Ao preparar uma formação-acção sobre o BSC para uma organização sem fins lucrativos, revi alguns artigos para refrescar o tema da identificação e caracterização das partes interessadas.
.
Quando facilito o desenho de um mapa da estratégia começo sempre pela perspectiva dos clientes. Quando se trata de uma organização com fins lucrativos o caminho é directo - quem são os clientes-alvo? Para quem é que a organização trabalha? Para quem se projecta no cumprimento da sua missão?
.
Quando se trata de uma organização sem fins lucrativos o caminho não é tão directo - para quem é que a organização trabalha? Quem são os seus clientes? Para quem se projecta no cumprimento da sua missão? Falar em clientes-alvo já pode ser, em si mesmo, traiçoeiro... mas chega considerar os clientes? Não!!!
.
É preciso considerar e jogar com as prioridades de diferentes entidades, de diferentes partes, as partes interessadas. Cada uma com os seus interesses próprios, com diferentes capacidades de influenciar a actuação dos gestores.
.
Destaco dois artigos sobre o tema, o primeiro é:
- "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts", de Ronald Mitchell, Bradley Agle e Donna Wood, publicado por Academy of Management Review, 1997, Vol.22, No. 4, 853-886.
Do primeiro artigo destaquei:
.
"The idea of comprehensively identifying stakeholder types, then, is to equip managers with the ability to recognize and respond effectively to a disparate, yet systematically comprehensible, set of entities who may or may not have legitimate claims, but who may be able to affect or are affected by the firm nonetheless, and thus affect the interests of those who do have legitimate claims.
The ultimate aim of stakeholder management practices, according to this view, could be firm centered or system centered: that is, managers might want to know about all of their stakeholders for firm-centered purposes of survival, economic well-being, damage control, taking advantage of opportunities, "doing in" the competition, winning friends and influencing public policy, coalition building, and so forth.
...
Pfeffer & Salancik (1978) picked up the idea of organizations as coalitions of varying interests and contributed the notion that organizations are "other-directed", being influenced by actors that control critical resources and have the attention of managers. In developing their stakeholder-agency model. Hill and Jones (1992) employed the agency theory view of the firm as a nexus of contracts between stakeholders and managers at a central node, where managers have the responsibility to reconcile divergent interests by making strategic
decisions and allocating strategic resources in a manner that is most consistent with the claims of the other stakeholder groups.
...
We propose that, although groups can be identified reliably as stakeholders based on their possession of power, legitimacy, and urgency in relationship to the firm, it is the firm's managers
who determine which stakeholders are salient and therefore will receive management attention. In short, one can identify a firm's stakeholders based on attributes, but managers may or may not perceive the stakeholder field correctly. The stakeholders winning management's attention will be only those the managers perceive to be highly salient."
.
Continua.
