what to do when stakeholders matter
TRANSCRIPT
1
What To Do When Stakeholders Matter: The Case of Problem Formulation for the African-American Men Project of Hennepin County,
Minnesota
By
John M. Bryson Gary L. Cunningham Karen J. Lokkesmoe
Presented at the ICOS Seminar, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 29 March 2002; an earlier version of the paper was presented at the the Sixth National Public Management Research
Conference, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 20-21 October, 2001
Pre-Publication Draft – Not for Reproduction or Distribution Without Permission
2
What To Do When Stakeholders Matter:
The Case of Problem Formulation for the African-American Men Project
of Hennepin County, Minnesota
by
John M. Bryson, Gary L. Cunningham and Karen J. Lokkesmoe
Abstract
We propose a series of stakeholder analyses designed to help organizations – and especially
governments – think and act strategically during the process of problem formulation so that the
common good can be advanced. Specifically, we argue that at least five sets of analyses are
necessary, including the creation of: a power versus interest grid, stakeholder influence diagram, bases
of power – directions of interest diagrams, a map for finding the common good and structuring a
winning argument, and diagrams indicating how to tap individual stakeholder interests to pursue the
common good. What the analyses do is help transform a seemingly “wicked problem” – for example,
how to produce better outcomes for African American men aged 18-30 – into something more
tractable, and therefore amenable to collective action. In other words, stakeholder analyses can be
used to link political rationality with technical rationality, so that support can be mobilized for
substantive progress.
3
What To Do When Stakeholders Matter:
The Case of Problem Formulation for the African-American Men Project
of Hennepin County, Minnesota
Introduction
Numerous national studies have indicated that African-American men do not fare well
compared to their white, Hispanic and Asian peers (e.g., Wilson, 1987; Darity and Myers, 1998).
Indeed, in some areas, such as incarceration or death by homicide, the results are nothing short of
disastrous – for the men themselves, for their families, for their communities, and for the country.
Out of a total Hennepin County, Minnesota, population in 2000 of 1,116,200, approximately
80.5 percent were white, 9.0 percent were African American (99,943), 4.8 percent were Asian or
Pacific Islanders, 4.0 percent were Hispanic, and 1.0 percent was American Indian. There were
11,157 African American men between the ages of 18 and 30. An examination of the county statistics
across a range of areas shows the same disheartening results for the county’s African American
population – and especially African-American men – as are found nationally. In terms of economic
status, concentration of poverty, education, health, housing, and criminal justice outcomes, African-
American men do significantly worse than their white counterparts. A representative sample of these
statistics is found in Table 1.
Insert Table 1 About Here
The challenges of producing better outcomes for African-American men are many and difficult
to address (Wilson, 1987; Galster and Hill, 1992; Darity and Myers, 1998; White and Cones, 1999).
The way to formulate the problem is unclear, the goals or desired outcomes are unclear, and the
solutions are unclear. The uncertainties about ends and means are significant, making it very difficult
to know how to proceed (Christensen, 1999). The situation would appear to fit the criteria for what
Rittel and Webber (1973; Roberts, 2000) called “wicked problems.” The challenges are wicked in the
sense that:
4
• There is no definitive problem formulation
• The problem will not be solved, but re-solved again and again
• The solutions are not true or false, but good or bad
• The full consequences of any solution cannot be known immediately – and may never be known
• One-shot solutions do not work
• Each of the problems is in some sense unique
• The problem can be a symptom of another problem
• The problem can be explained in many ways, and in large measure, the choice of explanation will
determine the solution
• Leaders advocating solutions have no inherent right to be wrong
Nonetheless, it is important for governments – including local governments, such as counties –
to figure out what they can do to help. In Minnesota, counties are very important parts of the
intergovernmental system; they have major responsibilities across the range of public services,
including social services, employment and training services, public health, transportation, and
criminal justice. Hennepin County government is led by seven commissioners elected by districts and
has an annual budget in 2001 of $1.57 billion and over 11,000 employees.
The current situation for a significant fraction of African-Americans in Hennepin County costs
the county government enormous amounts of money across the gamut of public services, and yet the
results – as noted above – are not very good. The commissioners hope and believe that surely there
must be a better way to produce better outcomes for equivalent or less cost. It is that hope and belief
that led them in 1999 to mandate a study – the African-American Men Project (AAMP) – to help them
figure out what to do. The AAMP was designed to help the commissioners figure out how to frame
the challenges, choose goals or desired outcomes, and identify viable solutions likely to produce better
outcomes for the African-American men aged 18-30 who live in the county.1
5
The AAMP was an exercise in data gathering and analysis, problem framing, and solution
search (Dunn, 1994). The commissioners saw a need for good baseline data, agreement on a set of
goals or desired outcomes, and a local, national, and international search for politically viable
solutions likely to produce better outcomes. The AAMP is thus an attempt to move the challenges
faced by AA men out of the category of “wicked” and into the realm of productive policy and
program choices. There are three possibilities for such a move: (1) More broad-based agreement on
goals and outcomes could lead to useful experimentation to find solutions that work best to achieve
the goals. (2) More certainty about what actually works could lead to bargaining and negotiation
among parties about the precise goals to be achieved by implementing workable solutions. And (3)
more certainty about both goals and outcomes, on the one hand, and workable means, on the other
hand, can lead to effective programming of known solutions to achieve specific ends (Christensen,
1999).
