Managing Stakeholders Assundani

# 2010 The Braybrooke Press Ltd. Journal of General Management Vol. 35 No. 3 Spring 2010 67

Managing stakeholders forproject management success:an emergent model ofstakeholdersRashmi AssudaniAssistant Professor of Management, Xavier University, Cincinnati, USA

Timothy J. KloppenborgCastellini Distinguished Professor of Management, Xavier University, Cincinnati, USA

The world is in a state of constant flux and the systems perspective in the managementliterature has concerned itself with the adaptations that reflect this dynamic. However, whileprojectmanagement literature recognises the robustness of salient stakeholders, the literaturehas given little attention to managing the dynamic and shifting process of stakeholder manage-ment during the project life cycle. This conceptual paper uses both social network andstakeholder theories to integrate and extend the current theoretical body of literature inthe field of project management to describe a more fine grained approach to managingstakeholders throughout the project life cycle. This in turn allows broader insights into thebehavioural complexities of project management success. This is important because manyauthors and practicing managers forcefully state the importance of behavioural foundations inattaining project success.

Introduction

As change happens faster,more organisations turn to projectmanagement as amethod of planning andmanaging changes. The dynamics of projectmanage-ment have becomemore complex, not only because of the push for a reducedcycle time in this hypercompetitive economy, but also because the success ofthe project is now measured on multiple parameters. Project success criteriainclude realisation of the strategic objectives of the client organisation,satisfaction of end users and satisfaction of other stakeholders (Ika, 2009).The success of project work is, at least in part, dictated by identifying varioussalient stakeholders, managing robust relationships with them, makingdecisions that satisfy stakeholder objectives and leveraging the resourcesnecessary to achieve the objectives (Bourne, 2006; Flannes and Levin, 2001;Milosevic, 2003). Project management literature has primarily suggestedidentifying and prioritising stakeholders in a brainstormingmode (Milosevic,2003). In one notable addition to this literature, Bourne (2006) describes a

67–80

Rashmi Assudani and Timothy J. Kloppenborg

68 # 2010 The Braybrooke Press Ltd. Journal of General Management Vol. 35 No. 3 Spring 2010

variation on the traditional approach whereby a circle of influence is con-sidered.Accordingly, stakeholder analysis is often carried out on the front end.However, the salience of stakeholders may shift during the lifecycle of someprojects (Altinay and Miles, 2006). While the literature recognises thatidentifying the changes in the salience of stakeholders and managing thoserelationships over the project lifecycle will provide valuable insights to thesuccess of project work, little attention has been given to issues such asidentifying and managing the dynamic nature of stakeholder analysis inproject management (Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; PMBOK1 Guide, 2008).

This paper proposes that stakeholder and social network theories are usefultheoretical tools to identify and examine the dynamically changing relativeimportance of stakeholders along the project life cycle. Stakeholder theoryhelps identify the stakeholders by examining ‘who and what really counts’ inthe project. Social network theory examines the interaction amongpeople thatare integrally involved at various phases of the process and therefore comple-ments stakeholder theory. As the project unfolds, stakeholders may vary intheir level of importance – therefore, tracking the interactions may identify‘who and what really counts’ for project success. The paper begins with a briefoverview of what project management means. The literature on project lifecycle and project success is discussed here. Further, the authors brieflyconsider stakeholder theory and propose an emergent model of stakeholders.The authors elaborate on how social network theory may complementstakeholder theory to periodically analyse salient stakeholders. Finally, thediscussion section proposes implications for future research and for man-agers.

Project management introductionAny set of related work activities that collectively have a performance goal ofcreating a unique outcome, subject to time and resource limitations, can beorganised as a project, the management of which includes establishingobjectives, balancing competing demands and adapting to the expectationsof various stakeholders (PMBOK1 Guide, 2008). The project life is oftenmapped in distinct stages called life cycle stages or phases.

