Companies, institutions, government departments and such comprise of stakeholders who work
\ntogether in a neutral environment. All parties, whether employees, directors, creditors, suppliers,
\ncustomers, competitors, government or the community where the company is based are key in
\ndetermining the progress of any companies. The roles played by each one of them is different.
\nHowever, there is no superior or inferior stakeholder than the other. For instance, employees are
\noperationally based on seeing the daily targets of the company are met. The employer or
\nmanagement is important to supervise employees and supervise all functions of the organization.
\nThe community allows the company to fit itself in the environment.
\nDirectors and shareholders provide capital for a venture into the business and keep check to
\nensure that the company does not deviate from the main agenda of which it was formed.
\nGovernment plays a crucial role in providing security to ensuring the company its advocacy
\nprovided it complies with the regulatory guidelines provided concerning such a venture.
\nCompetitors are also significant to give the business venture competition and keeping its
\nmanagement on the eye. They stimulate the company to maintain the standards and quality of
\ntheir products and service in the attempt to remain relevant in the market. The companies have to
\nkeep watch of any competitive advantage that arises in the adventure so as to protect its position<\/p>\n
in the market. This is the indirect motivation that makes a corporation better off compared to
\nother similar companies in the same industry.
\nOf recent, many companies have recorded declining profit, sales and compromised the quality.
\nThe reason for this is a lack of cooperation among the stakeholder and competition in an attempt
\nto prove one is superior to the other. They fail to realize that they play complementary roles
\ntowards the same company. They also lack a unity of work and a uniting agent.
\nIn my research, I am determined to explore further, the main causes of conflict among
\nstakeholders and possible remedies to these conflicts. What can be done to unite employees and
\nemployer What can be done to convince employees that employer regards them and does not
\nundermine them anyway The employers have dared to do all possible to eradicate the mentality
\nthat employees have towards them. Employees\u2019 inclusion in decision making have to some
\nextent tried to address the concern. also, no much contribution have this remedy yielded. The
\nlevel of dissatisfaction continues to grow even the more. Employees tend to think they are being
\noverworked by being involved in managerial role of decision making.
\nThe community is another subject that is rising claims against the company board of directors.
\nBy the virtue of allowing the company to get roots into their society, they over demand from the
\ndirector. They argue that they have given the company an ample time and space to do business in
\ntheir land and community. For this reason, they demand compensation from the company of
\nwhich the company cannot afford. Though directors try to convince the members to bear with the
\nlittle indirect benefits they get, such as employment of subordinate staff and sponsorship of some
\nactivities in the society such as sport, the tag of war between the stakeholders is not yet settled.<\/p>\n
Not forgetting another stakeholder such as competitors, creditors, suppliers, and government,
\nmuch need to be done to ensure all stakeholders are brought in one pull of commonness and
\nreasonability. The study is designed to come up with a method and recommendations that can be
\napplied to smoothen relationship among the company stakeholders
\nConservatism and Liberalism on the Issue of Abortion
\nConservatism is defined as a political philosophy which favors traditional values such as
\ntraditional culture, religion, nationally acclaimed beliefs, and older customs. The mindset abhors
\npropositions that seek to introduce overwhelming social changes that are meant to alter the
\ncultural and societal code of a people (What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It). On the
\nother hand, liberalism is a political philosophy which pressures the society to embrace liberty
\nand equality oriented policies (Gaus). Liberalism manifest as social\u2014concerned with equality for
\nall and sundry\u2014classical liberalism\u2014concerned with the role the liberty has in the society.
\nSome people believe that if a person is not conservative, they are liberal, that is, they are
\nprogressive. I believe that no person is purely conservative or progressive on all issues. This is
\nbecause, even the most conservative person, they will often be in a situation where they need to
\nobserve a progressive agenda for the sake of convenience as well as social convenience.
\nAdditionally, even the most liberal minded people on earth have various conservative aspects in
\ntheir mind set. As an illustration, the conservative people are usually associated with pro-life
\ncampaigns. The society has an understandable bias that they are they do not tolerate any form of
\nending life for any reason.
\nAdditionally, the conservatives often cite religious books to support their predisposition
\nregarding the unborn (MacInnis et al., 77). On the other hand, the liberal is predominantly<\/p>\n
freedom oriented. They support the freedom to choose whether to bring life to earth. They
\nsupport the freedom to choose whether to add onto themselves the responsibility of caring for
\nanother child. The conservative people hold onto the traditional nuances that every person that
\nundertakes in activities that may bring new life should be willing to bear the consequences of
\ntheir actions. These thinkers do not usually harbor a place for allowing people to let go of the
\nconsequences of choices that were entered into without much awareness of keenness. They are
\nstaunch on their stand that adults should own up to their mistake. The liberals often do not draw
\na line between accidental experiences that may led to such situations (Deak et al., 267). They
\ntend to think that individual freedom should go to extent of deciding the fate of the unborn. Isn\u2019t
\nthis a contradiction As a result, this breeds irresponsibility since there is always the promise of
\nan easy out.
