Get help from the best in academic writing.

Credit Crunch 1 CREDIT CRUNCH Name Institution Professor (Tutor) Course City/State Date Gcse History Essay Help


PH Communications and Advocacy asignment my essay help uk: my essay help uk  
hi dear,
can help me to finish this assignment with good quality and be on time please?
Please follow the instructor carefully. Its 2 different discussions and respond to each discussion separate.
You are expected to post a primary response to the discussion topic. All posts should address the discussion topic/question, add to the discussion, and/or encourage others to respond. Facts and claims MUST be supported with APA format citations and references. Use personal experience, course resources such as textbook and additional readings, library references and resources, and well-reputed internet sources, which includes reputable media sources, as well as scholarly sources. Your primary response to the topic/questions posed should be 2 -3 paragraphs, and be thoughtful, well-written, and include appropriate APA in-text citation(s) and reference(s) when appropriate.
Discussion Board # 1: Review a Legislative Session 
Becoming familiar with the legislative process is an important skill for public health advocacy, prevention, and policy. Review the Senate Floor session for March 10th 2016: The session is 1 hour 46 minutes in length. Please review it in its entirety.
The session video should be opened using Google Chrome or Firefox (Internet Explorer will not work effectively for this video) 
The California Legislature passed a set of landmark public health bills:
· SBX2-5 Electronic cigarettes (Leno)
· SBX2-7 Tobacco products: minimum legal age (Hernandez)
· ABX2-7 Smoking in the workplace (Mark Stone)
· ABX2-9 Tobacco use programs (Thurmond)
· ABX2-10 Local taxes: authorization: cigarettes and tobacco products (Bloom)
· ABX2-11 Cigarette and tobacco product licensing: fees and funding (Nazarian)
Each bill that was passed that day has the potential to impact improvements in public health. 
· Research two bills above that particularly interest you.
o Then, share two specific facts you learned about the two bills you researched (one fact each).
· Next, share one piece of information you learned about the remaining FOUR bills (not the two from the bullet above) connected to the legislative process, advocacy, policy solutions, etc while reviewing the session. Try your best to link (describe) the information you learned to Chapter 1, 2, or 17. 
· You are required to use at least TWO sources from the textbook, government reports, peer-reviewed journal articles or textbooks. Use your OWN WORDS (e.g., do not cut and paste from a government report or article). 
·  Paraphrase (use your own words) to report the information.
· Include APA formatted in-text citations to identify your sources AND include full APA formatted references for your sources at the end of your post.
o Purdue OWL APA Guide
Discussion Board # 2
Coalitions and Public Health
Public health issues are broad and complex and often too difficult to solve with the efforts of one organization. Forming a group of individuals and organizations into a coalition which address and attempt to solve these issues can be an effective strategy. Often, advocacy efforts and development of or changing policy or programs is the end result. Coalitions can:
· Advocate for community environment and policies that support heart health.
· Ensure that community heart disease and stroke prevention approaches and materials are culturally sensitive for targeted audiences (because the coalition members themselves represent the community).
· Propel a strategic and concerted resolution of the problem.
To answer the prompts below review this document: Kansas University Toolbox Ch. 5 Starting a Coalition 
· Describe what a coalition is and three common goals/elements that they focus upon.
· Describe the three most essential types of members that form a coalition.
· Using the internet, locate a coalition that focuses on the issue of tobacco use or nutrition. Tell your colleagues the: 1) name of the coalition and 2) the main goal/purpose 3) List three participating members of the coalition. Hint: Try your best not to duplicate a coalition that your colleagues posted 


Author Guidelines And Benefit To Practice essay help us Select a journal in which you would be interested in having your research published. Review the author guidelines on the Journal for Nurse Practitioners (JNP) website and answer the following questions. How could author guidelines be beneficial to your practice? 1 page, APA, 2 sources.


Speaking on Special Occasions Essay personal essay help: personal essay help Imagine that, over the weekend, you attended a coworker’s birthday party. During the birthday celebration, your coworker delivered speech. Which one of the aspects of the speech most appealed to you?

Introduction and conclusion.
Use of direct quotes.

Provide a thorough explanation for your choice. The following is your coworker’s speech.
“I would like to first start by thanking my family, friends, and colleagues who have honored me with their presence today. Over the years, I have learned that there is no specific formula for a long and prosperous life. However, I will share a few of the principles I live by and have found valuable.