Project life cycleProjects follow a predictable pattern or life cycle. A project life cycle consists ofseveral stages during which deliverables are created and end with approval ofthe deliverables. This basic project life cycle is shown in Figure 1 below.

The simplest way to envision this is that a project must somehow start –therefore, there is an initiating stage that begins with the germ of an idea for aproject and culminates in a decision to perform the project. In the vast middleon most projects there is a combination of planning and executing of projectwork. The most deliberative approach would have all of the planningcompleted before beginning any project execution (as shown in Figure 1).The most emergent approach would have planning and execution totally inparallel. The last stage in a project life cycle, closing, begins when the project’scustomers formally accept the project deliverables and endswhen all the books

Managing stakeholders for project management success


are closed, documentation is complete, resources are reassigned, etc. Mana-ging all along the project life cycle contributes to project success.

Project success

Project performance is now widely understood to be composed of both scopeand quality. Flannes and Levin (2001) assert that projects exist because ofinternal and external customers; therefore, project success must includemeeting customer requirements and customer use of the project products.Pinto (2004) chronicles the evolution from the simple iron triangle of cost,schedule and quality through benefits to the organisation and stakeholders.Kloppenborg et al. (2006) describe 13 specific measures that are grouped intothree broad categories of meeting agreements, customer and future. Shenharand Dvir (2007) introduce a 26 element project success model with thecategories of project efficiency, impact on customer/user, impact on the team,business and direct organisational success and preparation for the future.Shenhar and Dvir specifically also consider the needs of an additionalstakeholder – the project team (Appendix 1 below). This is a current,comprehensive assessment by scholars who have been actively studyingproject success for over a decade.

In an assessment of the evolving understanding of project success, Jugdevand Muller (2005) summarise results of several empirical studies and outlinenecessary, yet not sufficient, conditions for project success. These conditionsinclude the fact that success criteria should be agreed upon with thestakeholders at repeated points throughout the project and a collaborativeworking relationship between the project manager and key stakeholdersshould be maintained. Kloppenborg (2009) describes how project managersneed to understand that improvement in one project success criterion maylead to degradation in another. Understanding the relative importancestakeholders place upon each lead to better tradeoff decisions. Ika (2009)stresses that project success is ambiguous, multidimensional, reliant onstakeholders and often lacks consensus on its definition. Clearly, projectsuccess is tied to effectively communicating and managing relationships withthe various stakeholders of the project. This makes stakeholder managementan important issue in project management.

Figure 1: Basic project life cycle model (adapted from Kloppenborg, T. J., ContemporaryProject Management, 2009)

Stakeholder theory: managing projectstakeholders

Stakeholder theory has recently begun to receive attention in the projectmanagement literature (e.g., Bourne andWalker, 2006; Sutterfield et al., 2006;PMBOK1 Guide, 2008; Jiang et al. 2009; Jepson and Eskerod, 2009).Stakeholder management is an important issue in project management as aproject can be seen as a temporary coalition of stakeholders having to createsomething together. According to McElroy and Mills (2003), stakeholdermanagement in projects is the continuing development of relationships withstakeholders for project success. Project stakeholders can be broadly con-sidered as any personor group that either impacts the project or is impactedbythe project. Project stakeholders could include internal and/or externalcustomers, project team, community, etc. Table 1 below illustrates the waysto classify stakeholders.

In order to ensure the success of the project, project managers need to (1)identify all stakeholders determining which are most important, (2) buildrelationships with and manage the expectations of the most importantstakeholders, and (3) communicate effectively with all of the stakeholders.While this may sound straightforward, the reality is that these expectationsdiffer (Young, Brady and Nagle 2009; Jiang et al., 2009). Project managersneed to understand this cacophony and do their best to unify and satisfy them– especially for the more important stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis,therefore, is an important component of stakeholder management. A key



Table 1: Stakeholder classification (adapted fromKloppenborg, T. J., Contemporary ProjectManagement, 2009)

Internal toperformingorganisation

Internal tocustomerorganisation

External to bothorganisations

Can positively impact theproject process

Can negatively impact theproject process

Can positively impact theproject results

Can negatively impact theproject results

Can be positively impacted byproject process

Can be negatively impactedby project process

Can be positively impacted byproject results

Can be negatively impactedby project results

issue in stakeholder theory is to identify the salient stakeholders – ‘who andwhat really counts’ (Freeman, 1994). Freeman’s classic definition defines astakeholder as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by theachievement of the organisation’s objective’ (Freeman, 1984: p. 46). Mitchellet al. (1997) further advanced the literature by proposing a theory ofstakeholder salience which suggests that a stakeholder’s ability to commandsalience in a relationship is determined by the perceptions of three keyattributes of stakeholder claims: power, legitimacy and urgency. On the basisof this, they proposed that classes of stakeholders can be identified by thepossession of one or more of these attributes (Figure 2). According to theirtypology, stakeholders may be termed as latent (dormant, discretionary,demanding) if the stakeholder possesses only one attribute; expectant(dominant, dependent, dangerous) if the stakeholder possesses two attributes,and definitive if the stakeholder possesses all three attributes.

Freeman’s and Mitchell’s work is highly informative on who counts as astakeholder. However, the application of this theory in identifying stake-holders is still limited (Elias, Cavana and Jackson, 2002; Knox and Gruar,2007). Furthermore, this theory seems to suggest a rather static view of salientstakeholders, where stakeholder analysis is conducted at the front end of theproject. On the contrary, in their recent research, Jepsen and Eskerod (2009)found that a stakeholder analysis at the front end of the project is incomplete.Project managers, they found, were limited in a detailed front end stakeholderanalysis since (1) it was difficult to foresee interactionswith stakeholders in thedistant future and (2) contributions from each stakeholder may vary indifferent stages in the course of the project due to unforeseeable events in theproject. Some stakeholders havemore influence over a project than others andsince the extent of their influence can change over the course of a project,



Figure 2. Source: Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 874.

continuous stakeholder identification and prioritisation is good practice. Thelist of stakeholders can become quite daunting and unworkably large. There-fore, project managers realise they need to have a way to prioritise amongthem. The simplest (and not very effective) way some project managers use isto pay close attention to their paying customer and their boss and lessattention to all others. While bosses and customers are indeed important toproject (and personal) success, many other stakeholders need to be con-sidered. However, one must realise that some stakeholders are more import-ant than others andneed to bemore central to project planning and execution.Project managers can brainstorm lists of potential stakeholders and conductinitial meetings with each group to both communicate the project’s visionwith that group and to understand the unique needs and interests of eachgroup (Young, Brady and Nagle, 2009).

Armed with this information, the project manager can then determine theintensity of impact each stakeholder will make on the project by using astakeholder influence grid (Milosevic, 2003), a power/interest grid(PMBOK1 Guide, 2008), a stakeholder/project success grid (Young, BradyandNagle, 2009) or by a stakeholder circleTM (Bourne, 2006). These provide alens to identify and determine themost important stakeholders to the project.While this acts as a great starting point, what is less understood is how tomanage these stakeholders during the tenure of the entire project sincestakeholder management is a dynamic and shifting process (Altinay andMiles, 2006). This is evenmore important in projects whichmay not always berealised exactly as they were intended at the outset. The priority of thestakeholders may shift as these project unfold – therefore, an emergent modelof stakeholders is needed. This is because it is important for project managersto develop robust relationships with these various stakeholders (Bourne andWalker, 2006) at different life cycle stages of the project for a successfuloutcome.

