Content area
Full Text
There is much that is useful in Jones and Wicks' proposal for a "convergent stakeholder theory." First of all, they detail a wide spectrum of agreement by those who are stakeholder theorists. Second, they rightly emphasize so-called instrumental stakeholder theory as the most promising candidate for theoretical development. Finally, they link stakeholder theory to broader areas of management scholarship. Using convergent stakeholder theory as a grand concept for integrating the many strands of stakeholder thinking is a natural idea given the current state-of-the-art of management theory and its penchant for consensus and agreement, and given the usually divergent poles of positivism and relativism (Wicks & Freeman, 1998).
Nonetheless, I argue that their attempt at grand theorizing goes awry on two separate grounds. Their analysis is built on the following two propositions:
1. The Donaldson-Preston typology of "normative-instrumental-descriptive" stakeholder theories is useful.
2. The linkage between instrumental theory and ethics consists of the nature of the means and ends that are linked together.
I suggest that each of these claims is at best dubious and that, together, they lead "theorists" such as Jones and Wicks in precisely the wrong direction. Furthermore, what we need is not more theory that converges but more narratives that are divergent-that show us different but useful ways to understand organizations in stakeholder terms.
PROPOSITION 1: THE DONALDSON-PRESTON TYPOLOGY
Jones and Wicks claim that Donaldson and Preston (1995) have provided "considerable coherence to the stakeholder concept as theory" (p. 206) by dividing it into descriptive, instrumental, and normative parts. This idea is rooted in a centuries-old philosophy of science, in which descriptive theory tells us the way that the world really is (in some sense of "really is"), normative theory prescribes how the world should be, and instrumental theory links means and ends. Donaldson and Preston argue that stakeholder theory would be more precise, more formal, or more scientific if we distinguished these three senses. Descriptive stakeholder theory would describe how organizations manage or interact with stakeholders, normative stakeholder theory would prescribe how organizations ought to treat their stakeholders, and instrumental theory would include such statements as "If you want to maximize shareholder value, you should pay attention to key stakeholders."
Jones and Wicks actually note that the idea that there is...