Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680 – 1691
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Major project managers' internal and external stakeholder
relationships: The development and validation of
measurement scales
Alicia K. Mazur ⁎, Anne Pisarski
School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Qld, 4000, Australia
Received 11 March 2014; received in revised form 13 July 2015; accepted 17 July 2015
Available online 28 August 2015
Abstract
In this paper, we detail the development of two stakeholder relationships scales. The scales measure major project managers'
perceived competence in developing (establishing and maintaining) high quality, effective relationships with stakeholders who are
internal and external to their organization. Our sample consists of 373 major project managers from a sub-set of the Australian defense
industry. Both the internal stakeholder relationships scale and the external stakeholder relationships scale demonstrated validity and
reliability. This research has implications for the interpersonal work relationships literature and the stakeholder management literature.
We recommend that researchers test these scales with multiple samples, across different project types and project industries in the future.
The stakeholder relationship scales should be versatile enough to be applied to project management generally but are perhaps best suited
to major project environments.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stakeholder relationships; Project management; Scale development
1. Introduction
The management of the project stakeholders is considered
the responsibility of the project manager. This task constitutes
one of the largest components of their role (Karlsen, 2008; PMI,
2008). To mitigate the risk to the project that the stakeholders
pose and to obtain the multitude of project-related benefits that
follow the achievement of successful stakeholder relationships
(Bourne, 2011; Karlsen, 2008; Pinto, 2000), it is critical that the
project manager develops relationships with the stakeholders that
are effective and of high quality. Bourne and Walker (2006: 5)
define project stakeholders as “individuals or groups who have an
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 61 7 3138 8530.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.K. Mazur),
[email protected] (A. Pisarski).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.008
0263-7863/00/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
interest or some aspect of rights or ownership in the project, and
can contribute to, or be impacted by, the outcomes of a project”.
The potential for stakeholders to impact the processes and
outcomes of a project, and therefore its likelihood of success, has
been well documented in the project management and stakeholder literature (Bourne, 2011; Bryde and Robinson, 2005; Olander
and Landin, 2005; Toor and Ogunlana, 2010; Wang and Huang,
2006; Yang et al., 2011).
In particular, ineffective stakeholder management can: reduce
stakeholder satisfaction with the project outcomes (Bourne,
2005); negatively impact the capabilities of an organization
(Aaltonen et al., 2008); hinder future opportunities for collaboration with the stakeholders (Manowong and Ogunlana, 2010) and
potentially cause harm to individuals or groups (Phillips, 2003).
The stakeholder literature stipulates a number of steps for the
effective management of stakeholders: 1) identify the stakeholders (Freeman, 1984); 2) select one of several stakeholder
management models to categorize the stakeholders (Savage et
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
al., 1991); 3) engage with the stakeholder (Greenwood, 2007);
and, 4) maintain the stakeholder relationship or disengage from
it (Post et al., 2002).
Within the project management field, stakeholder relationships have predominately been explored using qualitative
methods such as interviews, observation, storytelling, document examination, case studies and social network analysis
(Aaltonen et al., 2010; Beringer et al., 2013; Boonstra, 2006;
Bourne, 2011; Rowlinson and Cheung, 2008; Vaagaasar,
2011). For example, an innovative approach from Bourne and
Walker (2005) uses a social network tool, the stakeholder
circle, to determine stakeholders' power and influence, as
well as their impact on a project's outcomes. This tool
can assist project managers to develop and maintain a
stakeholder engagement strategy (Bourne and Walker,
2005). By comparison, quantitative studies are less prevalent
with many focusing on stakeholder satisfaction (see Pinto et
al., 2009; Yang and Peng, 2008)—often as an indicator of
project success (Jugdev and Müller, 2005). Beringer et al.
(2013) believe that the lack of quantitative research using
stakeholders as the unit of analysis may be one of the reasons
that there is a scarcity of valid and reliable stakeholder
engagement measures.
Our review of the stakeholder and project management
literature similarly failed to yield a suitable instrument for the
measurement of stakeholder relationships. A possible explanation, in addition to the one offered by Beringer and colleagues,
may be the conceptualization of stakeholders as groups
or organizations that need to be managed as either a risk or a
resource rather than at the interpersonal level where emphasis
is on the development of relationships. Adjacent to the project
management literature is the strategic management literature,
which also places emphasis on the effective management of
the stakeholders for optimal organizational performance
(Freeman, 2010; Hitt et al., 2015). However, a suitable scale
for the measurement of stakeholder relationships is also
missing from the strategic management literature.
We respond to this gap by conceptualizing, developing and
validating two quantitative stakeholder relationship
measures—the internal stakeholder relationships (ISR) scale
and the external stakeholder relationships (ESR) scale. Unlike
qualitative measures, quantitative measures enable the researcher to make statistical inferences about a population. The context
for the development of these scales is major projects in the
Australian defense industry. The defense industry refers to
government and commercial enterprises involved in research,
development and production of military resources. We consider
the defense industry to be a suitable explanatory context for
stakeholder management, with regard to the broader project
management community, as many defense acquisitions projects
are managed by highly trained project managers who
are recognized on a global-scale for their skills and
expertise, and delivered in one of the most sophisticated
project environments in the world. In addition, the number
of national and international, internal and external stakeholders who typically contribute to a major defense project
is considerable.
1681
The question we address in this paper is which elements
should be measured to evaluate major project managers'
perceived internal and external stakeholder relationships
competence? The paper is structured as follows. Theory is
discussed in Section 2, followed by the method in Section 3,
the results in Section 4, and the discussion in Section 5.
2. Theory
To conceptualize the internal stakeholder relationships and
external stakeholder relationships constructs, the following
sub-sections present our review of the relevant stakeholder
management, relational competency, interpersonal relationships and project management theory and literature.
2.1. Stakeholder classification
Despite the considerable number of stakeholders typically
involved in a major project, Manowong and Ogunlana (2010)
stress the importance of considering all of the stakeholders'
interests. In an effort to simplify stakeholder identification and
management, attempts have been made to classify stakeholders.
According to Mainardes et al. (2012) the literature has
suggested classifying stakeholders by levels of an attribute,
such as power, legitimacy and/or urgency (see Mitchell et al.,
1997), and into groups based on the potential of the stakeholder
to harm or cooperate with the organization (see Savage et al.,
1991). In addition, project stakeholders have been divided by
type: organizational stakeholders (executives, line leaders,
employees and unions), product stakeholders (customers, suppliers, governments and the general public) and capital market
stakeholders (shareholders, creditors and banks; Freeman, 1984;
Kerzner, 2009). They have also been differentiated in terms of
whether they are considered primary or secondary stakeholders
(Cleland, 1998). Most often, anyone contractually involved
with the project is considered a primary stakeholder, while the
secondary stakeholders are unlikely to have a contractual claim
over the project or to be directly involved (Cleland, 1998; Winch,
2004). For example, Winch (2004) classifies financiers, consulting
engineers, suppliers, sponsors and clients as primary stakeholders,
and environmentalists, local residents and regulatory agencies as
secondary stakeholders.
Project stakeholders may also be differentiated by whether
the project stakeholder is situated within a project manager's
organization or outside of it. The locus of the stakeholder may
impact the project manager's management of that stakeholder.