Emergent model of stakeholders

Since the project demands may shift during the tenure of the project,Srivannaboon (2009) suggests an adaptive style of project management. Anassumption that an intended project management strategy can always berealised may be a simplistic and naı̈ve assumption. Many industries and evenmany companies have their own variations on project life cycle models.Research in project management has begun to provide some perspective thatthere are a variety of ways that projects may actually take shape. Thecomplexity and variety of project life cycles may, at least in part, be dictatedby the industry in which the project is housed. While all projects have aninitiation stage, the emergence of projects along their life cyclemay not exactlyand perfectly map on to the planning and execution stage as was initiallyintended. The project life cycle processmay therefore vary along the deliberateand emergent continuum (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Adapting fromMintzberg and Waters theory, for the project management strategy to beperfectly deliberate – that is, for the project to unfold exactly as it was intended– at least three conditions should be satisfied: 1) there must have been precise



intentions that are clearly and concretely articulated and detailed 2) strategyshould be collectively formed and/or accepted by all and 3) no external forcecould have interfered with the intentions. In the absence of intentions and/orunder the influence of the environment, the strategy could follow more of anemergent pattern. In practice, very few projects follow a completely deliberatemodel. One big difference in approach stems from how early in a project it ispossible to understand with confidence exactly what work will need to becompleted. Projects where the work can be completely described at the frontend aremore deliberate than emergent. Construction projects often are closerto the deliberate end of the continuum (Figure 3). However, in projects wherethe results of early work dictate what is feasible in later work, emergent projectmanagement strategy may be more required. Information system, qualityimprovement, andR&Dprojects often require this type of emergent planning.It is these latter types of projects that require a better understanding of anemergent model of stakeholders.

An emergent model of stakeholders would require an iterative and aperiodic reassessment of the project during its life cycle (Figure 4 above).This may be especially true as the external conditions shift; for example,changes in regulations, changes in competition and/or changes in customerrequirementsmean that the essence of the project may shift as well. Naturally,the prioritised list of stakeholders may change and project managers need aclearer understanding of how to periodically assess stakeholder salience. Suchinsights will be useful to enable project managers to develop robust relation-ships with stakeholders and to structure their communication patterns forproject success. In the next section there is a discussion on how social network



Figure 3: Construction project life cycle (adapted from Kloppenborg, T. J. ContemporaryProject Management, 2009)

Figure 4: Research and development project life cycle (adapted from Kloppenborg, T. J.,Contemporary Project Management, 2009)

theory may complement the application of stakeholder theory by identifyingthe emergence of salient stakeholders at various project life cycle stages.

Social network theory

Social network theory provides an appropriate lens and offers tools forexamining the relations among these stakeholders. According to this per-spective ‘actors are embedded within networks of interconnected relation-ships that provide opportunities for and constraints on behavior’ (Brass,Galaskiewicz, Greve and Tsai, 2004: p. 795). This stream of research examinesthe content that flows through relationships (e.g., workflow information,communication, affect (friendship), influence (advice) ) – content which aidsin examining the strength of relationships. Social network analysis viewsrelationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors in thenetworks and ties are the relationships among them. Using social networkanalysis, research has achieved the following:

� Identified different patterns of communication in different types of workarrangements.

� Compared the density and types of relationships in different work groups.� Predicted powerful positions in work groups and in organisations.

Using this perspective, researchers have also been able to explain thevariance in outcome measures such as organisational innovation (Tsai,2001; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998), organisational survival (Baum and Oliver,1991), job satisfaction (Roberts and O’Reilly, 1979), power (Brass andBurkhardt, 1993; Krackhardt, 1990) and work group performance (Cum-mings and Cross, 2003) to name a few. From the perspective of projectmanagement, the literature on social network theory will be informative tomeasure the various project success categories (refer to Table 2 below).

Periodically monitoring the salience of stakeholders along the variousstages of the project life cycle will be useful for the project managers toascertain various things such as:

� Latent, expectant and definitive stakeholders along the various stages ofthe project.

� Who the central players on the project team are – who have more powerand who could broker among the multiple players on the team.