Each of the three moves depends on effective problem formulation and issue framing (Bryson
and Crosby, 1992, pp. 157-188; Rochefort and Cobb, 1994). A key task of the project therefore – and
the subject of this paper – was to propose how to formulate the problem and how to frame the issues
facing African-American men. The commissioners did much of the initial framing work just by
choosing to focus on African-American men. They also decided for practical reasons to focus on
African-American men aged 18 – 30.
Project Organization
The county commissioners authorized the AAMP by resolution in 1999. They allocated
$500,000 to support the project. The AAMP was guided by a 37-member steering committee
representing major sections of the African American community; the City of Minneapolis,
Minneapolis Public Schools, county, and state governments; the University of Minnesota and its
Extension Service; and other organizations and groups. The steering committee was chaired is
6
Herman Milligan, Jr., Ph.D., a senior executive with Wells Fargo and Company. The project was
directed by Gary Cunningham, Director of the Office of Planning and Development (OPD) for
Hennepin County. Internal county work teams were organized to examine particular issues. A variety
of outside research partners also contributed, including, various centers and institutes at the University
of Minnesota, the Minneapolis Public Schools, and the United Way of Minneapolis. A number of
community partners also participated, including various businesses, news organizations, and nonprofit
groups. The Committee presented its final report to the county commissioners in January 2002. The
commissioners unanimously approved the report.
Stakeholder Analysis
The importance of stakeholders is emphasized in several literatures, including political science
(e.g., Riker, 1986; Dahl, 1990; Roberts and King, 1996; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999), planning
(e.g., Kaufman, 1986; Christensen, 1993; Healey, 1997; Forester, 1999), and management (e.g.,
Freeman, 1984; Roberts and King, 1989; Nutt and Backoff, 1992; Boschken, 1994; Bryson, 1995;
Finn, 1996; Rowley, 1997; Eden and Ackermann, 1998). Stakeholder support is needed to create and
sustain winning coalitions (Riker, 1986) and to ensure long-term viability of organizations (Van Der
Heijden, 1996; Eden and Ackermann, 1998; Bryson, Gibbons and Shaye, 2000), policies, plans, and
programs (Bryson and Crosby, 1992; Roberts and King, 1996). Key stakeholders must be satisfied at
least minimally, or policies, organizations, communities, or even countries will fail (Mintzberg,
Ahlstrand, and Lampel, 1998; Friedman, 2000).
Project organizers recognized early on that stakeholders would need to be taken very seriously.
First, an informal stakeholder analysis informed the selection of project steering committee members.
Key organizations were represented, including key African American organizations. Second, it was
clear that stakeholder analyses would be needed to figure out how to frame the challenges facing
African-American men and how to build needed coalitions of support.
7
Five stakeholder analysis techniques were used. These techniques either were drawn or
adapted from the literature, or else were invented for the project. The techniques include:
• Power versus interest grid (Eden and Ackermann, 1998)
• Stakeholder influence diagram (Eden and Ackermann, 1998; see also Finn, 1996)
• Bases of power and directions of interest diagrams for key stakeholders (adapted from Eden
and Ackermann, 1998)
• Finding the common good and the structure of a winning argument (invented for the project)
• Tapping individual stakeholder interests to pursue the common good (invented for the project)
Power versus Interest Grid
A power versus interest grid was constructed, based on the work of Eden and Ackermann
(1998, pp. 121-125, 344-346) (see Figure 1). The grid arrays stakeholders in terms of their presumed
interest in achieving better outcomes for African American (AA) men and their presumed power to
help produce those outcomes. Four categories of stakeholders result: Players, who have both an
interest and significant power; subjects, who have an interest, but little power; context setters who
have power, but little direct interest; and the crowd, which consists of stakeholders with little interest
or power.
Insert Figure 1 About Here
The grid was constructed by the project staff and was reviewed later by the steering
committee. The committee was asked to reflect on both the general accuracy of the grid and on the
recommendations that flowed from an analysis of the grid. The grid was constructed in the following
manner: First, four flip chart sheets were taped to a wall to form a single surface two sheets high and
two sheets wide. Next, the two axes were drawn on the surface using a marking pen. The vertical
axis was labeled interest, while the horizontal axis was labeled power. Third, staff members
brainstormed the names of stakeholders by writing the names of different stakeholders as they came to
8
mind on a 1” x 1-1/2” self-adhesive label, one stakeholder per label. Fourth, guided by the
deliberations and judgments of the staff members, the facilitator placed each label in the appropriate
spot on the grid. Labels were collected in round-robin fashion, one label per staff member, until all
labels (other than duplicates) had been placed on the grid or eliminated for some reason. Finally,
labels were moved around until all staff members were satisfied with the relative location of each
stakeholder on the grid.
The resulting grid was interesting in several regards. First, the grid directs attention to the fact
that there is not enough power in the AA community to produce the desired changes in outcomes for
AA men aged 18-30. The majority of stakeholders in the AA community are subjects, not players.
This result was not really a surprise to anyone, but seeing it presented so graphically was actually
depressing. Many in the planning group wondered openly whether a project aimed at helping this
group was in fact hopeless.
Second, the grid suggests two basic political strategies for improving outcomes for AA men.
On the one hand, somehow the non-AA players and context setters must be convinced to take a
greater interest in creating better outcomes for AA men. In other words, ways must be found to move
the players and context setters as a group higher on the interest scale. The obvious way to do this is to
figure out how to convince the non-AA players and context setters that it is somehow in their own best
interests to support policies and programs that produce better outcomes for AA men.
On the other hand, the AA community must be encouraged to organize and mobilize its
potential power so that it can have a bigger impact on producing better outcomes for AA men. In
other words, ways must be found to move the AA community away from too often being subjects and
toward becoming players (Kahn, 1991, 1994; Boyte and Kari, 1996). The first strategy is a way of
getting others to help the AA community. The second strategy is a way for the AA community to
help itself. Both strategies are needed and related. The dialogue that drew out these two basic
political strategies helped reinvigorate the group – as they saw that all was not lost.
9
Third, the grid suggests that race-neutral strategies aimed at disadvantaged individuals,
families, and groups are more likely to be politically viable than race-specific strategies. The logic
supporting this view is as follows: The law favors non-discrimination. Beyond that, however,
convincing non-AA players and context setters to do things solely for AA stakeholders is unlikely.
Non-AA players and context setters are simply not likely to see it as being enough in their self-interest
to do so. On the other hand, they might be convinced to support policies and programs that target
disadvantaged individuals in general, because such policies are more in keeping with constitutional
requirements, but also because they would help members of their own racial and ethnic groups.
Wilson (1987) makes a similar argument.
Fourth, the grid suggests that the race-neutral strategies should demonstrate very high benefit-
cost ratios if they are to move the non-AA players and context setters up on the interest scale. Given
the current political climate, policies and programs that help disadvantaged people are more likely to
be supported by the majority population if they demonstrate high effectiveness, efficiency, and value
for money. Otherwise, the majority population as a whole is likely to remain uninterested and the
needed coalition of support will not be built.
Stakeholder Influence Diagram
The next step in the analysis was to construct a stakeholder influence diagram indicating how
the stakeholders on the power versus interest grid influence one another. The technique was drawn
from Eden and Ackermann (1998, pp. 349-350; see also Finn, 1996). The planning staff looked at
each stakeholder and suggested lines of influence. The facilitator drew in the lines in pencil. Two-
way influences were possible, but the attempt was to identify the primary direction in which influence
flowed between stakeholders. There were frequent debates about which influence relationships
existed, which were most important, and what the primary direction of influence was. Once final
agreement was reached, the pencil lines were made permanent with a marking pen. The results are
10
presented in Figure 2. The figure is complex, indicating multiple influence relationships among
stakeholders.
Insert Figure 2 About Here
The stakeholder influence diagram also produced valuable insights. First, two clear clusters of
stakeholders are visible, and were confirmed via a computerized cluster analysis.2 They are: (1) the
African American community, and (2) everyone else. AA stakeholders have a high interest in
developing better outcomes for AA men, which is to be expected. But the various individuals and
groups within the community vary greatly in terms of their power. At the powerful end of the group
are AA appointed and elected officials (such as Sharon Sayles-Belton, the mayor of Minneapolis from
1993-2001). At the other end are low-income and marginalized African Americans. In between are
AA churches, AA professionals, AA-oriented media, AA businesses, the AA community as a whole,
and several other groupings. The fact that AA stakeholders can be among the most and least powerful
stakeholders illustrates some of what Wilson (1980) means when he discusses “the declining
significance of race.” Specifically, we as a country have reached a stage when such variables as class,
education, and income can be far more important than race in determining outcomes.
A centrality analysis of the influence diagram was performed in order to identify which actors
were most central in the network.3 Essentially, the computer calculates which stakeholders have the
most influence arrows leading both to and from them. Given that definition, and the influence
relationships the planning group entered, the most central stakeholders are, in decreasing order: the
county commissioners, business community, mainstream media, Minneapolis city government
(including the Minneapolis Community Development Agency [MCDA]), Minnesota state government
and the legislature, the African American community as a whole, K-12 education, African American
voters, the United Way, and the executive branch of the Federal government. The centrality analysis
does lead to a second important insight: Namely, the network is rather well structured, and if good
policy solutions are available to sell, it appears that the pathways are there to sell them. In other
11
words, if there are good ideas that tap into enough of the most central stakeholders’ perceived self-
interests, the network structure is probably there to act positively on the ideas. Beyond that, the
county commissioners have a key role to play. If they can be convinced to push meritorious ideas,
they – along with key stakeholders, such as the business community, media, and city and state
government – are in a position to push the ideas toward fruition (cf. Rowley, 1997).
