Stakeholder Inclusiveness: Enriching Project Management with General Stakeholder Theory¹

Abstract

According to research, stakeholder disappointment is a root problem within projects. In this article, the dilemmas related to stakeholder inclusiveness, in other words, engaging a broad range of stakeholders, are discussed. Based on a longitudinal case study, three propositions are offered: Applying stakeholder inclusiveness in a project (1) increases the likelihood of more engaged and satisfied stakeholders; (2) increases the danger of losing focus on those stakeholders who possess the most critical resources for the project's survival and progress; and (3) increases the danger of inducing stakeholder disappointment due to expectation escalation and impossibility of embracing conflicting requirements and wishes.

What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability

“…Within these research areas of project management, the project stakeholders occupy a prominent place and are an essential part in the development of the project. To determine correctly which of them should be included, according to which attributes are being managed, is a concern that keeps the debate open and in force [6][7][8][9].…”

“…Academics and professionals increasingly point out the potential benefits of this relationship for decision-making [9,10,[34][35][36]. One of the most relevant recent aspects suggests that stakeholder management changes through time and provides a combination of interpersonal skills, social skills, communication skills, and emotional intelligence, which are necessary for the efficiency of project management and are difficult to achieve with traditional methods of management [37][38][39].…”

A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability

“…This has often created tensions and opposition at the local level of MPIC projects.By looking specifically at the local community level and at the interconnections within which the project-based organization and local community interact, the literature discuss the negative impact that the local community can exert on project results (Aaltonen and Sivonen 2009;Olander and Landin 2005) and, consequently, MPIC projects (van den Ende and Marrewijk 2018;Xue et al 2015). Unpopularity and local opposition are a common threat for MPIC projects whereby secondary and external groups try to influence the implementation of these projects (Boholm et al 1998;Teo and Loosemore 2017).Recent literature reviews in project and stakeholder management have elucidated that the majority of prior project research has focused on the management of those primary stakeholders important to the project's resources (e.g., Derakhshan et al 2019a;Di Maddaloni and Davis 2017;Eskerod et al 2015;Mok et al 2015). Secondary stakeholders, which do not have a formal contractual relationship with the organization or direct legal authority over the organization (Eesley and Lenox 2006), seek a claim for a legitimate role in project decision making because they are risk bearers in such developments (Olander and Landin 2008) and, therefore, more time should be spent at the front end of a project (Pinto and Winch 2016) and developing a stakeholder engagement plan that includes a broader range of stakeholders (Derakhshan et al 2019b;Eskerod et al 2015;van den Ende and Marrewijk 2018).…”

Collaboration in Multi-stakeholder, Multi-cultural Organizational Environments

“…As the landscape becomes more diverse (extremely hilly, with deep streams to wade through, and inclement/severe weather present), the hiking becomes much more challenging for the hiker, similar to what individuals and organizations must accommodate as the landscape factors within stakeholder theory become more complex. Stakeholder theory literature also described respective stakeholders' inclusion in processes (Eskerod, Huemann, & Ringhofer,, 2015), definition, and development of mutual goals (Elnashar et al, 2012). Cultural competence literature also described inclusion (Leung, Ang & Tan, 2014), and developing/defining mutual goals (Fisher-Borne, Cain, & Martin, 2015).This indicated the dynamic interactions between respective stakeholders as they interact and work together and how this may influence outcomes in collaboration.…”

“…There is a rich literature base to draw from (Aaltonen & Kajula, 2016;Brower & Mahajan, 2013;Eskerod, Huemann, & Ringhofer, 2015;Eskerod, Huemann, & Savage, 2015;Fombrun, Pnzi, & Newberry, 2015;Hansen, 2010;Kelly, 2010;Mainardes & Raposo, 2012;Mitchell, Van Buren, Greenwood, & Freeman). A study that offers significant empirical insights on stakeholder influence (Susiene & Purvinis, 2015) may also offer an opportunity to extend this research to further develop stakeholder influence in the multi-cultural, multi-stakeholder environment that is continuing to develop in this increasing global economy.…”