Custom Writing Service Law Paper on Gary

Gary

An important consideration of the stakeholder theory stipulates that managers should structure their operations in such a way that stakeholders’ needs are realized as well as a number of organizational objectives like shareholder wealth maximization. At the center of the theory is the issue of morals and values as tool for running organizations. Therefore managing for stakeholders goes beyond the general realm of wealth maximization. This is a view that Freeman advocates. Since the shareholder interests are at the center of this theory, rules and general practices can be altered in order to cater for their interests. The procedures to change the law should however be within the law (Freeman 480).

However, this paper seeks to give a divergent view on the perspectives presented by Freeman. The author contends that laws should be broken, and in the case that they do not conform to stakeholders’ expectations due to evolution they should be altered to suit their needs. This approach raises the question of consistency and a general benchmark for conducting organizational engagements. Since the managers are acting on behalf of the stakeholders for instance shareholders, they may alter rules of business to protect their own selfish interests. They will put up a front which portrays that their principal concern is to achieve value for their shareholders. This might not be the case. An avenue for managerial opportunism is created where an organization acts within the confines of the concept of stakeholder theory. The organization’s trade, plan and policies, processes, culture, and goods may be modified over time. The one thing that should not be modified is core ideology (Collins and Porras 4)

Imperatively, since the managers are also stakeholders of the organization they can endeavor to engage in business activities that maximize their value as stakeholders. It therefore renders the application of this concept ambiguous and subject to various interpretations.

Moreover, the approach justifies the altering of the law to suit the stakeholders’ interest. However, a question is posed on who the genuine stakeholders that should be involved in the decision to make these alterations. Do these decisions to change the law represent the view of all stakeholders (Not only the Managers)? These provisions seconded by the author create an opportunity for malicious undertakings by the designated members involved in decision making.

In retrospect, the arguments forwarded by the author are flawed. When rules of general organizational practices are subject to variations to suit stakeholders, a number of malicious interests may occur. Managers being part of the stakeholders and also decision makers may alter rules in their own favor while purporting to act in favor of other stakeholders.

Works Cited

Collins, James Charles, and Jerry I. Porras. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. Random House, 2005. Print

Phillips, Robert, R. Edward Freeman, and Andrew C. Wicks. “What stakeholder theory is not.” Business Ethics Quarterly (2003): 479-502. Print