided by company to those groups who need to cooperate in order to realize and sustain the business model. The construct also needs to reflect the value created for secondary stakeholders who do not contribute to the success of the organization but can put up barriers such as influencing policy makers to increase regulation or revoke the license to operate (reputational risk). There can be no doubt that portfolio management has an impact on stakeholders' willingness to cooperate. Every enterprise strategy requires decisions concerning the business portfolio. If managing the latter in tune with the enterprise strategy is what you want to express with "strategic portfolio management", it surely is a driver of corporate value creation. However, thinking of the secondary stakeholders with whom a significant part of the corporate risks are related, stakeholder value is the result of many other factors too.

The answer to the question is clearly: YES. As a support, please take into acoount http://www.pmi.org/PMBOK-Guide-and-Standards/Standards-Library-of-PMI-Global-Standards.aspx

Julian:

" they are good neighbours"....as you demonstrated in your condescending reply to Jaharkanti without even repeating the question. "ghastly meaningless terms like 'strategic driver' and 'stakeholder value', is condescending enough, but, "plain English"...most organizations are diverse; if you would like to define "plain English". I mean to openly in a scholarly virtual environment tell a "colleague" his terminology is ghastly meaningless....really describes your own management style. You stated "Words like stakeholder are designed to obscure the true meaning and prevent clear thought" to whom? Can you please tell me what is another (single word in plain English for Steakholder?) Shareholder is a bit easier. If you are interested in the Steakholder approach towards organizational leadership. I have (I think) a few pretty sound examples such as Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, Whole Foods, Johnson & Johnson, Starbucks...just to name a few.) I might have a couple of papers on my page regarding "Firms of Endearment"....I hope that is not too ghastly. Oh, Oh, Oh, one more....please review the following vid for steakholder approach on a MAX SCALE....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sOtjBDPQdU

Sincerely, Marilyn

Marilyn

Marylin, I get where you're coming from. Many businesses and other organizations are very genuine in stakeholder analysis.

But truly, it is often part of a jargon where they put on a face of good relations of society as a manner of diverting interest from what is really going on underneath. It can be difficult to separate between jargon and underlying substance.

Marylin is spot on. We should not confuse 'jargon' with 'elaborated useless obfuscatory language' . The use of 'jargon' (it's a technical linguistic term... look it up) is probably essential in our professional discourse for efficiency. The problem here is the apparent lack of definition. That's not a problem of the jargon, but rather of people who use that jargon to obfuscate. In other words linguistic use is micro political. No surprise.

im surprised at the rejection of stakeholder management by the sustainability lobby. I would have thought that the idea of society at large and even Gaia as stakeholders would have appealed.

of course if you want to prostitute this wider multiple bottom line thinking into a narrow pro fur based motivation that is your linguistic right.

to return to the question, I believe the answer is 'mostly no'. In practice managing your portfolio is import at but other issues such as efficiency, strategic effectiveness and the  the management of critical stakeholder interests dominate.

Yes indeed I agree with you.

Reece ans Storck, I liked your states,

But since this questions walks on my yearly basis problems, I will assume he is navigating on the Portfolio, Program and Project Management area. Would it be worth? Let´s see:

If you take in consideration the view point of Portfolio, Program and Projects from IPMA Competence Baseline (http://ipma.ch/resources/ipma-publications/ipma-competence-baseline/), I would not say "driver" but a "mechanism".

As per Mintzberg, Porter approach's (and many others), if strategy is a way, the implementation of that strategy rests on the tactical layer.

Now, let us think in terms of Stakeholder, as simple it can be, as a narrow or broad interested parties (from users, to clients, to shareholders or the society). Stakeholders can dictate different values depending on the context, pressure, return of investment and its interests.

Know you have a different and bigger problem on how to put together these "values" and share a common view/understanding/desire from these broader interest parties. And "values" would be a driver (agreed w/ Storck).

But, the portfolio, also the projects and programs (PPP's) are ways to materialize ideas and the perceived desirable "values" from stakeholders are ways to "implement" the strategy. Portfolio is also a way to communicate to the stakeholders which "scare resources" will be used in which project/program, balancing them and prioritizing them. It is also a mechanism of measure the deviation of the strategics targets. A way to maximize scare resources such as time, personnel, money, organisation structure, etc. Sometimes a shortcut, sometimes the opposite.

If the Portfolio Management (in fact PPP's) - the implementation of the strategy - is not adding value to the Stakeholders, there might be something wrong. Or the strategy or the drivers.

By understanding that, were is the driver, tough? Wouldn't be the common willingness, contract or a commitment toward the desirable outcome? I would say this could be a good hypothesis.

Dear All, 

Firstly, I'd like to add my answer to a question. It can be both, if accompanied by an efficient management in other areas.

Sometimes I feel, that scientists (as humans :) tend to jump on "new waves", forgetting at the same time that some older concepts and theories can actually still apply and remain true....

Secondly, refering to Julian reply - although I'm very much in favour of clarity and brevity in communication, I strongly oppose to being impolite - to put it simply :)