Abstract:

Problem . The purpose of this study was to substantiate the "multi-source" stakeholder analysis model as an alternative methodology for use in accurately identifying and assessing stakeholder influence. Additional studies included tests on perceptual differences from administration to stakeholders on issues of environmental turbulence level (ETL), information filtering, university strategic posture, power, influence, and resistance.

Method . Nine hundred and twenty-six responses were received in reply to two random sampling surveys. One survey focused on responses from the Provosts of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), the second survey was focused on a random sampling of the population of the faith-based University chosen for the study. Respondents included a statistical representation from each independent variable group studied: faculty, students, alumni, staff, parents, and administration. Three dependent variables were calculated to determine reliability of the stakeholder methodology tested: power, influence, and resistance. Descriptive statistics were used to compute means, variances, and standard deviations. All statistical analyses were performed using one or more of the following tests: t test, correlation (Pearson's r ), ANOVA, MANOVA, and Cronbach's coefficient alpha, which was used to assess reliability of scales.

Results . ANOVA test results of the null hypotheses on the issues of stakeholder perception of the environmental turbulence level, perception of power, influence, and resistance were all rejected with a statistical significance level of p < 0.05. ANOVA test results of the null hypothesis regarding perception of information filtering, failed to reject with a p value of 0.422. Analyses were performed to test differences between the industry's environmental turbulence level and the University's current strategic posture; the null was rejected. A correlational test analyzing the relationship between the influences of stakeholder groups on the University's strategic posture revealed minimal correlation. A t test measuring the mean difference of stakeholder groups' assessment of the ETL and the University's strategic posture was rejected with a statistical significance of p < 0.01. The final test using both t test and MANOVA on the relationship between "conventional" and "multi-rater" methodology was inconclusive and failed to reject.