Navigating the Political Landscape

Enterprise Stakeholder Management

Author: Google Gemini 2.5 Preview Deep Reseach
Editor: Harald Blikø - Digitalisation Specialist

The Intertwined Worlds of Stakeholders, Politics, and Enterprise Projects

Enterprise project management, encompassing individual projects, programs, and entire portfolios, operates within complex organizational ecosystems. Central to these ecosystems are stakeholders—individuals, groups, or organizations that can influence or are influenced by project activities and outcomes. The management of these stakeholders is a critical determinant of project success. However, this management process is rarely straightforward; it is often permeated by organizational politics, driven by personal motivations and risk perceptions. This report delves into the multifaceted nature of stakeholder management within enterprise project contexts, exploring the inherent political implications. It critically examines the interplay between descriptive realities—how stakeholder dynamics and politics actually unfold—and normative ideals—how they ethically should be managed. Furthermore, it analyzes how different project management methodologies, stakeholder management tools, and communication methods are perceived by stakeholders and how these perceptions, in turn, shape the political landscape of projects.

Defining Stakeholders and Stakeholder Management in Enterprise Contexts (Projects, Programs, Portfolios)

A foundational understanding of key terms is essential. The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines a stakeholder as "Any individual, group or organisation that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by, an initiative (programme, project, activity, risk)".¹ This definition is an evolution of R. Edward Freeman's seminal 1984 definition: "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives".² The evolution of stakeholder definitions reflects a shift towards a more encompassing view, combining the "interest-in" aspect with the "can affect or are affected by" dimension.² The inclusion of "perceive itself to be affected" in the PMI definition is particularly salient, as perception, regardless of objective impact, is a powerful driver of behaviour, including political actions. This broadens the spectrum of individuals and groups that project leaders must consider.

Stakeholder management, according to PMI, "includes the processes required to identify the people, groups, or organisations that could impact or be impacted by the project, to analyse stakeholder expectations and their impact on the project, and to develop appropriate management strategies for effectively engaging stakeholders in project decisions and activities".³ This process emphasises continuous communication, addressing emergent issues, managing conflicting interests, and fostering active stakeholder engagement.³ Such an emphasis on proactive engagement and expectation management is fundamental to navigating the often-turbulent political waters of projects.

Axelos, the custodian of PRINCE2®, offers a complementary perspective. PRINCE2 explicitly identifies three principal stakeholder categories that must be represented on the project board: Business (representing the investment and value-for-money perspective), User (representing those who will use the project's products and realise benefits), and Supplier (representing those who provide the resources and expertise to create the products).⁴ Beyond these formal roles, PRINCE2 acknowledges a broader array of stakeholders—internal or external, supporters or opposers—who can affect or be affected by the project.⁵ Stakeholder engagement in PRINCE2 is defined as "the process of identifying and communicating effectively with those people or groups who have an interest in or influence on, the project outcome".⁵ It follows a structured, six-step procedure: identifying stakeholders, creating and analysing stakeholder profiles, defining the stakeholder engagement approach, planning the engagements, carrying out the planned engagements, and measuring their effectiveness.⁵

The subtle yet significant differences in how PMI and Axelos define stakeholders and structure their management have direct implications for the formal political landscape of a project. PRINCE2's explicit embedding of stakeholder representation (Business, User, Supplier) at the project board level, for instance, formalises certain power dynamics and channels of influence from the project's inception. This can provide clarity but may also institutionalise specific avenues for political negotiation. PMI's more process-driven approach to stakeholder identification and management, while comprehensive, might leave more space for informal political networks and influence tactics to emerge and play a significant role.

Within the broader enterprise, Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (EPPM) aims to align all projects, programs, and portfolios with overarching strategic objectives, often through a centralised system providing visibility into all ongoing work.⁶ Key to this is the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO) or Enterprise Portfolio Management Office. This office provides enterprise-wide visibility, ensures projects align with the "big picture," guides resource distribution based on organisational priorities, and facilitates communication with executive leadership.⁶ Notably, stakeholders are considered an integral part of the EPPM team structure.⁶ The EPMO, by its very nature and function—controlling or heavily influencing resource allocation and strategic project prioritisation—becomes a significant political actor and a central arena for political behaviour. Its "bird's eye view" and executive backing confer considerable power, but also make it a prime target for influence attempts from various stakeholders vying for resources and a platform where competing interests are played out. Thus, the EPMO is not merely a neutral administrative body but an active participant and a focal point within the organization's political ecosystem.

The definitions of Program Management and Portfolio Management also reflect these dynamics. PMI defines program management as the coordinated management of related projects to achieve benefits not attainable from managing them individually, while portfolio management focuses on aligning projects and programs with strategic objectives.⁷ Axelos's Managing Successful Programmes (MSP®) framework is designed to align programs and projects with organisational strategy and enable enterprise agility, emphasising benefit delivery, risk mitigation, and active stakeholder engagement.⁹ Similarly, Axelos's Management of Portfolios (MoP®) guides the selection of optimal projects and programs to meet strategic objectives and their execution to maximise value for customers and other stakeholders.¹¹ Both PMI and Axelos link program and portfolio management to strategic goals and stakeholder value. However, the Axelos frameworks (MSP and MoP) appear to place a more explicit and upfront emphasis on stakeholder engagement and benefit realisation as core, defining components of their purpose, potentially shaping the political discourse around these initiatives differently than a purely process-oriented approach might.
Table 1 provides a comparative overview of these foundational definitions.

Table 1: Foundational Definitions in Enterprise Project Stakeholder Management

Term	PMI Definition/Perspective	Axelos Definition/Perspective	Key Implication for Political Dynamics
Stakeholder	"Any individual, group or organisation that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by, an initiative (programme, project, activity, risk)".¹ Evolution from Freeman (1984).²	PRINCE2: Three main categories for Project Board (Business, User, Supplier) ⁴; wider group affected/affecting project.⁵	PMI's "perception" clause broadens the field of potential political actors. Axelos's defined board roles formalise specific power channels.
Stakeholder Management/ Engagement	Processes to identify, analyse expectations, develop strategies for effective engagement, continuous communication, manage conflicts.³	PRINCE2: Process of identifying and communicating effectively with those interested/influential; 6-step procedure.⁵	Both emphasise proactive engagement. PRINCE2's structured procedure may channel political interactions more formally.
Program Management	Coordination of related projects for benefits not available from managing them individually.⁷	MSP: Aligns programs/projects to strategy, enables agility, focuses on benefits, risk mitigation, stakeholder engagement.⁹	Focus on "benefits" makes their definition and distribution a potential political focal point. MSP’s explicit stakeholder engagement focus makes it a formal part of program politics.
Portfolio Management	Aligns projects/programs with strategic objectives.⁷ EPPM uses EPMOs for strategic alignment and resource allocation.⁶	MoP: Choosing optimal projects/programs for strategic objectives and executing to maximise stakeholder value.¹¹	Resource allocation and strategic alignment are inherently political; EPMOs and MoP frameworks become arenas for these politics.
Governance	PMBOK® Guide: "oversight function that is aligned with the organisation’s governance model and encompasses the project life cycle".¹³ Includes framework, roles, stakeholder engagement, monitoring.¹³	Axelos ProPath emphasises governance across PRINCE2, MSP, MoP, P3O.¹⁵ M_o_R focuses on risk governance.¹⁷	Governance structures define formal power, decision-making processes, and accountability, directly shaping the rules of the political game.
Risk	An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or more project objectives.⁷Political risk is a key category.¹⁹	Axelos M_o_R: Framework to identify, assess, control risks, and make informed decisions.¹⁸ Risk management is integral at strategic, program/project, and operational levels.¹⁷	Perceptions of risk and decisions on risk mitigation strategies are often politically charged, influenced by stakeholder motivations.

The Inevitability of Politics in Projects: An Overview
Organisational politics are an inherent feature of most organisational landscapes, arising from hierarchical structures and the consequent uneven distribution of power.²¹ Projects, by their very nature as instruments of change, often disrupt established routines, challenge existing power balances, and involve competition for scarce resources and recognition. This makes them particularly fertile ground for political activity.21 Indeed, research consistently links successful project management directly to the project manager's ability to understand, navigate, and sometimes even leverage organizational politics.21 Far from being an aberration, effective managers are often those who are willing and able to employ appropriate political tactics to further their project goals.21 This underscores the practical necessity for project professionals to develop political acumen, as ignoring the political dimension is often a precursor to project challenges or failure.

Distinguishing Descriptive (Facts) vs. Normative (Values) Lenses in Stakeholder Management
A critical distinction for understanding stakeholder management and its political ramifications is the difference between descriptive and normative approaches.

The descriptive approach seeks to understand "what is." It focuses on describing and interpreting the actual characteristics and behaviours of firms, stakeholders, and their interactions.²⁵ This includes how companies are managed in reality, how boards of directors consider corporate constituencies, the ways managers conceptualise their roles, and the observable patterns of stakeholder influence.²⁵ For example, a descriptive observation might be that stakeholders with high levels of formal power or those who control critical resources frequently see their demands met, irrespective of the broader impact on the project or other stakeholder groups. Tools like stakeholder mapping or power-interest grids are often used descriptively to model this existing reality.

In contrast, the normative approach explores "what ought to be." It is concerned with identifying moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of corporations and projects.²⁵ A central tenet of normative stakeholder theory is that the interests of all stakeholders possess intrinsic value; each group merits consideration for its own sake, not merely because of its ability to further the interests of another group, such as shareholders.²⁷ R. Edward Freeman's work is foundational to this perspective, viewing stakeholders as moral agents and advocating for a redefinition of the firm based on ethical principles.²⁵ A normative stance might argue, for instance, that all stakeholders, regardless of their power, deserve transparent communication and fair treatment throughout the project lifecycle.

The core of this report will navigate the inherent tension that arises when the descriptive realities of project politics (e.g., individuals manoeuvring for personal gain or departmental advantage) clash with the normative ideals of ethical and equitable stakeholder management. This distinction is fundamental. The political realities observed in projects are descriptively shaped by individual motivations and risk perceptions. Normative theories, on the other hand, offer frameworks for how project leaders could or should respond to these realities, guiding actions towards more ethical and potentially more sustainable outcomes. Understanding both lenses is crucial for developing a sophisticated approach to stakeholder management in politically charged enterprise environments.

The Political Dimension: Power, Motivations, and Risk

The political dimension of enterprise project management is characterized by the interplay of power, individual motivations, and the perceived risks associated with project activities and outcomes. Organizational politics, far from being an anomaly, is a pervasive feature that project managers must navigate.

