SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Behavior in Operational Research: Connecting the Why, Who, and How of Stakeholder Involvement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Behavioral Operational Research

  • 967 Accesses

Abstract

The relevance of stakeholder behavior is widely acknowledged in operational research. However, the specific line of reasoning behind involving stakeholder behavior often remains implicit. This is problematic as there are very different reasons with important implications for the design and implementation for operation research studies. To support transforming the currently often unconscious capability of addressing stakeholder behavior in operational research into a more conscious one, this chapter expands on four different motives: improving decision quality, building consensus, improving relationships, and the intrinsic value of involving stakeholders. For each of these four motives the implications are discussed for how to involve stakeholders, and which stakeholders to involve.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, C. C., Mahoney, J. M., & Mahoney, J. T. (2005). Towards a property rights foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm. Journal of Management and Governance, 9(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 895–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruijn, H., & ten Heuvelhof, E. (2018). Management in Networks (2nd ed.). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., Van Kranenburg, H., & Freeman, E. (2017). Reviewing the role of stakeholders in operational research: A stakeholder theory perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 402–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., van Kranenburg, H., Freeman, E., & van Breen, H. (2016). Sustainability transition dynamics: Towards overcoming policy resistance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. N., & Sterman, J. D. (1998). Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and mental models. System Dynamics Review, 14(4), 309–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L. A. (2008). Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: A case study of an inter-organisational construction partnership. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L. A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3), 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R. P., Luoma, J., & Saarinen, E. (2013). On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 228(3), 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J., & House, J. (2001). The source of poor policy: Controlling learning drift and premature consensus in human organizations. System Dynamics Review, 17(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovmand, P. (2014). Community Based System Dynamics. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Oxford: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1995). A procedural justice model of strategic decision making: Strategy content implications in the multinational. Organization Science, 6(1), 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, G., Johnson, M. P., & Chichirau, G. (2018). What is community operational research? European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3), 771–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M., Grösser, S., & Ulli-Beer, S. (2012). How do we know who to include in collaborative research? Toward a method for the identification of experts. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2), 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why Decisions Fail: Avoiding the Blunders and Traps that Lead to Debacles. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. (2004). Averting decision debacles. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(3), 239–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. (2008). Investigating the success of decision making processes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pina e Cunha, M., & Chia, R. (2007). Using teams to avoid peripheral blindness. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 559–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E., Bleijenbergh, I., & Vennix, J. (2016). Group model-building to support public policy: Addressing a conflicted situation in a problem neighbourhood. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 64–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 427–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. (2016). Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 827–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1984). Corporate governance. Yale Law Journal, 93(7), 1197–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Vincent de Gooyert

Authors
  1. Vincent de Gooyert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent de Gooyert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Leroy White

  2. Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Martin Kunc

  3. School of Economics, Finance and Management, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Katharina Burger

  4. Applied Research, BT, Martlesham Heath, UK

    Jonathan Malpass

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Gooyert, V. (2020). Stakeholder Behavior in Operational Research: Connecting the Why, Who, and How of Stakeholder Involvement. In: White, L., Kunc, M., Burger, K., Malpass, J. (eds) Behavioral Operational Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25405-6_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation