Attested Media

The Stakeholder Salience Model, originally developed by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) and later discussed by Cornelissen (2014), provides a comprehensive framework for mapping, identifying, and categorising an organisation’s stakeholders.

The model defines stakeholder salience as the degree to which managers and leaders give priority to competing stakeholder claims. It categorises stakeholders based on three core attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. While visibility may influence perception in practice, the original model emphasises these three attributes as central.

The core premise of the model is that stakeholders who possess one or more of these attributes will receive varying levels of attention. Those who possess multiple attributes are more salient and should therefore be prioritised in engagement and communication over those who possess only one.

The model identifies seven stakeholder categories, grouped into three broad clusters as follows.

1. Latent stakeholders (one attribute)

Latent stakeholders possess only one of the three attributes and therefore have low salience. However, they may become more salient if circumstances change.

1. Dormant stakeholders
   Dormant stakeholders possess power but lack legitimacy and urgency. According to Mitchell et al. (1997), their power remains inactive until it is coupled with another attribute.

For example, in a family setup, this could be a wealthy uncle who does not live with the family but can intervene financially during a crisis. In a church context, this may be a major donor who funds projects but does not participate in church life or governance. In an organisation, this could be a government regulator or senior political actor with the authority to intervene but no immediate involvement.

• Discretionary stakeholders
  Discretionary stakeholders possess legitimacy but lack power and urgency. Their claims are appropriate and socially accepted, but they do not influence decisions directly.

For example, extended family members such as cousins who are recognised as family but have no role in decision-making. In a church, occasional attendees or visitors are legitimate members of the congregation but are not actively involved. In an organisation, corporate social responsibility beneficiaries or alumni fall into this category, as they have a legitimate relationship but limited strategic influence.

• Demanding stakeholders
  Demanding stakeholders possess urgency but lack power and legitimacy. Their claims call for immediate attention but are often disruptive if not managed carefully.

For example, a child insisting on immediate attention for a non-critical issue. In a church setting, this may involve a vocal congregant pushing for immediate changes based purely on personal preference. In an organisation, this could be a customer or social media user making loud complaints without formal authority or strategic relevance.

2. Expectant stakeholders (two attributes)

Expectant stakeholders possess two of the three attributes and therefore have moderate to high salience. Their concerns require careful and consistent engagement.

1. Dominant stakeholders
   Dominant stakeholders possess both power and legitimacy, making them highly influential. Mitchell et al. (1997) note that these stakeholders typically form the core coalition around which organisations are structured.

Examples include employees, customers, and investors. In a family, parents or guardians who hold authority and responsibility over family decisions fall into this category. In a church, pastors, elders, and board members are dominant stakeholders. In an organisation, senior management, board members, major shareholders, and key institutional clients occupy this position.

• Dangerous stakeholders
  Dangerous stakeholders possess power and urgency but lack legitimacy, making them potentially coercive. Their influence may be exercised through force, pressure, or threats rather than accepted authority.

Examples include demonstrators protesting issues such as the non-employment of locals. In organisations, this may include activist groups, cyber attackers, or politically connected individuals using coercion to force action. In a family context, this could involve an abusive or threatening relative exerting pressure without moral legitimacy. In a church, external pressure groups or individuals threatening reputational damage unless demands are met fall into this category.

• Dependent stakeholders
  Dependent stakeholders possess legitimacy and urgency but lack power, making them reliant on others for advocacy. Mitchell et al. (1997) emphasise that these stakeholders depend on dominant stakeholders to advance their claims.

For example, young children or elderly family members who require care and protection. In a church, vulnerable congregants seeking pastoral care or financial assistance belong to this group. In an organisational or community context, individuals affected by projects who depend on unions, NGOs, or leadership for representation also fall into this category.

3. Definitive stakeholders (three attributes)

Definitive stakeholders possess power, legitimacy, and urgency simultaneously and therefore have the highest level of salience. Their claims demand immediate and sustained attention, as delays can result in serious consequences.

For instance, a parent facing a medical emergency that requires immediate family decisions, or church leadership responding to safeguarding, legal, or governance crises. In an organisation, this includes executive leadership responding to major crises such as legal action, regulatory sanctions, data breaches, or significant reputational threats.

By applying the Stakeholder Salience Model as originally conceptualised by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997), families, churches, and organisations can avoid treating all stakeholder claims as equal and instead respond strategically based on influence, legitimacy, and urgency.

Conclusion
At family level, church leadership, or organisational management, regularly assess who your stakeholders are, which attributes they possess, and how their salience may shift over time.

Strategic communication should help you respond to the most salient claims with wisdom and intention as opposed to reacting to the loudest voice.

References

Cornelissen, J. (2014). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105