PLEASE REBUTTAL,RESPOND,AND ANSWER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OR POST STATEMENTS. MUST BE 150 WORDS (PLEASE), WRITE IN 3RD PERSON.ONLY ONE REFERENCE CAN BE USED FOR EACH ANSWER.
DQ 1
I agree that it may be a challenge in reconciling varies viewpoints of stakeholders. Would love for you to share how a leaders may go about reconciling the varied views.
I read the book The Trust Edge by David Horsager recently. The book looks at how important trust is between the organization and all the stakeholders they interact with. I think that stakeholders are consistently assessing the level of trust they have in an organization. For me assessing the organizational effectiveness in the area of trust is a must on the side of the organization so they know the level of trust stakeholders have in the organization. In the book Horsager references as assessment that evaluates trust and leadership within an organization. The website is https://www.davidhorsager.com/ if you want to take a look at
DQ 2
Lawrence and Weber (presents (2014) four types of postures an organization can adopt in its relationships with stakeholders. These postures are,
(a) Inactive a situation where the organization basically ignores the stakeholder and believes that it can make decisions all on its own without the active participation and collaboration of its stakeholders.
(b) The second posture which some organization sometimes adopts is reactive where by the organization only acts if it is forced to do so. This kind of posture is reminiscent of the of the tactics adopted by the government of saint Lucia in the 1970's to the 1980's where it failed to act unless it faced a situation of industrial unrest in the country.
(c) The first posture has been described as proactive and it represents a situation where Firms/organizations /businesses continuously scan its business environment in order to determine the challenges, opportunities or even threats which lay ahead. The rationale behind this approach is that the organization can intercept whatever challenges which are ahead before it becomes problematic or it can use the opportunities as a means of comparative advantage.
(d) In the fourth posture, organizations actively engage stakeholders in an ongoing relationship based on mutual trust and respect. It is believed that such organizations recognize the benefits of building positive relationships with stakeholders as a source of value.
Based o the literature , it would appear that an organization which adopts an interactive posture would most likely be in the most effective because built in the posture, one can argue that there would be an element of the third posture where a certain amount of environmental scanning is being done in order to detect emerging challenges opportunities and threats.
Additionally such a posture means that the organization has built its relationship based on trust and as underscored by Ikonen and Savolainan (2011) trust is the building block of relationships and the basis for cooperation and collaboration. Such a posture would create the probability of success as the organization focuses on interaction and collaboration rather than inactivity and ignoring stakeholders.
It can be argued that the least desirable posture is the one based on inactivity and ignoring stakeholders such as lack of consultation and unilateral decision making. It is argued that ignoring a stake holder, does not eliminate their presence or challenges which they may present particularly if the need of the stakeholder is great or urgent. Savolainan (2011) has underscored the fact that certain organizational behaviours such as lack of communication, failure to address concerns of stakeholders can actually place an organization in a worse situation because such behaviours can destroy existing relationships.
The question therefore is whether using a posture based on inactivity can on occasions be most valid. One cannot say with certainty that it may be prudent or even useful to ignore a stakeholder's concerns. If an organization finds it useful to do so then such a strategy should be temporary and not long term. The argument here is that ignoring a stakeholder is not always the best option and it may be useful to engage a stakeholder even though nothing emerges out of the engagement process.
References
Lawrence A T and Weber J (2014) Stakeholders Business and society, Stakeholders ethics, Public policy 14(1d) New York, New York, MC Graw Hill/ IRWIN
Ikonen M and Savolainan T (2011) Renewing Intellectual capacity by building trust in intra organizational relationships. Proceedings of the European conference on management leadership and governance. 541- 544
DQ 3
Based upon the reading I believe the most effective of these engagements would be interactive because it creates a relationship between the organization and the stakeholders to solve problems (Lawrence & Weber, 2014, p.56). Logically speaking it makes the most sense to build relationships with stakeholders because it allows both the organization and the stakeholders to gain a better perspective of the needs and wants of an organization. This does not mean that each stakeholder will agree on everything, but it will allow all sides to have a clear picture of needs prior to making decisions. Having said that, there could be times when an organization must ignore stakeholder desires for the greater good. For example, the governments quarantine of citizens returning from Liberia during the Ebola crisis. Clearly these citizens did not approve of the treatment, but the government made the decision for the greater good of society. It is during situations like this that an organization must consider the impacts of inaction over the desires of a stakeholder. The majority of the time interactive relationships are going to product the greatest results, but each situation is different, and in some cases the worse response might be the best response.
Lawrence A T and Weber J (2014) Stakeholders Business and society, Stakeholders ethics, Public policy 14(1d) New York, New York, MC Graw Hill/ IRWIN