Manifestations and Objectives of Political Behaviour in Projects

Organisational politics can be defined as the use of power and social influence to achieve personal or group objectives, often operating outside, or in manipulation of, formal authority structures.²¹ It is, in essence, "power in action" ²⁹, a dynamic process of influence and negotiation. In the project context, where resources are finite and change is constant, various political tactics manifest:

Building Alliances and Coalitions: Individuals or groups often form alliances to consolidate power, advocate for their ideas, or secure support for specific project proposals or outcomes.²³ A manager might build a coalition with other department heads to ensure a favoured initiative receives necessary resources.²³
Gaining Favour (Impression Management): Stakeholders may engage in activities designed to curry favor with influential individuals, such as superiors or key decision-makers. This can involve overtly supporting a leader's ideas, taking on additional tasks, or aligning views in meetings to build rapport and gain future support.²³
Controlling Information (Gatekeeping): Information is a critical source of power. Stakeholders motivated by power may seek, withhold, or strategically use information to control others and influence specific project outcomes.³¹ Gatekeeping involves blocking other employees or ideas to maintain power and avoid challenges, which can stifle innovation.²³
Networking: Developing and leveraging a network of contacts is a common tactic to gain informal influence, access resources, and gather intelligence.²⁴
Using Expertise as Power: Specialised knowledge or skills can be wielded as a source of power, making others dependent on the expert's input or approval.⁷
Blame/Credit Dynamics: A particularly visible political tactic involves individuals quick to take credit for project successes while actively seeking scapegoats when problems arise.²⁴ This behaviour erodes trust within teams.
Negative Tactics: More detrimental political behaviours include sabotage (e.g., spreading rumours, providing misleading information, exclusion from meetings), factionalism (where groups commit to winning at any cost, often with negative consequences), and territorialism (e.g., a manager refusing to delegate project tasks).²³

The objectives of such political behaviour are varied but often revolve around gaining or consolidating power, securing recognition or resources, promoting personal or group agendas, protecting self-interest, and resolving disputes in a manner favourable to oneself.²² Ultimately, organisational politics are frequently employed to influence or alter a project's direction, particularly its perceived value, to align with the desires of stakeholders who possess significant power.²¹

Jeffrey Pinto's framework of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" of power offers a nuanced perspective on these dynamics.²² The "Good" aspect of power is its ability to get things done, to be assertive, and to achieve intended project objectives effectively. However, power can turn "Bad" if wielded excessively; imposing too much power can stifle individual motivation, competence, and creativity. It can lead to anxiety, withdrawal, increased conflict, and even illness among those subjected to power games. The "Ugly" side of power emerges when individuals misuse it for personal advantage, misappropriate resources, or devalue others, seeing themselves as superior.²² This framework highlights that political behaviour and the use of power are not inherently negative; their ethical and practical implications are defined by the intent behind them and their ultimate impact on the project and its stakeholders.

Personal Motivations as Drivers of Political Action

Political behaviour in projects is rarely arbitrary; it is often a manifestation of deep-seated personal motivations. Understanding these drivers is crucial for interpreting and responding to political actions effectively. Dr. David C. McClelland's research identified three primary social motives that significantly influence stakeholder behaviour: the Need for Affiliation, the Need for Power, and the Need for Achievement.³¹

Need for Affiliation: Stakeholders with a high need for affiliation are driven by a desire for positive interpersonal relationships and a concern for others. They value being liked and accepted, and are often worried about disapproval or rejection.31
Thoughts & Concerns: They think about developing and maintaining relationships, enjoying the company of others, and often view group work as social activity.
Political Manifestations: Their political behaviour may involve avoiding conflict even when necessary, supporting popular but potentially suboptimal decisions to maintain group harmony, or forming cliques that influence project decisions or resource allocation based on personal relationships rather than objective merit. They might prioritise people over tasks and choose to work with friends over experts.³¹
Need for Power: Stakeholders with a high need for power are motivated by the ability to exercise control and influence over others and situations.³¹
Thoughts & Concerns: They think about taking strong, forceful actions that affect others, often offering unsolicited help or advice. They continuously develop strategies to control people and shape outcomes to align with their views.
Political Manifestations: This need directly fuels overt political behavior. Such individuals are often active in organizational politics, seeking leadership positions, and networking strategically to meet personal and organizational goals. A key tactic is the control of information—seeking, withholding, or using it to influence specific outcomes and control others.³¹
Need for Achievement: Stakeholders with a high need for achievement are driven by a strong desire for success and an equally strong fear of failure. They are competitive, aim to outperform others, and view failure as unacceptable.³¹
Thoughts & Concerns: They focus on attaining goals, overcoming obstacles, seeking help, and the feelings associated with success or failure. They constantly seek to do things better, faster, cheaper, or more efficiently.
Political Manifestations: Their competitive drive can lead to political manoeuvring to ensure their projects or teams are perceived as superior, sometimes at the expense of others. If their fear of failure is high, they may become coercive or resist delegating critical tasks to maintain control and ensure high standards are met, potentially sidelining team members.³¹

Beyond McClelland's triad, other motivations also drive political actions in projects:

Financial Interests: The pursuit of personal financial gain or increased departmental budgets can be a powerful motivator for political behaviour.³²
Career Progression and Job Security: Actions may be taken to protect one's current position or to strategically advance one's career within the organisation.³⁴
Fear: As identified by research, fear—of rejection, failure, job loss, or direct conflict—can trigger defensive political behaviours or, conversely, lead to avoidance and disengagement from politically charged situations.³⁵
Self-Interest versus Organisational/Project Interest: A crucial distinction lies in whether political behaviour is purely self-serving or if it aligns with broader project or departmental goals. "Politically sensible" managers may use political tactics to acquire resources or support for their projects, viewing it as a necessary means to an end.²⁴

The connection between these personal motivations and the political tactics employed to achieve specific objectives forms a critical chain of understanding. Political behaviour is not typically a random occurrence. Instead, it often represents a calculated, or sometimes subconscious, response to fulfil underlying needs or desires. For example, a stakeholder with a high need for power might engage in information gatekeeping (tactic) to control project decisions (objective). Similarly, a stakeholder driven by a fear of failure (motivation) might micromanage (tactic) to ensure a project's success as they define it (objective). Recognizing this motivation-tactic-objective linkage allows project leaders to look beyond surface behaviors to the underlying drivers, enabling more targeted and potentially empathetic interventions.

This understanding also illuminates the "good politics" dilemma. While political behaviour is often viewed with distaste, it can be indispensable for project success, particularly for project managers who operate with limited formal authority and must rely on influence.²¹ The ethical boundary between "politically sensible" actions undertaken for the benefit of the project and self-serving manipulation is often fine and highly dependent on context and intent. This presents an ongoing challenge for project managers: discerning when and how to engage politically for the project's good, without crossing into behaviours that are detrimental, unethical, or purely self-serving, and also being able to distinguish these motivations in the actions of others.

Political Risks in Enterprise Projects

Political risk in enterprise projects is a multifaceted concept, encompassing threats arising from both the external environment and internal organisational dynamics. It refers to the potential for political changes or instability, or the exertion of political power, to negatively impact project investments, contracts, and overall progress.¹⁹

External Political Risks manifest at various levels ¹⁹:

Transnational Risks: These include geopolitical events such as political conflicts between nations, trade wars, international sanctions, military conflicts, and acts of terrorism.
National/Country Risks: These stem from the political environment within a specific country, such as regime transitions, abrupt policy shifts, corruption, civil unrest, lack of law enforcement, and "buy-national" policies.
Societal Risks: These arise from the collective action of societal groups like non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, and consumer groups, leading to boycotts, protests, or disruptions to production and supply chains. These external risks can have wide-ranging impacts on projects, affecting sales, production, operations, research and development, security protocols, financial stability, regulatory compliance, governance structures, and organisational reputation.³⁷

Internal Political Risks, often termed Perceived Organisational Politics (POP), are equally significant. POP refers to employees' perceptions of self-centred behaviours, contradictory actions, and conflicts within the organisation that disrupt project values and resource allocation.³⁶ The very perception of a workplace as "political" can act as a stressor, demotivating employees and reducing productivity.²³ Manifestations of internal political risk include:

Mistrust and conflict between functional groups or project teams.²¹
Resistance to change initiatives driven by political agendas.²¹
Instances of corruption or the politically motivated abandonment of projects.²¹ The impact of POP can be severe, hindering project success, causing fluctuations in project completion schedules, eroding trust among team members and stakeholders, and decreasing overall productivity.²³

Furthermore, a significant political risk arises from stakeholder disengagement or opposition. If the motivations of key stakeholders are ignored, misunderstood, or poorly managed, these stakeholders may withdraw their support, resist project initiatives, or even actively work to sabotage project efforts.³²
It is important to recognise that external and internal political risks are not always separate; they can interact and exacerbate each other. For instance, external geopolitical instability or economic uncertainty can create an internal environment ripe for increased political manoeuvring as departments or individuals compete more fiercely for diminishing resources or attempt to use the external situation to justify their agendas. Therefore, a comprehensive approach to political risk management in enterprise projects must address both the external geopolitical landscape and the internal organizational political climate. The motivations, power plays, and perceptions within the organization (POP) constitute a direct and often potent risk to project objectives, potentially proving as damaging as any external political event.

Table 2 provides a framework for understanding how primary personal motivations can translate into political behaviours within a project context, along with their potential positive and negative impacts.

Table 2: Personal Motivations and Their Political Manifestations in Projects

Primary Motivation	Typical Thoughts/Concerns	Common Political Tactics Employed	Potential Positive Project Impact	Potential Negative Project Impact/Risk
Need for Affiliation ³¹	Maintaining relationships, being liked, avoiding disapproval, group harmony.	Building social alliances/cliques, avoiding conflict, choosing friends over experts, seeking consensus.	Enhanced team cohesion, good morale if managed well, strong informal networks for support.	Suboptimal decisions to please others, resistance to necessary conflict, favoritism, exclusion of non-group members.
Need for Power ³¹	Exercising control and influence, getting opinions accepted, shaping situations, gaining leadership.	Seeking leadership roles, active networking, controlling/withholding information, forming strategic alliances, forceful action.	Driving decisions, overcoming obstacles, securing resources, championing projects.	Manipulation, creating "I-win-you-lose" scenarios, stifling dissent, information hoarding, demotivating others.
Need for Achievement ³¹	Attaining goals, outperforming others, fear of failure, innovation, efficiency.	Taking initiative, calculated risk-taking, setting high standards, potentially coercive behaviour, reluctance to delegate.	High performance, innovation, driving for results, meeting challenging goals.	Undermining others to appear superior, burnout, resistance to delegation leading to bottlenecks, overly critical of others.
Fear ³⁵	Rejection, failure, job loss, conflict, being labeled a troublemaker.	Avoiding conflict, withholding ideas, excessive caution, seeking scapegoats, forming defensive alliances.	Careful risk assessment (if fear is channeled constructively).	Stifled innovation, lack of proactive problem-solving, project delays due to indecision, toxic blame culture.
Financial/Career Gain ³²	Personal enrichment, promotion, increased departmental budget, enhanced status.	Lobbying for pet projects, exaggerating project benefits, forming alliances for resource acquisition, self-promotion.	Championing projects that do offer genuine value (if aligned), driving resource acquisition.	Prioritisation of projects with personal payoff over strategic value, misallocation of resources, unhealthy competition.
Protecting Self-Interest/Territory ²³	Maintaining current role/power, resisting changes perceived as threatening, controlling specific tasks.	Territorialism (hoarding tasks/roles), resisting new initiatives, gatekeeping information related to their domain.	Deep expertise in a specific area (if domain is critical).	Resistance to change, innovation blockage, creation of silos, lack of collaboration.

Stakeholder Theory: Descriptive Realities vs. Normative Ideals

Stakeholder theory provides a crucial lens through which to analyse the complex interactions within and around enterprise projects. It offers two primary perspectives: the descriptive, which seeks to understand the factual realities of stakeholder interactions, and the normative, which explores the ethical values and principles that should guide these interactions.

Descriptive Approaches: Understanding "What Is"

The descriptive approach to stakeholder theory is fundamentally empirical. Its primary focus is to describe and explain the actual characteristics and behaviours of firms, managers, and stakeholders as they exist in practice.²⁵ This involves observing and documenting how companies are managed, the extent to which boards of directors consider various corporate constituencies, the mental models managers use when thinking about their responsibilities, and the actual influence patterns stakeholders exert.²⁵

A significant component of the descriptive approach involves stakeholder identification and analysis tools. Techniques such as stakeholder mapping, power-interest grids, and salience models (which assess stakeholders based on attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency) are employed to create a factual depiction of the stakeholder landscape.²⁵ These tools aim to provide a "realistic picture" ²⁸ of who the stakeholders are, their relative influence, their interests, how a project might be perceived by them, and the existing relationships among them. For example, a power-interest grid descriptively plots stakeholders based on their assessed power to influence the project and their level of interest in its outcomes, helping to identify who currently holds sway.

