The class average on the Stakeholder Engagement Analysis assignment was 73%. Outlined below is some general feedback to supplement the detailed individual feedback that each of you received.
Common Key Strengths:
- Most students demonstrated a clear understanding of their chosen organization’s background and past approach to stakeholder engagement. If using a specific initiative to frame the assignment, most students did a good job of explaining the importance and key aspects of that initiative.
- Despite all of the concerns and questions I received about using a Stakeholder Impact Analysis table, most students did a great job of using this tool appropriately.
- Almost everyone developed a logical stakeholder map and found a logical way to prioritize stakeholders.
- Most students were able to apply the Clarkson Principles to their stakeholder engagement plans.
- Many students had done some impressive research and had a large variety of sources from which to draw insights.
Common Areas for Improvement:
- The number one weakness that affected many assignments was poor proofreading. Any effort you put into research and strategic insight is immediately diminished when you are careless about how you present that work. This is especially important in a public relations course! I hope more care is taken with the next assignment.
- Many students walked through a solid overview of the external environment in which the organization operates and competes – but few linked this context to its importance in shaping the organization’s stakeholder engagement (the core purpose of the assignment). For example, when you analyze competitors, you should analyze their approaches to stakeholder engagement. When you analyze the political-legal environment, you should analyze its effect on regulators/governments as one of your organization’s key stakeholders. When you analyze social trends, you should analyze how they shape the perceptions and preferences of your specific, relevant stakeholders. Researching and analyzing the internal and external environments as the first step in an assignment is not just an academic exercise to complete; rather, it is an opportunity to generate insights and shape your recommendations.
- Even though most students did a very good job with their SIA table and stakeholder maps, many also missed the step of interpreting key takeaways from those tools. The ability to put information in the right boxes or rings is fine – but what really matters are the insights and new perspectives that come from them.
- Most students outlined a very logical, high-level strategy with general direction for their organization to become more engaging with stakeholders – but “high-level” and “general” were not enough for the key stakeholders. Key stakeholders deserve detailed approaches, and many students missed focusing in on those recommendations.
Characteristics of the Stronger Submissions:
- Far more than eight distinct research sources, drawing from a wide variety of perspectives;
- Insights about stakeholder engagement throughout the assignment, not just when asked for;
- Added value from every single tool or framework used (i.e. not just the information provided in a tool or framework, but key insights or takeaways from its use in that context);
- Integrated approach to the organization’s stakeholder engagement, not just by discrete stakeholders one at a time;
- Detailed engagement plans for key/primary stakeholders; and
- Authentic consideration vis-à-vis the Clarkson Principles, not just going through the motions.
If you would like to see examples of very strong submissions, take a look at Exemplar 1 and Exemplar 2. Keep in mind that they are not perfect, but they reflect many of the characteristics listed above.
Leave a Reply