IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/cusecp/v2y2022i2p26-39n1.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing the Managerial Performance of Romanian Museums with the Help of Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Ilie Cosmin

    (Dunărea de Jos University of Galați, street nr. 47, postal code 800008 Galați, Romania)

Abstract

Museum professionals worldwide make considerable efforts to maintain the integrity of the cultural institutions they manage, as organizations that collect, research, conserve, and exhibit, as well as in their educational and social purpose, in a concerted effort to make museums more performing, more popular, more attractive and more competitive. In this context, many questions arise about how a performing museum looks like in the current social, political, and cultural contexts, how the performance of a museum can be evaluated, and, especially, how the managerial performance of museums can be increased. At the center of these concerns, the issue of stakeholders, the partnerships with them, the strategies for their optimal approach, as well as the impact of such initiatives on increasing the managerial performance of museums, occupy an essential role. One of the objectives of this research is to emphasize the need to use new strategies, methods, and tools in an attempt to make museum institutions perform better from a managerial point of view. To verify the perception of such initiatives, two practical applications were carried out: quantitative research, which analyzes the perception of internal stakeholders (museum staff) on the involvement of external stakeholders in the process of improving museum services, and qualitative research, which sought to capture the perception of museum managers in Romania regarding partnerships with stakeholders and their role in increasing the managerial performance of the institution. The results show that museums are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of stakeholders with an active interest in museum practices and policies and optimized solutions regarding the institutional and organizational transformation of museum institutions in Romania are taking shape, to rebuild the way museums interact with relevant stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilie Cosmin, 2022. "Increasing the Managerial Performance of Romanian Museums with the Help of Stakeholders," Culture. Society. Economy. Politics, Sciendo, vol. 2(2), pages 26-39, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:vrs:cusecp:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:26-39:n:1
    DOI: 10.2478/csep-2022-0009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/csep-2022-0009
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/csep-2022-0009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cosmin Ilie, 2019. "Empirical Evidence on Museums Relationships with Stakeholders," Risk in Contemporary Economy, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, pages 319-328.
    2. Virginia Milone & Simone Pizzi, 2019. "Managing the Complexity through New Forms of Financial Reporting: A Multiple Case Study on Italian Public Museums," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Héctor Moreno-Mendoza & Agustín Santana-Talavera & Carmelo J. León, 2019. "Stakeholders of Cultural Heritage as Responsible Institutional Tourism Product Management Agents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-14, September.
    4. Richard A. Wolfe & Daniel S. Putler, 2002. "How Tight Are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 64-80, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Graciela Corral de Zubielqui & Howard Harris, 2024. "Why the COVID-19 Crisis Is an Ethical Issue for Business: Evidence from the Australian JobKeeper Initiative," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 123-136, February.
    2. Elise Perrault, 2017. "A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 25-38, November.
    3. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    4. Subhasis Ray, 2021. "Identification of Research Paradigms for Managing the Cricketing Ecosystem Using Stakeholder Analysis and Text Mining," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 46(3), pages 289-312, August.
    5. Del Bosco, Barbara & Misani, Nicola, 2011. "Keeping the enemies close: The contribution of corporate social responsibility to reducing crime against the firm," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 87-98, March.
    6. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    7. Christine A. Riordan & Alexander M. Kowalski, 2021. "From Bread and Roses to #MeToo: Multiplicity, Distance, and the Changing Dynamics of Conflict in IR Theory," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 74(3), pages 580-606, May.
    8. Karan Sonpar & Federica Pazzaglia & Jurgita Kornijenko, 2010. "The Paradox and Constraints of Legitimacy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom, 2011. "Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 77-87, March.
    10. Wai-Kit Ng & Fu-Tien Hsu & Cheng-Fu Chao & Chun-Liang Chen, 2023. "Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Cultural Heritage Sites: Three Destinations in East Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-25, May.
    11. John Storm & Adam Smith, 2022. "Empathize with Whom? Adopting a Design Thinking Mind-Set to Stimulate Sustainability Initiatives in Chinese SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Samuel Mercier & Jean-Pascal Gond, 2005. "La théorie des parties prenantes," Working Papers CREGO 1050502, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    13. Yves Fassin, 2008. "Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 80(4), pages 879-888, July.
    14. Ferrary, Michel, 2019. "The structure and dynamics of the CEO's “small world” of stakeholders. An application to industrial downsizing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 147-159.
    15. Aspasia E. Fafouti & Anastasia Vythoulka & Ekaterini T. Delegou & Nikolaos Farmakidis & Maria Ioannou & Komninos Perellis & Antonis Giannikouris & Nikolaos A. Kampanis & George Alexandrakis & Antonia , 2023. "Designing Cultural Routes as a Tool of Responsible Tourism and Sustainable Local Development in Isolated and Less Developed Islands: The Case of Symi Island in Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-39, August.
    16. Chanteau, Jean-Pierre, 2011. "L’économie de la responsabilité sociétale d’entreprise (RSE) :éléments de méthode institutionnaliste," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 9.
    17. Welty Peachey, Jon & Bruening, Jennifer, 2011. "An examination of environmental forces driving change and stakeholder responses in a Football Championship Subdivision athletic department," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 202-219, May.
    18. Benjamin Neville & Bulent Menguc, 2006. "Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 377-391, July.
    19. Adel Aloui & Khaled Saadaoui & Manal Wehbi Sleiman, 2015. "Le concept de parties prenantes : proposition d'une modélisation systémique par le modèle SAGACE," Post-Print hal-01870859, HAL.
    20. Sami Mahroum & Simon Bell & Yasser Al-Saleh & Nasser Yassin, 2016. "Towards an Effective Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process: Applying the Imagine Method in Context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 335-353, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:cusecp:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:26-39:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.