The stakeholder approach to business sees integration rather than separation, and sees how things fit together. – John Mackey

We need to develop and disseminate an entirely new paradigm and practice of collaboration that supersedes the traditional silos that have divided governments, philanthropies and private enterprises for decades and replace it with networks of partnerships working together to create a globally prosperous society. – Simon Mainwaring

Assessment, evaluation, and accountability (AEA) are important aspects of determining the impact and/or success of a project, initiative, or program (Hall & Hord, 2015; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Although assessment and evaluation design is unique to a specific situation, Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, and Caruthers (2011) have identified several evaluation standards from which evaluators should choose when developing a framework for evaluation and grouped them into five categories—utility standards (U), feasibility standards (F), propriety standards (P), accuracy standards (A), and evaluation accountability standards (E). Utility standards address the value of evaluation for stakeholders; feasibility standards consider the efficiency and effectiveness of evaluation; propriety standards address the ethical considerations of evaluation; accuracy standards address how evaluation information is selected and shared; and evaluation accountability standards address how resources are utilized to produce value (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

Two of the standards I find particularly relevant and important are Attention to Stakeholders (U2) and Meaningful Processes and Products (U6). Programs affect a variety of individuals (Hall & Hord, 2015; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011), and evaluations must consider anyone who may be impacted directly or indirectly by the program (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Failing to consider the experiences of all stakeholder groups in program evaluation impacts the credibility of findings and recommendations (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Hall & Hord, 2015; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). In addition, processes for evaluation and the products produced through evaluation must be meaningful and valuable to stakeholders (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). If stakeholders and their needs are not considered in the evaluation process, the findings and recommendations will likely not be useful or impactful (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

Reviewing literature on the role of stakeholders in evaluation design and processes confirms that stakeholder involvement is crucial to evaluation (Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005; Gothard & Gorham, 2011, Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Kettunen, 2015; Méndez-Morse, 1992). Partnering with stakeholders assists in developing program buy-in, helping stakeholders understand the value of a program and of program evaluating, and ensuring the value-add of the evaluation by aligning with the needs of both individuals and organizations (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Kettunen, 2015). In AEA, a stakeholder is anyone who is interested or affected by a project or program (Kettunen, 2015; Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005; Gothard & Gorham, 2011): the audience who will be using the information gathered from the evaluation to make future decisions about a program and its adjustments.

Evaluations provide insights about the achievement of outcomes and inform future or continued projects (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Kettunen, 2015). Intentionally involving stakeholders in the evaluation process assists in developing an organizational culture of continual growth, learning, and accountability which influences both individual and organizational behaviors (Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Kettunen, 2011). Kegan and Lahey (2009) caution, however, that when evaluating progress toward desired outcomes, stakeholder variables can influence efficiency and effectiveness of programs, so it is important for the differences between the two to be considered. Project stakeholders are often very diverse and come from a variety of backgrounds, experiences, vantage points, and interest levels (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Méndez-Morse, 1992) and will have various needs and expectations related to the information provided by an evaluation and impact/next steps (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Kettunen, 2015). Building collaborative relationships with a diverse stakeholder group may take time (Fullen, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Méndez-Morse, 1992), but excluding them from the process can be detrimental and costly a program or initiative’s success (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Kettunen, 2015; Kegan & Lahey, 2009).

Stakeholders can intentionally be involved in the evaluation process through a variety of ways. Creating a stakeholder map helps to identify all vested stakeholders and their influence/roles (Hall & Hord, 2015; Kettunen, 2015). Developing a steering committee with representation from the various stakeholder groups to guide the evaluation process can ensure multiple voices are heard and considered throughout the process (Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Kettunen, 2015; Méndez-Morse, 1992). Intentionally finding ways for stakeholders to participate or provide feedback—survey, focus groups, town hall meetings—is essential, and providing multiple opportunities for participation will ensure maximum involvement from stakeholders throughout the evaluation process (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Attending to stakeholder needs and involvement during evaluation will increase personal/organizational investment in a project and increase the accuracy and usability of findings (Gothard & Gorham, 2011; Hall & Hord, 2015; Kettunen, 2015; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

References

Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). 8 forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 54-58, 64. Retrieved from the Walden Library database.

Gothard, K., & Gorham, J. (2011). Evaluation 101: How one department embraced the process. Performance Improvement, 50(1), 37-43. Retrieved from the Walden Library database.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Conclusion: Growing your own: How to lead so people develop. In Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization (pp. 307–323). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Retrieved from https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/pl/26209984/26209997 d699c4f6ac412af448b044b41449280f

Kettunen, J. (2015). Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 56-65. Retrieved from the Walden Library database.

Méndez-Morse, S. (1992). Leadership characteristics that facilitate school change. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/ change/leadership/

Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.