Third, the cluster analysis and centrality analysis reinforce the view that change initiatives
should not focus exclusively on AA men, but should be framed in a way that helps anyone who
experiences disadvantages. Given the relative isolation of the AA community, initiatives focused
exclusively on AA men are unlikely to garner the support of the context setters and most of the
players (Wilson, 1987).
Bases of Power – Directions of Interest Diagrams
The next stage of the analysis involved looking more closely at each of approximately 30
stakeholder groups, including the most central stakeholders. For each stakeholder a bases of power –
directions of interest diagram was created.4 This diagram indicates the sources of power from which
the stakeholder can draw and the goals or interests the stakeholder seeks to achieve or serve (see
Figure 3). Power can come from access to or control over various support mechanisms, such as
money and votes, or from access to or control various sanctions, such as regulatory authority or votes
of no confidence (Eden and Ackermann, 1998, p. 126-7). Directions of interest indicate the
aspirations or concerns of the stakeholder.
Insert Figure 3 About Here
There were two reasons for constructing the diagrams. The first was to help the planning
group find the common ground across all of the stakeholder groups. After first exploring the power
bases and interests of each stakeholder, the group would be in a position to identify commonalities
across the stakeholders as a whole, or across particular subgroups. This search allowed the group to
12
find the common good and the structure of a winning argument (see below). Second, the diagrams
were intended to provide background information on each stakeholder in order to know how to tap
into their interests, or make use of their power, to advance the common good.
In order to construct one of these diagrams a flipchart sheet is first taped to a wall and the
stakeholder’s name is written in the middle of the sheet. The planning group then brainstorms
possible bases of power for the stakeholder and the facilitator writes these in the bottom half of the
sheet. Arrows are drawn on the diagram from the power base to the stakeholder and between power
bases to indicate how one power base is linked to another. The planning group then brainstorms goals
or interests they believe the stakeholder has. The facilitator writes these in on the top half of the sheet.
Arrows are drawn from the stakeholder to the goals or interests. Goals and interests are linked to each
another by arrows when appropriate.
Figure 3 shows the diagram for the Minneapolis business community. Minneapolis’
businesses gain power by bringing in tax base, jobs and employment; by threatening to depart; and by
organizing into a chamber of commerce and through lobbying. Businesses seek a variety of goals,
including, obviously making a profit and minimizing costs. They also seek a healthy local economy,
viable downtown, and competitive region. They want skilled and unskilled workers, a well-run
community, and safety. Finally, they want to stay out of controversy, but also want to leave a legacy
and have favorable public opinion.
Finding the Common Good and the Structure of a Winning Argument
Once all of the bases of power – directions of interest diagrams were constructed, they were
explored in depth to determine which interests, or themes, appeared to garner support from a
significant number of stakeholders. Members of the planning team searched for these common
themes, which were called supra-interests. For each theme, the team constructed a label that appeared
to capture or integrate the specific interests that comprised it. The identification of common themes
13
was a subjective exercise calling for creativity, discernment, and judgment (Vickers, 1965). The map
of the supra-interests is found in Figure 4. The arrows indicate what appear to be the strongest
relationships among the supra-interests. The map is based on an examination of the individual bases
of power – directions of interest diagrams and the planning team’s attempts to fit the supra-interests
together in a reasonable way.
Insert Figure 4 About Here
Figure 4 is called the common good and the structure of a winning argument because it
indicates – at least in part – what the common good is for this group of stakeholders, as well as how
arguments probably will need to be structured to tap into the interests of enough stakeholders to create
a winning coalition. In other words, if persuasive arguments can be created that show how support for
specific policies and programs will further the interests of a significant number of important
stakeholders, then it should be possible to forge the coalition needed to adopt and implement the
policies and programs (Riker, 1986; Bryson and Crosby, 1992; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999).
Figure 4 indicates that there is an overarching interest in maintaining and enhancing the quality
of life in Hennepin County. There are a variety of ways of doing this (the “arrows in”), including
creating healthy communities, supporting a healthy economy, having an effective educational system,
and making wise, cost-beneficial, and cost-effective investments of public monies. Additional
components of the interconnected network of ideas include: supporting strong family ties,
strengthening social services, creating effective links to community organizations and institutions,
increasing employment opportunities, having effective and efficient agencies or organizations,
increasing social justice and social equity, reducing crime, and reducing the role of government.
We will not discuss all of the influence relationships in the map, but it is worth noting several.
The two most central concepts in the map (in terms of “arrows in” and “arrows out”) are making wise,
cost-beneficial, and cost-effective investments of public monies; and having an effective educational
system. Most stakeholders think government has a role to play and they want it to do so in such a way
14
that the best outcomes are achieved. And most stakeholders also see the centrality of having an
effective educational system. An effective system helps support a healthy economy, strong business
community, and effective and efficient agencies or organizations, as well as helps increase social
justice and social equity. Indirectly, through increased employment opportunities, an effective system
helps reduce crime and supports strong family ties. It is also not worthy that many stakeholders wish
to leave a lasting legacy of some sort, a desire that may be tapped to further the common good.
