پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 127 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 7,147 |
| تعداد مقالات | 76,903 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 154,911,588 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 116,887,446 |
ارائه الگوی اقناع ذینفعان: یک رویکرد مطالعه موردی چندگانه | ||
| بررسیهای مدیریت رسانه | ||
| دوره 4، شماره 4، 1404، صفحه 515-550 اصل مقاله (1.52 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/mmr.2025.400508.1197 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سید جواد جعفری زوج1؛ طاهر روشندل اربطانی* 2؛ عباس نرگسیان3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت رسانه، پردیس البرز، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2استاد، گروه مدیریت رسانه و ارتباطات کسبوکار، دانشکده مدیریت کسبوکار، دانشکدگان مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3دانشیار، گروه رهبری و سرمایه انسانی، دانشکده مدیریت دولتی و علوم سازمانی، دانشکدگان مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: هدف اصلی این پژوهش، شناسایی و تدوین الگوی فرایند اقناع ذینفعان در بستر سیاستگذاریهای کلان ملی در ایران است. این تحقیق به دنبال تبیین سازوکارها، استراتژیها، موانع و پیامدهای تلاشهای اقناعی دولت در مواجهه با گروههای مختلف ذینفعان، و در نهایت ارائه یک الگوی بومی برای توضیح شکستها و موفقیتهای این فرایند است. روش: این پژوهش با رویکرد کیفی و راهبرد مطالعه موردی چندگانه انجام شده است. چهار مورد سیاستی برجسته شامل «افزایش قیمت بنزین در آبان ۱۳۹۸»، «حذف ارز ترجیحی در سال ۱۴۰۱»، «رخدادهای پس از درگذشت مهسا امینی در شهریور ۱۴۰۱» و «سیاستهای واکسیناسیون کووید-۱۹» به عنوان موارد مطالعه انتخاب شدند. دادهها از طریق مصاحبههای نیمهساختاریافته با چهار گروه کلیدی از ذینفعان (شامل مسئولان، کارشناسان، فعالان اجتماعی و گروههای متأثر) گردآوری و با استفاده از روش تحلیل مضمون، کدگذاری و تحلیل شدند. یافتهها: تحلیل دادهها منجر به شناسایی یک الگوی مفهومی برای فرایند اقناع ذینفعان شد. یافتهها نشان میدهد که موفقیت یا شکست این فرایند تحت تأثیر سه بعد اصلی قرار دارد: ۱) عوامل زمینهای: شامل «سرمایه اجتماعی و اعتماد نهادی» که به عنوان متغیر پیشزمینهای، سقف موفقیت تلاشهای اقناعی را تعیین میکند. ۲) راهبردهای ارتباطی و سیاستی: شامل متغیرهایی چون «شفافیت و پنهانکاری»، «زمانبندی و غافلگیری»، «مشارکتدهی یا حذف ذینفعان» و «انسجام یا تضاد پیام حاکمیتی». ۳) پردازش مخاطب و نتایج: شامل چگونگی فعالسازی مسیرهای پردازش اطلاعات (مرکزی یا محیطی) در میان ذینفعان و پیامدهای نهایی آن (پذیرش یا مقاومت). نتایج تحلیل موردی نشان داد که در موارد شکستخورده (مانند افزایش قیمت بنزین)، اتکا به راهبرد «پنهانکاری و شوکدرمانی»، «حذف مشارکت ذینفعان» و «ناهماهنگی پیام»، در بستری از «اعتماد پایین»، منجر به فعالسازی مسیر پردازش محیطی در میان مخاطبان، غلبه روایتهای رقیب، و در نهایت مقاومت اجتماعی گسترده شده است. نتیجهگیری: الگوی نهایی پژوهش نشان میدهد که فرایند اقناع در سیاستگذاری کلان، یک تعامل پیچیده میان اعتبار منبع، استراتژی پیام و زمینه اجتماعی است. شکستهای مکرر در اقناع عمومی در ایران، بیش از آنکه فنی باشد، ریشه در «معمای اقناعی» مزمنی دارد که مشخصه آن، نادیده گرفتن نقش سرمایه اجتماعی، بیتوجهی به اصول شفافیت و مشارکت، و عدم مدیریت فعالانه روایت است. این عوامل موجب میشوند که حتی سیاستهای با توجیه کارشناسی نیز در مرحله اجرا با بحران مشروعیت و ناکامی مواجه شوند. این الگو تأکید میکند که بازسازی اعتماد و اتخاذ رویکردهای ارتباطی شفاف و مشارکتی، پیششرط حیاتی برای ارتقای ظرفیت اقناعی نظام حکمرانی است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| اقناع ذینفعان؛ مدیریت ذینفعان؛ سیاستگذاری عمومی؛ مطالعه موردی چندگانه؛ ارتباطات راهبردی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Developing a Stakeholder Persuasion Model: A Multiple Case Study Approach | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Seyed Javad Jafari Zoj1؛ Taher Roshandel Arbatani2؛ Abbas Nargesian3 | ||
| 1PhD Candidate in Media Management, Alborz Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Professor, Department of Media Management and Business Communication, School of Business Administration, Faculties of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 3Associate Professor, Department of Leadership and Human Capital, School of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, Faculties of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective The process of public policymaking in modern governance is an intricate arena of interaction between the state and a diverse array of stakeholders. The success or failure of major national policies, particularly those requiring widespread behavioral changes or imposing socioeconomic costs, hinges less on their technical or expert merits and more on the governing system’s capacity to “persuade” public opinion and secure the consent of key stakeholders. Persuasion, defined as a purposeful effort to shape, reinforce, or change attitudes and behaviors through communication, plays a vital role in this context. This research addresses a critical and persistent challenge within the Iranian public policy landscape: the “persuasion dilemma.” Despite numerous communication efforts, why do major national policies frequently fail to gain stakeholder acceptance, often culminating in social resistance and policy failure? The primary objective of this study is to identify, articulate, and model the process of stakeholder persuasion within the context of macro-level