Empirical observations derived from a descriptive stance further illuminate the realities of stakeholder influence. Research consistently shows a strong positive correlation between effective stakeholder engagement and project performance.⁴⁴ Conversely, a lack of adequate stakeholder involvement is frequently cited as a primary reason for project failure.⁴⁵ Unmanaged stakeholder concerns often lead to increased project costs and delays.⁴⁸ Furthermore, descriptive accounts reveal how political behaviours, such as corruption or politically motivated project abandonment, demonstrably impede project progress and organisational goals.²¹

The descriptive approach, therefore, provides the essential factual groundwork for understanding the political landscape of any enterprise project. It tells us who the relevant players are, what actual power or influence they wield (formally or informally), and how they typically behave or are likely to behave based on past actions or stated interests. This objective understanding of the current state is a prerequisite for any subsequent normative evaluation or strategic intervention. Without a clear descriptive understanding, attempts to manage stakeholders or navigate project politics risk being misguided or ineffective. These descriptive tools and observations, while aiming for objectivity, can themselves become instruments in the political process if the information they generate is used selectively to reinforce existing power structures rather than to achieve a more balanced understanding. The very act of identifying and categorising stakeholders, for instance, is a descriptive exercise, but the subsequent decisions on how to engage with these categorised groups often carry normative and political weight.

Normative Approaches: Exploring "What Ought to Be"

In stark contrast to the descriptive focus on actual behaviours, the normative approach to stakeholder theory delves into the realm of ethics and values, asking "what ought to be" the guiding principles for corporate and project conduct.25 At its heart, normative stakeholder theory posits that the interests of all stakeholders possess intrinsic value. This means each group—be it employees, customers, suppliers, local communities, or shareholders—merits consideration and respect for its own sake, not merely due to its instrumental capacity to further the interests of some other group, such as maximising shareholder wealth.²⁷

R. Edward Freeman is a central figure in developing this perspective. His classic definition of a stakeholder as "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives" ² is often the starting point. Freeman goes further by viewing these interest-influential groups as moral agents, suggesting that corporations have ethical responsibilities that extend far beyond their fiduciary duty to shareholders.²⁵ Stakeholder theory, from this normative viewpoint, argues for the inclusion of a wide array of parties—employees, customers, suppliers, financiers, communities, governmental bodies, political groups, trade associations, and trade unions—in the ethical calculus of business decisions.²⁶

Donaldson and Preston (1995) reinforced this by identifying the normative aspect as the very core of stakeholder theory.²⁵ They characterise the normative approach as being categorical, meaning its fundamental message is: "Do (do not do) something because it is right (wrong) to do it".²⁵ This perspective emphasizes ethical obligations that transcend purely economic success²⁵ and aims to guide organisations towards actions that might overcome injustice, mitigate conflict, and reduce inequalities that can arise from unfettered capitalism.²⁵

To navigate the ethical complexities of stakeholder conflicts and political dilemmas in projects, general ethical frameworks can be applied:

Utilitarianism: This consequentialist theory holds that actions are morally right if they produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.⁵¹
Project Implication: In a project context, a utilitarian approach might justify a decision that ensures the overall success of the project or benefits the majority of stakeholders, even if a minority stakeholder group is disadvantaged or their interests are overridden. Challenges in applying utilitarianism include the difficulty of objectively measuring "good" or "utility" across diverse stakeholder preferences and the potential for justifying actions that could be perceived as unjust to minority groups.⁵²
Deontology (Kantian Ethics): This approach asserts that actions are morally right if they adhere to universal moral rules or duties, irrespective of their consequences. A key tenet is the respect for persons as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.⁵¹
Project Implication: A deontological perspective would demand transparent and honest communication with all stakeholders, and fair treatment in all project dealings, even if such actions might complicate processes or delay timelines. It provides a strong basis for upholding stakeholder rights. However, it can lead to rigidity, especially when different moral duties conflict (e.g., a duty to be honest versus a duty to protect sensitive project information).⁵²
Virtue Ethics: This framework focuses on the moral character of the decision-maker (e.g., the project manager) rather than on rules or consequences. Right actions are those that cultivate or express virtues such as honesty, fairness, courage, integrity, and justice.⁵¹
Project Implication: A project manager exhibiting virtues like fairness in resource allocation, integrity in reporting, and courage in addressing political dilemmas would be considered to be acting ethically. This approach emphasises the project manager's character and their disposition to act well in navigating complex stakeholder relationships and conflicts. Challenges include the potential vagueness of virtues and the influence of cultural relativism on what constitutes a virtue.⁵²

These normative frameworks offer distinct lenses for evaluating the "rightness" of stakeholder management strategies and political actions. They compel a consideration that moves beyond a purely descriptive analysis of power dynamics or expedient solutions, urging an examination of the moral and ethical dimensions of project decisions.

The Tension and Synergy Between Descriptive Facts and Normative Values in Practice

In the practical realm of enterprise project management, a significant tension often exists between descriptive realities and normative ideals. Descriptive analysis might reveal, for instance, that powerful stakeholders frequently dictate project direction to serve their personal or departmental agendas, a factual observation of "what is." Normative theory, however, would critique this reality if such actions harm other stakeholders, violate principles of fairness, or undermine the project's broader ethical objectives, offering a judgment based on "what ought to be."

Despite this tension, there is also potential for synergy. Descriptive tools, such as stakeholder maps or influence network analyses, can be instrumental in identifying stakeholders whose rights might be infringed upon or who are being treated unfairly due to existing power imbalances. Once these descriptive realities are understood, normative principles can then guide the development of strategies to address these situations. For example, normative ideals might compel project leaders to ensure that vulnerable stakeholders, identified through descriptive analysis as having low power but high project impact, are given a voice and their interests are adequately considered in decision-making processes.

The concept of project success itself often bridges the descriptive and normative. While projects are assessed against hard metrics like budget, schedule, and scope (descriptive facts), stakeholder perceptions play a critical and increasingly acknowledged role in defining success.⁶⁴ These perceptions are inherently subjective and reflect what stakeholders feel and believe about the project's value (a descriptive reality of their current state). However, these feelings and beliefs are deeply influenced by their underlying values, needs, and expectations—normative criteria they use to judge what is "good" or "valuable." Therefore, effectively managing stakeholder perceptions requires more than just reporting factual progress; it involves understanding these normative underpinnings and aligning project communications and outcomes with what stakeholders genuinely appreciate. This process inherently involves navigating both the descriptive reality of current stakeholder views and the normative ideal of delivering value as defined and perceived by them.

Ethical decision-making models frequently employed in management also reflect this interplay. Such models typically advocate for first gathering all relevant facts about a situation (a descriptive exercise) and then applying ethical principles or frameworks (a normative exercise) to analyse options and arrive at a morally justifiable decision.⁶⁵

The practical challenge for project managers lies in acknowledging the often harsh descriptive realities of organisational power and politics while simultaneously striving to act in accordance with normative ethical principles. The tools, methodologies, and communication strategies adopted within a project can either exacerbate the gap between "what is" and "what ought to be" or help to bridge it, fostering an environment where political actions are increasingly guided by ethical considerations. The very choice of which stakeholders to engage, what information to share, and whose interests to prioritise involves both a descriptive assessment of the current landscape and a normative judgment about how to proceed ethically and effectively. Table 3 provides a comparative summary of descriptive and normative stakeholder theory.

Table 3: Contrasting Descriptive and Normative Stakeholder Theory

Aspect	Descriptive Approach	Normative Approach
Core Question	What is the nature of the firm and its stakeholder relationships? How do managers and stakeholders behave? ²⁵	What ought to be the purpose of the firm? What moral obligations do managers have to stakeholders? ²⁵
Primary Focus	Explaining and modeling existing realities, behaviours, and characteristics of stakeholder interactions and corporate management. ²⁵	Identifying moral/philosophical guidelines for corporate operation; justifying why stakeholders should be treated in certain ways. ²⁵
Key Theorists/Concepts	Empirical observation, stakeholder mapping, power analysis, influence networks. Focus on actual influence and salience. ²⁶	Freeman (stakeholders as moral agents), Donaldson & Preston (intrinsic value of stakeholder interests), Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics. ²⁵
View of Stakeholder Value	Value is often described in terms of influence, power, or impact on the firm. Stakeholders are valuable if they can affect the firm. ²⁶	Stakeholder interests have intrinsic value; each group merits consideration for its own sake, not just for its instrumental utility to the firm. ²⁶
Implications for Political Management	Aims to understand and predict political behaviours based on observed power dynamics and interests. Can be used to strategise how to manage existing political realities to achieve project goals. May inadvertently reinforce existing power imbalances if not critically applied.	Provides ethical frameworks to evaluate political behaviours and decisions. Guides managers to act fairly, transparently, and respectfully, even in politically charged situations. Challenges power-based decisions if they violate moral principles. Seeks to align political actions with ethical values.

Methodologies, Tools, and Communication: Perceptions and Political Effects

The choice and application of project management methodologies, stakeholder management tools, and communication strategies are not neutral acts. They are perceived differently by various stakeholders and can significantly shape the political dynamics within enterprise projects. These elements act as structuring agents, defining the arenas and rules for political interaction.

Perception of Project Management Methodologies (Waterfall, Agile, Hybrid)

Different project management methodologies create distinct environments that influence how stakeholders perceive control, flexibility, risk, and their own involvement. These perceptions, in turn, affect their behaviour and the nature of political conflicts.

Waterfall Methodology
Characterised by its linear, sequential progression through fixed phases (e.g., requirements, design, implementation, verification, maintenance), the Waterfall model emphasises comprehensive upfront planning and detailed documentation, with project constraints (time, scope, cost) typically agreed upon in advance.⁶⁶

Stakeholder Perceptions & Political Implications:

Control: Executives often perceive a higher degree of control with Waterfall due to the detailed upfront planning, clearly defined scope, and formal gate reviews between phases.⁷¹ This structure provides a sense of predictability. However, technical teams may feel they have less autonomy, as their work is rigidly defined by preceding phases.⁷¹ End-users and business stakeholders typically have significant involvement during the initial requirements phase but may feel a lack of control or ability to influence the project once development begins, as their next major involvement point is often user acceptance testing at a much later stage.⁶⁸
Flexibility: Waterfall is generally perceived as having low flexibility.⁶⁶ Changes to scope or requirements after the initial planning phase are often difficult, costly, and bureaucratic to implement, requiring formal change control processes.⁷⁰ This rigidity can become a significant source of political conflict when stakeholder needs evolve or new information emerges, as the methodology struggles to adapt. Political battles may become concentrated at phase gates or when major deviations from the plan are proposed.
Risk: The perceived risk profile of Waterfall is mixed. If requirements are stable and well-understood, the predictability of the model can be seen as lower risk.⁶⁹ However, the limited feedback loops and late-stage customer involvement create a substantial risk of delivering a product that does not meet actual stakeholder needs or market realities.⁶⁸ The discovery of major flaws or misalignments late in the project can lead to significant political blow-ups and blame attribution.
Involvement: Stakeholder involvement, particularly from end-users, is typically concentrated at the beginning (requirements definition) and end (testing and acceptance) of the project.⁶⁸ This lack of continuous engagement can lead to misunderstandings and a divergence between the developed product and evolving user expectations, fuelling dissatisfaction and conflict.

Agile Methodology
Agile approaches are iterative and incremental, emphasising flexibility, close collaboration between cross-functional teams and stakeholders, continuous customer feedback, and adaptive planning.66 Work is typically broken down into short cycles or sprints.

