Stakeholder

How do leaders identify, analyze, and engage stakeholders?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

February 14, 2026

Learning objectives

After completing this unit, you will be able to:

1. Explain social capital theory and distinguish structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions.
2. Apply stakeholder salience analysis (power, legitimacy, urgency) to identify and prioritise stakeholders.
3. Select appropriate engagement levels using the IAP2 spectrum based on stakeholder attributes.
4. Design coalition-building strategies using network analysis and second-order thinking.

Introduction

Today’s session

• Warm-up 15 min
• Social capital theory 30 min
• Stakeholder analysis 25 min
• Break
• Coalition building 30 min
• Integrated case exercise 25 min
• Reflection & closing 10 min

Warm-up

The Invisible 3

The HNU is launching a “Digital Leadership” Master’s.

Group in pairs and identify 3 “shadow” stakeholders who are not the Students or the Dean.

03:00

In their pairs, students brainstorm who actually makes this happen or can stop it.

Power vs. legitimacy

Pick one shadow stakeholder.

Debate in your group:
Do they have the power to veto the program, or just the right to complain about it?

04:00

Plenary debrief

Who is the dormant giant
in this case?

Who identified someone with no interest now, but who will be furious if we get it wrong?

05:00

You’ve just done a ‘gut-level’ stakeholder map. Today we’ll look at Salience Theory to see why the Finance Office often wins even when the Professors have the ‘better’ ideas, and how Coalition Building can help the Professors win back that influence.

Social capital theory

What is social capital?

Based on your reading of Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998), how would you define social capital?

03:00

Quick plenary (3 min).

Let 2–3 students offer definitions. Use their responses to transition to the formal definitions. Expected elements: networks, relationships, resources, trust.

Definitions

Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence Coleman (1988, p. 98)

… features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits Putnam (1993, p. 67)

… the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition Bourdieu (1986, p. 21)

… the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or a social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network. Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998, p. 243)

Similarities and distinctions

The definitions of social capital share some similarities and distinctions:

• There is an emphasis on the structure of social relations (networks)
• Social capital is seen as a resource for action (individual goal achievement)
• The level of analysis stems from macro-level (e.g., societies) to meso/micro-level (e.g., organizations and groups)
• The causal structure of social capital is conceived differently
  
  • Networks as source of social capital; social capital is a result of network embeddedness (e.g., Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988).
  • The network of relations is equivalent to social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; e.g., Putnam, 1993).

Strong vs. weak ties

Coleman (1988) argues that cohesion, that is to say the strength of the relationship between actors, is the source of social capital (strong ties)

• Cohesion facilitates the creation of social norms, trust and sanctions within networks, which safeguard against opportunistic behavior
• Cohesion enables coordination and increases willingness of actors to engage in knowledge exchange (bonding)

Burt (2018) posits that social capital rather emerges from opportunities to bridge disconnections or non-equivalencies separating non-redundant sources of information (structural holes)

• Structural holes (i.e. ‘weak ties’) provide the opportunity to get access to diverse sets of perspectives, skills, or resources.
• Social capital emerges from structurally favorable positions between different group of actors (bridging)

This strong/weak tie distinction maps directly onto stakeholder engagement: bonding ties for core allies, bridging ties for new stakeholder access.

Mini-lecture (5 min).

The strong/weak tie distinction is crucial for stakeholder management: - Strong ties (bonding) are reliable but provide redundant information — your close allies tend to know what you know. - Weak ties (bridging) are less reliable but provide access to new information and diverse perspectives — they connect you to different stakeholder groups.

Effective stakeholder managers need both: strong ties to maintain their core coalition, and weak ties to reach new stakeholder groups and detect emerging issues early.

Structure, cognition, and relation

Social capital in the creation of intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 251)

 

 

 

 

Mini-lecture (5 min).

Walk through the three dimensions with examples:

Figure 1: Social capital in the creation of intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 251)

• Structural dimension: the pattern of connections — who is connected to whom? Network density, centrality, structural holes.
• Relational dimension: the quality of connections — trust, norms, identification, obligations. Two people can have the same network position but very different relational capital.
• Cognitive dimension: shared understanding — shared language, codes, narratives. Without cognitive capital, even well-connected, trusting relationships may fail to produce value because parties cannot communicate effectively.

Connect to stakeholder management: successful engagement requires attention to all three dimensions. You need network access (structural), trust and respect (relational), and shared understanding (cognitive).

Exercise

Diagnose the social capital gap for a key player in the new study program launch.

Group in teams of 2 and distribute following roles:

• The proposer: plays the “Lead Professor” trying to get the Digital Leadership Master’s approved.
• The consultant: Helps them analyze their relationship with a “blocker”.

The proposer explains their “blocker” problem.
The consultant uses the three social capital dimensions to find the weakest link.

06:00

Speed consulting (12 min total: 6 min rotation, 6 min plenary).

“What was the most common social capital gap you diagnosed?” Common answer: cognitive dimension — people underestimate how much shared understanding matters.

Scientific Tie-in: Most will say Cognitive.

Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998): Social capital isn’t just “knowing” people (Structural); it’s having a “shared vision” (Cognitive). If you don’t speak the same language as the Finance Office, your Structural connection is useless.

Transition: “Social capital tells us why relationships matter. Now let’s build tools for systematically identifying and prioritizing stakeholders.”

Opportunity, motivation, and ability

The conceptual model of social capital according to Adler & Kwon (2002, p. 23)

 

 

Stakeholder identification

Who is a stakeholder?

A stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives. Freeman (1984, p. 46)

This definition is deliberately broad. It forces leaders to look beyond the obvious (shareholders, employees, customers) to include all groups that have a stake in the organization’s actions and outcomes.

Mini-lecture (3 min).

The stakeholder concept challenges shareholder primacy. For digital leaders, the stakeholder landscape is particularly complex: digital transformation affects employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, communities, and entire industries — often in unpredictable ways.

Connect to Unit 6: stakeholders are the people with whom you must build power relationships and manage potential conflicts.

Stakeholder salience

Not all stakeholders are equally important at any given time. Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed the stakeholder salience model based on three attributes:

• Power: the stakeholder’s ability to influence the organization (coercive, utilitarian, or normative)
• Legitimacy: the perceived appropriateness of the stakeholder’s claim or relationship
• Urgency: the degree to which the stakeholder’s claim demands immediate attention (time-sensitivity and criticality)

Mini-lecture (5 min).

The three attributes combine to create seven stakeholder types:

1. Dormant (power only) — potential threat if activated
2. Discretionary (legitimacy only) — often recipients of philanthropy
3. Demanding (urgency only) — can be disruptive but easily dismissed
4. Dominant (power + legitimacy) — addressed by formal governance
5. Dangerous (power + urgency) — may resort to coercive tactics
6. Dependent (legitimacy + urgency) — depend on others to act on their behalf
7. Definitive (all three) — demand and deserve immediate attention

The model is dynamic: salience changes over time. A dormant stakeholder can become definitive if they gain legitimacy and urgency.

The 2×2 matrix

A complementary tool to the salience model: map stakeholders on interest (how much they care) × influence (how much they can affect outcomes):

	Low influence	High influence
High interest1	Keep informed — regular updates, transparent communication	Manage closely — active engagement, involve in decisions
Low interest	Monitor — minimal effort, watch for changes	Keep satisfied — address concerns proactively, don’t overwhelm

Table 1: Stakeholder map matrix

Mini-lecture (3 min).

The matrix is widely used because of its simplicity. But it has limitations: it’s static, doesn’t capture network dynamics, and can oversimplify.

Social capital theory enriches the picture: network analysis reveals how stakeholders are connected, showing indirect influence paths that the 2×2 matrix misses. A stakeholder with low direct influence but high centrality may be critical for building coalitions.

Exercise

Apply salience analysis to a digital transformation scenario.

Scenario: Your company is implementing AI-driven customer service in a bank.

1. Identify at least 6 stakeholders
2. Assess each stakeholder’s power and interest (legitimacy and urgency)
3. Classify each using the salience model (dormant, discretionary, demanding, dominant, dangerous, dependent, or definitive)
4. Map them on the interest-influence matrix

10:00

Plenary (3 min): “Which stakeholders did mixed groups classify differently? Why?” Push: “Which stakeholder is most likely to be overlooked?” Often: employees whose jobs are threatened.

Transition: “Now that we know who the stakeholders are and how important they are, the question is: how deeply should we engage each one?”

Matching engagement to salience

The engagement level should match the stakeholder’s salience:

Higher engagement needed

• Definitive stakeholders (all three attributes)
• Stakeholders with veto power
• Groups whose buy-in is critical for implementation
• Internal champions and change agents

Lower engagement sufficient

• Dormant stakeholders (power only)
• Discretionary stakeholders (legitimacy only)
• Groups with low interest and low influence
• Stakeholders who are adequately represented by others

The challenge arises when stakeholders expect a higher level of engagement than you plan to provide. A labor union that expects to be collaborated with but is only consulted will feel disrespected and may become oppositional. A board member who expects to be informed but is asked to collaborate on details may feel their time is wasted.

Getting this calibration right requires stakeholder empathy — the ability to see the situation from each stakeholder’s perspective and anticipate their expectations. This connects to emotional intelligence (Unit 2) and, ultimately, to storytelling (Unit 9): different stakeholders need different narratives.

