Identifying those on board 'the moving train': Towards a stakeholder-focused methodology for organizational decision making

Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 41-53

  Simmons, John ^a   Iles, Paul ^b   Volles, Maurice ^a  

^a LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Teesside   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Organizational justice; Performance management; Soft systems methodology; Stakeholder analysis

Indexed keywords

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE; PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT; SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS;

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PERSONNEL; PROBLEM SOLVING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 13244292403     PISSN: 10927026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sres.600     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ahmed S. 1999. The emerging measure of effectiveness for human resource management. Journal of Management Development 18(6): 543-556.
2. Andrews MC, Kacmar KM. 2001. Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(4): 347-366.
3. Atkinson C, Eldabi T, Reid RJ, Pouloudi A. 2002. Integrated approaches to health infomatics research and development. Logistics Information Management 15(2): 138-152.
4. Banathy BH. 1996. Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. Plenum: New York.
5. Banville C, Landry M, Martel J-M, Boulaire C. 1998. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 15: 15-32.
6. Bartunek JM, Seo M. 2002. Qualitative research can add new meanings to quantitative research. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 23: 237-242.
7. Bathmaker S. 1999. So what's the deal? The state of the psychological contract in a 'new' university. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 51(2): 265-281.
8. Bergvall-Kareborn B. 2002. Enriching the model building phase of soft systems methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 19: 27-48.
9. Brown SM. 1999. A systemic perspective on higher education in the United Kingdom. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 16: 157-169.
10. Burgoyne J. 1995. Stakeholder analysis. In Qualitative Research Methods in Organizational Research, Cassell C, Symon G (eds). Sage: London; 167-187.
11. Bussell H. 2000. Review of Symon G, Cassell C. Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide. The Learning Organisation 7(3): 169-170.
12. Checkland P, Scholes J. 2001. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley: Chichester.
13. Donaldson T, Preston LE. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 75-91.
14. Fisher CM. 1994. The differences between appraisal schemes: variation and acceptability. Part I. Personnel Review 23(8): 33-48.
15. Fisher CM. 1995. The differences between appraisal schemes: variation and acceptability. Part II. Personnel Review 24(1): 54-66.
16. Freeman E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: London.
17. Friedman AI, Miles S. 2002. Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies 39(1): 1-21.
18. Frooman J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 191-205.
19. Harrison IH. 1994. Diagnosing Organizations: Methods, Models and Processes, 2nd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
20. Harrison JS, Freeman E. 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance. Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 479-485.
21. lies PA. 2001. Employee resourcing. In HRM: A Critical Text (2nd edn), Storey J (ed.). Blackwell: London; 133-164.
22. Introna LD, Pouloudi A. 1999. Privacy in an information age: stakeholders, interests and values. Journal of Business Ethics 22: 27-38.
23. Jones TM, Wicks AC. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(20): 206-221.
24. Landry M, Malouin J-L. 1983. Pour une meilleure utilisation des experts-conseils en administration. Gestion 8(2): 4-11. Cited in Banville et al. (1998, p. 19).
25. Larsson NO. 2001. A design view on research in social sciences. Systemic Practice and Action Research 14(4): 383-405.
26. Ledington PWJ, Ledington J. 1999. The problem of comparison in soft systems methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 16: 329-339.
27. Lemons MA, Jones CA. 2000. Procedural justice in promotion decisions: using perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology 16(4): 268-280.
28. Middlewood D, Cardno C (eds). 2001. Managing Teacher Appraisal and Performance. Routledge-Falmer: London.
29. Mingers J. 1980. Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 7: 41-49.
30. Mingers J. 2000. An idea ahead of its time: the history and development of soft systems methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research 13(6): 733-751.
31. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood D. 1997. Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853-886.
32. Payne SL, Calton JM. 2002. Towards a managerial practice of stakeholder engagement: developing multi-stakeholder learning dialogues. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 6: 36-51.
33. Pettijohn LS, Parker S, Pettijohn CE, Kent JL. 2001. Performance appraisals: usage, criteria and observations. Journal of Management Development 20(9): 754-771.
34. Purcell J. 1999. Best practice or best fit: chimera or cul-de-sac? Human Resource Management Journal 9(3): 26-41.
35. Rose J. 1997. Soft systems methodology as a social science research tool. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 14(4): 249-258.
36. Simmons JA. 2002. Learning the lessons of history? Expert witness contributions to the future of performance appraisal in UK universities. Employee Relations Review 20: 10-17.
37. Simmons JA, Iles P. 2001. Performance appraisal in knowledge based organisations: implications for management education. International Journal of Management Education 2(1): 3-18.
38. Steensma H, Otto I. 2000. Perceptions of performance appraisal by employees and supervisors: self serving bias and procedural justice. Journal of Collective Negotiations 29(4): 307-319.
39. Stoney C, Winstanley D. 2001. Stakeholding: confusion or utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies 38(5): 603-626.
40. Takala M, Hawk D, Rammos Y. 2001. On the opening of society: towards a more open and flexible education system. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 8: 291-306.
41. Taylor MS, Masterson SS, Renard MK, Tracy KB. 1998. Managers' reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Journal 41(5): 568-579.
42. Truxillo DM, Bauer TN, Sanchez RJ. 2001. Multiple dimensions of procedural justice: longitudinal effects on selection system fairness and test-taking self efficacy. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9(4): 336-349.
43. White L. 2001. Effective governance through complexity thinking and management science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 18: 241-257.
44. Williams RS. 2002. Managing Employee Performance. Thomson Learning: London.
45. Wilson B. 2001. Soft Systems Methodology. Wiley: Chichester.
46. Winstanley D, Stuart-Smith K. 1996. Policing performance: the ethics of performance management. Personnel Review 25: 66-84.
47. Yolles M. 1999. Management Systems: A Viable Approach. Financial Times-Pitman: London.