Stakeholder Perceptions & Political Implications

Control: Technical teams often perceive greater autonomy and control over their work within an Agile framework, as they are typically self-organising.⁷¹ End-users and business stakeholders generally feel more involved and in control of the evolving product due to frequent opportunities for feedback and course correction after each iteration or sprint.⁶⁸ Executives might perceive less direct, upfront control over the final scope compared to Waterfall, but often appreciate the rapid delivery of value and the ability to see progress frequently.⁷¹ The transparency inherent in Agile (e.g., daily stand-ups, sprint reviews) can make political manoeuvring more visible.
Flexibility: Agile is perceived as highly flexible and adaptable to changing requirements and market conditions.⁶⁶ This ability to pivot can reduce the political friction that arises from rigid adherence to outdated plans.
Risk: While Agile's flexibility can mitigate the risk of building the wrong product, it introduces other risks. The potential for scope creep is higher if changes are not managed effectively through a disciplined backlog grooming and prioritisation process.⁶⁸ The outcomes can be less certain without a detailed, fixed upfront plan.⁷² Furthermore, Agile's reliance on active and continuous stakeholder engagement means that a lack of such engagement (due to unavailability or disinterest) becomes a significant project risk, potentially leading to misaligned priorities and conflict.⁷³
Involvement: High and continuous stakeholder and customer involvement is a core tenet of Agile and is generally perceived positively by those who wish to shape the product.⁶⁸ However, this demand for constant involvement can be a burden for some stakeholders and a source of conflict if expectations regarding their time commitment are not clearly set and met.⁷⁸ Differing priorities and political conflicts are brought to the surface more frequently, allowing for incremental management rather than large-scale confrontations.

Hybrid Methodology
Hybrid approaches seek to blend elements of Waterfall (often for upfront planning, requirements definition, or governance) with Agile principles (typically for execution, development, and delivery).⁶⁶

Stakeholder Perceptions & Political Implications

The aim is to achieve a balance between predictability and flexibility. Perceptions will vary widely depending on the specific blend of methodologies. Some stakeholders might see it as a pragmatic compromise that addresses their need for some upfront clarity (favored by executives or regulatory bodies) while allowing for iterative development and feedback (favored by end-users and technical teams). Others might perceive it as lacking the full benefits of either pure approach, potentially leading to confusion about roles, processes, and decision-making authority. The political dynamics in a hybrid model can be complex, as stakeholders may try to push the methodology more towards their preferred pure approach, leading to ongoing negotiation about processes and control.

Project management methodologies are not just technical frameworks; they are political structuring agents. They define roles, dictate communication channels, establish feedback loops, and set decision-making points. Agile's iterative nature and high stakeholder involvement tend to make political interactions more transparent and continuous, with smaller, more frequent negotiations. In contrast, Waterfall's phased structure may concentrate political activity at formal gate reviews or when significant deviations from the initial plan occur, potentially leading to less frequent but more intense political confrontations. The choice of methodology, therefore, inherently shapes the political environment of a project.

Stakeholder Management Tools and Their Perceived Impact
A variety of tools are employed in stakeholder management, primarily for identification, analysis, and engagement planning. These tools are largely descriptive, aiming to map the stakeholder landscape, but their use and the information they generate can have significant political and ethical ramifications.

Common Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Tools

Stakeholder Registers: These are foundational documents that list identified stakeholders along with their key attributes, interests, involvement levels, influence, and contact information.3 They serve as a central repository for stakeholder data.
Power-Interest Grids (Mendelow's Matrix): This widely used tool categorises stakeholders based on their level of power (ability to influence the project) and interest (level of concern about the project's outcomes). This results in four quadrants, each suggesting a different engagement strategy: High Power/High Interest (Manage Closely), High Power/Low Interest (Keep Satisfied), Low Power/High Interest (Keep Informed), and Low Power/Low Interest (Monitor).³²
Salience Model (Mitchell, Agle, Wood): This model classifies stakeholders based on three attributes: power (ability to impose their will), legitimacy (socially accepted and expected structures or behaviours), and urgency (time sensitivity or criticality of stakeholder claims).²⁶ Stakeholders are categorised into types such as Definitive (possessing all three attributes), Dominant, Dangerous, Dependent, and Dormant, guiding prioritisation.
Stakeholder Mapping/Diagrams/Matrices: These are visual tools used to represent stakeholders and their relationships to each other and the project, often illustrating influence, interest, knowledge, attitude, or impact.³³
Stakeholder Engagement Assessment Matrix: This tool tracks the current versus desired engagement levels of stakeholders across a spectrum (e.g., Unaware, Resistant/Opposed, Neutral, Supportive, Leading) to plan interventions to shift engagement.³²

Perceptions of Fairness and Accuracy in Stakeholder Categorisation
The act of categorising stakeholders using these tools, while intended to simplify complexity and guide strategy, is not without its perceptual and political challenges:

Oversimplification: Many of these tools, particularly grid-based ones, simplify complex human relationships and motivations into two or three dimensions. This can lead to a loss of nuance and an incomplete understanding of stakeholder positions.⁸⁴
Negative Connotations of Labels: Some models, like the Salience Model, use labels such as "Dangerous," "Demanding," or "Dormant." The Stakeholder Knowledge Base Chart uses "Ignorant." Such terms can carry negative connotations and may be perceived as disrespectful, unfair, or judgmental if stakeholders become aware of their classification.⁴² This can damage trust and provoke negative reactions.
Subjectivity and Bias: The assessment of attributes like "power," "interest," "legitimacy," or "urgency" is often subjective and prone to the biases of those conducting the analysis. Stakeholders might disagree with how they are perceived or categorized, leading to feelings of misrepresentation or unfair treatment.⁸⁴
Political Implications of Categorisation: The classification itself is a political act. It determines who receives attention, whose concerns are prioritized, and whose are monitored with minimal effort. This can reinforce existing power imbalances or create new ones. Stakeholders who feel unfairly deprioritized or miscategorized may react negatively, leading to disengagement, resistance, or increased political maneuvering to assert their importance. Transparency in the classification process, or at least in the criteria used, alongside mechanisms for fair representation of diverse interests, are crucial ethical considerations.⁹⁸

Ethical Implications of Using Mapping Tools for Influence
Stakeholder analysis tools are designed to identify power and interest, which inherently informs how influence strategies are tailored.⁸⁵ The ethical dimension hinges on whether this influence is pursued manipulatively or through genuine engagement for mutual benefit.⁶⁵ Principles of persuasion, such as Cialdini's concepts of reciprocation, social proof, and commitment/consistency ⁸⁸, can be applied ethically (e.g., transparently demonstrating social consensus for a beneficial change) or unethically (e.g., manufacturing false consensus to pressure dissenters).

Key ethical considerations include:

Protecting Sensitive Information: Information gathered during stakeholder analysis can be sensitive. Ensuring its confidentiality and using it responsibly is paramount.⁹⁸
Avoiding Manipulation: The goal should be genuine engagement and understanding, not the exploitation of identified vulnerabilities for one-sided gain.
Fairness in Resource Allocation: Prioritisation based on mapping should not lead to the unfair neglect of legitimate stakeholder needs, even if those stakeholders are descriptively categorised as low power.
Balancing Power: While tools describe power imbalances, ethical practice may require efforts to ensure a more balanced power distribution in decision-making processes, giving voice to less powerful but significantly impacted stakeholders.⁹⁸

Stakeholder analysis tools are descriptively powerful for understanding the political terrain. However, their normative implications are significant. Their use is perceived through subjective stakeholder lenses and can profoundly shape political dynamics. A tool intended for objective analysis can easily become a political instrument if not wielded with ethical awareness and a commitment to fairness. The very act of labeling a stakeholder can alienate them and become a self-fulfilling prophecy, impacting trust and cooperation, even if the initial descriptive assessment of their attributes was accurate.

Communication Strategies and Tools: Shaping Dynamics

Communication is the lifeblood of stakeholder management and a primary medium for political interactions. The choice of communication strategies and tools directly impacts information flow, transparency, the formation of informal networks, and the potential for information control or gatekeeping.

Impact of Communication Tools on Project Dynamics

Email: Remains a standard for formal communication, record-keeping, and asynchronous interactions.¹⁰³
Perception & Politics: Can lead to information silos within lengthy threads, slow response times, and a sense of formality that may stifle open dialogue.¹¹⁰ Its use for official announcements and approvals can reinforce formal power structures and control over information dissemination.¹¹⁰ The lack of immediate feedback can delay the resolution of politically sensitive issues.
Slack/Microsoft Teams (Real-time Chat Platforms): Facilitate instant, informal, and channel-based communication.⁵⁸
Perception & Politics: Generally perceived as enhancing transparency within designated channels, speeding up communication, and fostering collaboration. Open channels can reduce information gatekeeping by making discussions accessible to a wider group.¹⁰³ This can lead to more fluid informal power dynamics, where influence may be based on active participation and valuable contributions rather than solely formal position. However, they can also lead to information overload, and the creation of private channels can lead to exclusion and new forms of information silos if not managed well.¹⁰⁶ The informality might also make it harder to track official decisions unless clear protocols are in place.¹¹²
Jira and other Project Management Software: Primarily task-focused, tracking progress, assigning responsibilities, and often linking communication to specific issues or tasks.¹⁰⁵
Perception & Politics: Can significantly increase transparency regarding work status, assignments, and deadlines.¹¹⁶ This visibility can enhance accountability and make it harder for individuals or teams to obscure progress or lack thereof. While not primary tools for broad political negotiation, the data they provide (e.g., on resource allocation, task completion) can become factual ammunition in political discussions.
Dashboards and Reporting Tools: Offer visual summaries of project status, key metrics, and risks.¹⁰⁴
Perception & Politics: If widely accessible, dashboards can greatly increase transparency of project performance.⁵¹ This democratisation of information can shift power dynamics, as more stakeholders are equipped with data to inform their opinions and decisions. It can reduce reliance on gatekeepers who previously controlled such information. However, there's a risk of misinterpretation if dashboards oversimplify complex issues or if the underlying data is biased or inaccurate. The design and selection of metrics for dashboards can itself be a political act, highlighting certain aspects while obscuring others.¹¹⁸

Aligning Communication Tools with Normative Ideals (Transparency, Fairness)
The selection and configuration of communication tools are not merely operational choices; they define the "space" where much of a project's political activity unfolds.

Tools should be chosen and implemented in a way that supports open, honest, and equitable communication, aligning with normative ideals of transparency and fairness.⁶⁵
A comprehensive communication plan is essential. This plan should detail who needs what information, when, how often, and through which channels, ensuring that all stakeholders receive timely and relevant updates tailored to their needs.⁷
While segmenting stakeholders for communication is often necessary for efficiency, it must be done fairly, ensuring that no group is unjustly excluded from information critical to their interests or ability to participate meaningfully.¹²²
Platforms that enhance transparency, such as open Slack channels or accessible project dashboards, can descriptively alter political dynamics by reducing opportunities for information hoarding and empowering a broader range of stakeholders. Normatively, they promote fairness if all stakeholders have equitable access to the information they need to understand the project and protect their interests.

The choice of communication tools, therefore, directly shapes the "political arena" of a project. Open platforms can democratise information and reduce the power of traditional gatekeepers, potentially shifting informal power dynamics towards those who are more informed and engaged, regardless of formal hierarchy. Conversely, more controlled or fragmented communication platforms can reinforce existing power structures and facilitate covert political manoeuvring
.
Table 4 and Table 5 offer comparative analyses of project methodologies and stakeholder/communication tools, respectively, considering their perceptual, political, and ethical dimensions.

