Stakeholder approach in public management of a pilot experiment to restore the mental health of military personnel in Ukraine
Abstract
The article substantiates the application of the stakeholder approach to designing a pilot experiment for the psychological recovery of military personnel in Ukraine and proposes an original four-level model for aligning the interests of stakeholders. The study is based on the analysis of the draft Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine "On the Implementation of the Experimental Project for Improving the System of Psychological Recovery of Military Personnel", which envisages a two-year experiment involving the procurement of psychological recovery services from providers of various forms of ownership funded by the state budget. Eight key stakeholder groups of the experiment have been identified and classified using an extended model that supplements the classical triad of attributes (power, legitimacy, urgency) with a fourth dimension — vulnerability, which is critical for accurately reflecting the position of the military service member as a stakeholder with minimal power but extreme dependence on the system. Five key lines of conflict of interest between stakeholders have been analysed and their alignment points identified. A four-level model (strategic, operational, service, and beneficiary levels) has been constructed, revealing structural gaps: the nominal participation of the Ministry of Health, the absence of success evaluation criteria, the lack of formalised feedback from beneficiaries, and the absence of mechanisms to protect multidisciplinary teams from burnout. Based on a modelled scenario of the first months of implementation, it has been demonstrated that the main threat to success is not a lack of resources but the structural misalignment of time horizons, administrative procedures, and institutional constraints between different levels of the system. Each participant acts rationally within their own constraints, yet the aggregate outcome proves systemically suboptimal. The stakeholder perspective enables the identification of hidden tensions and latent deficits invisible through conventional legal-technical analysis. The findings are directly integrated into the ongoing efforts of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine to develop the organisational model for the experiment, in which the authors are directly involved. The proposed model has a real prospect of practical implementation in 2026, serving as one of the conceptual foundations for the policy decisions currently being formulated
Downloads
References
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. (2015). On approval of the Regulation on psychologi-cal rehabilitation of military personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the State Special Transport Service: Order No. 702, 09.12.2015. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0237-16#Text [in Ukrainian].
Savkov, R., & Karvatska, N. (2024). Managing stakeholder interaction in social pro-jects. Collection of Scientific Papers «Λόгoσ» (August 16, 2024; Oxford, UK), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.36074/logos-16.08.2024.014 [in Ukrainian].
Synhaivska, I., & Sokur, I. (2025). Psychological rehabilitation of warriors after re-turning to civilian life. Vcheni zapysky Universytetu «KROK», 1(79), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.31732/2663-2209-2025-79-421-428 [in Ukrainian].
Surhund, N., & Verba, H. (2024). Features of psychological rehabilitation of military personnel at the recovery stage. Psychology Travelogs, 3, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.31891/PT-2024-3-5 [in Ukrainian].
Berwick, D.M. (2008). The Triple Aim: Care, Health, and Cost. Health Affairs, 27(3), 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759
Bryson, J.M. (2004). What to do when Stakeholders matter: A Guide to Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722
Cieslak, R., Shoji, K., Douglas, A., Melville, E. et al. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Job Burnout and Secondary Traumatic Stress Among Workers With Indirect Exposure to Trauma. Psychological Services, 11(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033798
Concannon, T.W., Fuster, M., Saunders, T. et al. (2014). A Systematic Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Comparative Effectiveness and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 29(12), 1692–1701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd ed.). Penguin Books. URL: https://www.rhetoricinstitute.edu.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/fisher-getting-to-yes.pdf
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Re-view, 24(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/259074
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Beck, T.E., & Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2011). Developing a Capaci-ty for Organizational Resilience through Strategic Human Resource Management. Human Re-source Management Review, 21(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001
Matthieu, M.M., Gardiner, G. et al. (2014). Using a Service Sector Segmented Ap-proach to Identify Community Stakeholders Who Can Improve Access to Suicide Prevention Ser-vices for Veterans. Military Medicine, 179(4), 388–395. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00306
Mazhnaya, A., Meteliuk, A., Bogdanov, S. et al. (2025). Bridging factors within Ukraine's mental health system during wartime: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives. Implementation Science Communications, 7, Art. 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00825-7
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105
Moore, M.H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press. URL: https://raggeduniversity.co.uk/wp-con-tent/uploads/2025/03/CreatingPublicValueStrategicManagementinGovernmentbyMarkH.Moore-a-_compressed.pdf
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20031312
Rowley, T.J. (1997). Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022107
Sabel, C.F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist Governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 169–183). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0012
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organi-zation. Doubleday. URL: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/TheFifthDiscipline.pdf
Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A.J., & Raven, R. (2019). Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031
United Nations Development Programme. (2012). Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP Policy Document. UNDP.