Table 2: Project success and social network outcomes

Project success category Social network outcome Reference

Project efficiency Individual and work groupperformance

Cummings and Cross (2003);Sparrowe et al. (2001)

Impact on customer/user Client satisfaction Klaas et al. (2005)

Impact on team Job satisfaction Robert and O’Reilly (1979)

Business and directorganisational success

Organisational survival Uzzi (1997); Travaglione andCross (2006)

Preparing for the future Organisational innovation Tsai (2001); Tsai andGhoshal (1998); Ruef (2002)

In order to examine the shifting salience among the project stakeholders,project managers and project sponsors may examine the names of persons:

� Who will be affected by the project outcomes and process.� Who they will ask for inputs to the project (workflow network).� Who they will talk to frequently about project-related activities to ensure

the success of the project (communication network) at the initiation stage.

Similar questionsmay be addressed to the project managers and the projectteam members (stakeholders) at other stages of the project life cycle such asplanning, execution and closing. Such communication data will provide theraw data for (expected) central players in this project at various stages. Duringthe project closing phase, project managers, members of the project team andthose identified as the most key stakeholders may be asked to answer theProject Success Assessment Questionnaire shown in Appendix 1 below. Usingsocial network software (UCiNet), communication data may be examined tomap patterns during the project life cycle. Such an analysis will allow theproject manager to examine which stakeholders are more latent, expectantand discretionary across the various phases of the project life cycle, therebyproviding evidence and understanding of the shifting salience of stakeholders.Such data will also be useful in analysing the central players in the project. Forexample, those stakeholders that remain definitive across the various stages ofthe project are likely to be more central than others.

This information will help the project manager to structure his/her com-munication to the stakeholders. Projectmanagers could ensure 1) appropriatetiming of sending messages to the relevant project stakeholders at variousstages of the project life cycle and 2) addressing the key players during theproject. Stakeholders that are definitive/dominant/dangerous/dependent aremore central players and may hold more power and brokering capabilitiesthan the ones that are demanding/dormant/discretionary. Project managersshould structure their communication patterns to address these key players inthe network. Further, projectmanagersmayfind it useful to identify and reachout to these key players – especially for any politically sensitive projectdemands. These players may be crucial to serve as change agents and/or asopinion leaders in the project team.

Discussion

While project management literature has identified organisational behav-ioural aspects as important to projectmanagement, research has advanced lessin exploring the behavioural complexities in managing projects. This paper isan attempt to explore some of these behavioural complexities. Sociology andsubsequently organisational theory and behavioural literature have providedsocial networks and stakeholder theory as a valuable lens to explore therelationships at micro and meso levels. This conceptual paper uses both thesetheories to integrate and extend the current theoretical body of literature inthe field of project management to describe a more detailed approach tomanaging stakeholders, and therefore to more broadly generate insights forthe behavioural complexities of project management success. This is import-



ant because many authors forcefully state the importance of behaviouralfoundations on project success (Flannes and Levin, 2001; Krahn, 2006;Meansand Adams, 2005; Pinto, 2004; PMBOK1 Guide, 2008). However, aspreviously stated, few offer new and concrete ideas on specifically how tomanage project stakeholders. The literature currently suggests a front endprioritisation of project stakeholders. While necessary, this view is limitedbecause of the dynamic and shifting nature of stakeholders along the projectlife cycle. Project managers are cognitively bounded in their a priori assess-ment of stakeholders. Therefore, a need to periodically reassess and anticipatethe stakeholders is recognised in the literature. Given that stakeholders holdvalue in terms of providing relevant information for project success, it isnecessary to reassess the relevance of stakeholders at periodic intervals.