Table 4: Comparative Impact of Project Methodologies on Stakeholder Dynamics

Feature	Waterfall	Agile	Hybrid
Perceived Control (Executives)	Higher (upfront planning, defined scope) ⁷¹	Lower (scope evolves), but appreciate rapid updates ⁷¹	Varies; aims to balance predictability with iterative progress.
Perceived Control (End-Users)	Lower (limited involvement post-requirements) ⁶⁸	Higher (continuous feedback, influence on evolving product) ⁶⁸	Varies; potentially more involvement than pure Waterfall.
Perceived Control (Technical Teams)	Lower (work rigidly defined) ⁷¹	Higher (autonomy, self-organising) ⁷¹	Varies; may offer more autonomy than pure Waterfall in execution.
Perceived Flexibility	Low (changes difficult and costly) ⁶⁶	High (adaptive to changing requirements) ⁶⁶	Moderate; aims to combine upfront planning with adaptive execution.
Perceived Risk Profile	Risk of delivering wrong product due to late feedback; late bug discovery. Predictable if requirements stable.⁶⁸	Risk of scope creep; uncertain outcomes without fixed plan; risk of stakeholder disengagement.68	Aims to mitigate risks of both pure approaches; new risks from managing the blend.
Typical Stakeholder Involvement	Concentrated at start (requirements) and end (UAT).⁶⁸	High and continuous throughout the project lifecycle.⁶⁸	Varies; typically more than Waterfall, potentially less intensive than pure Agile.
Common Manifestations of Political Conflict	Major conflicts at phase gates or when scope changes are resisted; late-stage blow-ups due to unmet expectations.⁷⁰	More frequent, smaller negotiations; conflicts surface early due to transparency; potential conflict over required involvement levels or changing priorities.⁷³	Potential conflicts over methodology interpretation; balancing fixed elements with agile execution; managing expectations across diverse stakeholder preferences.

Table 5: Stakeholder Analysis and Communication Tools – Perceptions, Political Effects, and Ethical Use

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Typical Stakeholder Perception (Fairness, Transparency)	Impact on Information Control/Gatekeeping	Potential Political Effects (Positive/Negative)	Normative/Ethical Guidelines for Use
Stakeholder Mapping Grids	Power-Interest Grid ³²	Can be seen as reductive; fairness depends on criteria and application. Transparency of classification is rare.	Can concentrate focus on "high power" individuals, potentially leading to gatekeeping by those managing them.	Positive: Prioritises engagement efforts. Negative: Can lead to neglect of "low power" groups; labels can alienate.	Use as a guide, not rigid labels. Supplement with qualitative data. Ensure criteria are relevant and fairly applied. Avoid offensive terminology.⁸⁴
Salience Models	Mitchell, Agle, Wood Model (Power, Legitimacy, Urgency) ²⁶	Labels ("Dangerous," "Demanding") can be perceived negatively and unfairly.⁸⁴	Helps identify who commands attention, potentially guiding information flow towards or away from certain groups.	Positive: Helps prioritize critical stakeholders. Negative: Risk of miscategorisation and alienating stakeholders; "Dangerous" label can create adversarial stance.	Use with caution; be mindful of label connotations. Focus on understanding needs behind salience. Ensure legitimacy is fairly assessed.⁹³
Real-time Chat (e.g., Slack, Teams)	Public/Private Channels, Direct Messages ¹⁰³	Public channels perceived as transparent; private channels can be seen as exclusive or secretive. Fairness depends on access rules.	Public channels reduce gatekeeping; private channels can enable it. Searchability increases information accessibility over time (if retained).¹⁰³	Positive: Facilitates rapid collaboration, quick issue resolution, builds informal networks. Negative: Information overload, exclusion from private channels, potential for miscommunication in informal settings.	Establish clear communication norms, manage channel access fairly, ensure critical decisions are formally documented.¹¹²
Project Management Software (e.g., Jira)	Task Tracking, Issue-linked Comments ¹⁰⁵	Perceived as transparent regarding work progress and accountability.	Centralises task-specific information, making it accessible to team members.	Positive: Increases accountability, clarifies responsibilities, provides data for discussions. Negative: Can be used to micromanage; data can be selectively reported in political contexts.	Ensure data accuracy. Use for collaborative problem-solving, not just monitoring.
Project Dashboards & Reporting Tools	Visual KPI summaries, progress reports ¹¹⁸	Can be perceived as highly transparent if data is accurate, contextualised, and accessible. Fairness depends on metric selection and presentation.	Democratises access to performance data, reducing reliance on specific individuals for updates.¹¹⁸	Positive: Enables informed decision-making, increases accountability, facilitates consensus. Negative: Risk of oversimplification, misinterpretation, or manipulation of data to support political agendas.	Ensure data integrity, provide context, design for clarity, make accessible, and iterate based on feedback.¹¹⁸
Email	Formal Memos, Threaded Discussions ¹⁰⁹	Perceived as formal and providing a record. Transparency can be low in long, exclusive threads.	Can lead to information silos; gatekeeping possible by controlling distribution lists or withholding replies.	Positive: Provides official record, good for formal decisions. Negative: Slow, can hide information, may reinforce hierarchical power dynamics.	Use for formal communication and decisions; supplement with more collaborative tools for ongoing discussions. Ensure appropriate stakeholders are included.¹¹⁰

Synthesising Descriptive and Normative Approaches for Effective Stakeholder Politics Management

Successfully navigating the political landscape of enterprise projects requires a sophisticated approach that acknowledges the descriptive realities of power and motivation while simultaneously striving to uphold normative ethical values. This involves implementing strategies to mitigate negative political behaviors, foster ethical engagement, build trust, and thoughtfully integrate project management tools and methodologies.

Strategies for Mitigating Negative Political Behaviours and Risks

Negative political behaviours, such as sabotage, information hoarding, or blame-shifting, and the broader political risks they engender, can significantly derail projects. Mitigation strategies must address both the symptoms and the underlying causes:

Understanding Motivations and Early Identification: A crucial first step is to understand the personal motivations (e.g., need for power, achievement, affiliation, or fear) that might drive a stakeholder's political actions.³¹ Stakeholder analysis tools, if used judiciously, can help in the early identification of individuals who might become 'antagonistic' or whose high power and urgency, coupled with low legitimacy, might classify them as 'dangerous' if their concerns are not proactively managed.³² Recognising these potential drivers allows for more tailored and pre-emptive engagement.
Proactive Communication and Transparency: Establishing open communication channels and ensuring transparent information sharing are fundamental to reducing misunderstandings, rumors, and the opportunities for destructive politics.³⁰ Clearly defined project objectives, roles, and responsibilities leave less room for ambiguity that can be exploited politically.⁴
Building Constructive Alliances and Networks: Project managers themselves may need to engage in "politically sensible" tactics. This includes building coalitions with supportive stakeholders to counteract negative political pressures, champion the project, or secure necessary resources, especially when formal authority is limited.²²
Formal Processes for Change and Issue Management: Robust and transparent processes for managing changes to scope (change control) ⁷ and for identifying, assessing, and addressing issues and risks ¹³ provide legitimate channels for stakeholders to voice concerns and seek resolutions. This reduces the perceived need for individuals to resort to covert political actions. An EPMO can play a vital role in standardizing and overseeing these processes.⁶
Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Establishing clear, agreed-upon mechanisms for resolving conflicts that inevitably arise from competing stakeholder interests is essential.³⁰ These mechanisms should aim for fairness and objectivity.
Ethical Leadership and Psychological Contracts: The behaviour of project leadership is paramount. Ethical leadership has been shown to mitigate Perceived Organisational Politics (POP) and political risk (PR).³⁶ Developing "psychological contracts" with stakeholders, based on mutual understanding, consistency, and trust, can minimize both internal and external political manoeuvring.³⁶ Furthermore, adopting leadership styles like servant leadership, which emphasises empathy, listening, and empowerment, can foster more resilient and collaborative teams that are less susceptible to the negative impacts of internal politics.¹¹³
Managing Political Risks: Political risk assessment, covering both external geopolitical factors and internal POP, should be an integral part of overall project risk management.¹⁷ Mitigation strategies might include diversification of dependencies, building flexibility into plans, developing robust contingency plans, and in some cases, considering political risk insurance for external threats.²⁰

Fostering Ethical Engagement and Building Trust

Moving beyond merely mitigating negative politics, fostering an environment of ethical engagement and trust is key to unlocking positive stakeholder contributions and achieving sustainable project success. This involves a normative commitment to certain principles:

Applying Normative Ethical Principles: Stakeholder engagement strategies should be explicitly grounded in ethical principles such as fairness, honesty, respect, justice, and transparency.²⁵ These values should guide all interactions and decisions concerning stakeholders.
Inclusive Decision-Making: Actively involving stakeholders in decision-making processes that affect them is crucial. This ensures that diverse perspectives are heard, considered, and valued, which aligns with the normative stakeholder theory's emphasis on the intrinsic worth of all stakeholder interests.²⁷
Empathy and Understanding Stakeholder Needs: A genuine effort must be made to understand the needs, expectations, motivations (including underlying fears or aspirations), and concerns of each stakeholder group.³² Cognitive empathy—understanding how stakeholders think and perceive issues—is particularly important for building trust and tailoring communication effectively.⁶⁴
Managing Expectations Realistically and Transparently: It is an ethical imperative to clearly communicate project goals, scope, potential limitations, and likely impacts (both positive and negative) to stakeholders. This helps align their expectations with project realities and avoids future disappointment or accusations of deceit.¹
Accountability and Responsibility: Project leaders and teams must take responsibility for their decisions and the project's outcomes. This includes acknowledging mistakes when they occur and addressing issues transparently rather than attempting to conceal them or shift blame.¹²⁰
Continuous Engagement and Feedback Mechanisms: Trust is not built overnight; it requires sustained effort. Maintaining regular communication and establishing robust feedback loops throughout the project lifecycle allows for ongoing dialogue, early identification of shifting perceptions or new concerns, and demonstrates a commitment to the stakeholder relationship.⁴¹

Recommendations for Integrating Tools and Methodologies to Navigate Political Realities while Upholding Normative Values

The effective management of stakeholder politics requires a thoughtful integration of methodologies, tools, and practices that acknowledge descriptive realities while advancing normative ideals.

Mindful Selection and Adaptation of Project Management Methodologies
The choice of a project management methodology (Waterfall, Agile, Hybrid) should extend beyond technical suitability to consider its inherent impact on stakeholder engagement patterns, transparency levels, and the likely nature of political dynamics. For instance, while Agile's iterative nature and emphasis on continuous stakeholder involvement can bring political issues to the surface more frequently and transparently, potentially allowing for earlier resolution ⁷⁷, it also demands a high level of stakeholder availability and commitment, which can itself become a point of contention.⁷³ Waterfall's structured, phased approach might suppress early conflict but can lead to more significant political battles at phase gates if expectations diverge significantly due to a lack of ongoing engagement.⁷⁰ Hybrid approaches⁶⁶ may offer a pragmatic balance, but their specific blend must be carefully designed and communicated to manage stakeholder expectations regarding control and flexibility. The key is to select and, where necessary, tailor the methodology to fit the project's political context and the desired level of stakeholder interaction, rather than rigidly imposing a one-size-fits-all solution.

Ethical Application of Stakeholder Analysis Tools
Stakeholder analysis tools like power-interest grids and salience models are primarily descriptive, offering a snapshot of the current stakeholder landscape based on perceived attributes such as power, interest, legitimacy, and urgency.²⁶ While these tools can be invaluable for prioritising engagement efforts, their application must be guided by normative principles.