However, Manowong and Ogunlana (2010) believe that the
locus of the project stakeholders should have little practical
impact as all stakeholders have to be identified, and have their
needs and potential to impact the project assessed. In this paper,
internal stakeholders have been defined as project stakeholders
within the project manager's organization (i.e. supervisors and
team members) while external stakeholders have been defined
as project stakeholders outside the project manager's organization (i.e. customers, contractors, sub-contractors and environmental or government bodies). While contactors are typically
viewed as external stakeholders, we view those contractors
1682
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
contracted by the project manager's organization to work for and
within the organization as internal stakeholders. As previously
mentioned, after classifying the stakeholders, the project manager
should then decide whether to engage with the stakeholders by
establishing and maintaining a relationship with them. Our focus
is specifically on the establishment and maintenance stages of the
relationship. Thus, the project manager competence of interest to
this paper is relational competence.
2.2. Relational competence theory
Competency is defined by Turner et al. (2009: 199) as “a
combination of knowledge (qualifications), skills (ability to do
a task) and core personality characteristics (motives, traits and
self-concepts) that lead to superior results”. Erpenbeck and
Heyse (1999 as cited in Ley and Albert, 2003) maintain that
individuals use a self-organizing process whereby they draw
upon their knowledge, skills and attributes to most appropriately respond to a situation. According to Boyatzis and Ratti
(2009) competencies can be observed through an individual's
actions and the intent that determines the actions. Thus, once the
demands of the environment have been understood, competencies may be indicative of potential performance.
Relational competence theory is a psychology theory that
“focuses on how effectively we deal with each other, with
intimates and non-intimates in close/distant, committed/uncommitted, dependent/interdependent/independent, and short/
prolonged relationships” (L'Abate et al., 2010: 7). Competency
theory has informed our conceptualization, and subsequently
our measurement, of the stakeholder relationship construct. To
ascertain whether major project managers will be able to establish
and maintain an effective and high quality relationship with
internal and external stakeholders, a measure of their perceived
stakeholder relationship competence is required. Cable and
DeRue (2002) have found perceived fit to be a better proximal
determinant of attitudes and behaviors than actual or objective fit.
2.2.1. Interpersonal work relationship developmental stages
In a qualitative case study of three engineering projects,
Karlsen (2008) noted that the benefits gained from project
manager–stakeholder relationships emerge over the lifecycle of
a project and do not occur immediately. In addition, Karlsen has
observed project managers' ability to influence the development
of their relationships with project stakeholders. We conceptualize
the major project manager–stakeholder relationship concept as
consisting of developmental stages. The developmental stages
of interpersonal relationships have been found to differ as a
function of relationship type. For instance, a model of marketing
relationship formation has been developed by Dwyer et al. (1987)
involving the following stages: awareness, exploration, expansion,
commitment and dissolution. Ferris et al (2009) have outlined
five stages of the buyer–seller relationship as: initial interaction,
development and expansion of roles, expansion and commitment,
and increased interpersonal commitment. As another example,
Knapp's (1978) staircase model of social relationships consists
of the following stages: initiating, experimenting, intensifying,
integrating, bonding, differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating,
avoiding and terminating. Welch and Rubin (2002) believe that
Knapp's relationship stages should extend to business relationships; however, they expect that the message themes will differ.
An alternative model to these logically-sequenced developmental stage models is Gersick's (1991) model of group
development as one of punctuated equilibrium. Gersick developed
this model in response to the critique of developmental stage
models as lacking in empirical validity. Gersick (1991) theorizes
that groups are systems that go through ‘sudden’ formation,
maintenance and revision stages, develop differently from one
another due to influences from the external environment and the
system itself, and do not typically develop in a ‘forward’ direction.
While relationship development stages and their sequence
vary across different types of relationships and models it is
generally conceded that all relationships involve a period of
initiation or establishment, a middle stage usually characterized by
relationship maintenance behaviors, and an end stage involving the
dissolution or termination of the relationship (Ferris et al., 2009;
Knapp, 1978; Moore and Craig, 2010). As the developmental
phases of the major project manager–stakeholder relationship have
not yet been identified, this research examines the overarching
early and middle stages of relationship development. The early
stage has been labeled ‘establishment’ while the middle stage has
been labeled ‘maintenance’. Relationship termination has not been
included as this research focuses on the development of relationships as opposed to their dissolution.
Instruments to assess romantic relationship maintenance
strategies (Canary and Stafford, 1992; Stafford, 2011) and
organization-public/organization-employee relationship maintenance strategies (Shen, 2011) exist, however, an instrument
that measures individuals' perception of their competence in
establishing and/or maintaining their interpersonal work relationships could not be found. In consideration of the unique features
that characterize an interpersonal work relationship (Ferris et al.,
2009; Waldron, 2003), a new instrument should be constructed
to measure the establishment and maintenance of interpersonal
work relationships as opposed to adapting an instrument used
to measure other types of interpersonal relationships, such as
romantic relationships. We define the stakeholder relationship
development construct as major project managers' overall
assessment of the interactive and non-interactive, actions and
activities they perform to establish and maintain interpersonal
work relationships with their project stakeholders. This definition
has been adapted from Canary and Stafford's (2001) relational
maintenance behaviors definition.
2.2.2. Interpersonal work relationship dimensions
Two interpersonal work relationship dimensions have been
selected for analysis in this research: quality and effectiveness.
These two dimensions have been selected as they are thought to
represent interpersonal work relationships best in terms of
health and outcomes. Health or state, quality and outcomes are
the three components most commonly used to define interpersonal relationships (Ragins and Dutton, 2007). In addition,
there is a clear association between interpersonal work relationship quality and interpersonal work relationship effectiveness,
and other relationship dimensions, as well as the developmental
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
stages of interpersonal work relationships (Allen and Eby,
2003; Aurier and N'Goala, 2010; Graziano and Musser,
1982). Sub-factors of a concept should relate to one another
as this suggests that they are representing features of the same
construct.
We define stakeholder relationship quality as major project
managers' overall assessment of the capacity of their
stakeholder relationships to withstand project-related stressors
from within and outside of the relationship. Relationship quality
is commonly perceived as a multi-dimensional, second-order
construct often consisting of satisfaction, trust and commitment
(Dant et al., 2013; Palmatier et al., 2006). These three dimensions
have also been used as measures of stakeholder–organization
relationship quality (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Ki and Hon,
2012). Subsequently, we hypothesize that stakeholder relationship quality will consist of three sub-dimensions: satisfaction,
trust and commitment.
Satisfaction is the most commonly used measure of relationship quality (Ki and Hon, 2012). There are several interpersonal
relationship satisfaction scales (Kohli and Jaworski, 1994; Li and
Dant, 1997; Mohr et al., 1996; Ping, 1993). However, these
scales have been developed for relationship types other than
stakeholder relationships and are based on a different conceptualization of satisfaction to the one used in this research. For
example, the satisfaction (relationship) scale was developed by Li
and Dant (1997) to measure the extent that a trade party's
relationship with a channel member is perceived as satisfactory, worthwhile and productive. This scale consists of three
items measured on a five-point Likert scale. The items assess
the relationship in terms of productivity, how worthwhile the
respondent perceives the time and effort that they have
invested in the relationship, and whether the relationship has
been satisfactory. This measure was not considered suitable
for several reasons.
First, the productivity item appears to be measuring the
relationship effectiveness construct which has been conceptualized
by this research as related to, yet distinct from, relationship quality.
Second, ‘worthwhile’ does not necessarily equate to ‘satisfactory’.
A perception of the time and effort invested in a stakeholder
relationship as being worthwhile may not necessarily translate into
satisfaction with the relationship given the relationship may be
achieving its purpose (therefore, the time and effort have been
worthwhile), yet the quality of the relationship may be poor;
thereby confounding the respondent's perceived satisfaction with
the relationship. However, the items are well suited for their
intended purpose, which is to measure the relationship in terms of
how worthwhile, satisfactory and productive it is.
Other satisfaction scales that fall into this category include
Mohr et al. (1996) satisfaction (relationship with the manufacturer) scale, Ping's (1993) satisfaction (wholesaler) scale which
has been adapted from Dwyer et al. (1987) satisfaction scale, and
Hendrick's (1988) relationship assessment scale. In particular,
Kohli and Jaworski's (1994) satisfaction (with co-worker) scale
appears to measure respondents' satisfaction with their co-worker
as a person (i.e. ‘my fellow workers are boring’) rather than
the respondents' satisfaction with the relationship. The second
relationship dimension thought to constitute a sub-factor of
1683
the major project manager–stakeholder relationship concept is
effectiveness.
A stakeholder relationship may be considered effective
when its objectives or aims are achieved. These aims include
eliciting particular information from the stakeholder; facilitating the application of a formal stakeholder analysis; predicting
future stakeholder behavior and reactions; actively addressing
problems as they arise; facilitating the reciprocal flow of
information; and ensuring the relationship endures throughout
the lifecycle of the project and into the future (Bourne and
Walker, 2006; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Manowong and
Ogunlana, 2010). More specifically, project managers may
consider their stakeholder relationship to be effective when the
stakeholder delivers services they require. Project managers
may further consider the relationship to be effective when they,
in turn, deliver the services that the stakeholder requires.
Ineffective stakeholder management has been associated with:
a decreased likelihood of project success; reduced stakeholder
satisfaction with the project outcomes; a negative impact on
the feasibility and viability of an organization; hindrance to future
opportunities for collaboration with the stakeholders; and the
potential to cause harm to individuals or groups (Bourne and
Walker, 2005; Foley and Zahner, 2009; Manowong and
Ogunlana, 2010; Phillips, 2003; Preble, 2005; Sutterfield et al.,
2006). We define the stakeholder relationship effectiveness
variable as major project managers' overall assessment of how
well their stakeholders deliver the services that they require, and
in turn, how well they deliver the services that their stakeholders
require.
Following our review of the project management, stakeholder,
interpersonal work relationships and competency literature, we
again pose our research question: Which elements should be
measured to evaluate major project managers' perceived internal
and external stakeholder relationships competence?
3. Method
3.1. Research design and procedure
Our research consists of six phases. In the first phase, our
review of the project management, stakeholder and interpersonal
relationship literature informed our selection of two relationship
developmental stages (establishment and maintenance) and two
relationship dimensions (quality and effectiveness), which form
the basis for our conceptualization of stakeholder relationships.
Three scales from the marketing and job-fit literature have been
used to guide the form and content of the internal stakeholder
relationships (ISR) scale and the external stakeholder relationships (ESR) scale item statements. They were Fisher et al.
(1997) relationship effectiveness scale, which was developed
from Ruekert and Walker's (1987) research, Ping's (1993)
satisfaction (wholesaler) scale and Abdel-Halim's (1981)
perceived ability-job fit scale. Our use of each scale is
discussed.
Fisher et al. (1997) item “do you feel your relationship with
the engineering contact is productive?” was used to inform the
content of the scale item “my stakeholder relationships provide
1684
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
me with everything that I need from the relationship to do my
job”. Ping's (1993) satisfaction (wholesaler) scale includes items
that ask respondents for an overall assessment of their satisfaction
with their wholesaler relationship. Ping's (1993) item “all in all,
my relationship with my primary wholesaler is very satisfactory”
has been adapted for use in this research such that the stakeholder
relationship quality sub-factor includes the item “all in all, I am
satisfied with my stakeholder relationships”.
The form of Abdel-Halim's (1981) item statements was then
used to inform the ISR and ESR scale item statements. For
instance, two of Abdel-Halim's items are “I feel competent and
fully able to handle my job” and “I feel that my job and I are
well-matched”. These items correspond to the following two
items in the scales: “I feel competent and fully able to maintain
relationships with a stakeholder” and “I feel that my personal
attributes (or characteristics) are well suited to establishing
relationships with stakeholders”.
In phase two, item statement generation, a large number of
potential sample items were created to reflect each of the
constructs sub-factors (development, quality and effectiveness).
The item stems that best reflected the sub-factors were then
converted into item statements. The form of the statements was
determined by the unit of analysis and the measurement scale as
suggested by Lewis et al. (2005). Following DeVillis' (2003)
recommendation, each statement was positively worded, and
written as clearly and succinctly as possible. The items were
measured using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). A pre-test sample of 36 postgraduate students
was then used in the third phase to obtain feedback on features
of the instrument such as the wording of the items, terminology,
content, layout, instructions and length. In the fourth phase, the
feedback was incorporated into the instrument, and the item
statements were reviewed by three academics in the business
management field and checked for construct validity. Revisions
were made to the items accordingly. In the fifth phase, we
included the final version of the ISR and ESR scales in an online
survey in Survey_Monkey that was then distributed to the
participants. The final phase (phase six) involved the collection
and analysis of the data.
degree (44%) while 27.1% had an undergraduate degree.
Almost all of the participants (91.2%) work as part of a team.
48.2% of participants had spent 1 to 5 years as a member of
their project team, 31.6% had spent 6 to 10 years as a member
of their project team and 17.1% had spent more than 11 years
as a member of their project team.
4. Results
4.1. Analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version
19.0 and Mplus version 6. Before analyzing the data, univariate
histograms, expected normality probability plots and Fisher's
skewness and kurtosis coefficients were examined to assess the
distribution of the items. All items were slightly negatively
skewed with an absolute value below 1.20 indicating univariate
normality. The kurtosis values were positive indicating that the
distributions were leptokurtic. Cases where all of the item
responses were the same or more than 10% of the data was
missing were removed from the dataset. There were no univariate
outliers identified in the data as all item responses were within the
range of the scales and were therefore deemed representative of
the population. This assumptions testing procedure indicated that
the data should be treated as normally distributed and that it
should not be transformed. We then conducted Little's (1988)
missing completely at random (MCAR) test. As Little's (1988)
test identified the data as missing at random (MAR) the dataset
was imputed using the EM maximum likelihood estimation
technique. An inspection of the VIF and tolerance values did not
find evidence for multicollinearity as the VIF values were less
than 10.00 (VIF values b 3.15) and the tolerance values were
greater than .10 (tolerance values N .30). Flynn and Pearcy
(2001) recommend 10 participants per item for the purposes of
scale development. As 17 items were generated for the ISR and
ESR scale, the sample size is considered suitable. The data was
analyzed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. For
the purposes of factor analysis, our sample size of 373 is considered optimal (Byrne, 2010; Reise et al., 2000).
3.2. Participants
Our population consists of major project managers contributing to major projects in the defense industry within Australia.
