[MV72018]

There's a reason it is called "stakeholder management".

We are all stakeholders, and we are being managed.  I had no expectations beyond that.

BC

Smart posture. In an optimistic mood, I hope there are still some thoughtful managers who have not swallowed and implemented the entire conceptual framework peddled in many business schools, including "stakeholder management." 

One of my betes noires is the canonization and widespread invocation of "benefit-cost analysis" (or "cost-benefit analysis"), often pushed by managers who ask "Do the benefits outweigh the costs?" Many or most assume that (i) costs and benefits are truly commensurable, and that (ii) it would be utterly ludicrous to decline to proceed with a course of action if its benefits 'exceeded' its costs. That is a gross simplification. 

Under certain circumstances it can be quite rational to decline to proceed with such a course of action. For example, it might not be wise to proceed if realizing the greater benefits required bearing accompanying smaller but substantial costs that exceed some threshhold of acceptability. It's one thing if there are 99 units of benefit and 1 unit of cost, and quite another if there are 50.5 units of benefit and 49.5 units of cost. Other factors that could merit reconsideration of a course of action with a 'favorable benefit-cost analysis' include an inequitable its distribution of its costs, and whether they are practically reversible. Maybe there are other factors that, if applicable, could reasonably trump a favorable benefit-cost analysis.

[MV72018]

There's a reason it is called "stakeholder management".

We are all stakeholders, and we are being managed.  I had no expectations beyond that.

BC

Smart posture. In an optimistic mood, I hope there are still some thoughtful managers who have not swallowed and implemented the entire conceptual framework peddled in many business schools, including "stakeholder management." 

One of my betes noires is the canonization and widespread invocation of "benefit-cost analysis" (or "cost-benefit analysis"), often pushed by managers who ask "Do the benefits outweigh the costs?" Many or most assume that (i) costs and benefits are truly commensurable, and that (ii) it would be utterly ludicrous to decline to proceed with a course of action if its benefits 'exceeded' its costs. That is a gross simplification. 

Under certain circumstances it can be quite rational to decline to proceed with such a course of action. For example, it might not be wise to proceed if realizing the greater benefits required bearing accompanying smaller but substantial costs that exceed some threshhold of acceptability. It's one thing if there are 99 units of benefit and 1 unit of cost, and quite another if there are 50.5 units of benefit and 49.5 units of cost. Other factors that could merit reconsideration of a course of action with a 'favorable benefit-cost analysis' include an inequitable its distribution of its costs, and whether they are practically reversible. Maybe there are other factors that, if applicable, could reasonably trump a favorable benefit-cost analysis.