Abstract
In this chapter, we share our observations on how the ICRC deals with increasingly complex networks of stakeholders. We describe the shifts in stakeholder settings and relations, especially with regard to beneficiaries and donors. We also show how decision-making at the ICRC is becoming increasingly dynamic, interdependent, and simultaneous. We propose ‘simple rules’ as (strategic) shortcuts to save time and effort by focusing the managers’ attention on key issues. Stressing the increasing demand for greater accountability, we identify a range of challenges, such as the difficulties of measuring humanitarian performance, or managing perceived distractions from the ‘real’ work. We conclude the chapter with the presentation of two ‘operating modes’ for decision-making and action taking in this increasingly complex network of stakeholders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Interview 3a, 76–79.
- 2.
Interview 15, 404–409.
- 3.
Interview 6, 128–133.
- 4.
Interview 2, 55–57.
- 5.
Interview 4, 92–95.
- 6.
Interview 6.
- 7.
Interview 8, 890–895.
- 8.
Interview 12, 392–407.
- 9.
Interview 5, 88–89.
- 10.
Interview 15, 393–400.
- 11.
Interview 5, 135–149, 159–163.
- 12.
Interview 5, 188–192.
- 13.
Interview 5, 338–340.
- 14.
Interview 5, 135–149.
- 15.
Interview 7, 150–154.
- 16.
Interview 8, 44.
- 17.
Since 2008, ICRC has retained GlobalScan to design and conduct its global reputation research (www.globescan.com/clients/case-studies/icrc.html).
- 18.
Interview 4, 103–117.
- 19.
Interview 6.
- 20.
See the articles on stakeholder dialogues at Schreyögg (ed., 2013).
- 21.
Interview 6, 578–639.
- 22.
Interview 9, 536–547.
- 23.
Interview 4 18–28.
- 24.
Interview 4, 53–57.
- 25.
Interview 12, 30–33.
- 26.
Interview 12, 60–71.
- 27.
Interview 4, 63–68.
- 28.
Interview 12, 440–454.
- 29.
- 30.
Interview 7, 295–314.
- 31.
Interview 11, 650–670.
- 32.
Interview 5, 433–439.
- 33.
Interview 5, 437–451.
- 34.
Interview 14, 165–171.
- 35.
Interview 14, 180–182.
- 36.
Interview 4 314–327.
- 37.
Interview 12, 239–242.
- 38.
Interview 5, 479–493.
- 39.
Interview 10, 329–333.
- 40.
Interview 3a, 106–110.
- 41.
Interview 12, 249–254.
- 42.
Interview 6, 723–726.
- 43.
Interview 4, 363–377.
- 44.
Interview 7, 134–141.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
Interview 9, 310–315.
- 48.
Interview 10, 477–479.
- 49.
Interview 11, 619–648.
- 50.
Interview 11, 619–648.
- 51.
Interview 8, 270–289.
- 52.
Interview 4, 543–544.
- 53.
Strather (2000), p. 309.
- 54.
- 55.
Interview 9, 365.
- 56.
Interview 9, 302–304.
- 57.
Interview 12, 373–386.
- 58.
Interview 12, 344–361.
- 59.
Interview 3b, 40–51.
- 60.
Interview 3b, 55–57.
- 61.
Interview 3b, 68–75.
- 62.
Interview 3a, 325–331.
- 63.
Interview 3b, 75–86.
- 64.
Interview 6, 516–546.
- 65.
Interview 5, 202–212.
- 66.
Interview 3a 158–162.
- 67.
Interview 12, 440–442.
- 68.
Interview 3a 188–204.
- 69.
Interview 3a 271–280.
- 70.
Everett/Friesen (2010), p. 472.
- 71.
Interview 3a 266–267.
- 72.
Interview 10, 660–666.
- 73.
Interview 10, 797–798.
- 74.
Interview 10, 797–810.
- 75.
Interview 12, 320–330.
- 76.
- 77.
Interview 3b, 177–182.
- 78.
Interview 3b, 194–195.
- 79.
Interview 3b, 143–147.
- 80.
Interview 3b, 151–154.
- 81.
Interview 4, 287–306.
- 82.
Interview 7, 408–419.
- 83.
Interview 7, 391–399.
- 84.
Interview 8, 127.
- 85.
Interview 4, 158–168.
- 86.
Interview 4, 168–170.
- 87.
Interview 10, 338–341.
- 88.
Annual Report 2015, pp. 24–25.
- 89.
Interview 8, 132–140.
- 90.
Interview 12, 96–106.
- 91.
Interview 8, 119–125.
- 92.
Interview 9, 159–173.
- 93.
Interview 6, 259–261.
- 94.
Interview 7, 94–96.
- 95.
Interview 12, 184–190.
- 96.
Interview 8, 411–413.
- 97.
Interview 6, 307–318.
- 98.
Fondation Internationale pour Le Développement.
- 99.
Interview 6, 714–723.
- 100.
Interview 6, 212–228.
- 101.
Interview 6, 137–144.
- 102.
Interview 8, 779–781.
- 103.
Interview 4, 142–146.
- 104.
Interview 4, 150–152.
- 105.
Interview 6, 308–313.
- 106.
Interview 4, 150–152.
- 107.
Interview 12, 210–226.
References
Sull, D., Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Simple Rules. Einfache Regeln für komplexe Situationen, Econ: Berlin.
Schreyögg, G. (Ed.). (2013). Stakeholder-Dialoge. Zwischen fairem Interessenausgleich und Imagepflege. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
Strathern, M. (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309–321.
Everett, J., & Friesen, C. (2010). Humanitarian accountability and performance in the Théâtre de L’Absurde. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21, 468–485.
Roberts, J. (1991). The possibilities of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(4), 355–368.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greiling, D. (2017). Erfolgsmassstäbe für Nonprofit-Organisationen. Die Unternehmung, 71(2), 126–146.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Müller-Stewens, G., Dinh, T., Hartmann, B., Eppler, M.J., Bünzli, F. (2019). Dealing with More Complex Networks of Stakeholders. In: The Professionalization of Humanitarian Organizations. SpringerBriefs in Business(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03248-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03248-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03247-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03248-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)