The online survey was distributed to employees contributing to
major projects through a number of military defense contracts
via email. The human resource manager in the participating
organization distributed the emails to each staff member. Of the
2500 surveys that were distributed as part of the larger survey,
1582 were returned (response rate of 63.3%). The 373
respondents that identified themselves as managers of major
projects, and remained after the data was cleaned, were selected
for inclusion as participants in this study. 313 (83.9%) of the
respondents were male and 60 (16.1%) were female. The age
bracket with the largest number of participants was the 46 to 50
age bracket (21.2%) followed by the 55 to 64 age bracket
(18.5%). Just under half of the participants had a masters
4.1.1. Model fit indices
The fit indices that we report comprise the χ2 statistic, the
comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the
standardized root mean residual (SRMR). The CFI compares
the model that is being assessed and an independent model that
assumes the variables are uncorrelated while the TLI compares
the normed chi-squared values for the hypothesized model and
the null model. As the TLI is not normed, values can range
below 0 and over 1 (Hair et al., 2010). Cutoff values greater
than .95 indicate that the data fits the model (Hu and Bentler,
1999). RMSEA accounts for the error of estimation in the
population, while SRMR reflects the average distance between
the observed covariance matrix and the expected covariance
matrix (Byrne, 2010). Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend cutoff
values of .06 for the RMSEA and .09 for SRMR.
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
4.2. Internal stakeholder relationships scale
4.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis
The Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from r = .22 to .73.
According to Abu-Bader (2010) this suggests that none of the
items can be explained by the other items as multicollinearity
occurs when the correlation between two variables exceeds the
cutoff of .80. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the
17 items in the scale (Appendix A) to assess whether the items
loaded onto separate factors. A principal axis factoring (PAF)
method of extraction was selected with an oblique rotation. The
pattern matrix was examined to determine which items loaded onto
each of the three factors above .5 and with a loading less than .3 on
the other two factors (Hair et al., 2010). Items that did not meet
this requirement were deleted. The factor analysis was re-run
after the deletion of an item. Subsequently, items iEstablish1 and
iMaintain1 were deleted from the ISR scale.
Before the data was analyzed further, the suitability of the
data set for factorability was examined. The sampling adequacy
was supported through an inspection of the Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin statistic (.91) as it exceeded the cutoff recommended by
Hair et al. (2010) of .6. To assess the significance of the
correlations within the correlation matrix, Bartlett's test of
sphericity was requested in the analysis. The test achieved
statistical significance (χ2 = 3064.849, df = 105, p b .001),
which further supported the factorability of the items.
The PAF revealed a 15 item scale that loaded onto three
separate factors. Eigenvalues indicate the degree of variance
accounted for by an individual factor. Three factors had
eigenvalues greater than 1. All were significant and therefore
retained (Hair et al., 2010). The three factors explained 66.28%
of the total variance and 46.14%, 12.45% and 7.69% of the
variance respectively. The item loadings were all greater than
.55. A visual inspection of the scree plot indicated a break at the
fourth factor. However, the scree plot typically suggests one to
three more factors for inclusion than the eigenvalues (Hair et al.,
2010). Factor one was labeled internal stakeholder relationship
quality. This factor consists of six items. Factor two consists of
two relationship establishment items and three relationship
maintenance items. This factor was labeled stakeholder relationship development. The third factor consists of four items and has
been labeled internal stakeholder relationship effectiveness. The
following confirmatory factor analysis is expected to identify any
items that may be cross-loading onto other items.
4.2.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
The next step was to compare two alternative structures of
the ISR construct to assess which structure has better model fit.
The first model (Model A) is a one-factor first-order model of
ISR and the second model (Model B) is a second-order model
with ISR operating as the second-order factor. As Model A
demonstrated worse fit (χ 2 /df b 10.43, TLI N .67, CFI b .72,
RMSEA N .16, SRMR N .09) than Model B (χ 2 /df b 3.10,
TLI N .67, CFI b .72, RMSEA N .07, SRMR N .05), the
second-order, three-factor model structure of ISR was used.
The modification indices were examined to assess whether any of
the error terms were co-varying with each other (M.I N 10.00).
1685
The item with the lowest squared multiple correlation was
then deleted. This process resulted in the deletion of items
iMaintain4, iMaintain2 and iQuality1. The final model demonstrated good fit (χ2/df b 2.12, TLI N .97, CFI b .97,
RMSEA N .05, SRMR N .03). All modification indices were
less than 10.00 indicating that no other items were co-varying with
one another. After each item had been deleted the AIC and BIC
values were checked to ensure they continued to decrease.
The standardized estimates and the squared multiple correlation (SMC for the final version of the ISR scale are presented in
Table 1. Standardized estimates of .5 are adequate while
standardized estimates of .7 or higher are considered optimal.
High standardized estimates suggest that the items have good
convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). As all of the standardized
estimates were above .63, all were retained. SMCs are sometimes
referred to as item reliability (Hair et al., 2010). Item reliability
above .5 demonstrates that the item is a good indicator of the
variable it has been designed to reflect. As all of the SMC values
are above .45 it is evident that the items have good reliabilities
(Holmes-Smith, 2011). Tests for discriminate validity revealed
that each of the three constructs in the ISR scale is significantly
different from one another (difference: chi-square = 314.71;
df = 3; p = .00).
4.2.3. Bivariate correlations
Bivariate correlations were conducted on the three latent
factors. All correlations were of moderate strength (.49
to .61). As each correlation was below the cutoff of .7 it is
evidence that each latent factor is distinct (Hair et al., 2010).
Each latent factor was found to have an adequate Cronbach's
alpha above .7: internal stakeholder relationship development
(M: 4.11; SD: .50; Alpha: .85); internal stakeholder relationship
quality (M: 3.93; SD: .50; Alpha: .86); and internal stakeholder
Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis of the internal stakeholder relationships scale.
Standardized estimates
Development
Development
iEstablish2
iEstablish3
iMaintain3
Quality
iQuality2
iQuality3
iQuality4
iQuality5
iQuality6
Effectiveness
iEffective1
iEffective2
iEffective3
iEffective4
Highest item SMC
Lowest item SMC
Quality
Effectiveness
.70
.85
.79
.81
.83
.77
.63
.75
.78
.78
.72
.62
Note. SMC = SMC; I = Internal.
.62
.40
.87
.67
.72
.80
.73
.64
.45
C.R.
value
SMC
38.39
30.86
33.54
.72
.62
.66
29.48
17.87
27.73
31.91
31.47
.59
.40
.56
.62
.61
19.76
23.54
31.12
24.08
.45
.52
.64
.53
1686
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
Table 2
Final internal stakeholder relationships scale item statements.
Items
Internal stakeholder relationship development
1. I feel competent and fully able to maintain
relationships with people I work with.
2. I feel that my personal attributes (or characteristics)
are well suited to establishing work relationships.
3. I feel competent and fully able to establish a
relationship with people I work with.
Internal stakeholder relationship quality
4. I am satisfied with the benefits I receive from
my relationships with those I work with.
5. I am committed to the people I work with.
6. My feelings toward those I work with are positive.
7. I feel enthusiastic about my relationships with
the people I work with.
8. All in all, I am satisfied with my relationships
with those people I work with.
Internal stakeholder relationship effectiveness
9. My work relationships always achieve
their objectives.
10. My work relationships provide me with everything
that I need from the relationship to do my job.
11. I think all my relationships with those I work
with are successful.
12. My relationships with those I work with
achieve their purpose.
Code
iMaintain3
iEstabish4
iEstablish3
iQuality2s
iQuality3c
iQuality4s
iQuality5s
iQuality6s
iEffective1
iEffective2
iEffective3
iEffective4
Note. I = Internal; S = Satisfaction; C = Commitment.
relationship effectiveness (M: 3.66; SD: .58; Alpha: .81). The
final internal stakeholder relationship scale item statements
that correspond to each of the three sub-factors have been
included in Table 2.
