WMBA 6627 Week 2 Stakeholder Identification Register Example

Course	WMBA 6627 Stakeholder Management and Organizational Behavior
Week	Week 2
Paper type	Stakeholder register
Length	About 840 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for WMBA 6627 Week 2

Twenty Parties to One Book: A Stakeholder Register for a Brokerage's Shared Agency System, Each With Its Stake, What It Could Gain or Lose and the One Action That Would Matter

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6627: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Behavior

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title counts the parties and names the register's columns, because the week asks for a register of parties rather than a diagram.

Twenty Parties to One Book: A Stakeholder Register for a Brokerage's Shared Agency System, Each With Its Stake, What It Could Gain or Lose and the One Action That Would Matter

How the List Was Assembled

This register lists the parties to One Book, an initiative at Harbor Point Insurance Group (a composite eleven-office agency group in southern New England) for moving every office's client records onto one agency management system and routing routine service work to two regional service centers.

The list was built in three passes. First, I walked the project's process maps, from quoting to renewal, and listed everyone who touches a client record. Second, I reviewed the contracts the change affects: carrier appointment agreements, the agency management system license and the acquisition agreements with former owners. Third, I asked the eleven office principals and the two service center managers one question: who else would notice if this went wrong? That question added four parties, including the premium finance company and the firm's errors and omissions insurer.

Roles appear rather than names, and groups appear where they act as one. Freeman et al. (2010) define stakeholders broadly as those who can affect or be affected by an organization's purpose, and the final column, the action each party could take, keeps the list focused on parties that can actually change the outcome. Mitchell et al. (1997) argued that salience depends on power, legitimacy and urgency, and the next assignment will use the register to sort parties on those lines.

What this page is doingThe method comes first, so the reader can judge whether the list is complete.

The Register

Table 1

One Book Stakeholder Register

No.	Party	Internal or external	Stake in One Book	Could gain or lose	Action that would matter \|
S01	Private equity owner	External	Expects margin improvement before a planned sale	Gains a scalable platform; loses value if renewals drop	Fund or cut the project budget \|
S02	Chief executive officer	Internal	Sponsors One Book	Gains integration story; loses credibility if it stalls	Set deadlines and enforce them with principals \|
S03	Office principals, acquired agencies	Internal	Control their offices' books	Lose control over client relationships	Withhold accounts or slow migration \|
S04	Office principals, founding offices	Internal	Already use shared practices	Gain consistency	Champion the change with peers \|
S05	Commercial producers	Internal	Earn commission on their accounts	Lose exclusive access; gain cross-selling data	Keep accounts off the system \|
S06	Personal lines producers	Internal	Earn commission on smaller accounts	Gain service capacity	Refer more work to service centers \|
S07	Account managers in offices	Internal	Service clients day to day	Lose familiar workflows; may fear job changes	Resist new procedures or leave \|
S08	Service center managers	Internal	Run the two new centers	Gain a larger role	Prove service levels early \|
S09	Data migration team	Internal	Moves records	Gain or lose reputation on data quality	Flag or miss data problems \|
S10	Chief financial officer	Internal	Owns commission accounting	Gains one ledger	Delay commission reporting changes \|
S11	Compliance and licensing manager	Internal	Ensures licensed staff handle accounts	Gains visibility; faces risk if unlicensed staff serve clients	Block routing to unlicensed staff \|
S12	Insurance carriers	External	Appoint the agency and pay commissions	Gain cleaner data; lose patience with errors	Restrict appointments or quoting access \|
S13	Commercial clients	External	Rely on their account manager	Gain broader service; may lose a familiar contact	Move their accounts to a competitor \|
S14	Personal lines clients	External	Want quick service	Gain extended hours	Complain or leave if calls go unanswered \|
S15	Agency management system vendor	External	Provides the platform	Gains a larger license	Prioritize or delay Harbor Point's issues \|
S16	Premium finance company	External	Finances client premiums through agency records	Faces errors if account data changes	Hold financing on affected accounts \|
S17	Errors and omissions insurer	External	Insures the agency against professional mistakes	Faces claims if renewals are missed	Raise premiums or add exclusions \|
S18	State insurance regulators	External	License agencies and producers	None directly	Act on complaints or licensing gaps \|
S19	Former owners with earn-out payments	Internal	Paid partly on their offices' revenue	Fear earn-outs fall if revenue is reassigned	Dispute revenue attribution \|
S20	Information technology staff	Internal	Support the system	Gain a single platform; face heavier workload	Slow the rollout through support backlogs \|

The firm and parties are composite; numbers will carry through later assignments.

What this page is doingEach row ends with the single action that would matter, so the register points toward engagement rather than description.

What the Register Shows

Two features stand out. First, the parties who could stall the project most easily, the acquired-office principals, commercial producers and former owners with earn-outs, are internal and have a direct financial stake in keeping accounts where they are. Oreg (2006) found that resistance to change rose when people expected to lose power or prestige and when they distrusted management, conditions that fit these parties closely. Second, several external parties, the premium finance company and the errors and omissions insurer, have little interest in One Book until something goes wrong, but could act quickly then. Both groups need attention, for different reasons, and the power and interest grid will place them.

References

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.

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

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247

WMBA 6627 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms

The stakeholder identification assignment asks students to list everyone who can affect or be affected by an initiative. Instructors expect a register, not a diagram, with fifteen to twenty-five entries and columns for the party, whether it is internal or external, its stake stated briefly, what it could gain or lose and the action it could take that would matter. Roles should appear rather than personal names, and groups should appear where they act as one. About half a page above the table should explain how the list was assembled, so a reader can judge its completeness. A short closing section usually notes what the register reveals before the parties are mapped by power and interest. Parties outside the organization deserve as much care as internal ones.

How this WMBA 6627 Week 2 example is built

The paper describes the initiative and explains three passes used to build the list: process maps, affected contracts and a question to office principals and service center managers about who else would notice failure. It cites Freeman and colleagues on the breadth of stakeholders and Mitchell and colleagues on salience. A table lists twenty numbered parties with their type, stake, potential gain or loss and decisive action. A closing section observes that the parties best placed to stall the project are internal and financially exposed, citing Oreg on resistance, and that some external parties matter only when something goes wrong. Margin comments flag the method and the action column.

WMBA 6627 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks

Graders reward a register that is complete enough to include less obvious parties, such as insurers, financiers or regulators, and focused enough to exclude parties with no real stake. Each entry should have a specific stake and a concrete action it could take. Explaining the method of identification demonstrates rigor. Using roles rather than names, and grouping where appropriate, shows professional judgment. A brief reading of the register, linking parties to likely behavior, shows the purpose of the exercise. Registers whose last column names one action per party, rather than a general note, read as tools rather than lists. Registers that include parties who matter only when something goes wrong show particularly careful thinking.

WMBA 6627 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks

Start with the process the initiative changes and list everyone who touches it. Then read the contracts, agreements and policies the change affects, and add anyone they name. Finally, ask a few people who else would notice if things went wrong. For each party, write its stake in one clause and the one thing it could do that would change the outcome. Students often lose marks by listing only internal departments, by using personal names or by describing stakes vaguely. Another common gap is omitting how the list was built. If you would like a custom sample stakeholder register for an initiative you are studying, send us its scope.

Get a WMBA 6627 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Email over the Week 2 prompt with whichever rubric your classroom is using and the initiative it applies to, and the desk returns an identification pass that reaches past the obvious names, each entry carrying a stake and an available action. Free on a first request, back within 24-48 hours.

More WMBA 6627 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6627 Week 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6627 Week 2 sample paper?

The stakeholder identification register for a brokerage's shared system rollout is published here.

How many parties are listed?

Twenty, from the private equity owner to state insurance regulators.

How was the list built?

From process maps, affected contracts and a question asked of every office principal.

What does each row include?

Internal or external status, stake, potential gain or loss and the action that would matter.

Which parties could stall the project most easily?

Acquired-office principals, commercial producers and former owners with earn-outs.