MGMT3102 Chap.6 Diagnosing a Contested Stakeholder Relationship
Diagnosing a Contested Stakeholder Relationship
The Week 4 group presentation asks for a diagnosis of a recent, publicly contested relationship between an organisation and its social stakeholders.
This chapter turns the brief into a method: choose a case that can carry the analysis, establish it with credible evidence, define the central problem in one sentence, diagnose the stakeholders, analyse the relationships and the organisation's response, and end with the main risk or opportunity.
Because the exam also asks you to diagnose stakeholder relationships, the same five parts form the opening of a strong exam answer.
The chapter shows how to sharpen a vague problem statement, how the brief weights its criteria, and how to judge a response on what was said and what was done.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Case selection criteria
- 02
Evidence that establishes significance
- 03
Writing the central problem as one sentence
- 04
Stakeholder diagnosis with voice, power, legitimacy and urgency
- 05
Assessing the organisation's response
- 06
Main stakeholder risk or opportunity
Worked example · free
Writing a five-part diagnosis of a rental housing complaint
- +1Evidence. The tenancy body's inquiry and documented complaints establish a significant issue.
- +1Problem. The manager treated renovation as a reason to price out existing tenants and shut them out of the decision, losing their trust.
- +1Stakeholders. Tenants hold legitimate, urgent claims and gain power through the inquiry; the owner holds power and legitimacy.
- +1Relationships and response. Goodwill with tenants is damaged, and ignoring the association further harms legitimacy.
- +1Main risk. Regulatory action and reputational damage that outlast the extra rent collected.
Key terms
- Problem definition
- A one-sentence statement of the central stakeholder problem that names the relationship, the resource at risk and why it matters.
- Credible evidence
- Sources such as regulator statements, inquiry findings, organisational documents and union or NGO reports that establish an issue's significance.
- Organisational response
- What a business has said and done about a stakeholder issue, judged on acknowledgement, responsibility, communication, involvement and action.
- Peer review
- The compulsory confidential rating group members give each other after a group task, which may be considered where contribution is clearly unequal.
- Main stakeholder risk
- The most important threat or opportunity an organisation now faces in a stakeholder relationship.
- Contested relationship
- A relationship between a business and its stakeholders that has become disputed, damaged or publicly scrutinised.
Diagnosing a Contested Stakeholder Relationship FAQ
Do I need to recommend a strategy in the diagnostic presentation?
Not a detailed one. The brief says the focus is diagnosis: what happened, who is affected, what is at stake, how the organisation responded and why it matters. The diagnosis should still make clear what the organisation would need to attend to if it wanted to manage the relationship more responsibly.
What makes a good case for the presentation?
One focal business, a recent and publicly documented issue involving social stakeholders rather than only shareholders, questions of trust, legitimacy, voice or harm, enough credible public information, and a scope narrow enough for a short talk. Cases from the past year are expected.
How are the presentation marks weighted?
Case selection and evidence 15%, problem diagnosis 20%, stakeholder diagnosis 25%, social capital and response analysis 25%, and course concepts with communication 15%. Half the marks therefore depend on analysing stakeholders and relationships rather than describing the case.
How should I judge an organisation's response?
Ask whether it acknowledged the concerns, accepted responsibility, communicated clearly, involved those affected and took meaningful action, then say whether it repaired, protected or further damaged trust and legitimacy. Separate what the organisation said from what it actually did.
What counts as credible evidence for a stakeholder issue?
The brief lists news reports, regulator statements, organisational documents, stakeholder statements, union or NGO reports, government reports and inquiry findings. Weigh them: an inquiry finding outweighs a single social media post, and a company's own statement is evidence of its account rather than of what actually happened.
Exam move
Practise the problem sentence on three news stories until each version names an act, a relationship, a resource at risk and a reason it matters beyond reputation. Then write the remaining four parts in about a hundred words each. Time yourself, because the exam rewards the same proportion: brief evidence, sharp problem, and most of your words on stakeholders and relationships.
Keep the brief's five headings as the skeleton for the opening of any exam case.
Working through Diagnosing a Contested Stakeholder Relationship in MGMT3102? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any MGMT3102 Diagnosing a Contested Stakeholder Relationship question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how MGMT3102 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.