4.3. External stakeholder relationships scale
4.3.1. Exploratory factor analysis
The Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from r = .23 to
.74, indicating that none of the items could be explained by the
other items. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on
the 17 items in the ESR scale to assess whether the items were
loading onto separate factors. A PAF method of extraction was
selected with an oblique rotation. An inspection of the pattern
matrix indicated that the items were loading onto just two
factors. As the items have been designed to reflect three distinct
factors and the three factors were revealed in the ISR scale, we
requested the analysis to extract a fixed number of factors (three)
as opposed to allowing the analysis to base the extraction on
eigenvalues greater than 1. The factor analyses resulted in the
deletion of items xEstablish1 and xMaintain1. The sampling
adequacy was further supported by an inspection of the Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin statistic (.92) as it exceeded the cutoff recommended by Hair et al. (2010) of .6. To assess the significance of
the correlations within the correlation matrix, Bartlett's test of
sphericity was requested. The test achieved statistical significance (χ2 = 3902.356, df = 105, p b .001), which further
supported the factorability of the items.
Two factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, all were significant
and therefore, retained (Hair et al., 2010). One of the factors had an
eigenvalue of .94. As there are fewer than 20 items, too few factors
are typically extracted. Thus, three factors were retained. The
three factors explained 71.27% of the total variance and 52.18%,
12.82% and 6.27% of the variance respectively. A visual inspection
of the scree plot indicated a break at the third factor. Next, the pattern
matrix was examined to determine which items loaded onto each
of the three factors above .5 and with a loading less than .3 on the
other two factors (Hair et al., 2010). The factor analysis revealed a 15
item scale, which loaded onto three separate factors.
Although item xQuality1 and item xQuality2 were loading
onto a second factor (factor one) above the recommended cutoff
of .30 these items were retained they only just exceeded the
cutoff. Factor one was labeled external stakeholder relationship
effectiveness. This factor consists of four items. The second five
item factor was labeled external stakeholder relationship
development. The third factor consists of six items and has
been labeled external stakeholder relationship quality.
4.3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
The next step was to compare two alternative structures of
ESR to assess which structure has better model fit. The first
model (Model F) is a one-factor first-order model of ESR and the
second model (Model G) is a second-order model with ESR
operating as the second-order factor. As Model G demonstrated
better fit (χ2/df b 4.00, TLI N .92, CFI b .93, RMSEA N .09,
SRMR N .05) than Model F (χ 2 /df = 13.16, TLI = .67,
CFI = .72, RMSEA = .18, SRMR = .10), the second-order
model of ESR was used. The modification indices were examined
to assess whether any of the error terms were co-varying
(M.I N 10.00). Once again, the item with the lowest squared
multiple correlation was removed from the scale. This process
resulted in the removal of items xMaintain4, xQuality1 and
xQuality3. The final model (Model J) demonstrated good fit (χ2/
df b 2.14, TLI N .97, CFI b .98, RMSEA N .06, SRMR N .04).
All modification indices were less than 10.00 indicating that no
other items were co-varying with one another. Table 3 presents
the standardized estimates and the SMCs for the final ESR scale
items. As all of the standardized estimates were above .67, all
were retained. It is evident that the items have good reliabilities as
all of the SMC values are above .43 (Holmes-Smith, 2011). Tests
for discriminate validity revealed that each of the three constructs
in the ESR scale are significantly different from one another
(difference: chi-square = 441.48; df = 3; p = .00).
4.3.3. Bivariate correlations
Bivariate correlations were conducted on the three latent
factors. All three correlations were of moderate strength (.50
to .72). As each correlation was nearing or below the cutoff of .7
it is evidence that each latent factor is distinct (Hair et al., 2010).
The identification of associations between the interpersonal
dimensions, and between the dimensions and the interpersonal
developmental stages supports previous research (Allen and Eby,
2003; Aurier and N’Goala, 2010; Graziano and Musser, 1982).
Each latent factor was found to have an adequate Cronbach's
alpha above .7: external stakeholder relationship development
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
Table 3
Confirmatory factor analysis of external stakeholder relationships scale.
Table 4
Final external stakeholder relationship scale item statements.
Standardized estimates
Development
Development
xEstablish3
xEstablish4
xMaintain2
xMaintain3
Quality
xQuality2
xQuality4
xQuality5
xQuality6
Effectiveness
xEffective1
xEffective2
xEffective3
xEffective4
Highest item SMC
Lowest item SMC
Items
Quality
Effectiveness
.67
.88
.82
.66
.87
1.03
.76
.82
.79
.84
.77
.43
.84
.76
.79
.86
.82
.78
.78
.86
.78
1687
C.R.
value
SMC
53.66
40.42
20.31
50.30
0.77
0.68
0.43
0.75
30.64
38.78
34.32
44.67
0.58
0.67
0.62
0.71
47.18
38.61
33.05
32.90
0.74
0.67
0.61
0.61
Note. X = External.
Development of external stakeholder relationship
1. I feel competent and fully able to establish
a relationship with a stakeholder.
2. I feel that my personal attributes (or characteristics)
are well suited to establishing relationships with stakeholders.
3. I find it easy to maintain a relationship with a stakeholder.
4. I feel competent and fully able to maintain a relationship
with a project stakeholder.
Quality of external stakeholder relationship
5. I am satisfied with the benefits I receive from
my stakeholder relationships.
6. My feelings toward my stakeholders are positive.
7. I feel enthusiastic about my stakeholder relationships.
8. All in all, I am satisfied with my stakeholder relationships.
Effectiveness of external stakeholder relationship
9. My stakeholder relationships always achieve their objectives.
10. My stakeholder relationships provide me with everything that
I need from the relationship.
11. I think all my stakeholder relationships are successful.
12. My stakeholder relationships achieve their purpose.
Code
xEstablish3
xEstabish4
xMaintain2
xMaintain3
xQuality2s
xQuality4s
xQuality5s
xQuality6s
xEffective1
xEffective2
xEffective3
xEffective4
Note. X = External; S = Satisfaction.
(M: 4.02; SD: .49; Alpha: .87); external stakeholder relationship
quality (M: 3.75; SD: .56; Alpha: .87); and external stakeholder
relationship effectiveness (M: 3.56; SD: .63; Alpha: .88). The
final external stakeholder relationships scale item statements that
correspond to each of the three sub-factors have been included in
Table 4.
4.4. Validation of scales
The nomological validity of the ISR and ESR scales has
been assessed by Mazur et al. (2014) who found a significant
positive relationship between ISR and perceived ratings of
project success (b = .23, p b .001) and a significant positive
relationship between ESR and perceived ratings of project
success (b = .34, p b .001).
5. Discussion
In this paper, we develop instruments to measure the internal
stakeholder relationships and external stakeholder relationships
constructs. More specifically, we develop measures of major
project managers' perceived competence in developing high
quality, effective relationships with internal and external project
stakeholders. The ISR and ESR constructs are second-order
constructs each consisting of three sub-factors; stakeholder
relationship development, stakeholder relationship quality and
stakeholder relationship effectiveness. Each scale consists of
twelve items. The ISR and ESR scales differ in only three ways:
1) the wording differs so that the ISR scale relates to internal
stakeholders, i.e. ‘people I work with’, and the ESR scale relates
to external stakeholders, i.e. ‘stakeholders’; 2) the external
stakeholder relationships development sub-factor contains one
additional item that failed to load on the internal stakeholder
relationships development sub-factor. This item, ‘‘I find it easy to
maintain a relationship with a stakeholder’’, is a stakeholder
relationships maintenance item; and 3) the internal stakeholder
relationships quality sub-factor includes measures of satisfaction and commitment while the external stakeholder relationships quality sub-factor only assesses satisfaction.