On the other hand, many stakeholders are interested in reducing the role of government. How
is it possible to pursue all of the other interests noted above and also reduce the role of government?
One argument evident in the map indicates that if healthy communities and a strong economy are
created, social services are strengthened, and crime is reduced, then it will be possible to reduce the
role of government. In order to create healthy communities, strengthen the economy, strengthen
social services, and reduce crime, it will be necessary to make wise investments of public monies and
create effective links to community organizations and institutions. The point is not whether this
argument is true in any absolute sense; the point is that the stakeholders as a group appear to believe it
is true.
There are several very interesting features of the map. First, the interests as a set can garner
support across the political spectrum. There is something for traditional liberals (e.g., increase social
justice and social equity, have an effective education system), traditional conservatives (e.g., support
strong family ties, reduce the role of government, support a strong business community), citizen
activists (e.g., create healthy communities, create effective links to community organizations and
institutions), and political reformers and “good government” types (e.g., make wise, cost-beneficial,
and cost-effective investments of public monies, have effective and efficient agencies or
organizations).
Second, and a related point, not all stakeholders need to support all interests – or even the
direct interests of African-American men – in order to help produce better outcomes for African-
15
American men. This is a crucial finding and a major source of hope in the effort to have others help
AA men, and to have AA men help themselves. Said simply, in a shared-power environment all
parties do not have to agree explicitly on goals or interests in order to agree on next steps (Bryson and
Crosby, 1992; Innes, 1996; Roberts, 1999). In other words, while broad-based coalitions of support
appear to be possible, beyond that, a significant co-alignment of interested stakeholders also appears
to be possible, even if formal or informal coalitions are not formed. The combination of coalitions
and co-alignments may provide enough political and economic power to make a significant difference
in outcomes.
Third, and a related point, the interests can be supported by the county commissioners, who
themselves cross the political spectrum. The interests outline common ground on which they and
their constituencies can stand. Since the commissioners are the most central stakeholder in the
network of stakeholders, this source of unity can give them enormous political power to sponsor,
adopt, and legitimize policy changes and programs that might help all disadvantaged people, including
African-American men (Pfeffer, 1996). The key is to identify the wise, cost-beneficial, and cost-
effective investments of public monies that are worth making.
Fourth, the search strategy for potential investments should focus directly on the supra-
interests. Any policy or program idea that would further an interest, or cluster of interests, should be
examined, and those that have notable cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios should be candidates
for further development, local adaptation, and adoption. The arguments in favor of the ideas should be
tailored to stakeholders in relation to their connection to the supra-interest(s) in question (Nutt, pre-
publication draft) (see below).
Fifth, not all policies and programs must support each goal or interest directly. Doing well in
terms of one interest can support other interests as a by-product. For example, working to have an
effective educational system also should help support a healthy economy, strong business community,
and effective and efficient agencies or organizations through having a better educated, more work-
16
ready labor force. Supporting strong family ties also should create healthy communities, help develop
an effective education system, and maintain and enhance quality of life. Thus working to advance one
of the interests in the network can have favorable epiphenomenal impacts elsewhere. The result can
be “coordination without a coordinator” (Wildavsky, 1979).
Finally, developing the structure of a winning argument was probably the most subjective, yet
useful, of the stakeholder analysis exercises. The structure helps move the plight of AA men out of
the realm of “wicked problems” by identifying more or less agreed-upon goals or interests that unite
all or most stakeholders – in other words, what appears to be the common good. Being relatively clear
about goals or interests – while not always necessary, as noted above – does help when it comes to
producing successful programs and projects. Difficulties thus become not so much conflicts over ends
as the need to search for means to achieve those ends. Conflicts over means can be resolved through
interest-based bargaining, and through the creation of pilot projects or small experiments to identify
the most effective approaches (Nutt, 1984; 1992, pre-publication draft). Interest-based bargaining is
far more likely to result in successful outcomes than position-based bargaining (Fisher and Ury, 1981;
Innes, 1996; Thompson, 1998), or trying to impose solutions (Bryson and Bromiley, 1993). The
structure of a winning argument thus outlines a viable political rhetoric around which a community of
interests can mobilize, coalesce, and co-align to further the common good, the interests of the
disadvantaged in general, and the interests of disadvantaged African-American men specifically
(Stone, 1997).
Tapping Individual Stakeholder Interests to Pursue the Common Good
Developing such a rhetoric is a key visionary leadership task (Bryson and Crosby, 1992, pp.
45-50) and should help public leaders, managers, staff, and their collaborators understand how they
might “pursue significance” for themselves and their organizations (Denhardt, 1993). What still
remains is the task of understanding how specific stakeholders – either separately, in coalitions, or in
17
co-aligned groups – might be inspired and mobilized to act in such a way that better outcomes for
African-American men are likely to be produced. A final set of stakeholder analyses thus was
performed in order to understand how each stakeholder’s interests connected with the supra-interests.
