From The E Activity Use The Provided Map In Figure 14

From The E Activity Use The Provided Map In Figure 14 Of The Textboo

From the e-Activity, use the provided map in Figure 1.4 of the textbook to classify each of Kellogg’s stakeholders according to each stakeholder’s salience to the company. Suggest two (2) potential disadvantages associated with your classification of each stakeholder, and provide two (2) recommendations geared toward helping to minimize the potential adverse effects of your stakeholder placement on the company. According to Lawrence & Weber, aspects within the external environment of an organization are key considerations for analyzing the relationship between business and society. Using Figure 1.6 in the textbook, examine one (1) dynamic force for its potential impact on a company of your choice. Specify two (2) fundamental reasons why the chosen company should pay particular attention to the dynamic force that you have examined within its external environment. Provide a rationale for your response.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding stakeholder salience and external environmental forces is vital for strategic management and organizational success. In this paper, I will classify Kellogg’s stakeholders using the classification model depicted in Figure 1.4 of the textbook. I will analyze the potential disadvantages associated with the stakeholder classifications and propose strategies to mitigate adverse effects. Furthermore, I will examine a significant dynamic force from the external environment, as outlined in Figure 1.6, and discuss why it warrants particular attention from Kellogg's management.

Classifying Kellogg’s Stakeholders Using the Salience Model

According to the salience model, stakeholders are characterized based on their Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Applying this model to Kellogg’s stakeholders, we can classify them into different categories:

• Primary Stakeholders: Shareholders, employees, suppliers, and customers primarily influence Kellogg's operations and are directly affected by its performance.
• Secondary Stakeholders: Community groups, government agencies, and media serve as influential but more indirect stakeholders.
• Key Stakeholders: Shareholders and major investors possess high power and legitimacy, making them critical to strategic decisions. Employees and suppliers also hold significant influence but may vary in legitimacy and urgency.

Using the model, each stakeholder can be classified accordingly:

- Shareholders: High power, legitimacy, and urgency thus making them definitive key stakeholders.

- Employees: Significant legitimacy and urgency but varying levels of power depending on their managerial or non-managerial status.

- Suppliers: Generally have power through their ability to influence supply chains, legitimacy through contractual relationships, and urgency if supply disruptions occur.

- Customers: High legitimacy and urgency, especially during product crises or quality concerns, but varying levels of power.

Disadvantages of Stakeholder Classification

Classifying stakeholders based on salience can have potential drawbacks:

• Overemphasis on Powerful Stakeholders: Focusing too heavily on stakeholders with high power might neglect less powerful but still important stakeholders, leading to marginalized groups and potential reputational damage.
• Complexity of Stakeholder Dynamics: The static classification may oversimplify complex relationships, as stakeholders' salience can change over time due to shifts in external or internal factors, risking misallocation of resources.

Recommendations to Minimize Adverse Effects

To address these disadvantages, the following strategies are recommended:

1. Implement Stakeholder Engagement Programs: Regular communication and involvement initiatives can help in recognizing evolving stakeholder salience and building trust across all stakeholder groups.
2. Develop Adaptive Management Strategies: Establish dynamic frameworks that allow flexibility in stakeholder management, ensuring that shifts in power, legitimacy, or urgency are promptly addressed.

Analyzing External Dynamic Forces: Impact of Technological Change

According to Figure 1.6 of the textbook, technological change is a prominent external force affecting organizations. For this analysis, I selected technological innovation and its potential impact on Apple Inc.

Potential Impact of Technological Change on Apple Inc.

Technological change, particularly rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and mobile technology, can significantly influence Apple’s operations, product development, and competitive positioning (West & Bogers, 2017).

Two fundamental reasons why Apple should monitor technological forces closely include:

1. Market Competitiveness: As rivals like Samsung and Google innovate rapidly, staying ahead requires continuous investment in emerging technologies to sustain market dominance.
2. Consumer Expectations: Modern consumers expect innovative features, seamless integration, and personalized experiences. Failing to adapt to technological shifts could lead to obsolescence or reduced customer loyalty.

Rationale

Apple’s success hinges on its ability to innovate and adapt to technological advancements. Ignoring the rapid pace of technological change could lead to missed opportunities, erosion of market share, and decreased profitability. Proactive adaptation enables Apple to maintain its leadership position and meet evolving customer needs effectively.

Conclusion

Classifying stakeholders using the salience model allows organizations like Kellogg to prioritize their engagement efforts strategically. Recognizing potential disadvantages encourages more balanced stakeholder management. Simultaneously, understanding external forces such as technological change enables companies like Apple to anticipate challenges and leverage opportunities, ensuring sustainable growth and competitive advantage.

References

• Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
• Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2014). Business and Society: Stakeholders, Ethics, Public Policy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• West, J., & Bogers, M. (2017). Open innovation: Harnessing the power of crowds. Harvard Business Review, 95(4), 86–92.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing Inc.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
• Verbeke, A. (2013). The emerging role of theory in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1), 18–32.
• Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids: The role of influence in environmental innovation and sustainability ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492.
• Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.
• Chen, Y., & Sharma, P. (2017). Technology-driven business models. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 87–98.