Beyond the 2×2 map

Static stakeholder maps are useful starting points, but they miss the network dynamics that often determine outcomes.

Key question: “Who connects whom? Where are the bridges and bottlenecks?”

Using social capital concepts to analyze stakeholder networks:

• Centrality: which stakeholders are most connected? They are likely the most influential, even if they lack formal authority
• Structural holes: where are the gaps between stakeholder groups? Bridging these gaps creates opportunities for influence
• Clusters: which stakeholders form tight-knit groups? These clusters may act as blocks in coalition dynamics

Mini-lecture (3 min).

Network analysis connects social capital theory directly to practical action: - Identify a structural hole -> position yourself as a bridge - Identify a central connector -> leverage their network to amplify your message - Identify dense clusters of opposition -> develop targeted strategies for each

This is the practical payoff of social capital theory: it provides not just a theoretical framework but a diagnostic tool for real stakeholder challenges.

Coalitions

Coalitions are a mechanism for achieving change without unilateral authority.

A coalition is a temporary alliance of stakeholders who share a common interest or goal and pool their resources to achieve it (Murnighan, 1978).

Key principles of coalition building:

• Identify potential allies and blockers using the stakeholder map — who shares your objectives? Who opposes them? Who is undecided?
• Start with easy wins: build momentum by first engaging stakeholders who are predisposed to support you
• Sequence carefully: each new ally makes the next one easier to recruit (Lax & Sebenius, 2006). Build a critical mass of support before approaching skeptics.
• Use reciprocity as currency: coalitions run on mutual benefit. Understand what each ally needs and find ways to create value for them (connecting to social capital’s relational dimension).

Mini-lecture (5 min).

Coalition building is where stakeholder management, social capital theory, and political navigation (Unit 6) converge: - The stakeholder map tells you who to engage - Social capital theory tells you through whom to reach them - Political navigation tells you how to exercise influence

Effective coalition builders think several moves ahead — second-order thinking applied to political strategy. “If I engage stakeholder A first, how will that affect my ability to engage stakeholder B?”

Exercise

Design a complete stakeholder engagement strategy.

Get back to our scenario: Your company is implementing AI-driven customer service in a bank.

1. Propose engagement strategies per stakeholder group.
2. Design a coalition-building sequence — who do you engage first? Through whom?

08:00

Push the board to ask: “Why involve the works council rather than collaborate? What happens if you only inform end users?”

The competitive format creates accountability and energy. The “board” perspective forces audience-aware communication — a preview of Unit 9 (storytelling).

Latticework update

New models added to your latticework:

• Stakeholder salience (power × legitimacy × urgency)
• Engagement spectrum as situational tool
• Coalition logic and second-order stakeholder effects

Expected connections:

• Lateral leadership (Unit 6) now has a systematic stakeholder framework.
• Behavioral complexity (Unit 3): different stakeholders require different engagement approaches — the same leader must adapt.
• Psychological safety (Unit 5): trust (relational social capital) is the foundation for all stakeholder engagement.
• Network effects from systems thinking: stakeholder relationships create reinforcing loops.

Homework

Reflect on your own cultural background and how it shapes your leadership assumptions:

• What cultural values (e.g., from Hofstede’s dimensions) are most prominent in your context?
• Have you experienced a situation where cultural differences affected leadership or teamwork?
• What ethical principles guide your approach to leadership?

This reflection prepares for Unit 8 on cross-cultural leadership, ethical frameworks, and the integration of all course concepts. Students should arrive with a concrete cultural experience they can analyze.

“As you reflect, think about how your cultural background shapes what you expect from leaders — and what leaders you aspire to be.”

Reflection & closing

Closing quote

The core intuition guiding social capital research is that the goodwill that others have toward us is a valuable resource (Adler & Kwon, 2002).

Let this sit. Then transition to homework.

Q&A

Open the floor for remaining questions.

Literature

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In The sociology of economic life (pp. 78–92). Routledge.

Burt, R. S. (2018). Structural holes. In Social stratification (pp. 659–663). Routledge.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Di Vincenzo, F., & Mascia, D. (2012). Social capital in project-based organizations: Its role, structure, and impact on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 5–14.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3-d negotiation: Powerful tools to change the game in your most important deals. Harvard Business Press.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (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.

Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Models of coalition formation. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1130–1153.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and politics: A reader (pp. 223–234). Springer.

Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate r&d teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

Wagner, H.-T., Beimborn, D., & Weitzel, T. (2014). How social capital among information technology and business units drives operational alignment and IT business value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 241–272.

Footnotes

1. People are “interested” because they have a valid claim (legitimacy) or a time-sensitive need (urgency).