Figure 5 presents a map of how the project team thinks it might tap the Minneapolis’ business
community’s interest in advancing the common good. Specifically, policies, programs, and projects
would need to be found that the business community thought would further several supra-interests:
supporting businesses and a healthy economy, creating healthy communities, maintaining and
enhancing the quality of life, and allowing the business community to make a difference and leave a
legacy. Linked to the supra-interests are the more stakeholder-specific interests held by the business
community, also shown in Figure 3.
Insert Figure 5 About Here
Developing these diagrams may be thought of as research designed to help create and market
social programs (Kotler and Roberto, 1989; Andreasen and Andreasen, 1995). The research is
designed to understand the audiences well enough to satisfy both their interests and to advance the
common good. Program design will be enhanced as a result of more clearly understanding
stakeholder interests, and effective one- and two-way communication strategies may be created
through developing and testing out these diagrams with key informants in the target audiences.
Conclusions
In his classic work on policy analysis, the late Aaron Wildavsky (1979, pp. 15-19) argued that
one of the keys to effective policy change was “creating problems that could be solved.” In other
words, policy analysis is a kind of art in which problems must be solvable, at least tentatively or in
principle, in order to be understood. “Solvable” means both that good ideas worth implementing
have been found or created and there is likely political support for implementing them. To be really
18
useful, policy analysis thus requires linking technical rationality with political rationality; that is, it is
important “to mobilize support for substance” (p. 1).
In the case of “wicked problems,” it is by definition extremely difficult to create problems that
can be solved. However, we believe that stakeholder analyses can help. A number of authors have
argued that stakeholder analyses are a key to identifying problems that can and should be solved (e.g.,
Freeman, 1984; Bryson, 1995) – particularly in situations where no one is wholly in charge, but many
are involved, affected, or have some partial responsibility to act (e.g., Bryson and Crosby, 1992; Finn,
1995). What we have proposed is a series of stakeholder analyses designed to help organizations –
and especially governments – think and act strategically during the process of problem formulation
and issue creation. Specifically, we argue that at least five sets of analyses are necessary, including
the creation of: a power versus interest grid, stakeholder influence diagram, bases of power –
directions of interest diagrams, a map for finding the common good and structuring a wining
argument, and diagrams indicating how to tap individual stakeholder interests to pursue the common
good. In combination, what the analyses do is help transform a seemingly “wicked problem” – for
example, how to produce better outcomes for African American men aged 18-30 – into something
more tractable, and therefore amenable to collective action.
Specifically, in order to produce better outcomes for AA men, ways must be found to increase
the interest of non-African-American context setters and players in producing better outcomes for AA
men aged 18-30. Second, the AA community must organize to enhance its own political power.
Third, race-neutral policies should be pursued by governments that advance the common good and
show very high cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios. Fourth, coalitions and co-alignments of
stakeholders should be organized around a set of supra-interests – the common good – and the specific
policies that advance them. These coalitions and co-alignments should be organized by tapping into
the specific interests of specific stakeholders that might advance the common good.
19
While it is important to pursue race-neutral policies and programs in general, it may also be
desirable to think in terms of a hierarchy of policies and programs. Race-neutral policies and
programs would be the most encompassing and would require the broadest coalition of support.
Within that framework, it might also be possible to pursue certain policies and programs aimed
specifically at communities of color, especially as adaptations of policies aimed at disadvantage in
general. These community-specific policies might require smaller coalitions of support, assuming
support for the more general policies is already in place. Finally, it may also be possible to advocate
for some policies and programs aimed directly at African-American men – especially if they are
adaptations of more general policies. These efforts targeting AA men might require the smallest
coalition of support. In all cases, policies and programs should be advocated in terms of their ability
to advance the common good and specific stakeholder interests. Further, the higher the cost-benefit
and cost-effective ratios of the policies and programs being advocated, the better.
When it comes to the process of actually adopting of policies and programs, it will be useful to
perform an additional set of stakeholder analyses. First, Nutt and Backoff (1992, pp. 191-2) suggest
identifying stakeholders in terms of their support or opposition to specific proposals, and their
importance for adopting or implementing the proposals. The resulting array can help identify
coalitions of support and opposition and may suggest ways of increasing support and diminishing
opposition (pp. 195-7). Second, for purposes of developing a viable political strategy, Kaufman
(1986) and Christensen (1993), among others, suggest developing different types of grids in order to
develop a viable political strategy and to predict the likelihood of the strategy’s success. Information
to be arrayed on the grid might include: the stakeholder’s name, position on the issue, specific
concerns, resources, likelihood of involvement, type of influence, and action channels. Third, in
cases where it is particularly important to understand how stakeholder might react to proposals, Eden
and Ackermann (1998, pp. 133-4, 350-355) suggest role plays in which different members of the
planning team take on the role of key stakeholders and think through how the stakeholder would react.
20
The team member is then asked to suggest modifications to the proposal that would improve it from
the stakeholder’s standpoint and the effects of these suggestions on other stakeholders are also
simulated. The proposal is modified until it is as strong as possible in terms of likely stakeholder
reactions.
