INTRODUCTION TO THE VALUE ADOPTION CYCLE

Individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations constantly refer to stakeholder value, but who are these stakeholders? What do stakeholders value? Where do stakeholders value? How do stakeholders value? Why do stakeholders value? When do stakeholders value?

WHO ARE THE VALUE SEEKERS?

Individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations have two types of stakeholders, internal and external stakeholders. Another way to describe stakeholders is value seekers, and so individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations have to manage internal and external value seekers.

WHAT, WHERE, AND HOW DO STAKEHOLDERS VALUE?

Like an ice cream machine that delivers one or two flavors at the same time, stakeholder value comes in three flavors. The first stakeholder value flavor is emotional benefit value, or feel good value, which occurs in the limbic system or the emotional part of the human brain, found at the back of the head, the feelings part of the brain. The second stakeholder value flavor is logical feature value, or value that makes sense, which occurs in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, found at the front of the brain, the thinking and creative part of the brain. The third stakeholder value flavor is a mix or swirl of emotional and logical value, using different ratios of emotional and logical value, to suit the preferences of individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations.

Like an ice cream machine that delivers one or two flavors at the same time, stakeholder value judgment also comes in three flavors. The first stakeholder value judgment flavor is good, positive, beneficial, gainful, profitable, or increases perceived value. The second stakeholder value judgment flavor is bad, negative, harmful, reductive, results in loss, or decreases perceived value. The third stakeholder value flavor is a mix or swirl of increase and decrease in value, using different ratios of increasing and decreasing stakeholder value judgment flavors, to suit the preferences of individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations.

Taken collectively, the thinking and feeling parts of the brain for each stakeholder will judge a past, present, or future change as good or bad, collaborating with the stakeholder's memory of experiences for the past, and collaborating with the stakeholders creativity and memory for the future. The result will be the global value provided to the change by an individual stakeholder. The global value of a past, present, or future change for groups, organizations, and interorganizations, will be the sum of the global values of the individuals that make up the groups, organizations, and interorganizations.

WHEN AND WHY STAKEHOLDERS VALUE?

As change is continuous, stakeholders continuously have to provide value to past, present, and future changes, in order to adapt to change, in order to survive and grow. As no two stakeholders have the same experiences with respect to what they have learned and what they have created, no two stakeholders will value all changes in the same manner, nor will any two stakeholders experience the same changes. Because of this, individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations will experience internal and external conflict when trying to provide a value to change, and will need to resolve this conflict in a timely manner, in order be able to follow up their valuation of change with the appropriate behavior. Behavior that will allow them to adapt to change, to survive and grow, or by default, they will not adapt to change, and they will not survive and grow.

Because of the conflict inherent in ethics, or agency theory, where what can be good for one stakeholder, can simultaneously be bad for another stakeholder; individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations must settle on a valuation of change, so that they know what behavior to engage in to pursue the performance goal of adapting to change, to survive and grow.

Unfortunately, the end game here comes down to survival. When a lion kills a zebra, it is good for the lion, and it is bad for the zebra, and at the same time. When a dam is built on a river, it is good for the people who gain access to more water, and it is bad for the people who lose access to more water, and at the same time. When an employee asks for a salary raise, it is good for the employee who receives the raise, and it is bad for the owners of the company who have to pay the raise, and at the same time. When a company raises the price on a product, it is good for the company, and it is bad for the consumer, and at the same time. This is also true for individuals, whose different parts of their brains communicate competing values regarding change, competing values which need to be reconciled.

Having been raised on Stephen Covey literature, the agency theory or the conflict inherent in ethics is what Stephen would have labeled a win-lose scenario, though he was an advocate of seeking win-win outcomes, by not using polarized valuations of change, like the words “good and bad”, but by using non-polarized valuations of change, like the words “different and alternative”.

When values of change compete, and when behaviors compete to survive, the individuals, groups, organizations, and interorganizations with the most influence or power, will prevail, influencing others to adopt the value they have provided to change, because it is good for them to do so, even if it is bad for others to adopt the value of those with the most influence or power.

The influence techniques that are most often employed include the principles of influence, negotiation techniques, sales techniques, the techniques of neutralization, behavioral and valuation mirroring and imprinting, BF Skinner's operant conditioning model, Milgram and Zimbardo's authoritative situational ethics leveraging, multiple intelligence leveraging, and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs leveraging, which collectively overlap to influence others using coercion, rewards, punishment, relationships, intelligence, ability, authority, and popularity.

VALUE ADOPTION CYCLE

As personal and organizational development models are often interchangeable, primarily because groups, organizations, and interorganizations are composed of individuals, there are many interrelated value adoption cycles and models that illustrate how value seekers with the most influence and power eventually influence other value seekers with less influence including, the Stages of Metacognition, Blooms Taxonomy, the Stages of Team Development, the Product Life Cycle, the Technology Adoption Cycle, the BCG Growth Matrix, and Lewin’s Change Theory. These value adoption cycles and models are related as follows, in purple.

The Stages of Metacognition	Bloom’s Taxonomy	Stages of Team Development	Product Life Cycle	Technology Adoption Cycle	BCG Growth Matrix	Lewin’s Change Model	The Value Adoption Cycle
Poor learning what there is to know and how to apply what there is to know. Poor learning when to apply what and how. Poor self-monitoring. Poor self-regulation.	Poor knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and poor evaluation.	Forming	Introduction	Innovators	Low market share and high market growth rate (Question Marks)	Freeze (marks a coming change)	A small minority of value seekers seek to influence a large majority of value seekers. Accordingly, a large majority are presented with polarized valuations of the change, good or bad valuations, by a small minority who seek good valuations.
Mediocre learning what there is to know and how to apply what there is to know. Mediocre learning when to apply what and how. Mediocre self-monitoring. Mediocre self-regulation.	Mediocre knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and mediocre evaluation.	Storming	Growth	Early Adopters + Early Majority	High market share and High market growth rate (Stars)	Implement Change (implements a change)	A large minority of value seekers seek to influence a small majority of value seekers. Accordingly, a small majority are presented with polarized valuations of the change, good or bad valuations, by a small minority who seek good valuations, and by the others they have influenced.
Fair learning what there is to know and how to apply what there is to know. Fair learning when to apply what and how. Fair self-monitoring. Fair self-regulation.	Fair knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and fair evaluation	Norming	Maturity	Late Adopters	High market share and low market growth rate (Cash Cows)	Unfreeze (Marks the Beginning of the Implemented Change)	A small majority of value seekers seek to influence a large minority of value seekers. Accordingly, a large minority are presented with polarized valuations of the change, good or bad valuations, by a small minority who seek good valuations, and by the others they have influenced.
Excellent learning what there is to know and how to apply what there is to know. Excellent learning when to apply what and how. Excellent self-monitoring. Excellent self-regulation.	Excellent knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and favorable evaluation.	Performing	Decline (majority is saturated with the value associated with the change)	Laggards (the last of the majority to accept the value of a given change)	Low market share and low market growth rate (Dogs) (majority has either accepted or rejected the value of a given change)	Change is Adopted	A large majority of value seekers seek to influence a small minority of value seekers. Accordingly, a small minority are presented with polarized valuations of the change, good or bad valuations, by a small minority who seek good valuations, and by the others they have influenced.
Competing valuations between or with an individual, group, organization, or interorganization result in conflict, and conflict requires influence of one valuation over another, the competition.

Back to Innometrics