national policymaking in Iran. The research aims to deconstruct the mechanisms, strategies, barriers, and consequences of the government’s persuasive attempts when engaging with various stakeholder groups. Ultimately, it seeks to propose an indigenous, context-specific model that can explain the successes and, more frequently, the failures of this process, thereby providing a robust analytical framework for understanding the recurring crises of legitimacy and implementation that plague even technically sound policies in the country. The study specifically investigates the interplay between contextual factors (like social capital), communicative and policy strategies (such as transparency and timing), and audience processing (the cognitive and emotional responses of stakeholders). Research Methodology This study employed a qualitative research approach utilizing a multiple case study strategy to ensure a rich, in-depth, and comparative understanding of the phenomenon. This method is particularly well-suited for exploring complex social processes within their natural settings and uncovering the linkages between personal, social, and organizational factors. Four prominent and high-impact policy cases were purposively selected based on a strategic set of criteria to maximize analytical breadth. These criteria included: 1) Diversity in Policy Nature (economic, social, public health), 2) Variation in Urgency and Surprise (sudden implementation vs. gradual rollout), 3) Diversity of Stakeholder Audiences, and 4) Difference in Persuasion Outcomes (clear failure vs. partial success). The selected cases were: The November 2019 Gasoline Price Hike: An example of an economic shock-therapy policy that triggered widespread social unrest. The 2022 Elimination of the Preferential Exchange Rate: A major economic reform with more gradual, yet profound, societal impacts. The Events Following the Death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022: A case representing the management of a national socio-political crisis. The COVID-19 Vaccination Policies: A case for analyzing public health persuasion strategies during a global pandemic. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with four key stakeholder categories for each case: (a) Officials and Decision-Makers involved in policy formulation and execution; (b) Experts and Specialists from relevant academic and professional fields; © Social Activists and Civil Society Representatives; and (d) Affected Groups and Stakeholders who directly experienced the policies’ consequences. The collected data were then systematically analyzed using thematic analysis, which involved coding the interview transcripts to identify emergent patterns, core themes, and the relationships between them. This comparative analysis across the four cases allowed for the development of a comprehensive conceptual model of the stakeholder persuasion process. Findings The thematic analysis of the data culminated in the development of a conceptual model that explains the success or failure of stakeholder persuasion as a function of three interconnected dimensions: Contextual Antecedents: The foundational layer of the model is dominated by “Social Capital and Institutional Trust.” The findings unequivocally demonstrate that the pre-existing level of public trust in government institutions acts as a critical antecedent, effectively setting a ceiling on the potential success of any persuasive effort. In contexts of low trust, even well-crafted messages are met with skepticism, and citizens are more likely to attribute negative motives to the government’s actions. Communicative and Policy Strategies: This dimension encompasses the specific actions and choices made by the governing body during policy implementation. Key variables identified include: Transparency vs. Secrecy: The degree to which the government is open about its plans, rationale, and the expected impacts of a policy. Secrecy was a dominant feature in failed cases. Timing and Surprise: The choice between sudden, “shock-therapy” implementation versus a gradual, prepared rollout. Surprise tactics were found to provoke anxiety and resistance. Stakeholder Participation vs. Exclusion: Whether key stakeholders are included in the deliberation process or entirely marginalized. Exclusion was found to delegitimize the policy. Message Cohesion vs. Contradiction: The extent to which the government presents a unified, consistent narrative versus a cacophony of conflicting messages from different official sources. Audience Processing and Outcomes: This dimension focuses on the stakeholder response. The strategies employed by the government influence how stakeholders process the information. The findings, consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), show that in failed cases (e.g., the gasoline price hike), the combination of low trust, secrecy, surprise, and message incoherence led the public to bypass the central route of processing (which involves careful consideration of the policy’s merits). Instead, they relied on the peripheral route, using cues like the perceived lack of credibility of the source (government) and negative emotions. This activated a collective sense of grievance, allowed competing narratives from rival sources to dominate the public sphere, and ultimately resulted in widespread social resistance and policy failure. Conversely, in the more (partially) successful case of COVID-19 vaccination, a more transparent (though imperfect) communication strategy and the high perceived threat of the virus facilitated greater public acceptance. Discussion & Conclusion This study reveals that the stakeholder persuasion process in Iran’s macro-policymaking is a complex interplay between source credibility (institutional trust), message strategy (communication choices), and the socio-political context. The recurrent failures in public persuasion are not merely technical shortcomings in communication but are rooted in a chronic “persuasion dilemma.” This dilemma is characterized by a systemic disregard for the foundational role of social capital, a consistent failure to adhere to principles of transparency and participation, and an inability to proactively manage the public narrative. The analysis of the case studies demonstrates a recurring pattern: policies are often formulated in insulated circles, excluding the very people they will affect. The implementation strategy then relies on secrecy and surprise, under the flawed assumption that this will preempt opposition. When the policy is finally announced, the government is immediately on the defensive, attempting to justify its actions in a low-trust environment where its narrative is already compromised. This approach creates a fertile ground for public anger and resistance, ensuring that even policies with sound expert justification face a crisis of legitimacy and fail at the implementation stage. The model developed in this research underscores a critical lesson for policymakers: persuasion is not a post-hoc activity to be undertaken after a decision is made; it is an integral part of the entire policymaking cycle. Rebuilding institutional trust and adopting transparent, participatory, and coherent communication strategies are not optional extras but are vital prerequisites for enhancing the persuasive capacity of the governing system. Without a fundamental shift away from the paradigm of “decide-announce-defend” towards one of “dialogue-deliberate-decide,” the cycle of policy failure and public discontent is likely to persist. This research provides a diagnostic tool for understanding these failures and a prescriptive framework for building a more effective and legitimate approach to governance. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Stakeholder Persuasion, Stakeholder Management, Public Policy, Multiple Case Study, Strategic Communication | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Agrawal, N. & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 841-849. Allen, M. (1991). Meta‐analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one‐sided and two‐sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(4), 390-404. Allen, M. & Allen, M. (2016). Legitimacy, stakeholders, and strategic communication efforts. Strategic communication for sustainable organizations: Theory and practice, 61-104. Angst, C. M. & Agarwal, R. (2009). Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: The elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion. MIS quarterly, 339-370. Au, P. H. & Li, K. K. (2018). Bayesian persuasion and reciprocity: theory and experiment. Available at SSRN 3191203. Benoit, W. L. (2023). Persuasion and credibility in the age of social media and AI. Rowman & Littlefield. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons. Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A. & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447-456. Bourne, L. & Walker, D. H. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43(5), 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597680 Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 Crutzen, R. & Cyr, D. (2021). A review of the elaboration likelihood model in the context of digital health. Health Communication, 36. 1277-1286. (10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1751950 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Freeman, R. E. & Dmytriyev, S. D. (2021). Stakeholder theory and the firm. In The Oxford Handbook of the Corporation (pp. 231-248). Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198850645.013.11 George, G., Merrill, R. K. & Schillebeeckx, S. J. (2021). Digital sustainability and stakeholder engagement: The role of platform organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 274-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12658 Green, M. C. (2008). Research challenges: Research challenges in narrative persuasion. Information Design Journal, 16(1), 47-52. Hahn, T. (2015). Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business & Society, 54(1), 9-51. Hester, P. T. & Adams, K. M. (2013). Determining stakeholder influence using input-output modeling. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 337-341. Homans, G. C. (1964). Bringing men back in. American Sociological Review, 29(5), 809–818. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091226 Huang, Y. & Shen, F. (2016). Effects of cultural tailoring on persuasion in cancer communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 694-715. Kim, A. & Dennis, A. R. (2022). Says who? The effects of presentation format and source rating on fake news perception. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39, (2). 557-585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2022.2063544 Kim, J. N., Ni, L. & Sha, B. L. (2008). Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 751-768. Kok, G., Gurabardhi, Z., Gottlieb, N. H. & Zijlstra, F. R. (2015). Influencing organizations to promote health: Applying stakeholder theory. Health Education & Behavior, 42(1_suppl), 123S-132S. Kotowski, Michael R., Schumann, David W. & Young, HO. (2019). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: A 30-Year Review. Advertising Theory, 81-98. Krupa, M., Cenek, M., Powell, J. & Trammell, E. J. (2018). Mapping the stakeholders: Using social network analysis to increase the legitimacy and transparency of participatory scenario planning. Society & Natural Resources, 31(1), 136-141. Lien, N. H. (2001). Elaboration likelihood model in consumer research: A review. Proceedings of the National Science Council Part C: Humanities and Social Sciences 11, no. 4, 301-310. Ludovico, N., Dessi, F. & Bonaiuto, M. (2020). Stakeholders mapping for sustainable biofuels: an innovative procedure based on computational text analysis and social network analysis. Sustainability, 12(24), 10317. 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 Oladeinde, M., Okeleke, E. C., Adaramodu, O. R., Fakeyede, O. G. & Farayola, O. A. (2023). Communicating IT audit findings: strategies for effective stakeholder engagement. Computer Science & IT Research Journal, 4(2), 126-139. Pandey, A. V., Manivannan, A., Nov, O., Satterthwaite, M. & Bertini, E. (2014). The persuasive power of data visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 20(12), 2211-2220. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L. & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in consumer research, 11(1), 668-672. Polonsky, M. J. & Scott, D. (2005). An empirical examination of the stakeholder strategy matrix. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 1199-1215. Popkova, A. (2023). Stakeholder Mapping for Social Entrepreneurship Projects. Society and Economics, (5), 142-159. Prell, C., Hubacek, K. & Reed, M. (2016). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. In Handbook of applied system science (pp. 367-383). Routledge. Rimer, B. K. & Kreuter, M. W. (2006). Advancing tailored health communication: A persuasion and message effects perspective. Journal of communication, 56(suppl_1), S184-S201. Rupp, C., Kern, S. & Helmig, B. (2014). Segmenting nonprofit stakeholders to enable successful relationship marketing: A review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), 76-91. Slaba, M. & Fiala, R. (2014). The use of stakeholder analysis for the identification of stakeholders’ communities at a university. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 7(3-4), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2014.070304 Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping stakeholder theory anew: from the ‘stakeholder theory of the firm’to three perspectives on business–society relations. Business strategy and the environment, 15(1), 55-69. Susmann, M. W., Xu, M., Clark, J. K., Wallace, L. E., Blankenship, K. L., Philipp-Muller, A. Z. & Petty, R. E. (2022). Persuasion amidst a pandemic: Insights from the Elaboration Likelihood Model. European Review of Social Psychology, 33(2), 323-359. Sutton, T. & Bosse, D. A. (2023). Corporate political activity and the constraint of stakeholder reciprocity. Journal of Business Research, 164, 113948. Teng, S., Khong, K. W. & Goh, W. W. (2014). Conceptualizing persuasive messages using ELM in social media. Journal of Internet Commerce, 13(1), 65-87. Tkaczynski, A. & Rundle‐Thiele, S. (2011). Segmenting destinations: in the eyes of the stakeholders. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3), 255-268. Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S. R. & Beaumont, N. (2010). Destination segmentation: A two-step approach. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509336474 Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S. & Beaumont, N. (2010). Destination segmentation: A recommended two-step approach. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 139-152. Tzabbar, D. & Vestal, A. (2022). Toward a theory of stakeholder ignorance. Academy of Management Review, 47(4), 720-743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0343 Walker, D. H., Bourne, L. M. & Shelley, A. (2008). Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction management and economics, 26(6), 645-658. Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 539-570. Yzer, M. C. (2013). Reasoned action theory. The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice, 2, 120-136. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 181 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 97 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب