| Course | MGMT 8415M Socially Conscious Leader |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder map |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8415M Week 2
Ten Parties to One Pea Line Move: A Stakeholder Map of a Vegetable Processor's Plan to Shift Pea Processing From Its Oldest Plant, Scoring Power, Legitimacy and Urgency and Separating Who Will Be Heard From Who Is Owed
Student Name
Walden University
MGMT 8415M: Socially Conscious Leader
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Ten Parties to One Pea Line Move: A Stakeholder Map of a Vegetable Processor's Plan to Shift Pea Processing From Its Oldest Plant, Scoring Power, Legitimacy and Urgency and Separating Who Will Be Heard From Who Is Owed
One Decision at the Center
In January 2026 Sawyer Creek Foods' leadership proposed moving pea processing from its 1958 plant in the village of Ellery to its newer plant at Ransom Falls, 58 miles away, before the June pea harvest. The move would retire one of Ellery's three processing lines, cut its seasonal hiring by about 220 positions and its year-round staff by 34, and save an estimated $1.9 million a year, mostly in wages and power. Ransom Falls would add a third shift for the pea season. The decision is the unit of analysis. Every party on the map is affected by this move, not by the company in general. Freeman (1984) drew the boundary of stakeholding wide, taking in anyone whose fortunes the firm's pursuit of its goals touches, or who can touch the firm in return; tying the map to one decision is what keeps that wide boundary usable.
The Map
[after]
Scores follow the salience model of Mitchell et al. (1997), in which a party's salience to managers rises with the number of three attributes it holds: power to influence the firm, legitimacy of its relationship or claim and urgency, meaning time-sensitivity and criticality. Each score rests on evidence from the case: contracts, the union agreement, village budget figures and the harvest calendar.
Table 1
Parties to the Pea Line Move, Scored for Salience
| Party | What the move changes for them | Power | Legitimacy | Urgency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year-round Ellery line staff (34) | Transfer offers at Ransom Falls or severance | Low | High | High | |
| Seasonal Ellery workers, many returning yearly | About 220 fewer summer jobs within commuting range | Low | High | High | |
| Pea growers within 20 miles of Ellery (31 farms) | Longer haul; harvest timing set from farther away | Medium | High | High | |
| Ransom Falls third-shift hires | New seasonal jobs, night hours | Low | Medium | Low | |
| Village of Ellery | Loss of water and sewer revenue, smaller payroll | Low | Medium | Medium | |
| Ellery school district | Seasonal families' children; tax base | Low | Medium | Low | |
| Ransom Falls neighbors on the haul route | Added truck traffic at night in June and July | Low | Medium | Medium | |
| Retail and food service customers | No direct change if supply holds | High | Medium | Low | |
| Family and outside shareholders | Higher margin; transition risk in first season | High | High | Low | |
| Local union representing Ellery staff | Contract terms on transfer and severance | Medium | High | High | |
Reading the Scores
The table shows a clear split. The parties with power, shareholders and customers, are affected mildly or favorably. The parties most affected, Ellery's staff, seasonal workers and nearby growers, hold strong legitimacy and urgency but little power, with the union and the growers as partial exceptions. In the salience model, a party with legitimacy and urgency but no power is a dependent stakeholder: its claim is real, but it relies on others to advance it.
Heard Versus Owed
The salience model predicts who managers will attend to; it does not say who they ought to attend to. Mitchell and colleagues were explicit that salience describes managerial perception. On this decision, the parties likely to be heard are the shareholders, who will review the savings case, and the union, whose agreement governs transfer terms. Growers have some voice through their contracts and the growers' association. Seasonal workers have almost none: they are not covered by the union agreement, they are hired anew each summer and no forum exists in which their loss is recorded.
Donaldson and Preston (1995) argued that stakeholder theory is at bottom normative: stakeholders' interests have intrinsic value, and their legitimacy does not depend on whether managers find them instrumentally useful. On that view, the seasonal workers' claim is not weaker because they lack power. Many have returned to Ellery every June for years, have arranged child care and second jobs around the pea pack and live within reach of no other processing plant. The move takes from them something they had good reason to expect.
The Underweighted Claim
The claim most underweighted by the proposed process belongs to the returning seasonal workers. Their loss is large relative to their incomes, concentrated in one village and invisible in the savings case, which records only reduced payroll. A process that heard them would at least record their number, offer priority for Ransom Falls seasonal hiring with a transport option during the pea run and estimate what a one-season transition payment would cost. None of these steps would reverse the decision; each would make its costs visible to the people deciding.
What the Map Does Not Settle
The map does not decide whether the move is right. The savings are real and may protect the company's competitiveness and the remaining Ellery jobs. It decides something narrower: that the decision process, as designed, will hear the parties with power and miss the parties with the strongest claims.
References
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
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/10.2307/259247
The Walden MGMT 8415M Week 2 instructions
Week 2 asks for a stakeholder map built around one organizational decision, not the organization in general. State the decision with its date and scale. Then list parties at a grain fine enough to be useful, often eight to twelve groups, and record what the decision changes for each. Most prompts ask you to score each party's salience on the three attributes in the Mitchell, Agle and Wood model, citing evidence for every score. The analysis should separate the parties managers are likely to hear from the parties whose claims carry moral weight, and close by naming the claim you think is most underweighted. Three to five pages with a table is the usual scope.
Inside the MGMT 8415M Week 2 example
The sample begins with the pea line decision, its savings and its job effects, and ties the map to that decision with Freeman's broad definition narrowed. A ten-row table records each party's change, power, legitimacy and urgency. A section reads the table and finds the powerful parties affected mildly and the most affected parties largely powerless. The heard-versus-owed section notes that salience describes managers' perception, then uses Donaldson and Preston's normative argument to weigh seasonal workers' claim. The underweighted claim is named as that of returning seasonal workers, with three steps that would make it visible. A closing paragraph states what the map does not decide. The table's key explains how each score was assigned.
Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8415M Week 2 rubric
The grain of the map and the separation of voice from moral weight carry the score. Maps listing employees, customers and community earn little, because they decide nothing. Graders look for parties specific enough that the decision's effect on each can be stated, and for salience scores backed by evidence such as contracts or budgets. The strongest papers explain that salience predicts attention, not obligation, and then argue whose claim is owed more than it will receive. Naming one underweighted claim, with practical steps, shows judgment. A readable table and accurate APA citations of the salience and stakeholder sources complete the MGMT 8415M Week 2 marks. Maps that score every party high on every attribute show no discrimination and are marked down.
Common MGMT 8415M Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent weakness is a map too coarse to show anything. Split broad groups until each faces a distinct change: seasonal versus year-round workers, nearby versus distant growers, the old town versus the new route. Before scoring any party, state in a sentence what the decision does to it. Use documents to justify power, legitimacy and urgency. Remember that the model describes whom managers notice; your analysis must also ask whom they should. Choose one underweighted claim and propose steps to record it, even if the decision stands. A tutor can help you find the right grain; the pea line map above models it party by party. Keep the table on one page if you can.
Get a MGMT 8415M Week 2 example written to your instructions
A decision anchors this map: supply the one your section set, or let the desk pick a documented one, and send the Week 2 prompt with its rubric; a finished map and analysis arrive in 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Where the course requires a particular salience model or diagram format, the map follows it exactly.
More MGMT 8415M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8415M Week 1: Opening Post
- MGMT 8415M Week 3: Ethics Application
- MGMT 8415M Week 4: Business Case Appraisal
- MGMT 8415M Week 5: Trade-Off Memo
- MGMT 8415M Week 6: Governance Analysis
- MGMT 8415M Week 7: Externality Case
- MGMT 8415M Week 8: Impact Measurement Brief
- MGMT 8415M Week 9: Dilemma Paper
- MGMT 8415M Week 10: Obligation Argument
- MGMT 8415M Week 11: Final Commitment Paper
- MGMT 8405M Week 2: Trait Critique
- MGMT 8009M Week 2: Bounded Rationality Memo
- MGMT 8003M Week 2: Search Strategy Memo
MGMT 8415M Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8415M Week 2 sample paper?
Scroll up for the pea line stakeholder map, the Week 2 sample, salience table included.
What decision does the MGMT 8415M Week 2 map analyze?
A processor's plan to move pea processing from an older village plant to a newer plant 58 miles away.
What is the Mitchell, Agle and Wood salience model?
It predicts how much attention managers give a party from three things: whether the party can affect the firm, whether its claim is proper and how pressing it is.
Who is the most underweighted party in the sample?
Returning seasonal workers, who lose summer jobs but have no union coverage and no forum where their loss is recorded.
Does the stakeholder map decide whether the move is right?
No; it shows that the process will hear parties with power and miss those with the strongest claims.