Beyond Labels to Understanding: It is crucial to use these tools as starting points for deeper understanding, not as definitive or immutable labels. If classifications are shared or become known, transparency about the criteria used (if appropriate) or at least ensuring internal consistency and fairness in their application is important.⁹⁸ The language used in some models (e.g., "Dangerous," "Ignorant") can be offensive and counterproductive, potentially alienating stakeholders if perceived.⁸⁴
Focus on Needs and Rights: The analysis should drive a focus on understanding stakeholder needs, interests, and legitimate rights, rather than solely on their power to disrupt or support the project. These tools can be normatively valuable if used to identify vulnerable stakeholders (e.g., those with high interest/impact but low power) who may require more proactive support, advocacy, or protection to ensure their voices are heard and their interests are not unjustly overlooked.
Qualitative Enrichment: Quantitative or grid-based mapping should be supplemented with qualitative methods, such as empathy interviews or direct consultations, to gain a richer, more nuanced understanding of stakeholder perspectives, motivations, and concerns.³⁴This helps to validate and contextualise the classifications derived from the tools.

Strategic Use of Communication Tools for Transparency and Inclusivity
The choice and configuration of communication tools significantly shape the "political arena" of a project by defining how information flows, who has access, and how interactions occur.

Fostering Openness: Collaborative platforms like Slack or Microsoft Teams can be leveraged to promote open communication and broader information sharing within project teams and with certain stakeholder groups. Public channels, where appropriate, can enhance transparency and reduce information gatekeeping.¹⁰³ However, clear guidelines and norms are essential to prevent information overload, the formation of exclusive private channels that create new silos, or the misinterpretation of informal communications.¹⁰⁶
Transparent Reporting: Project dashboards and reporting tools can serve as powerful instruments for transparency, providing stakeholders with accessible, real-time (or regular) updates on project progress, performance against metrics, and risk status.¹¹⁶ To be effective and ethical, the data presented must be accurate, contextualised, and designed for clarity to avoid misinterpretation. The selection of what metrics to display is itself a decision with political and ethical weight.
Equitable Access: Normatively, communication strategies should strive for equitable access to relevant information for all legitimate stakeholders, preventing situations where some are well-informed while others are left in the dark, which can fuel mistrust and political manoeuvring.

Integrating Descriptive Realities with Normative Aspirations in Daily Practice

Acknowledge Political Realities: Project leaders must descriptively acknowledge that organisational politics are an inevitable part of project environments. Developing political competence—the ability to understand and navigate these dynamics effectively—is a necessary skill, not a sign of cynicism.²¹
Establish Normative Guardrails: Concurrently, projects and organizations should define and champion clear ethical principles and values that govern stakeholder engagement. These values (e.g., honesty, fairness, respect, justice) should serve as a normative compass for all project actions and decisions.⁶¹
Use Descriptive Insights for Normative Action: The factual insights gained from descriptive analysis (e.g., understanding a powerful stakeholder's primary motivation is achievement) should inform how normative principles are applied. For example, one might frame project benefits in terms of significant outcomes to appeal to an achievement-oriented stakeholder, while ensuring that this framing is honest and that the pursuit of these outcomes aligns with broader ethical project goals and the fair treatment of other stakeholders.
Cultivate Continuous Reflection: Project teams and leaders should regularly reflect on their stakeholder management practices. Are these practices merely reacting to descriptive power dynamics, or are they actively working to uphold espoused normative values? Tools like the Guiding Rules Inspiring Direction (GRID) model, which explicitly links stakeholder treatment to defined values, offer a practical way to facilitate this ongoing reflection and alignment.⁶¹

Cultivating a Culture of Ethical Politics
Ultimately, mitigating negative political behaviours and fostering constructive engagement depends on the broader organisational culture. Leaders at all levels, particularly EPMO leaders and project sponsors, play a critical role in modeling ethical political behaviour. This includes encouraging open dialogue, genuinely valuing diverse perspectives, actively discouraging destructive or self-serving political tactics, and promoting an environment where transparency and fairness are the norm, not the exception.¹¹³

By consciously blending descriptive awareness with a normative commitment to ethical principles, project managers can more effectively navigate the complex political terrain of enterprise projects, build stronger stakeholder relationships, and ultimately enhance the likelihood of achieving project success that is both effective and ethically sound.

Towards Politically Astute and Ethically Grounded Stakeholder Management

The landscape of enterprise project management is inextricably linked with the complexities of human interaction, personal motivations, and the pursuit of power, rendering organisational politics an unavoidable reality. This report has examined the multifaceted nature of stakeholder management within this politically charged environment, contrasting the descriptive realities of "what is" with the normative ideals of "what ought to be."

A fundamental understanding that emerges is that stakeholder definitions and management frameworks, whether from PMI or Axelos, inherently shape the formal political contours of a project. The establishment of entities like EPMOs, while designed for strategic alignment, simultaneously creates new nexuses for political activity, particularly around resource allocation and prioritisation—arenas where personal motivations (the need for affiliation, power, or achievement) frequently translate into observable political tactics. These tactics range from constructive alliance-building to detrimental information control and blame-shifting, all aimed at achieving objectives that may or may not align with overall project or enterprise goals. The political risk, therefore, is not merely an external, geopolitical concern but a potent internal force, manifesting as perceived organisational politics that can erode trust, hinder collaboration, and jeopardise project outcomes.

Stakeholder theory offers a critical lens, with its descriptive arm providing tools to map and understand the existing political terrain—identifying who holds power, what their interests are, and how they are likely to behave. However, these tools, such as power-interest grids and salience models, are not neutral; their application and the labels they employ can be perceived differently by stakeholders and can inadvertently exacerbate political tensions if not used with sensitivity and an awareness of their potential for misinterpretation or misuse. The normative arm of stakeholder theory, complemented by ethical frameworks like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, provides essential guidance for how project leaders ought to act, emphasising fairness, transparency, respect, and the intrinsic value of all stakeholder interests.

The choice of project management methodology—Waterfall, Agile, or Hybrid—further molds the political environment. Waterfall's structured, phased approach may concentrate political manoeuvring at key decision gates, while Agile's iterative nature and continuous stakeholder involvement tend to make political interactions more frequent, transparent, and incrementally managed. Similarly, communication tools are not passive conduits; they actively shape the "political arena." Open, collaborative platforms can democratize information and reduce gatekeeping, whereas more controlled channels can reinforce existing power structures.
Effectively navigating this complex interplay requires project leaders to be both politically sensible and ethically sound. Political sensibility involves understanding the descriptive realities of power and influence and being capable of using networks and negotiation to achieve legitimate project goals. Ethical soundness involves grounding all actions and decisions in normative principles, ensuring fairness and respect for all stakeholders. Neither competency is sufficient on its own; a purely Machiavellian approach is ultimately destructive, while a politically naive ethical stance can be ineffective.

Project management methodologies and the array of stakeholder analysis and communication tools are, in essence, political mediators. Their selection, design, and deployment are not merely technical decisions but ethical and political ones that can either facilitate more equitable and transparent engagement or entrench power imbalances and information asymmetry.

Given that stakeholder perception is a critical determinant of project success, the proactive management of these perceptions becomes a normative imperative. This involves more than just reporting facts; it requires understanding stakeholder values and ensuring that the project's delivered value is communicated and appreciated in a way that resonates ethically and meaningfully with them.

Ultimately, fostering an environment where constructive politics thrive and destructive politics are minimised hinges on leadership and organisational culture. Project managers, EPMO leaders, and sponsors must champion and model ethical political behaviour, encouraging transparency, valuing diverse perspectives, and consistently applying normative principles to the practical realities of stakeholder engagement. By doing so, enterprises can move towards a model of stakeholder management that is not only effective in achieving project objectives but also builds lasting trust and upholds the ethical integrity of the organisation. The challenge lies in the continuous, conscious effort to bridge the gap between the descriptive "what is" of project politics and the normative "what ought to be" of ethical stakeholder engagement.

Definitions

Agile Methodology: A project management approach that is iterative and incremental, emphasizing flexibility, close collaboration between cross-functional teams and stakeholders, continuous customer feedback, and adaptive planning. Work is typically broken down into short cycles or sprints.⁶⁶
Blame/Credit Dynamics: A political tactic involving individuals quick to take credit for project successes while actively seeking scapegoats when problems arise.²⁴
Building Alliances and Coalitions: A political tactic where individuals or groups form alliances to consolidate power, advocate for their ideas, or secure support for specific project proposals or outcomes.²³
Controlling Information (Gatekeeping): A political tactic where stakeholders motivated by power may seek, withhold, or strategically use information to control others and influence specific project outcomes.³¹ Gatekeeping involves blocking other employees or ideas to maintain power and avoid challenges.²³
Deontology (Kantian Ethics): An ethical approach asserting that actions are morally right if they adhere to universal moral rules or duties, irrespective of their consequences. A key tenet is the respect for persons as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.⁵¹
Descriptive Approach (in Stakeholder Management): Seeks to understand "what is." It focuses on describing and interpreting the actual characteristics and behaviours of firms, stakeholders, and their interactions, including how companies are managed in reality, how boards consider corporate constituencies, managerial role conceptualisations, and observable stakeholder influence patterns.²⁵
Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO): An office (or Enterprise Portfolio Management Office) that provides enterprise-wide visibility into projects, ensures alignment with the "big picture," guides resource distribution based on organisational priorities, and facilitates communication with executive leadership. It is considered an integral part of the EPPM team structure and a significant political actor.⁶
Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (EPPM): A management approach that aims to align all projects, programs, and portfolios with overarching strategic objectives, often through a centralized system providing visibility into all ongoing work.⁶
External Political Risks: Threats arising from the external environment, manifesting at various levels:

Transnational Risks: Geopolitical events such as political conflicts between nations, trade wars, international sanctions, military conflicts, and acts of terrorism.¹⁹
National/Country Risks: Stemming from the political environment within a specific country, such as regime transitions, abrupt policy shifts, corruption, civil unrest, lack of law enforcement, and "buy-national" policies.¹⁹
Societal Risks: Arising from the collective action of societal groups like NGOs, trade unions, and consumer groups, leading to boycotts, protests, or disruptions.¹⁹

