Public Organization Review

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 67–82 | Cite as

Thinking About Stakeholders of Public Agencies: The Georgia Department of Transportation Stakeholder Audit

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Practitioners and scholars have grown increasingly interested in recent decades in how public administrators should and can work with the constituencies they serve. To date, most of this conversation has focused on citizens and broader communities rather than on stakeholders more generally, but these other stakeholders, ranging from oversight policy-making bodies to private sector and nonprofit contractors to governmental partners, are no less important than the general public. The purpose of this paper is to propose a first step that many agencies might take in thinking about their range of stakeholders, a step that we term a “stakeholder audit.” A stakeholder audit entails (1) mapping the universe of an agency’s stakeholders, (2) assessing the agency’s perceived needs for additional information relative to various stakeholder groups, and (3) developing suggestions on how to obtain that information. After first discussing the more general idea of stakeholder analyses, we describe the stakeholder audit technique, and illustrate how it has been applied to a particular agency, the State of Georgia’s Department of Transportation. We conclude by considering how a stakeholder audit could represent a first step for an agency in improving relationships with its stakeholders.

Keywords

Public organizations Performance measurement Strategic planning Networks Stakeholders 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. 2001. Big questions in public network research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11: 295–326.Google Scholar
  2. Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. 2005. The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65: 547–558. (September/October). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryson, J. M. 2004. What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1): 21–53. doi: 10.1080/14719030410001675722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. 2002. What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62: 568–584. (September/October). doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Considine, M., & Lewis, J. M. 2003. Bureaucracy, network, or enterprise? Comparing the models of governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review, 63(2): 131–140. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. 2004. The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49: 55–73. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000013852.62017.0e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E.-H. 2006. Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16: 417–446. (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  9. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206–221. doi: 10.2307/259075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kettl, D. F. 2002. Managing indirect government. In Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance: 490–510. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Nutt, P., & Backoff, R. W. 2002. Why decisions fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Rowley, T. J., & Modoveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28: 204–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Salamon, L. M. (Ed.) 2002. The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Thomas, J. C. 1995. Public involvement in public decisions: New guidelines and strategies for public managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Vandekerckhove, W., & Dentchev, N. A. 2005. A network perspective on stakeholder management: facilitating entrepreneurs in the discovery of opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 60: 221–232. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-0130-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Andrew Young School of Policy StudiesGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations