Stakeholder prioritisation by Mayors and CEOs in infrastructure asset decisions

• Published in: Journal of accounting & organizational change Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. 355 - 381
• Main Authors: Siriwardhane, Pavithra, Taylor, Dennis
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bradford Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 26.08.2014; Emerald Group Publishing Limited
• Subjects: Chief executive officers; Constitutional law; Decision making; Health services; Identification; Infrastructure; Investigations; Legitimacy; Local government; Managers; Mayors; Objectives; Perceptions; Planning; Power; Public sector; Roles; Stakeholders; State government; Studies; Waste disposal
• ISSN: 1832-5912; 1832-5912; 1839-5473
• DOI: 10.1108/JAOC-03-2012-0018

Purpose The purpose of the study is to investigate differences between the perceptions of the Mayors and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of local government authorities (LGAs) with regard to the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency of different identified stakeholder groups regarding their claims and needs concerning infrastructure assets. Stakeholder groups are categorised into those at the public level and those at higher-tier government level. Design/methodology/approach A survey of 420 LGAs throughout Australia was undertaken using an instrument developed from the constructs in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Findings The results first reveal that there are more similarities than differences between the perceptions of the Mayors and CEOs with regard to stakeholder attributes of different stakeholder groups. Second, both Mayors and CEOs view stakeholders in infrastructure decision-making as largely ‘expectant dependant’. However, there is evidence that some biased priority may be accorded to the ‘public stakeholder’ category over ‘higher-tier government’ category because the CEO’s perception of the power of ‘public’ stakeholders, together with the Mayor’s managerial values, are significantly positively related to their perceptions of the salience of these ‘public’ stakeholders, but not ‘higher-tier government’ stakeholders. However the results of the analysis change in the combined sample of the Mayor and CEO making both categories of stakeholders as ‘definitive’ in infrastructure decision-making Research limitations/implications The results of this study are subject to the usual limitation of mail surveys, including biases that can arise in respondents’ rating based on their perceptions. The findings have implications for the process of infrastructure decision-making in local governments. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature providing evidence on how Mayors and CEOs of local governments prioritise the needs, interests and claims of different stakeholders with respect to infrastructure assets.