Stakeholder Perceptions and Project Performance

doi:10.1017/9781009322737.012

Chapter 9 - Stakeholder Perceptions and Project Performance

from Part II - Deviating from Plans

Published online by Cambridge University Press: aN Invalid Date NaN

Kate Davis ,

Liz Machtynger and

Francesco Di Maddaloni

Edited by

Lavagnon A. Ika and

Jeffrey K. Pinto

Show author details

Lavagnon A. Ika: Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Jeffrey K. Pinto: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The chapter highlights the importance of stakeholders as a crucial aspect in understanding project behaviour. Effective stakeholder identification and management allows project managers to understand the needs and motivations of all individuals and groups who can impact or be impacted by a project. This information is crucial in ensuring project success by helping project managers to effectively manage stakeholder expectations and build strong relationships.

The aim of this chapter is to enable the project manager to better consider and plan stakeholder management throughout the life of the project to maximise decision-making and benefits. It will elaborate on the challenges when including different stakeholder perceptions for project performance. The assumption is that it is essential to control the project’s outcome parameters through stakeholder expectations to minimise the chances of failure and maximise performance.

Engaging stakeholders in any project environment, local regional, national or global all brings separate complexities. To deliver outcomes successfully, project managers need to develop a much clearer understanding of stakeholder perceptions, expectations and priorities to enable them to cope with any changes or uncertainty as the project evolves throughout the lifecycle.

Keywords

stakeholder expectations stakeholder behavior decision-making project performance stakeholder management

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 144 - 157

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009322737.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aaltonen, K., and Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 381–397.10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., and Oijala, T. (2008). Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 509–516.10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Aguilar-Soto, J. A. S. (2018). Sustainability in project management: A review of the literature and a proposed framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, 658–678.Google Scholar

Andersen, E. S., Grude, K. V., and Haug, T. (2004). Goal directed project management. Kogan Page.Google Scholar

Bondy, K., and Charles, A. (2018). Mitigating stakeholder marginalisation with the relational self. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16.Google Scholar

Bourne, L., and Walker, D. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43(5/6), 649–660.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brady, T., and Davies, A. (2009). They think it’s all over, it is now: Heathrow terminal 5. The Proceedings of EURAM 2009, The 9th Conference of The European Management Review, UK, May. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.Google Scholar

Brady, T., and Davies, A. (2010a). From hero to hubris: Reconsidering the project management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 151–157.10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.011CrossRef Google Scholar

Brady, T., and Davies, A. (2010b). Learning to deliver a mega-project: The case of Heathrow Terminal 5 (pp. 190–212). In Caldwell, N. and Howard, M. (eds.). Procuring complex performance: Studies of innovation in product-service management. Routledge.Google Scholar

Brady, T., and Maylor, H. (2010). The improvement paradox in project contexts: A clue to the way forward? International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 787–795.10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.08.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Clarke, T. (2004). Theories of corporate governance. The Philosophical Foundations of Corporate Governance, Oxon, 12(4), 244–266.Google Scholar

Clarkson, M. (1995). Stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dalcher, D. (2012). The nature of project management, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 643–660.10.1108/17538371211268960CrossRef Google Scholar

Davidoff, M., and Bowman, J. R. (1996). Not in my backyard: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 11, 3–24.Google Scholar

Davis, K. (2016). Reconciling views of project success: A multiple stakeholder model. Doctoral Thesis. Kingston University London.Google Scholar

Derekhshan, R., Mancini, M., and Turner, J. R. (2019). Community’s evaluation of organizational legitimacy: Formation and reconsideration. International Journal of Project Management, 1, 73–86.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Di Maddaloni, F., and Davis, K. (2017). The influence of local community stakeholders in megaprojects: Rethinking their inclusiveness to improve project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1537–1556.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.011CrossRef Google Scholar

Di Maddaloni, F., and Davis, K. (2018) Project manager’s perception of the local communities’ stakeholder in megaprojects. An empirical investigation in the UK. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 542–565.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.11.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Di Maddaloni, F., and Sabini, L. (2022) Very important, yet very neglected: Where do local communities stand when examining social sustainability in major construction projects? International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 778–797.10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.007CrossRef Google Scholar

Di Maddaloni, F., and Derakhshan, R. (2023) Stakeholders' perception of organization: an attribution and fairness perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 17(1), 27–49.10.1108/IJMPB-08-2023-0178CrossRef Google Scholar

Aaltonen, K., Derakhshan, R., Di Maddaloni, F. and Turner, R. (2024) Stakeholder engagement: Theoretical and methodological directions for project scholarship International Journal of Project Management, 42(7), 102649.10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102649CrossRef Google Scholar

Di Maddaloni, F., Meira, L. H., de Andrade, M. O., de Melo, I. R., Castro, A., and Locatelli, G. (2025) The dark legacy of megaprojects: A case of local disengagement, missed opportunities, and social value dissipation. International Journal of Project Management, 43(1), 102676.CrossRef Google Scholar

Derry, R. (2012). Reclaiming marginalized stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 253–264.10.1007/s10551-012-1205-xCrossRef Google Scholar

Dooms, M., Verbeke, A., and Haezendonck, E. (2013). Stakeholder management and path dependence in large-scale transport infrastructure development: The port of Antwep case (1960–2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 14–25.10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Eesley, C., and Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, Strategic Management, 27, 765–781.10.1002/smj.536CrossRef Google Scholar

Eskerod, P., and Huemann, M. (2013). Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: What standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 36–50.10.1108/17538371311291017CrossRef Google Scholar

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., and Ringhofer, C. (2015). Stakeholder inclusiveness: Enriching project management with general stakeholder theory. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 42–53.10.1002/pmj.21546CrossRef Google Scholar

Eskerod, P., and Larsen, T. (2018). Advancing project stakeholder analysis by the concept “shadow of the context.” International Journal of Project Management, 36, 161–169.10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 409–421.10.2307/3857340CrossRef Google Scholar

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., and Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Fridjonsson, G., and Palsson, E. (2018). Green project management: Achieving sustainable business goals. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Friedman, A. L., and Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Frooman, J., (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.10.2307/259074CrossRef Google Scholar

Giammalvo, P. D. (2010). Green project management: A practical guide to sustainable business success. J. Ross.Google Scholar

Gil, N. A., and Fu, Y. (2022). Megaproject performance, value creation, and value distribution: An organizational governance perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(2), 224–251.10.5465/amd.2020.0029CrossRef Google Scholar

Gold, J. R. (1991). The not-in-my-backyard syndrome: A review of the literature and its implications for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 6, 18–30.Google Scholar

Hart, S. L., and Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7–18.Google Scholar

Ika, L. A., Love, P. E., Pinto, J. K. (2022). Moving beyond the planning fallacy: The emergence of a new principle of project behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(2), 221–230.Google Scholar

Jensen, T., and Sandström, J. (2013). In defence of stakeholder pragmatism. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 225–237.10.1007/s10551-012-1338-yCrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring corporate strategy: Text and cases, 6th ed. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., and Pitelis, C. N. (2019). Organizational governance adaptation: Who is in, who is out, and who gets what. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 6–27.10.5465/amr.2014.0459CrossRef Google Scholar

Lehtinen, J., and Aaltonen, K. (2017). Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 31, 1–31.Google Scholar

Li, T. H. Y., Ng, S. T., Skitmore, M. (2012). Public participation in infrastructure and construction projects in China: From an EIA-based to a whole-cycle process. Habitat International, 36, 47–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

McElroy, B., and Mills, C. (2000). Managing stakeholders (pp. 757–775). In Turner, R. (ed.). People in project management. Gower.Google Scholar

McGahan, A. M. (2021). Integrating insights from the resource-based view of the firm into the new stakeholder theory. Journal of management, 47(7), 1734–1756.10.1177/0149206320987282CrossRef Google Scholar

McLeod, R., Kruger, P., and Howells, J. (2012). Project management for construction. Pearson Higher Education.Google Scholar

McVea, J. F., and Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Enquiry, 14(1), 57–69.Google Scholar

Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437–459.10.1007/s10551-015-2741-yCrossRef Google Scholar

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., 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, 22(4), 853–886.10.2307/259247CrossRef Google Scholar

Morris, P. W. G., and Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Morris, P. W. G., Pinto, J. K., and Söderlund, J. (2011). The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford Handbooks Online.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199563142.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Nguyen, T. H. D., Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., and Wood, A. (2019). External stakeholder strategic actions in projects: A multi-case study. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 176–191.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.12.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Nieto-Rodriguez, A. (2021). The project economy has arrived. Spotlight series / Better project management. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/11/the-project-economy-has-arrived?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter_perissue&utm_campaign=bestofissue_activesubs_notdigital&deliveryName=DM156050.Google Scholar

Olander, S., and Landin, A. (2008). A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process. Construction Management and Economics, 26, 553–561.10.1080/01446190701821810CrossRef Google Scholar

Olander, S. (2007). Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics, 25, 277–287.10.1080/01446190600879125CrossRef Google Scholar

Pajunen, K. (2006). Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1261–1288.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00624.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Parker, G. A. (2016). Project management for environmental, construction, and manufacturing engineers. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Parkinson, R. (1994). The Sydney Opera House: The making of an iicon. ABC Books.Google Scholar

Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., and Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.10.5840/beq200313434CrossRef Google Scholar

Pinto, J. K., and Winch, G. (2016). The unsettling of “settled science.” The past and future of the management of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 237–245.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.011CrossRef Google Scholar

Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.10.2307/259248CrossRef Google Scholar

Salancik, G. R., and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 224–253.10.2307/2392563CrossRef Google Scholar

Scherer, A. G., and Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a political perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 1096–1120.Google Scholar

Smith, R. K. T. (1993). The not-in-my-backyard syndrome and the theory of externalities. Environmental Values, 2, 113–134.Google Scholar

Teo, M., and Loosemore, M. (2017). Understanding community protest from a project management perspective: A relationship-based approach. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8),1444–1458.CrossRef Google Scholar

Thorpe, D., and Holt, G. D. (2005). The relationship between project management and benefits management. International Journal of Project Management, 23(6), 455–461.Google Scholar

Turner, J. R. (2014a). Gower handbook of project management. 5th ed. Gower.Google Scholar

Turner, J. R. (2014b). The handbook of project-based management. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Turner, J. R., and Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87–99.10.1002/pmj.21289CrossRef Google Scholar

Unterhitzenberger, C. (2021). Special issue on project behavior. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 527–530.10.1177/87569728211054716CrossRef Google Scholar

van den Ende, L., and van Marrewijk, A. (2018). Teargas, taboo and transformation: A neo-institutional study of community resistance and the struggle to legitimize subway projects in Amsterdam 1960–2018. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 331–346.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.07.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Viswanath, C., and Narasimhan, R. (2009). Green project management: A framework and a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 1381–1390.Google Scholar

von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? International Journal of Project Management, 16(1), 59–63.10.1016/S0263-7863(97)00022-7CrossRef Google Scholar

Yang, L., Huang, C., and Wu, K. (2011). The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 258–267.10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.006CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.