This paper contributes to the literature on project management bysuggesting that project managers should routinely reexamine their stake-holders at various stages of project life cycle. This is especially true of projectsthat are emergent in nature. Therefore, this paper proposes an emergent viewof stakeholders using stakeholder and social network theories. While stake-holder theory identifies ‘who and what really counts’, social network theorycomplements stakeholder theory in its application. Asking project teammembers (that include project managers, sponsors and the various stake-holders) questions about workflow, communication network and affect ofproject output on others periodically enables project managers to discern theshifting salience of ‘who and what really counts’ at different stages of theproject life cycle. It also allows the project managers to ascertain the morecentral players in the duration of the project. These central stakeholders offerpowerful and brokering capability to project managers. This better positionsprojectmanagers to structure their communicationpatterns and to drive theirresources towards relevant stakeholders.

Implications for research

While this paper is a conceptual piece, this stream of academic enquiry willbenefit by conducting field research. Such research should theoreticallysample different types of projects. For example, future research should seekto conduct field studies on projects from two distinct industries – one eachfrom the deliberate (such as a construction project) and emergent (such as aresearch and development) categories. This follows a theoretical samplinglogic (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) of identifyingdata samples that are selectedfor similarities and differences. Such a theoretical sampling helps examinepatterns of similarities and differences and is useful to develop themes innascent research streams. In order to further understand the behaviouralcomplexities of project management success, future research should seek toexamine ‘whether and how the salience of stakeholders changes over time’ indifferent types of projects at various stages of their project life cycle.

The authors would expect the following from such a field study: (1)consistency in stakeholder names across the project duration in projectsthat follow a deliberate path (construction projects). In addition, that salienceof stakeholders is likely to shift across the entire project duration in projects



that follow an emergent path (R&D projects). Further, the authors anticipatethat (2) projects that are complex and follow an emergent path will reach outto multiple players for workflow and communication networks. Also, moreoverlap between the workflow and communication networks in projectsfollowing a deliberate path; and 3) that the above stated propositions willbe related to project success. Future research should test these propositions.

Implications for managers

The primary implication of this paper for managers is that since few projectsare at the deliberate end of the deliberate-emergent continuum,most projectscan benefit from periodic reassessments of stakeholders. Recognising theevolutionary and emergent nature of stakeholders challenges the currentnotion of a planned and established set of stakeholders through the life of theproject. Are some stakeholders becoming more or less important? This is apertinent question to answer as project managers spend a large amount oftheir limited time communicating with stakeholders. This paper showsproject managers how to use social network theory to uncover changingpatterns of stakeholder relevance as projects progress. Project success dependsupon buy-in and the influence that the project manager is able to exert on therelevant stakeholders to accomplish the project. Good project practice such asappropriate use of charters, agendas, minutes, issues logs, communicationsplans and stakeholder registers is very helpful in achieving stakeholder buy-in.Good behavioural management practice such as open communication,nurturing, motivating, empowering, stress management and conflict resolu-tion also help. Managers need to be cognisant of the significant time andresource implications for assessing the stakeholders. Therefore, following thecontingent theory principles, this recommendation does not hold for allproject types. Emergent and complex projects are the ones that are likely tobenefit the most from this analysis. Also, projects that are dispersed acrossspace and time will benefit with the re-assessment of stakeholders. Whilevirtual teams are becoming more popular in organisations, more structurewill be required to assess virtual project teams that aremanaging emergent andcomplex projects, for example projects such as R&D.

Conclusion

Identifying and prioritising key stakeholders for a project and then establish-ing and maintaining productive work relationships with them is key inachieving project success. The first significant contribution of this paper isto describe a completely different way of identifying and prioritising projectstakeholders – that is, by using social network theory. The salience ofstakeholders may shift during the project lifecycle. The second major contri-bution of this paper lies in examining whether and how the salience ofstakeholdersmay shift as a project progresses. The synthesis between the fieldsof project management and organisational behaviour is fertile ground forfurthering research in project management literature. Eventually, projectmanagement is a people process, and understanding the behavioural com-



plexities that underlie the success of project management will likely add tocurrent understanding. This paper is an attempt towards expanding thisunderstanding.