Factionalism: A negative political behavior where groups commit to winning at any cost, often with negative consequences for the project or organisation.²³
Gaining Favour (Impression Management): A political tactic where stakeholders engage in activities designed to curry favour with influential individuals, such as superiors or key decision-makers, by overtly supporting their ideas, taking on additional tasks, or aligning views.²³
Gatekeeping: (See Controlling Information)
Governance (Axelos Perspective): Axelos ProPath emphasizes governance across PRINCE2, MSP, MoP, P3O.¹⁵ Management of Risk (M_o_R) focuses on risk governance.¹⁷
Governance (PMI Perspective - PMBOK® Guide): "Oversight function that is aligned with the organization’s governance model and encompasses the project life cycle."¹³ It includes the framework, roles, stakeholder engagement, and monitoring.¹³
Hybrid Methodology: A project management approach that seeks to blend elements of Waterfall (often for upfront planning, requirements definition, or governance) with Agile principles (typically for execution, development, and delivery).⁶⁶
Internal Political Risks (Perceived Organizational Politics - POP): Employees' perceptions of self-centred behaviours, contradictory actions, and conflicts within the organization that disrupt project values and resource allocation.³⁶ The perception of a workplace as "political" can act as a stressor.²³
Need for Achievement (McClelland): A social motive where stakeholders are driven by a strong desire for success and an equally strong fear of failure. They are competitive, aim to outperform others, and view failure as unacceptable. They focus on attaining goals, overcoming obstacles, and doing things better, faster, cheaper, or more efficiently.³¹
Need for Affiliation (McClelland): A social motive where stakeholders are driven by a desire for positive interpersonal relationships and a concern for others. They value being liked and accepted and are often worried about disapproval or rejection. They think about developing and maintaining relationships and enjoying the company of others.³¹
Need for Power (McClelland): A social motive where stakeholders are motivated by the ability to exercise control and influence over others and situations. They think about taking strong, forceful actions that affect others and continuously develop strategies to control people and shape outcomes.³¹
Negative Tactics (in Political Behaviour): Detrimental political behaviours including sabotage (e.g., spreading rumours, misleading information, exclusion), factionalism, and territorialism.²³
Networking (as a Political Tactic): Developing and leveraging a network of contacts to gain informal influence, access resources, and gather intelligence.²⁴
Normative Approach (in Stakeholder Management): Explores "what ought to be." It is concerned with identifying moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of corporations and projects. A central tenet is that the interests of all stakeholders possess intrinsic value, meriting consideration for their own sake.²⁵, ²⁷
Organisational Politics: The use of power and social influence to achieve personal or group objectives, often operating outside, or in manipulation of, formal authority structures.²¹ It is also described as "power in action," a dynamic process of influence and negotiation.²⁹
Perceived Organisational Politics (POP): (See Internal Political Risks)
Political Risk (in enterprise projects): The potential for political changes or instability, or the exertion of political power, to negatively impact project investments, contracts, and overall progress. It encompasses threats from both external environments and internal organizational dynamics.¹⁹
Portfolio Management (Axelos MoP® Perspective): Management of Portfolios (MoP®) guides the selection of optimal projects and programs to meet strategic objectives and their execution to maximize value for customers and other stakeholders.¹¹
Portfolio Management (PMI Perspective): Focuses on aligning projects and programs with strategic objectives.⁷ EPPM uses EPMOs for strategic alignment and resource allocation.⁶
Power-Interest Grids (Mendelow's Matrix): A stakeholder analysis tool that categorizes stakeholders based on their level of power (ability to influence the project) and interest (level of concern about the project's outcomes), suggesting engagement strategies for each category.³²
Program Management (Axelos MSP® Perspective): Managing Successful Programmes (MSP®) framework is designed to align programs and projects with organizational strategy and enable enterprise agility, emphasizing benefit delivery, risk mitigation, and active stakeholder engagement.⁹
Program Management (PMI Perspective): The coordinated management of related projects to achieve benefits not attainable from managing them individually.⁷
Risk (Axelos M_o_R® Perspective): Axelos Management of Risk (M_o_R®) provides a framework to identify, assess, control risks, and make informed decisions.¹⁸ Risk management is integral at strategic, program/project, and operational levels.¹⁷
Risk (PMI Perspective): An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or more project objectives.⁷ Political risk is a key category.¹⁹
Sabotage: A negative political behaviour including actions like spreading rumors, providing misleading information, or exclusion from meetings.²³
Salience Model (Mitchell, Agle, Wood): A stakeholder classification model based on three attributes: power (ability to impose their will), legitimacy (socially accepted and expected structures or behaviors), and urgency (time sensitivity or criticality of stakeholder claims), guiding prioritization.²⁶
Stakeholder (Axelos PRINCE2® Perspective): PRINCE2® explicitly identifies three principal stakeholder categories that must be represented on the project board: Business, User, and Supplier.⁴ It also acknowledges a broader array of stakeholders—internal or external, supporters or opposers—who can affect or be affected by the project.⁵
Stakeholder (Freeman's 1984 Definition): "Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives".² (This is presented as a foundational definition influencing later ones).
Stakeholder (PMI Definition): "Any individual, group or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by, an initiative (programme, project, activity, risk)".¹ This definition includes the "perception" aspect as a key driver of behavior.
Stakeholder Engagement (Axelos PRINCE2® Perspective): "The process of identifying and communicating effectively with those people or groups who have an interest in or influence on, the project outcome." It follows a structured, six-step procedure.⁵
Stakeholder Engagement Assessment Matrix: A tool that tracks the current versus desired engagement levels of stakeholders across a spectrum (e.g., Unaware, Resistant, Neutral, Supportive, Leading) to plan interventions.³²
Stakeholder Management (PMI Definition): "Includes the processes required to identify the people, groups, or organiSations that could impact or be impacted by the project, to analySe stakeholder expectations and their impact on the project, and to develop appropriate management strategies for effectively engaging stakeholders in project decisions and activities".³ It emphasiSes continuous communication and managing conflicting interests.³
Stakeholder Mapping/Diagrams/Matrices: Visual tools used to represent stakeholders and their relationships to each other and the project, often illustrating influence, interest,knowledge, attitude, or impact.³³
Stakeholder Registers: Foundational documents that list identified stakeholders along with their key attributes, interests, involvement levels, influence, and contact information, serving as a central repository for stakeholder data.³
Territorialism: A negative political behaviour, for example, a manager refusing to delegate project tasks to maintain control over their domain.²³
"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" of Power (Pinto): A framework describing power dynamics:²²

"Good" Power: Ability to get things done, be assertive, and achieve project objectives.
"Bad" Power: Excessive use of power that stifles motivation, competence, creativity, and leads to negative consequences like anxiety and conflict.
“Ugly" Power: Misuse of power for personal advantage, misappropriating resources, or devaluing others.

Using Expertise as Power: A political tactic where specialized knowledge or skills are wielded as a source of power, making others dependent on the expert's input or approval.⁷ (Note: The citation '7' seems to be linked to PMI definitions in Table 1, the text might be reusing it here contextually).
Utilitarianism: A consequentialist ethical theory holding that actions are morally right if they produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.⁵¹
Virtue Ethics: An ethical framework focusing on the moral character of the decision-maker. Right actions are those that cultivate or express virtues such as honesty, fairness, courage, integrity, and justice.⁵¹
Waterfall Methodology: A project management methodology characterized by its linear, sequential progression through fixed phases (e.g., requirements, design, implementation, verification, maintenance). It emphasizes comprehensive upfront planning and detailed documentation, with project constraints typically agreed upon in advance.⁶⁶