We tested the reliability and validity of these scales by
checking the reliability coefficients, the squared multiple
correlations or item reliabilities, and assessing whether the
constructs were significantly associated with some of their
theoretically supported consequences. We also assessed the
discriminant validity of the sub-factors to ensure they are each
measuring conceptually distinct concepts. Together, these tests
suggest that the ISR and ESR scales are of sufficient reliability
and validity to warrant further testing and development. Next we
discuss the limitations of our study and provide recommendations
for the future testing and development of the ISR and ESR scales.
5.1. Limitations
Here we discuss three limitations of our work. First, the
single item used to measure trust in the stakeholder relationship
quality sub-factor was deleted as this item was co-varying with
other quality items in both the ISR and the ESR scale. Although
Andersen and Kumar (2006) argue role-based, work relationships
have to include trust, other researchers, such as Guitot (1977),
suggest that trust does not occur in these types of relationships.
However, Andersen and Kumar's research focused on the
buyer-seller work relationship only.
The conceptualization of trust as a single dimensional concept,
and the subsequent development of a single-item measure, is
a limitation of this study. The research demonstrates both
1688
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
conceptually and empirically, that trust is multi-dimensional
(See Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Pinto et al., 2009). For example,
research has linked trust with competence and integrity (Pinto
et al., 2009). Therefore we recommend future development of
the ISR and ESR scales should further investigate the role of
trust and commitment as multi-dimensional constructs in the
measurement of interpersonal stakeholder relationship quality as
suggested by Miller and Mitamura (2003).
Second, the ISR and ESR scales were developed and tested
using a small sample of 36 postgraduate students and a sample of
373 major project managers. Nevertheless, the scales performed
consistently when the model was tested on another sub-set of
participants that responded to the survey—those participants that
did not identify as project managers. As major project manager
competencies have been found to differ as a function of project
size, industry and type (Müller & Turner, 2010) future research
should test and further develop these scales using different
samples across different project industries and project types
within Australia and overseas as suggested by Flynn and Pearcy
(2001).
The third limitation relates to the purpose of the ISR and ESR
scales to measure major project managers' perceptions of their
stakeholder relationship competence as opposed to their actual
competence. There are three reasons why the decision was
made to assess perceived rather than actual competence. First, as
discussed previously, subjective complexity has been found to
predict performance (Maynard and Hakel, 1997). Therefore, the
major project managers' subjective assessment of their stakeholder relationships may also influence their performance at
work. Second, the ISR and ESR measures were designed to
assess major project managers' perceived stakeholder relationship competence rather than their actual stakeholder relationships
as stakeholder locus is being assessed and whether a stakeholder
is internal or external can be determined by how they are perceived
by the observer (Sutterfield et al., 2006). In the future, the construct
validity of the ISR and ESR scales could be further tested by
assessing the internal and external stakeholders' perception of the
development, effectiveness and quality of their relationships with
the major project managers.
Third, although there is an objective form of competence,
which can be measured using standard tests (Winterton et al.,
2006), subjective competence, which is the “assessment of
abilities and skills needed to master tasks and solve problems
relevant to performance” (Winterton et al., 2006, p.15) is the
form of competence of interest to this research. Ley and
Albert (2003) argue this latter type of competence cannot be
directly observed as it is conceptually distinct from behavior.
Subsequently, subjective measures are more appropriate.
Despite these limitations the ISR and ESR scales demonstrate
construct validity and show promise for use as representations
of the internal stakeholder relationships and external stakeholder
relationships concepts in the future. In particular, as Mazur et al.
(2014) show, major project managers' perceived stakeholder
relationship competence is significantly associated with the major
project managers' perception of the likelihood that their project
will be implemented successfully. Thus, those major project
managers who feel they lack the knowledge, skills and abilities to
develop high quality, effective relationships with their internal
and external stakeholder believe that their project is unlikely to be
implemented successfully in the future and vice-versa.
5.2. Implications
Mainardes et al. (2012) note that, while the extant stakeholder
theory acknowledges that organizations need to relate to their
stakeholders, the nature of these relationships has not yet been
fully examined. Likewise, we were unable to find a stakeholder
theory that: views the stakeholder at the individual unit of
analysis; treats the stakeholder as a person rather than as a risk
to be avoided or a resource to be managed; and/or places
importance on the interpersonal relationship between individual
stakeholders and an individual representative for the project or
organization. Mainardes et al. (2012, p.1862) suggest that “models
which explain and guide these relationships represent a clear
means of advancing stakeholder theory”. Thus, this research adds
to existing theoretical insights on stakeholder management by
focusing on the interpersonal relationship between stakeholders
and project managers, and by viewing the stakeholder, first and
foremost, as a person.
The outcomes of this study also constitute a theoretical
contribution to knowledge through the creation of an approximation of internal stakeholder relationships and external stakeholder
relationships, which can be used to associate these constructs
with other constructs of interest, and to identify antecedents and
consequences of stakeholder relationships (Hensley, 1999).
The ISR and ESR scales have important implications for project
management practitioners. The measures provide valid and
reliable measures of major project managers' perceptions of
their competence in developing high-quality, effective relationships with internal and external stakeholders. Therefore, the ISR
and ESR scales should assist in the assessment of major project
managers' stakeholder relationship competence. The scales can
be used as a benchmarking tool and in identifying suitable project
managers to move into major project management roles. In
addition, the ISR and ESR scales can also be used to ascertain
whether major project managers require stakeholder relationship
training and development.
These research outcomes also have implications for the
interpersonal work relationship literature in identifying the
developmental stages and dimensions of a specific form of
interpersonal work relationships—major project manager–
stakeholder relationships. These developmental stages (establishment and maintenance) and dimensions (quality and effectiveness)
may reflect other forms of interpersonal work relationships, such
as team member relationships and employee–customer/client/
supervisor relationships. In addition, this research has implications
for the interpersonal work relationship literature and the individual
differences literature in assessing the capacity of individual
differences in relationship functioning to predict work behavior.
We anticipate that these scales are versatile enough to be applied to
project management generally. However, as the scales have been
developed from a sample of project managers working on major
projects we anticipate that these scales will have even greater
relevance in complex project environments.
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
1689
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest relating to the support this
research received.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported under Australian Research
Council's funding scheme (project number LP0989705).
Instructions: Please consider the following statements
with regard to external stakeholders such as contractors,
sub-contractors, customers and suppliers. Please read each
statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree on the scale provided. In thinking about external
stakeholders…
Code
Item Statement
xEstablish1
Whenever I attempt to establish a relationship
with an external stakeholder, I am successful.
I enjoy establishing relationships with
stakeholders.
I feel competent and fully able to establish
a relationship with a stakeholder.
I feel that my personal attributes
(or characteristics) are well suited to
establishing relationships with stakeholders.
Whenever I attempt to maintain a relationship
with a stakeholder, I am successful.
I find it easy to maintain a relationship
with a stakeholder.
I feel competent and fully able to maintain a
relationship with a project stakeholder.