A portfolio approach to strategy development offers another useful way to engage stakeholders
in adopting and implementing desirable proposals (Bryson, 1986, pp. 73-6; 1995, pp. 197-8, 283-4),
especially in shared-power, no-one-in-charge situations. The portfolio would consist of a two-by-two
matrix in which one of the dimensions is the desirability of the proposal for improving outcomes for
AA males, while the other dimension is the capability of the county or other entities to implement the
proposal. Different proposals would be arrayed on the matrix and coalitions of interest and support
for each proposal would be identified based on an understanding of different stakeholders’ interests.
Organizations would support a proposal because they thought it was in their interest to do so, and yet
the interest of AA men would also be furthered, whether or not their interests were of concern to the
organization. Efforts would be mounted to enlist the necessary support to make sure the specific
proposal was adopted and implemented by interested stakeholders.
In sum, a variety of stakeholder analyses appear to be very useful tools for improving public
management and advancing the common good. We believe that stakeholder analyses are particularly
useful for turning wicked problems into problems that can be solved and are worth solving. Clearly,
Hennepin County and the country would be better off if better outcomes were produced for African-
American men between the ages of 18 and 30. Wise use of stakeholder analyses can offer useful first
steps in that effort.
References
Andreasen, Alan R and Alan A. Andreasen (1995). Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development, and the Environment. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
21
Banxia Software (1997). Decision Explorer Reference Manual. Thousand Oaks, CA: Scolari. Boyte, Harry and Nancy Kari (1996). Rebuilding America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Boschken, Herman L. (1994). “Organizational Performance and Multiple Constituencies.” Public Administration Review. 54(3), 308-312. Bryson, John M. (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, Revised Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bryson, John M. and Philip Bromiley (1993) “Critical Factors Affecting the Planning and Implementation of Major Projects.” Strategic Management Journal. 14(5), 319-337. Bryson, John M. and Barbara C Crosby (1992). Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World.” San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bryson, John M., Michael Gibbons and Gary Shaye (2000). “Enterprise Schemes for Nonprofit Survival, Growth, and Effectiveness.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 217-288. Christensen, Karen S. (1993). “Teaching Savvy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. 12, 202-212. Christensen, Karen S. (1999). Cities and Complexity: Making Intergovernmental Decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cleveland, Harlan (1985). The Knowledge Executive. New York: Dutton. Dahl, Robert A. (1990). Modern Political Analysis, Fifth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Darity, William, and Samuel Myers (1998). Persistent Disparity. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Denhardt, Robert B. (1993). The Pursuit of Significance: Strategies for Managerial Success in Public Organizations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Dunn, William N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Eden, Colin and Fran Ackerman (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Finn, Charles B. (1996). “Utilizing Stakeholder Strategies for Positive Collaborative Outcomes.” In Chris Huxham, ed., Creating Collaborative Advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fisher, Roger and William Ury (1981). Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin.
22
Forester, John (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Friedman, Thomas (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Anchor Books. Galster, George and Edward Hill (1992). The Metropolis in Black & White: Place, Power, and Polarization. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University/CUPR Press. Gourdon, Jacob U. (1999). The African-American Male: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Healey, Patsy. Collaborative Planning: Making Frameworks for Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan. Innes, Judith (1996). “Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472. Kahn. Si (1991). Organizing: A Guide for Grassroots Leaders. Washington, DC: National Assn of Social Workers. Kahn, Si (1994). How People Get Power, Revised Edition. Washington, DC: National Assn of Social Workers. Kaufman, Jerome L. (1986). “Making Planners More Effective Strategists” in Barry Checkway, ed., Strategic Perspectives on Planning Practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Kotler, Philip and Eduardo Roberto (1989). Social Marketing: Strategies for Changing Public Behavior. New York: Free Press. Majone, Giandomenico (1989). Evidence, Argument, & Persuasion in the Policy Pocess.” New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mintzberg, Henry, Bruce Ahlstrand, and Joseph Lampel (1998). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management.” New York, NY: The Free Press. Nutt, Paul. “Theories of Search.” Pre-publication draft. Nutt, Paul, C. and Robert W. Backhoff (1992). Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations: A Handbook for Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1996). Managing with Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Riker, William (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rittel, Horst and Melvin Webber (1973). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
23