Work Cited

Planning effective stakeholder management strategies to do the same thing!, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/planning-effective-stakeholder-management-strategies-development-6058
25 years of stakeholder theory in project management literature, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-theory-peer-reviewed-journals-6508
Project Stakeholder Management - ProjectManagement.com, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.projectmanagement.com/blog-post/21306/Project-Stakeholder-Management
Organization - PRINCE2® wiki, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://prince2.wiki/practices/organizing/
PRINCE2 Stakeholder Engagement - The Projex Academy For Professional Project Managers, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.projex.com/stakeholder-engagement-with-prince2/
Introduction to Enterprise Project Portfolio Management | EPPM Office, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://projectmanagementacademy.net/resources/blog/enterprise-project-portfolio-management/
globalskillup.com, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://globalskillup.com/files/5.-ProjectManagement_Terms_Terminologies.pdf
PMI Lexicon of Project Management Terms | Quizlet, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://quizlet.com/pe/13403857/pmi-lexicon-of-project-management-terms-flash-cards/
MSP Certifications - Managing Successful Programmes - Axelos, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.axelos.com/certifications/propath/msp-programme-management/
Managing Successful Programmes (MSP®) - IT Governance USA, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.itgovernanceusa.com/msp
MoP Portfolio Management Certification - Axelos, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.axelos.com/certifications/propath/mop-portfolio-management
What is portfolio management? - Axelos, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.axelos.com/resource-hub/blog/what-is-portfolio-management
Project Governance Critical Success | PMI, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-governance-critical-success-9945
Your quick how-to guide to effective project governance - Monday.com, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://monday.com/blog/project-management/project-governance-your-guide-to-the-decision-making-process/
What is AXELOS ProPath? Your Guide to Career Growth - Holistique Training, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://holistiquetraining.com/en/news/what-is-axelos-propath-your-guide-to-career-growth
What is AXELOS ProPath? - Good e-Learning, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://goodelearning.com/articles/what-is-axelos-propath/
Risk management: ITIL 4 Practice Guide - Axelos, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.axelos.com/resource-hub/practice/risk-management-itil-4-practice-guide
What is Management of Risk (M_o_R)? - Good e-Learning, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://goodelearning.com/articles/what-is-management-of-risk/
Political Risk in Infrastructure Projects - Marsh, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.marsh.com/content/dam/marsh/Documents/PDF/UK-en/Political%20Risk%20in%20Infrastructure%20Projects.pdf
Political Risk In Project Finance - Global Trade Funding, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://globaltradefunding.com/project-finance/project-finance-risk/political-risk/
(PDF) Understanding the Role of Politics in Successful Project ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257094702_Understanding_the_Role_of_Politics_in_Successful_Project_Management
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – Power and Politics in Projects - IPMA International Project Management Association, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://ipma.world/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-power-and-politics-in-projects/
What Is Organizational Politics? Definition, Types & Examples - AIHR, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/organizational-politics/
www.wcu.edu, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.wcu.edu/pmi/1998/N94JUL33.PDF
rsepconferences.com, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://rsepconferences.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/10_TAMARA.pdf
Stakeholder theory - Wikipedia, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory
3.2: Weighing Stakeholder Claims - Business LibreTexts, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://biz.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Business/Business_Ethics/Business_Ethics_(OpenStax)/03%3A_Defining_and_Prioritizing_Stakeholders/3.02%3A_Weighing_Stakeholder_Claims
Stakeholder Theory and Analysis | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/stakeholder-theory-and-analysis
liu.diva-portal.org, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1710886/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Stakeholder management | Power and Politics in Organizations Class Notes - Fiveable, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/power-and-politics-in-organizations/unit-4/stakeholder-management/study-guide/yiMaYDRl7zV3wS4n
What Really Motivates Project Stakeholders to Achieve Goals?, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.managementconcepts.com/resource/what-really-motivates-project-stakeholders/
What is a Stakeholder in Project Management? - ProjectEngineer, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.projectengineer.net/what-is-a-stakeholder-in-project-management/
Chapter 7., Section 8. Identifying and Analyzing Stakeholders and ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/participation/encouraging-involvement/identify-stakeholders/main
Understand Stakeholder Motivations to Align Your Strategy, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://nationaltraining.edu.au/understanding-stakeholder-motivations/
How to understand project stakeholders for project success - Project Management Institute, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/understand-project-stakeholders-success-9636
The impact of perceived organizational politics and ... - Emerald Insight, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/k-11-2021-1192/full/pdf?title=the-impact-of-perceived-organizational-politics-and-political-risk-on-project-success-through-ethical-leadership-and-the-psychological-contract
Political risk and corporate performance: mapping impact - Wharton ESG Initiative, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://esg.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ey-political-risk-and-corporate-performance-mapping-impact-final.pdf
Political Risk: Definition, Examples, & How to Manage It, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_US/insights/what-is-political-risk.html
Political Risk Management - W&M Law School Scholarship Repository, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3972&context=wmlr
(PDF) Managerial Perceptions of Political Risk in International Projects, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238726467_Managerial_Perceptions_of_Political_Risk_in_International_Projects
Stakeholder Management Guide: Definitions, Processes & More, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://simplystakeholders.com/resources/guides/stakeholder-management/
Best Stakeholder Mapping Methods: Choose the Right Strategy, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://simplystakeholders.com/stakeholder-mapping/
(PDF) Stakeholder Management in Projects: Strategies for Effective ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383829650_Stakeholder_Management_in_Projects_Strategies_for_Effective_Communication
www.stratfordjournals.com, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.stratfordjournals.com/journals/index.php/journal-of-entrepreneurship-proj/article/download/1680/2181/5322
(PDF) LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE FACTORS IN PROJECT ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384144784_LEADERSHIP_AND_GOVERNANCE_FACTORS_IN_PROJECT_FAILURES_A_FOCUS_ON_COST_AND_BUDGET_MANAGEMENT
(PDF) Project Failure Case Studies and Suggestion - ResearchGate, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262952882_Project_Failure_Case_Studies_and_Suggestion
Organizational failure and turnaround in public sector organizations ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6109368/
stakeholder concerns and management principles in project management - ResearchGate, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387067866_STAKEHOLDER_CONCERNS_AND_MANAGEMENT_PRINCIPLES_IN_PROJECT_MANAGEMENT
What Is Stakeholder Theory? - ProjectManager, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/what-is-stakeholder-theory
Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.1040.0066
Introduction to Normative Theories - Turing Commons, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://alan-turing-institute.github.io/turing-commons/skills-tracks/aeg/chapter1/normative/
Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, And Justice - FasterCapital, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://fastercapital.com/topics/utilitarianism,-deontology,-virtue-ethics,-and-justice.html
Major Ethical Systems | Saylor Academy, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://learn.saylor.org/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=31021
What are challenges to utilitarianism? – Business Ethics: 100 Questions, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://boisestate.pressbooks.pub/businessethics/chapter/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-utilitarianism/
Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics - Santa Clara University, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/
easychair.org, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://easychair.org/publications/preprint/Ccwr/open
Rights-based deontology and utilitarianism both have their inherent ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1jwvn5c/rightsbased_deontology_and_utilitarianism_both/
Applied Ethics - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/applied-ethics/
Ethics in Project Management: Issues, Practice, and Motive, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.wcu.edu/pmi/1998/N96DEC13.PDF
The Role of Ethical Frameworks in Project Management: A Systematic Review of Decision-Making and Outcomes - ResearchGate, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389622196_The_Role_of_Ethical_Frameworks_in_Project_Management_A_Systematic_Review_of_Decision-Making_and_Outcomes
Driving project leadership through stakeholder values, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-leadership-stakeholder-values-effective-1414
etheses.whiterose.ac.uk, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/14539/1/522499.pdf
Virtue Ethics in Politics - Number Analytics, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/virtue-ethics-in-politics
Managing Perceptions for Project Success: How Stakeholders Shape Reality | PMI Blog, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.pmi.org/blog/managing-perceptions-for-project-success
7 Ethical Considerations in Stakeholder Management - The Social Media Monthly, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://thesocialmediamonthly.com/7-ethical-considerations-in-stakeholder-management/
Key differences between Waterfall, Agile, and Hybrid - BigPicture, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://bigpicture.one/blog/waterfall-agile-hybrid-differences/
Project Management Methodologies: Waterfall, Agile, or Hybrid? - Berrycast, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.berrycast.com/blog/project-management-methodologies-waterfall-agile-hybrid
The Battle of Methodologies: Agile vs. Waterfall in Project Management, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://pmcenter.bellevue.edu/2024/12/11/the-battle-of-methodologies-agile-vs-waterfall-in-project-management/
Agile vs. Waterfall for Project Management - Glance, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://thisisglance.com/learning-centre/agile-vs-waterfall-project-approach
Waterfall vs. Agile vs. Hybrid Sprinting Methodologies - Idenhaus, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://idenhaus.com/waterfall-vs-agile-vs-hybrid-sprinting-project-management-methodology/
Agile vs. Waterfall | Pros, Cons, and Key Differences - ProductPlan, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.productplan.com/learn/agile-vs-waterfall/
Agile vs. Waterfall: Which Methodology to Use? | Wrike, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.wrike.com/project-management-guide/faq/when-to-use-agile-vs-waterfall/
Agile vs. Waterfall: What's the difference? - Forecast App, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.forecast.app/blog/difference-between-agile-waterfall
Agile vs. Waterfall: A Strategic Guide for Project Managers (with ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://de.celoxis.com/article/agile-vs-waterfall#:~:text=Agile%20requires%20active%20stakeholder%20participation,roles%20and%20responsibilities%20for%20stakeholders.
Agile or Waterfall (Sequential) – which is better? | APMG International, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://apmg-international.com/article/agile-or-waterfall-sequential-which-better
Agile vs. Waterfall: Which Methodology is Right for Your Project? - AmorServ, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://amorserv.com/insights/agile-vs-waterfall-which-methodology-is-right-for-your-project
(PDF) Agile vs. Waterfall Methodologies in Public Sector Projects: A ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384732042_Agile_vs_Waterfall_Methodologies_in_Public_Sector_Projects_A_Comparative_Analysis
Agile Methodology vs. Waterfall, Differences & Comparison of Workflows - Leadership Tribe, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://leadershiptribe.com/agile-methodology-vs-waterfall/
How to create a stakeholder management plan: 11 steps and strategies for project success, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.float.com/resources/stakeholder-management
Stakeholder Management: The Definitive Guide For Project Managers - BestOutcome, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://bestoutcome.com/knowledge-centre/stakeholder-management-guide/
Got Stake? Holder Management in Project - Stakeholder ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-management-plan-6090
Stakeholder Mapping: Guide to Identifying & Engaging Key Stakeholders, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.boreal-is.com/blog/stakeholder-mapping-identify-stakeholders/
Using a Stakeholder Matrix: 3 Practical Examples, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://simplystakeholders.com/stakeholder-matrix/
5 Stakeholder Mapping Models Every Professional ... - Infomineo, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://infomineo.com/business-research/five-stakeholder-mapping-models-every-professional-should-know/
Stakeholder Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide for PMs - Product School, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://productschool.com/blog/skills/stakeholder-analysis
Stakeholder Analysis: What Is and 3 Techniques To Approach - IMD Business School, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.imd.org/blog/governance/stakeholder-analysis/
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix: Transform Your Project Success, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.rosemet.com/stakeholder-analysis-matrix/
Leadership Toolkit Lesson 3: Stakeholder Mapping Analysis, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Other/18-F-0203_Doc_45_DAU_Training_03_01_2021.pdf
ASA Apply Ethics: Stakeholder analysis and stakeholder participation, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.theasa.org/networks/apply/ethics/analysis/stakeholder
Stakeholder Prioritization: Best Practices for Maximizing Impact ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://simplystakeholders.com/stakeholder-prioritization/
Stakeholder management influence on trust in a project: A ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329171038_Stakeholder_management_influence_on_trust_in_a_project_A_quantitative_study
Stakeholder Impact Analysis: Decoding Influential Factors | sopact, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.sopact.com/guides/stakeholder-impact-analysis
Stakeholder Salience Model in Project Management - ProjectManager, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/stakeholder-salience-model-project-management
Stakeholder Classification: Understanding The Essentials - Simply ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://simplystakeholders.com/stakeholder-classification/
(PDF) Managing for Stakeholders: The Role of Stakeholder-Based Management in Project Success - ResearchGate, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271138669_Managing_for_Stakeholders_The_Role_of_Stakeholder-Based_Management_in_Project_Success
Identifying stakeholder types, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.publicsector.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/231676/06-Identifying_stakeholder_types.pdf
Understanding a Salience Model in Project Stakeholder Management, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.rosemet.com/salience-model/
Your Guide to Stakeholder Analysis Matrix: Master Project ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.6sigma.us/project-management/stakeholder-analysis-matrix/
Stakeholder Impact Analysis: 5 Case Studies - Tech Leaders, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.technical-leaders.com/post/stakeholder-impact-analysis-5-case-studies
Stakeholder Management Models to Know for Business Ethics and Politics - Fiveable, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/lists/stakeholder-management-models
SAF: Stakeholders' Agreement on Fairness in the Practice of ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10366323/
Balancing Stakeholder Interests: Ethical Considerations in..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://auroratrainingadvantage.com/articles/balancing-stakeholder-interests/
How Slack Communication Tools Are Redefining Team Collaboration, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://dev.to/andrew_morrison_05164d314/how-slack-communication-tools-are-redefining-team-collaboration-1ii9
How Does Effective Communication Impact Project Success? Insights from Experts - Dart AI, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.itsdart.com/blog/how-does-effective-communication-impact-project-success
Jira vs Slack: Which is the right tool for my team? - ProofHub, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.proofhub.com/articles/jira-vs-slack
Slack vs JIRA – The Best Tool for Agile Teams? - Stealth Agents, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://stealthagents.com/slack-vs-jira/
Working in Silos: Ways to Break the Barriers Between Teams | Slack, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://slack.com/blog/collaboration/working-in-silos
Breaking Down Organizational Silos for Better Collaboration | Chronus, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://chronus.com/blog/organizational-silo-busting
When to Use Email vs Chat vs Meeting | Spike, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.spikenow.com/blog/conversational-email/email-vs-chat-vs-video/
Slack vs Email: Which Communication Tool is Best for Your Team?, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://clickup.com/blog/slack-vs-email/
Difference Between Public and Private Channels in Slack? - Wishup, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.wishup.co/blog/what-is-a-slack-channel/
Slack Norms and Guidelines - Internal Communications Resources ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://libguides.mit.edu/c.php?g=713118&p=5503891
Servant Leadership: The Unexpected Ally In High-Pressure Environments - Forbes, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/09/19/servant-leadership-the-unexpected-ally-in-high-pressure-environments/
Best Project Management Communication Tools in 2023: A Comprehensive Ranking, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.berrycast.com/blog/37-project-communication-tools-pm-2023
8 Team Communication Tools For Collaborating On Projects - Filestage, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://filestage.io/blog/team-communication-tools/
Why Project Management Software is the Backbone of Project ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://datafloq.com/read/why-project-management-software-is-the-backbone-of-project-success/
What is Resource Management and Why Is It Important? | Planview, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.planview.com/resources/guide/resource-management-software/resource-management-leverage-people-budgets/
The Value and Impact of Project Dashboards, Infographics, and ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.adaptconsultingcompany.com/2025/01/05/the-value-and-impact-of-project-dashboards-infographics-and-visual-presentations-in-project-management/
Boost Public Trust: The Power of Transparent Dashboards, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.clearpointstrategy.com/blog/why-citizens-want-local-government-public-dashboard
Ethics in Project Management: Integrity and Accountability | IPM, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://instituteprojectmanagement.com/blog/project-management-ethics-importance-of-integrity-and-accountability/
Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability: a Crucial Step - AWorld, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://aworld.org/engagement/stakeholder-engagement-in-sustainability-a-crucial-step/
Enhancing Stakeholder Communication for Project Success - Flowlu, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.flowlu.com/blog/project-management/strategies-to-improve-stakeholder-communication/
The ethics of project management: Making the right decisions PRINCE2 USA, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.prince2.com/usa/blog/the-ethics-of-project-management-making-the-right-decisions
PMI Code of Ethics: The Importance of Ethics in Project Management - Simplilearn.com, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.simplilearn.com/importance-of-ethics-in-project-management-article
15 Strategies For Minimizing Office Politics (Even In Remote Settings) - Forbes, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2022/01/25/15-strategies-for-minimizing-office-politics-even-in-remote-settings/
8 Strategies For Managing Organizational Politics - MyHub Intranet, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.myhubintranet.com/managing-organizational-politics/
A Comparison of the Project Management Methodologies PRINCE2 ..., accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/7/1796
Mastering Organizational Power and Politics: The Four Strategies Every Leader Needs - Wharton Executive Education, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/thought-leadership/wharton-at-work/2018/12/mastering-organizational-power-and-politics/
The “Servant Leader”: Adopting the “We Mindset” - Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/73/the-servant-leader-adopting-the-we-mindset/
A Deep Look into Key Political Risk Strategies - Number Analytics, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/deep-look-key-political-risk-strategies
Political Risk Management: 7 Strategies for Navigating Uncertainty - Quorum, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.quorum.us/blog/political-risk-management/
7 Steps to Build Stakeholder Alignment, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://simplystakeholders.com/stakeholder-alignment/
Challenges with Stakeholder management : r/ProductManagement, accessed on May 25, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/1go1e7g/challenges_with_stakeholder_management/