Appendix 1: Project success assessmentquestionnaire

1. Project efficiencya. The project was completed on time or early.b. The project was completed within or below budget.c. The project had only minor changes.d. Other efficiency measures were achieved.

2. Impact on the customer/usera. The project improved the customer’s performance.b. The customer was satisfied.c. The product met the customer’s requirements.d. The customer is using the product.e. The customer will come back for future work.

3. Impact on the teama. The project team was highly satisfied and motivated.b. The team was highly loyal to the project.c. The project team had high morale and energy.d. The team felt that working on the project was fun.e. Team members experienced personal growth.f. Team members wanted to stay in the organisation.

4. Business and direct organisational successa. The project was an economic business success.b. The project increased the organisation’s profitability.c. The project has a positive return on investment.d. The project increased the organisation’s market share.e. The project contributed to the organisation’s direct performance.

5. Preparing for the futurea. The project’s outcome will contribute to future projects.b. The project will lead to additional new products.c. The project will help create new markets.d. The project created new technologies for future use.e. The project contributed to new business processes.f. The project developed better managerial capabilities. (Shenhar and

Dvir, 2007)

ReferencesAltinay, L. and Miles, S. (2006), ‘International franchising decision-making: an application of

stakeholder theory’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 421–436.Baum, J. A. C. and Oliver, C. (1991), ‘Institutional linkages and organisational mortality’,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 187–218.Bourne, Lynda (2006), Project Relationships and the Stakeholder CircleTM, Proceedings, Project

Management Institute Research Conference, July, Montreal.



Bourne, L. and Walker, D. H. T. (2006), ‘Visualizing stakeholder influence – two Australianexamples’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 5–21.

Brass, D. J. and Burkhardt, M. E. (1993), ‘Potential power and power use: an investigation ofstructure and behavior’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 441–470.

Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R. and Tsai, W. (2004), ‘Taking stock of networks andorganisations: A multilevel perspective’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 6,pp. 795–817.

Cummings, J. H. and Cross, R. (2003), ‘Structural properties of work groups and theirconsequences for performances’, Social Networks, Vol. 25, pp. 197–210.

Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y. and Jackson, L. S. (2002), ‘Stakeholder analysis for R&D projectmanagement’, R&D Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 301–310.

Flannes, S. W. and Levin, G. (2001), People Skills for Project Managers, Vienna, VA: Manage-ment Concepts.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman.Freeman, R. E. (1994), ‘The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions’, Business

Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 409–421.Ika, L. A. (2009), ‘Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals’, Project

Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 6–19.Jepsen, A.L. and Eskerod, P. (2009), ‘Stakeholder analysis in projects: challenges in using

current guidelines in the real world’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27,pp. 335–343.

Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Wu, S. P. J. and Tiang, T. P. (2009), ‘The relation of requirementsuncertainty and stakeholder perception gaps to project management performance’, TheJournal of Systems and Software, Vol. 82, pp. 801–808.

Jugdev, K. andMuller, R. (2005). ‘A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of projectsuccess’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 19–31.

Klaas, B. S., Gainey, T. W., McClendon, J. A. and Yang, H. (2005), ‘Professional employerorganisations and their impact on client satisfactionwith human resource outcomes: A fieldstudy of human resource outsourcing in small and medium enterprises’, Journal of

Management, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 234.Kloppenborg, T. J. (2009), Contemporary Project Management, Mason, OH: South-Western

Cengage Learning.Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D., Manolis, C. and Heitkamp, M. (2006), ‘An empirical investi-

gation of the sponsor’s role in project initiation’, ProjectManagement Journal, Vol. 37,No. 3,pp. 16–25.

Knox, S. andGruar, C. (2007), ‘The application of stakeholder theory to relationshipmarketingstrategy development in a non-profit organisation’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75,pp. 115–135.

