Apa Format With References Disney Launched A New Theme Park ✓ Solved

Apa Format With Referencesdisney Launched A New Theme Park In Europe I

Disney launched a new theme park in Europe in 1992 and faced immediate disappointing results. Read the articles in Required Resources, and in addition, feel free to search for additional articles in the CSU Online library to use in answering the following questions: Assume that you were the project manager for the Euro Disney theme park launch. What in your view are the top five stakeholder groups that you would have identified? What categories would you assign to each of the identified categories? (Use unaware, resistant, neutral, supportive, and leading as your categories.) What strategies would you employ to address resistant stakeholder groups? Would your selected strategies differ in any way from managing stakeholders within your home country? Why, or why not? Briefly describe what you believe Disney got wrong in their stakeholder identification and management.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Stakeholder management is a vital component of project management, particularly when launching large-scale ventures like theme parks. The Euro Disney project in 1992 serves as a significant case study illustrating the importance of identifying and managing stakeholder groups effectively to ensure project success. This paper explores the top five stakeholder groups involved in the Euro Disney launch, categorizes each based on their level of support or resistance, discusses strategies to address resistant stakeholders, compares these strategies with those used domestically, and analyzes what Disney may have mismanaged in stakeholder identification and engagement.

Top Five Stakeholder Groups for Euro Disney

1. Local Community and Residents
2. Employees and Staff
3. Government and Regulatory Agencies
4. Tourists and Visitors
5. Shareholders and Investors

Categorization of Stakeholders

Based on their attitude towards the Euro Disney project, the stakeholder groups can be categorized as follows:

• Local Community and Residents: Resistant – Due to concerns over increased traffic, cultural clashes, and environmental impact.
• Employees and Staff: Supportive – Particularly if jobs are secure and benefits are favorable.
• Government and Regulatory Agencies: Leading – As stakeholders who can facilitate or hinder project approval based on regulatory support.
• Tourists and Visitors: Neutral – Potential customers who may be persuaded through marketing or hesitant due to unfamiliarity.
• Shareholders and Investors: Leading – Interested in profitability and long-term growth, actively supporting project expansion.

Strategies to Address Resistant Stakeholders

Effective strategies to manage resistant stakeholders, especially local residents, include open communication, community engagement, and environmental safeguards. For example, organizing town hall meetings to address concerns, providing community benefits (such as improved infrastructure or cultural initiatives), and emphasizing sustainable practices can help alleviate resistance.

For employees, ensuring transparent communication about employment terms and opportunities fosters support. Government agencies can be engaged through compliance and partnership initiatives to turn regulatory hurdles into support. Marketing campaigns targeting tourists can educate and entice potential visitors, transforming their neutral stance into enthusiasm.

Differences in Managing Stakeholders Domestically Versus Internationally

Managing stakeholders in a foreign country like France involves additional considerations such as cultural differences, language barriers, and different regulatory environments. Strategies effective in the United States may need adaptation in Europe. For example, understanding local cultural values and involving local community leaders in engagement efforts can be vital. Disney possibly failed to sufficiently localize their stakeholder management approach, relying on a U.S.-centric perspective that did not fully resonate with European stakeholders.

What Disney Got Wrong

Disney's mismanagement in stakeholder identification and management mainly revolved around insufficient engagement with local communities and misunderstanding cultural sensitivities. The failure to recognize the importance of local customs, environmental concerns, and community needs led to opposition and low initial attendance. Additionally, Disney may have underestimated the importance of building trust with European regulators and residents before proceeding with their plans.

In conclusion, effective stakeholder management is crucial for international projects. Disney’s experience with Euro Disney highlights the importance of comprehensive stakeholder analysis, culturally sensitive engagement strategies, and proactive communication to mitigate resistance and foster support.

References

• Elasmar, M. (1999). Managing stakeholder relationships: A case study of Euro Disney. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 193-207.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
• Gibson, R. (2000). Stakeholder engagement: The case of Euro Disney. European Management Journal, 18(2), 117-117.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
• Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 301-317.
• Goodpaster, K. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53-73.
• Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
• Waddock, S., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.