Learning the art of being a good leader presupposes being able to take the interests of every single stakeholder into account and strive for their satisfaction (Arnold, Beauchamp & Bowie, 2012). However, when it comes to defining the amount of effort that a manager must apply in order to meet the needs and the requirements of the key stakeholders, the necessity to take the company’s priorities, its mission, vision and goals, emerges.
Moreover, with each of the stakeholder pursuing their own goals, it is incredibly hard to maintain the policy of complete satisfaction of the former.
Therefore, it seems that neglecting the company’s mission and objectives for the satisfaction of the stakeholders’ every interest seems somewhat unreasonable; however, a company must comply with the rights of all the parties involved, as well as strive for reasonable compromises, at the same time trying to comply with the existing legal and ethical principles.
On the one hand the idea of striving for meeting the demands of every stakeholder can only be viewed as a positive goal and a decent standard for a company to set. The modern concept of organization management does presuppose that the relationships with the staff and the clients should top the list of the company’s priorities and be spelled out in the organization’s vision and mission statement (Mäntysaari, 2009).
Therefore, it will be quite legitimate to suggest that compromises, which presuppose bending the existing laws and principles to a certain extent, make the basis of good relationships with the company’s stakeholders (Arnold, Beauchamp & Bowie, 2012).
On the other hand, a manager must maintain loyalty to the company, which means that they must comply with the corporate ethical principles, as well as make sure that the organization retains its unblemished reputation. Consequently, making an ethically flawed move in order to keep the customers faithful to the company, as well as satisfy the demands of any other stakeholder, seems a major mistake (Arnold, Beauchamp & Bowie, 2012).
Even though those involved may appreciate the sacrifice, the very fact that the company has made an ethically controversial move is most likely to leave a very ambiguous impression on the stakeholders involved.
No matter what utilitarianism principles a company manager might have been guided by when making an ethically controversial choice, the fact that they still made it invites the question whether the organization will stay loyal to the parties involved.
Indeed, there may come the point, at which the company may break the existing legal or ethical norms for the sake of meeting the demands for even more valuable stakeholders; therefore, Freeman’s assumption seems somewhat questionable.
Even though the idea of sacrificing the company’s interests for the sake of satisfying the needs of every stakeholder involved might seem a good strategy for attracting new customers, partners and competent staff, an organization must still keep its key priorities in mind; otherwise, it will soon face its untimely demise.
True, it is essential to make sure that the key stakeholders’ rights are not infringed and that their freedoms are not violated; more to the point, it is crucial that the demands of the company’s stakeholders, including its clientele, partners, as well as the staff members.
Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of a company manager to maintain balance between providing each of the stakeholders with the required services and meeting the needs of the organization.
Reference List
Arnold, D. G., Beauchamp, T. L. & Bowie, N. L. (2012). Ethical theory and business (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Mäntysaari, P. (2009). The law of corporate finance: General principles and EU law. Volume I: Cash flow, risk, agency, information. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.