Roberts, Nancy (1997). “Public Deliberation: An Alternative Approach to Crafting Policy and Setting Direction,” Public Administration Review, 57, 124-132. Roberts, Nancy (2000). “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution.” International Public Management Review, 1(1), 18 pp; accessed at www.willamette.org/ipmn/test/ejournal/issue1/ejchapter1.htm Roberts, Nancy and Paula King (1991). “The Stakeholder Audit Goes Public,” Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 63-79. Roberts, Nancy and Paula King (1996). Transforming Public Policy: Dynamics of Policy Entrepreneurship and Innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rochefort, David A. and Roger W. Cobb, eds. (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Rowley, Timothy J. (1997). “Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences,” Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-911. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (1999). “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” In Paul Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 117-166. Stone, Deborah (1997). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York, NY: Norton. Thompson, Leigh (2001). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Van Der Heijden, Kees (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. New York: Wiley. Vickers, Geofrey (1965). The Art of Judgment: A Study of Policy Making. New York: Basic Books. White, Joseph L. and James H. Cones, III (1999). Black Man Emerging: Facing the Past and Seizing a Future in America. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. Wildavsky, Aaron (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Wilson, William Julius (1980 The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Wilson, William Julius (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
24
200 HenWhiBlacAmAsiaOthTwoHisp EcoSta
Conof P
Edu
Hea
Hou
Hou
Crim
Table 1: Sample Statistics for Various Outcome Categories
0 Census Data:nepin County population – 1,116,200 te – 898,921 (80.5%) k – 99,943 (8.95%)
erican Indian – 11,163 (1%) n or Pacific Islander – 54,086 (4.84%)
er – 23,046 (2.1%) or more races – 29,041 (2.60%) anic – all races – 45,439 (4.07%) (Hispanics are included in other totals)
nomic tus
1997 – Males earning below the poverty level in Hennepin Co.: AA men 33.2% White men 17.6%
1997 Median income for AA families is 61.2% of that for white families: AA $28,602 White $46,754
1997 – Unemployment rates (18-30 males): AA 36.6% White men 14.9% Males all ages without diploma: AA 19.4% White 9.5%
1990 – Percent of people living in poverty AA’s 29.1% White 9%
centrations overty
In 1999 there were 42,616 MFIP clients in Hennepin County
In 1999. 72.2% of AA in HC live in 15 of 83 neighborhoods in Mpls.
In 1999. 63% of MFIP recipients live in these 15 neighborhoods
In 1999. 42% of all MFIP recipients in Mpls were AA from these 15 neighborhoods
cation “98-“99 Drop Outs Henn Co. 13% AA (31% of all male dropouts) 3% white MPS 15% AA (47.5% of all male dropots) 8% Whites
’98-’99 Mpls Schools Suspended from school AA males – 42% White males – 14%
2000 – Mpls schools 8th grade males Math test - passed AA males – 28% White males – 78% Reading test AA males – 43% White males – 76%
Enrollment change ‘89-90 (estimated) Henn. Co. White males –51.7% AA males – 28.2% ’98-99 white males – 28.2% AA males 43.2%
lth 1999 - 4,161 AA males used emergency medical services 2,918 white males used same
Mortality rate for young AA men is 3 times that of general population and 4 times for whites
27% of men who died aged 18-30 were AA Homicide is #1 cause of death for AA young men
Percent of deaths by Homicide for AA young men Henn County - 64% Mpls – 93% AA homicides – 95 White homicides – 30
sing 72.2 % of AA’s live in 15 of the 83 neighborhoods in Minneapolis. In 7 of the 15 neighborhoods average home value is > $70,000
In all but 2 of the 15 neighborhoods the assessed home value is > $100,000
Average rent in these 15 neighborhoods is less than any other part of Hennepin County
In 10 of the 15 neighborhoods 30-82% of housing units were rated below average
sing (cont.) The 2000 Census says there are 456,129 housing units in Hennepin County
Of the 391,416 units occupied by white, 71.1% owned their unit
Of the 33,998 units occupied by blacks, 31.9% owned their unit
Blacks are ½ as likely to own their own homes
inal Justice 1998 3000 AA men in adult probation system
5960 AA men booked in Hennepin County adult corrections
52% of all Part I crimes in Hennepin County occurred in Minneapolis
1/3 of these crimes (17% of all Part I crimes) occurred in these 15 neighborhoods
Figure 1: Power Versus Interest Grid
25
Figure 2: Stakeholder Influence Diagram
26
Figure 3: Bases of Power – Directions of Inter
27
est Diagrams
28
Figure 4: Finding the Common Good and the Structure of a Winning Argument
29
Figure 5: Tapping Individual Stakeholder Interests to Pursue the Common Good
30
1 Mark Stenglein, a Hennepin County commissioner, was the source of the idea for the African American Men Project. He was bothered by seeing AA men not working and wanted to figure out what the county could do about it. He met with Gary Cunningham, director of the county’s Office of Planning and Development, to discuss what might be done. An in-depth analysis was proposed and the AAMP was the result. 2 The cluster analysis was performed by first entering the stakeholder influence diagram into a special software called Decision Explorer (www.banxia.com). The software includes a number of analysis routines, including cluster analysis. Cluster analysis seeks out groups of items that are well-connected internally as a group, but are not very well-connected to other groups (Banxia Software, 1997). 3 Centrality is calculated by counting the numbers of links (including chains of links) going to or from the stakeholder across bands around the stakeholder. Links directly to or from the stakeholder are in the first band; links connected to those links are in the second band; and so on (Banxia Software, 1997) 4 The diagrams are an adaptation of Eden and Ackermann’s “star diagrams” (1998, pp. 126-128, 346-349).