Krackhardt, D. (1990), ‘Assessing the political landscape – structure, cognition, and power inOrganisations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 342–369.

Krahn, J. (2006), ‘Effective Project Leadership: A Combination of Project Manager Skills andCompetencies in Context’, PMI Research Conference Proceedings, Montreal.

Means, J. and Adams, T. (2005), Facilitating the Project Life Cycle: Skills and Tools to AccelerateProgress for Project Managers, Facilitators, and Six Sigma Project Teams, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,

Milosevic, D. Z. (2003), Project Management Toolbox: Tools and Techniques for the Practicing

Project Manager, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. (1985), ‘Of strategies, deliberate and emergent’, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 257–272.Mitchell, R. K., Bradley, R. A. and 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, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 853–886.Pinto, J. K. (2004), ‘The elements of project success’, In: Cleland, D. I. (Ed.), Field Guide to

Project Management, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc, pp. 14–27.PMBOK1 Guide, (2008) (4th ed.), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,

Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.



Roberts, K. H. and O’Reilly III, C. A. (1979), ‘Some correlates of communication roles inorganisations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 42–57.

Ruef, M. (2002), ‘Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors oforganisational innovation’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 427.

Shenhar, A. J. and Dvir, D. (2007), Reinventing Project Management, Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. and Kraimer, M. L. (2001), ‘Social networks and theperformance of individuals and groups’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2,pp. 316–325.

Srivannaboon, S. (2009), ‘Achieving competitive advantage through the use of projectmanage-ment under the plan-do-check-act concept’, Journal of GeneralManagement, Vol. 34, No. 3,pp. 1–19.

Travaglione, A. and Cross, B. (2006), ‘Diminishing the social network in organisations: doesthere need to be such a phenomenon as survivor syndrome after downsizing?’, StrategicChange, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1.

Tsai, W. (2001), ‘Knowledge transfer in intraorganisational networks: effects of networkposition and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance’, Academy

of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 996–1004.Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), ‘Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm

networks’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 464–476.Sutterfield, J. S., Friday-Stroud, S. S. and Blackwell, S. L. Shivers (2006), ‘A case study of project

and stakeholder management failures: Lessons learned’, Project Management Journal, Vol.37, No. 5, pp. 26–35.

Uzzi, B. (1997), ‘Towards a network perspective on organisational decline’, The InternationalJournal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 111–155.

Young, R. R., Brady, S. M. and Nagle, D. C. Jr. (2009), How to Save a Failing Project: Chaos to

Control, Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.

Rashmi Assudani joined Xavier University’s Williams College of Business in 2005 afterearning a doctoral degree from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. His research interestsrevolve around the behavioural complexities of managing knowledge in geographicallydistributed work arrangements and the implications this has for managing innovation andcreativity. His research has received numerous awards such as the Outstanding Student PaperAwards (Academy of Management –Management Consulting division) in 2005 and an Award ofExcellence – Honorable Mention Award (Administrative Sciences Association of Canada) in1998. In addition, his research has been published in various journals, books and conferenceproceedings.

Timothy J. Kloppenborg is a Castellini Distinguished Professor of Management atWilliamsCollege of Business, Xavier University. He has previously served on faculties at UNCCharlotteand Air Force Institute of Technology. He has published about 70 articles, books, chapters, andpapers. His most current book, Contemporary Project Management, was published by SouthWestern Cengage Learning. Dr Kloppenborg spent an early part of his career in bothconstruction and manufacturing. He also served in the United States Air Force and Air ForceReserve (USAFR) in transportation, procurement, and quality assurance and retired as a majorfromUSAFR. He has worked with over 100 volunteer organisations; has consulting experiencein various industries; and has developed and delivered various corporate training and universityclasses in project management.



Copyright of Journal of General Management is the property of Braybrooke Press Ltd. and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Managing Stakeholders Assundani

Documents

Transcript of Managing Stakeholders Assundani