I feel that my personal attributes
(or characteristics) are well suited to maintaining
relationships with stakeholders.
I trust my stakeholders.
I am satisfied with the benefits I receive
from my stakeholder relationships.
I am committed to my stakeholders.
My feelings toward my stakeholders are positive.
I feel enthusiastic about my stakeholder
relationships.
All in all, I am satisfied with my stakeholder
relationships.
My stakeholder relationships always achieve
their objectives.
My stakeholder relationships provide me with
everything that I need from the relationship.
I think all my stakeholder relationships are
successful.
My stakeholder relationships achieve their
purpose.
Appendix A
xEstablish2
Original survey items before exploratory and confirmatory
analysis.
Instructions: Please consider the following statements with
regard to your professional relationships with people you work
with on a regular basis within (participant's organization). Please
read each statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or
disagree on the scale provided.
xEstablish3*
xEstablish4*
xMaintain1
xMaintain2*
xMaintain3*
Code
Item Statement
iEstablish1
Whenever I attempt to establish a relationship
with a person I need to work with, I am
successful.
I enjoy establishing relationships with
those I work with.
I feel competent and fully able to establish
a relationship with people I work with.
I feel that my personal attributes
(or characteristics) are well suited to
establishing work relationships.
Whenever I attempt to maintain a relationship
with a person I work with, I am successful.
I find it easy to maintain relationships with
people I work with.
I feel competent and fully able to maintain
relationships with people I work with.
I feel that my personal attributes
(or characteristics) are well suited to
maintaining relationships with those
I work with.
I trust the people I work with.
I am satisfied with the benefits I receive from
my relationships with those I work with.
I am committed to the people I work with.
My feelings toward those I work
with are positive.
I feel enthusiastic about my relationships
with the people I work with.
All in all, I am satisfied with my
relationships with those people I work with.
My work relationships always achieve
their objectives.
My work relationships provide me with
everything that I need from the relationship
to do my job.
I think all my relationships with those I work
with are successful.
My relationships with those I work with
achieve their purpose.
iEstablish2
iEstablish3*
iEstablish4*
iMaintain1
iMaintain2
iMaintain3*
iMaintain4
iQuality1t
iQuality2s*
iQuality3c*
iQuality4s*
iQuality5s*
iQuality6s*
iEffective1*
iEffective2*
iEffective3*
iEffective4*
1 2 3 4 5
Note. The final survey items have been identified with an asterisk; T = Trust;
S = Satisfaction; C = Commitment.
xMaintain4
xQuality1t
xQuality2s*
xQuality3c
xQuality4s*
xQuality5s*
xQuality6s*
xEffective1*
xEffective2*
xEffective3*
xEffective4*
1 2 3 4 5
Note. The final survey items have been identified with an asterisk; T = Trust;
S = Satisfaction; C = Commitment.
References
Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K., Tuomas, O., 2008. Stakeholder salience in global
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 509–516.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Lehtonen, P., Ruuska, I., 2010. A stakeholder network
perspective on unexpected events and their management in international
projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 3, 564–588.
Abdel-Halim, A.A., 1981. A re-examination of ability as a moderator of role
perceptions-satisfaction relationships. Pers. Psychol. 34, 549–561.
Abu-Bader, S.H., 2010. Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods for
Social Science Research with A Complete SPSS Guide. Lyceum Books,
Chicago.
Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., 2003. Relationship effectiveness for mentors: factors
associated with learning and quality. J. Manag. 29, 469–486.
Andersen, P.H., Kumar, R., 2006. Emotions, trust and relationship development
in business relationships: a conceptual model for buyer–seller dyads. Ind.
Mark. Manag. 35, 522–535.
1690
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
Aurier, P., N'Goala, G., 2010. The differing and mediating roles of trust and
relationship commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38, 303–325.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., Kock, A., 2013. Behavior of internal stakeholders in
project portfolio management and its impact on success. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
31, 830–846.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D., Sen, S., 2009. Strengthening stakeholder–
company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. J. Bus. Ethics 85, 257–272.
Boonstra, A., 2006. Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a
stakeholder perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 38–52.
Bourne, L., 2005. Project rRelationship Management and the Stakeholder
Circle. Doctor of Project Management. Graduate School of Business, RMIT
University.
Bourne, L., 2011. Advising upwards: managing the perceptions and expectations
of senior management stakeholders. Manag. Decis. 49, 1001–1023.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2005. Visualizing and mapping stakeholder
influence. Manag. Decis. 43, 649–660.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2006. Visualizing stakeholder influence – two
Australian examples. Proj. Manag. Inst. 37, 5–21.
Boyatzis, R.E., Ratti, F., 2009. Emotional, social and cognitive intelligence
competencies distinguishing effective Italian managers and leaders in a
private company and cooperatives. J. Manag. Dev. 28, 821–838.
Bryde, D.J., Robinson, L., 2005. Client versus contractor perspectives on
project success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 622–629.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic
Concepts, Applications and Programming. Second Ed. Routledge, New
York.
Cable, D.M., DeRue, D.S., 2002. The convergent and discriminant validity of
subjective fit perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 875–884.
Canary, D.J., Stafford, L., 1992. Relational maintenance strategies and equity in
marriage. Commun. Monogr. 59, 239–267.
Canary, D.J., Stafford, L., 2001. Equity in the Preservation of Personal
Relationships. In: Harvey, J., Wenzel, A. (Eds.), Close Romantic Relationships:
Maintenance and Enhancement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 133–135.
Cleland, D.I., 1998. Stakeholder Management. In: Pinto, J. (Ed.), Project
Management Handbook. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Dant, R.P., Weaven, S.K., Baker, B.L., 2013. Influence of personality traits on
perceived relationship quality within a franchisee-franchisor context. Eur.
J. Mark. 47, 279–302.
DeVillis, R.F., 2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Second Ed.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer-seller relationships.
J. Mark. 51, 11–27.
Erpenbeck, J., Heyse, V., 1999. Die Kompetenzbiographie: Strategien der
Kompetenzentwicklung durch selbstorganisiertes Lernen und multimediale
Kommunikation. Waxmann, Münster.
Ferris, G.R., Liden, R.C., Munyon, T.P., Summers, J.K., Basik, K.J., Buckley,
M.R., 2009. Relationships at work: toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. J. Manag. 35, 1379–1403.
Fisher, R.J., Maltz, E., Jaworski, B.J., 1997. Enhancing communication
between marketing and engineering: the moderating role of relative functional
identification. J. Mark. 61, 54–70.
Flynn, L.R., Pearcy, D., 2001. Four subtle sins in scale development: some
suggestions for strengthening the current paradigm. Int. J. Mark. Res. 43,
409–424.
Foley, K., Zahner, T., 2009. Creating and Managing the Sustainable
Organization: The Stakeholder Way. SAI Global Limited, Sydney.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman,
Boston.
Freeman, R.E., 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gersick, C.J., 1991. Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of
the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16, 10–36.
Graziano, W.G., Musser, L.M., 1982. The Joining and Parting of the Ways. In:
Duck, S. (Ed.), Personal Relationships: Dissolving Personal Relationships.
Sage, London, pp. 75–406.
Greenwood, M., 2007. Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate
responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 74, 315–327.
Guitot, J.M., 1977. Attribution and identity construction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 42,
692–704.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate
Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Seventh Ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle
River NJ.
Hendrick, S.S., 1988. A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.