\nI believe that a person should to have to make a decision whether to be pro-life or pro-
\nabortion. This is because the situations that lead to conception are as varied as the reasons that
\neach of the two opposing sides propose for their predispositions. In addition, when a person takes
\neither of the extreme sides, they automatically feel an urge to abhor any ideas that emanate from
\ntheir counterparts. I feel that this works as block to creative ways of solving societal problems.
\nWhat are the consequences of an extreme pro-life campaign in the situations that endanger the
\nchild bearer\u2019s ability to continue the lives as productive citizens of the society What if such
\nfamilies resort to drug abuse and crime as a result of the additional responsibility What if they
\nhave moral convictions that disallow them to try various method of avoiding pregnancy How
\nmuch sexual coercion should be regarded to as unwarranted In the case of a claim of
\nunwarranted sexual engagement, which side of the argument bears more weight in deciding the
\ngrounds upon which a child will be introduced to the society These questions challenge the<\/p>\n
conservative approach regarding the rights (or their lack thereof) regarding the grounds on which
\na pro-life social mindset might introduce to the society.
\nOn the other hand, do liberals really believe that a person has the right to choose whether
\nlife should be eliminated on social and economic grounds When they argue that no person
\nshould be forced to take on responsibilities that they are clearly unwilling to take, do they realize
\nthat some people abuse such rights and go on killing spree Isn\u2019t the argument that every person
\nshould be allowed to make choice regarding their lives contradictory to the termination of
\nanother person\u2019s life I realize that there are no simple answers to these questions and that they
\nare likely to start even bigger debates. However, I feel that these are the questions that each side
\nshould address in deciding whether a strict approach toward the subject is the right way to go. I
\nfeel that a simple answer to the question \u2018are you liberal or conservative on the issue of
\nabortion\u2019, should be avoided. The reason is that each side of argument takes a disheartening
\napproach to the problem.
\nQuestions that divide people based on conservatisms or liberalism should not be posed in
\ntheir simplicity since it is likely to cause more division than unity. To address issues emanating
\nfrom the subject, an intuitive question should be posed instead \u2018what do you think that people
\nwhose religions disallow the use of artificial methods of preventing pregnancy should do if they
\nconceive in situations where it is strenuous or financially impossible to feed another child or take
\ncare of them\u2019 Such a question gets everyone to consider the consequences of the stance that
\nthey take. This happens since various issues are mentioned as part of the question. In addition, it
\nallows the respondent to put themselves in the shoes of the victim of such issues.
\nThe question of abortion is just one out of the many that have separated most nations
\nacross the world, from the west to the east. Others include the right to one\u2019s body, the extent to<\/p>\n
which religious affiliation becomes a coercion more than simply a right and the stance toward
\nmulticulturalism. Being a citizen of my nation, and the world at large, I feel that these questions
\nare often posed inappropriately. They are complex issues and therefore they deserve to be asked
\nin a similar manner, a manner that will ensure that the response will be sufficiently thought
\nthrough.
\nFor one to receive insightful answers, they must ask insightful questions that are not
\ndriven by the usual political correctness, convenience or company agendas. Both conservatives
\nand liberals only hold their strict positions to an extent. A time comes when they question their
\naffiliations when their moral perception can no longer reconcile with their social tags (Sumner).
\nAs a citizen of my country and the world I feel that is about time that the society started asking
\ngenuine questions if genuine answers are what it seeks. Moreover, the current bipartisan
\napproach has clear failed. Most countries have a \u2018pro-this\u2019 and \u2018anti-this\u2019, in nearly every social
\nsubject. The society should get rid of this failed system. That starts with asking the right
\nquestions.
\nWorks Cited<\/p>\n
Deak, Csilla, and Vassilis Saroglou. “Opposing Abortion, Gay Adoption, Euthanasia, and
\nSuicide.” Archive for the Psychology of Religion 37.3 (2015): 267-294.
\nGaus, Gerald, and Shane D. Courtland. “Liberalism”. Plato.stanford.edu. N. p., 1996. Web. 16
\nApr. 2016.
\nMacInnis, Cara C., Mary H. MacLean, and Gordon Hodson. “Does \u201chumanization\u201d of the
\npreborn explain why conservatives (vs. liberals) oppose abortion” Personality and
\nIndividual Differences 59 (2014): 77-82.
\nSumner, Leonard Wayne. Abortion and moral theory. Princeton University Press, 2014.
\n“What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It “. Polaris.gseis.ucla.edu. N. p., 2016. Web.
\n16 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n
*Professor Comment*<\/p>\n
In addition to the rubric, my notes include one or two big things that I think you need to focus on:<\/p>\n
This paper has the best grammar and vocabulary use of any of your papers. The voice is great for a research paper.<\/p>\n
This paper consists of two halves with seem to have nothing to do with each other. The first section of the paper does not speak to the assignment requirements in any way. The second section of the paper begins to address the assignment requirements, but it should consider all groups of people affected by the issue and discuss each group\u2019s perspective in an accurate way. It\u2019s not clear what the thesis of this paper is, although it is clear that the second section at least is about abortion.<\/p>\n
NOTE: I just wanna to edit my papers and i send to you the professor comments that gonna help you to edit it
\nAnd please highlight the things or the sentence that you fix it (Edit).