With the advent of the current school reform movement, an increasing number of interest groups have claimed stakeholder status and have tried to influence educational policy. The purpose of this study is to employ a stakeholder framework to examine the changing salience levels of a state business group as it tried to shape educational policy during a 5-year period of intense state-level reform. Using case study methods, we address the relationship between the changing salience of the group and the dynamic environment of educational policy making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgleB. R., MitchellR. K., & SonnenfeldJ. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values?Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 507–525.
2.
AlkhafajiA. F. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance: Managing in a dynamic environment.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
3.
AugustineN. R. (1997). A new business agenda for improving U. S. schools. Issues in Science and Technology, 13(3), 57–62.
4.
BermanS. L., WicksA. C., KothaS., & JonesT. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 489–506.
5.
BrownW. P., & RingquistD. J. (1993). Michigan: Diversity and professionalism in a partisan environment. In HrebenarR. J., & ThomasC. S. (Eds.), Interest group politics in the Midwestern states (pp. 117–144). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
6.
Business Roundtable (BRT). (1989). A ten-year commitment to partnerships for education reform.Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Business Roundtable (BRT). (1990). The business role in state education reform.Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Business Roundtable (BRT). (1999). No turning back: A progress report on the Business Roundtable Education Initiative.Washington, DC: Author.
9.
CarrollA. B. (1993). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.
10.
ElmoreR. F. (1997). The politics of education reform. Issues in Science and Technology, 14(1), 41–49.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.Boston, MA: Pitman.
13.
FroomanJ. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.
14.
FuhrmanS. H. (1994). Politics and systemic education reform (R117G10039). Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
15.
GarmanN. B., & HollandP. C. (1997). The rhetoric of school reform reports: Sacred, skeptical, and cynical interpretations. In GinsbergR., & PlankD. N. (Eds.), Commissions, reports, reforms, and educational policy (pp. 101–120). Westport, CT: Praeger.
16.
HarrisonJ. S., & FreemanR. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 479–485.
17.
HeinzJ. P., LaumannE. O., NelsonR. L., & SalisburyR. H. (1993). The hollow core: Private interests in national policy making.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
HerrnsonP. S., ShaikoR. G., & WilcoxC. (Eds.). (1998). The interest group connection: Electioneering, lobbying, and policymaking in Washington.Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
19.
HillC. W., & JonesT. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.
20.
JonesT. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.
21.
JonesT. M., & WicksA. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.
22.
KeimG. D., & ZeithamlC. P. (1986). Corporate political strategy and legislative decision making: A review and contingency approach. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 828–843.
23.
LynchL. A. (1994). Michigan receives millions to work toward Goals 2000. CEN Newsline, 2(2), 7.
24.
MackC. S. (1997). Business, politics, and the practice of government relations.Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
25.
MatheneyT., MiskelC. G., & McDanielJ. E. (1998). Gap analysis II: Agenda for excellence in Michigan Schools.Lansing, MI: Michigan Business Leaders for Education Excellence.
26.
MatheneyT. M., SippleJ. W., & MiskelC. G. (1996). Michigan Business Leaders for Education Excellence, 1989–1996: A history. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
27.
MazzoniT. (1995). State policy-making and school reform: Influences and influentials. In ScribnerJ. D., & LaytonD. H. (Eds.), The study of educational politics (pp. 53–73). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
28.
Michigan Department of Education (1996, October). Michigan Consolidated State Plan.Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.
29.
MickelsonR. A. (1999). International business machinations: A case study of corporate involvement in local educational reform. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 476–512.
30.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. B. (Eds.). (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
31.
MitchellR. K., AgleB. R., & WoodD. 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), 853–896.
32.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1993). A Nation at Risk.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
33.
RosenthalA. (1998). The decline of representative democracy: Process, participation, and power in state legislatures.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
34.
SippleJ. W., MiskelC. G., MatheneyT. M., & KearneyC. P. (1997). The creation and development of an interest group: Life at the intersection of big business and education reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(4), 440–473.
35.
SpringJ. (1998). Conflict of Interests: The politics of American education. (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
36.
ThomasC. S. (1993). Understanding interest groups in midwestern politics. In HrebenarR. J., & ThomasC. S. (Eds.), Interest group politics in the Midwestern states.Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
37.
TrevenoL. K., & WeaverG. R. (1999). The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists— not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 222–227.
38.
YoffieD. B., & BergensteinS. (1985). Creating political advantage: The rise of the corporate political entrepreneur. California Management Review, 27(1), 124–139.
