Freeman vs Friedman

Edward Freemans Managing for stakeholders was an raise selection which clearly defined several(prenominal) possible stakeholders for a vexation, primary and secondary, and how primal each one is to the survival of the pipeline as is the survival of the business to their survival. Customers, bankers, financiers, employees, and suppliers atomic number 18 all stakeholders. The selection stressed how strategic it was for the executive of a given plenty to have the skill set to oversee the relationship between the stakeholders and the corporation to render value for all over time.My separate(prenominal) reaction to the phrase was a affirmatory one in the sense that it was a clear message and made sense. However, I feel the article was repetitive and a little too drawn out. I realize the importance of the examples and the different perspectives of managing stakeholders and position yourself in their position. I learned a lot from this article, but it became tedious in the las t seven pages. Milton Friedmans article went into grave detail the neighborly responsibilities of an individual vs. he social responsibilities of a business. He also explained the duties of the businessman legislator, executive, and the jurist. He couldnt understand how some businessman could be so clear headed regarding matters internal to their business but so muddle headed in matters outside their business in matters vital to their businesss survival. According to Friedman, there is one social responsibility for a business engage in free and free competition without deception or fraud. My personal reaction to this article was that it was in truth difficult to read and comprehend. I had to read the article and several sections of it several quantify to figure out what Friedman was trying to convey. I agree with Friedmans one social responsibility for a business. However, when compared to Freemans article, his message was much clearer and defined interrupt than Friedmans.