J. Marriage Fam. 50, 93–98.
Hensley, R.L., 1999. A review of operations management studies using scale
development techniques. J. Oper. Manag. 17, 343–358.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Hoskisson, R.E., 2015. Strategic Management:
Concepts and Cases; Competitiveness and Globalization. Eleventh Ed.
South-Western Cengage Learning, Canada.
Holmes-Smith, P., 2011. Structural Equation Modelling (Using Amos): From
the Fundamentals to Advanced Topics. SREAMS, Melbourne.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Psychol.
Methods 3, 424–453.
Jepsen, A.L., Eskerod, P., 2009. Stakeholder analysis in projects: challenges in
using current guidelines in the real world. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27, 335–343.
Jugdev, K., Müller, R., 2005. A retrospective look at our evolving
understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (4), 19–31.
Karlsen, J.T., 2008. Forming relationships with stakeholders in engineering
projects. Eur. J. Ind. Eng. 2, 35–49.
Kerzner, H., 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning,
Scheduling and Controlling. Tenth Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
Ki, E.J., Hon, L.C., 2012. Causal linkages among relationship quality perception,
attitude, and behavior intention in a membership organization. Corp. Commun.
Int. J. 17, 187–208.
Knapp, M.L., 1978. Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. Allyn and
Bacon, Boston.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J., 1994. The influence of coworker feedback on
salespeople. J. Mark. 58, 82–94.
L'Abate, L., Cusinato, M., Maino, E., Colesso, W., Scilletta, C., 2010.
Relational Competence Theory: Research and Mental Health Applications.
Springer-Science, New York.
Lewicki, R.J., Bunker, B.B., 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In: Kramer, R., Tyler, T.R. (Eds.), Trust in Organizations:
Frontiers of Theory and Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 114–139.
Lewis, B.R., Templeton, G.F., Byrd, T.A., 2005. A methodology for construct
development in MIS research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 14, 388–400.
Ley, T., Albert, D., 2003. Identifying employee competencies in dynamic work
domains: methodological considerations and a case study. Int. J. Univ.
Comput. Sci. 9, 1500–1518.
Li, Z.G., Dant, R.P., 1997. An exploratory study of exclusive dealing in channel
relationships. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 25, 201–213.
Little, R.J.A., 1988. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate
data with missing values. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 1198–1202.
Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H., Raposo, M., 2012. A model for stakeholder
classification and stakeholder relationships. Manag. Decis. 50, 9.
Manowong, E., Ogunlana, S., 2010. Strategies and Tactics for Managing
Construction Stakeholders. In: Chinyoio, E. (Ed.), Construction Stakeholder
Management. John Wiley and Sons, United Kingdom, pp. 121–137.
Maynard, D.C., Hakel, M.D., 1997. Effects of objective and subjective task
complexity on performance. Hum. Perform. 10, 303–330.
Mazur, A., Pisarski, A., Chang, A., Ashkanasy, N.M., 2014. Rating Defence
mega-project success: the role of personal attributes and stakeholder
relationships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.
10.018.
Miller, A.S., Mitamura, T., 2003. Are surveys on trust trustworthy? Soc.
Psychol. Q. 66, 62–70.
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. Acad. Manag. Rev. 853–886.
Mohr, J.J., Fisher, R.J., Nevin, J.R., 1996. Collaborative communication in
interfirm relationships: moderating effects of integration and control. J. Mark.
60, 103–115.
A.K. Mazur, A. Pisarski / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1680–1691
Moore, J.L., Craig, E.A., 2010. Relationship Development and Maintenance in
A Mediated World. In: Park, J., Abels, E. (Eds.), Interpersonal Relations
and Social Patterns in Communication Technologies: Discourse Norms,
Language Structures and Cultural Variables. Information Science Reference,
Hershey, PA, pp. 77–99.
Müller, R., Turner, R., 2010. Leadership competency profiles of successful
project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (5), 437–448.
Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the
implementation of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 321–328.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., Evans, K.R., 2006. Factors influencing
the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. J. Mark. 70,
136–153.
Phillips, R., 2003. Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. BerretKoehler, San Francisco, CA.
Ping Jr., R.A., 1993. The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on
retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. J. Retail. 69, 320–352.
Pinto, J.K., 2000. Understanding the role of politics in successful project
management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18, 85–91.
Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P., English, B., 2009. Trust in projects: an empirical
assessment of owner/contractor relationships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27, 638–648.
PMI, 2008. Project Management Body of Knowledge. Fourth ed. Project
Management Institute, PA.
Post, J., Preston, L., Sachs, S., 2002. Managing the extended enterprise: the new
stakeholder view. Calif. Manag. Rev. 45, 6–28.
Preble, J.F., 2005. Toward a comprehensive model of stakeholder management.
Bus. Soc. Rev. 110, 407–431.
Ragins, B.R., Dutton, J., 2007. Positive Relationships at Work: An Introduction
and Invitation. In: Dutton, J., Ragins, B.R. (Eds.), Exploring Positive
Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation.
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3–25.
Reise, S.P., Waller, N.G., Comrey, A.L., 2000. Factor analysis and scale
revision. Psychol. Assess. 12, 287–297.
Rowlinson, S., Cheung, Y.K.F., 2008. Stakeholder management through
empowerment: modelling project success. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26, 611–623.
Ruekert, R.W., Walker Jr., O.C., 1987. Marketing's interaction with other
functional units: a conceptual framework and empirical evidence. J. Mark.
51, 1–19.
Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J., Blair, J.D., 1991. Strategies for
assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Acad. Manag. Exec. 5,
61–75.
1691
Shen, H., 2011. Organization-employee relationship maintenance strategies: a
new measuring instrument. J. Mass Commun. Q. 88, 398–415.
Stafford, L., 2011. Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: critique and
development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. J. Soc.
Pers. Relat. 28, 278–303.
Sutterfield, J.S., Friday-Stroud, S.S., Shivers-Blackwell, S.L., 2006. A case
study of project and stakeholder management failures: lessons learned. Proj.
Manag. J. 37, 26–35.
Toor, S.U.R., Ogunlana, S.O., 2010. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: stakeholder
perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public
sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 228–236.
Turner, J.R., Müller, R., Dulewicz, V., 2009. Comparing the leadership styles
of functional and project managers. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2, 198–216.
Vaagaasar, A.L., 2011. Development of relationships and relationship
competencies in complex projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4, 294–307.
Waldron, V.R., 2003. Relationship Maintenance in Organizational Settings. In:
Canary, D., Dainton, M. (Eds.), Maintaining Relationships Through
Communication: Relational, Contextual, and Cultural Variations. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 163–184.
Wang, X., Huang, J., 2006. The relationships between key stakeholders' project
performance and project success: perceptions of Chinese construction
supervising engineers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 253–260.
Welch, S.A., Rubin, R.B., 2002. Development of relationship stage measures.
Commun. Q. 50, 24–40.
Winch, G.M., 2004. Managing Project Stakeholders. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto,
J.K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects. John Wiley and Sons,
New Jersey, pp. 271–289.
Winterton, J., Delamare-Le Deist, F., Stringfellow, E., 2006. Typology of
Knowledge, Skills and Competences: Clarification of the Concept and
Prototype. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
Yang, J.B., Peng, S.C., 2008. Development of a customer satisfaction evaluation
model for construction project management. Build. Environ. 43, 458–468.
Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Ho, M., Drew, D.S., Xue, X., 2011. Stakeholder
management in construction: an empirical study to address research gaps in
previous studies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 900–910.