“Success is not final; failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts.” —Winston S. Churchill (1)
“To be gritty is to keep putting one foot in front of the other. To be gritty is to hold fast to an interesting and purposeful goal. To be gritty is to invest, day after week after year, in challenging practice. To be gritty is to fall down seven times, and rise eight.” —Angela Lee Duckworth (2)
“Always be nice to the people you meet on your way up in life as you may meet them again on the way down.” —Jimmy Durante (3)
“When you come to a fork in the road, take it!” —Yogi Berra (4)

“I hope these words of wisdom help you create lives filled with peace, love, and joy. Thank you all for coming to celebrate my special day, and I look forward to our next celebration!”


The influence of Social Network Theory free college essay helpReflect on a personal experience that involves the influence of Social Network Theory on a personal health behavior. How are your experiences similar or different than those of your classmates?
Need answer asap


Work, social well being and policy homework essay helpFor this Social Problem Overview & Social Policy Identification assignment

discuss a specific topic within the social problem that you have chosen to focus on;
conduct research on the identified social problem using recent news articles, government documents, policy briefs, etc.;
select a social policy that addresses the identified social issue.

The social policy could be at the federal, state or local level and the policy could be current, recently passed or recently proposed.
Because the assignment requires you to assess the impact on employers and employees the policy you select must have relevance to workplaces. (i.e. minimal wage laws will require businesses to increase minimum wage).
For this assignment you are only identifying policy and noting the objectives of the policy; a brief on this policy will done in the next assignment.

prepare a 6-8 page double-spaced paper that uses the outline below to
1) describe and discuss the overall social problem and 2) identify one public policy that addresses the issue.

The social problem overview and policy identification paper will have two parts:
1. Social problem overview:

Identify the social problem

discuss: what is the problem?
explain: how is the social problem defined?
describe: what is the scope of the problem?
discuss: who defines the problem?
discuss: what underlying causes or factors contribute to the social problem?
describe: how does this problem affect working age adults and/or working families?

Identify the Goal:

What is the general goal? (how is progress made to address this social problem?)
Are their sub-goals? (consider sub goals or mini goals that need to be met in order to reach the general goal)
Do sub-goals conflict? (what challenges come up in meeting the goals?)

2. Policy Identification:

Identify one public policy that address your identified social problem. Your policy may be existing legislation, a recently introduced bill that addresses the problem, or pending legislation.

Briefly, what are the objectives of the policies?


Moral reasoning and Feelings essay help app: essay help appAfter reading all of Chapter 3, please utilize the ideas, concepts, and information in the chapter to answer the following question in 250-500 words:

If moral reasoning is largely about providing good reasons for moral claims, where do feelings enter the picture? Is it possible to present a logical argument that you feel strongly about? If so, provide an example of such an argument.


Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak . professional essay help 
As an epidemiologist investigating a Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak, you have been tasked with developing an eight to ten item questionnaire to investigate the situation. You will also write a brief report that explains the questionnaire.
Your report should address the following:

An explanation of your questionnaire

Why you selected the questions you used on your questionnaire – in other words, why the questions are important to your investigation, and what information you hope to uncover
The target audience of the questionnaire (i.e., the respondents), and why you chose them
The location of the target audience
How you will distribute the questionnaire.
Be sure to include general and specific information you would need to know from those you are interviewing.

Your questionnaire and paper should meet the following structural requirements:

The questionnaire should consist of eight to ten questions.
The paper should be at least two pages in length, not including the cover sheet, reference page, and questionnaire pages.
Formatted according to writing standards.
Provide support for your statements with in-text citations from a minimum of four scholarly articles. Two of these sources may be from the class readings, textbook, or lectures, but two must be external.
No plagiarism.


Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals college admissions essay help: college admissions essay helpAfter reading all of Chapter 6, write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.
“Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant (starting on page 146)


Sex in the Virtual Space Discussion summary and response essay help: summary and response essay helpHere is your chance to discuss sexuality in modern society.  Using the resources in the module, discuss how you believe sex and sexuality could change (if at all) in the coming decades.
Some possible questions to consider:
Does the virtual space change questions of fidelity?
Can virtual relationships replace physical connections?
How much of who we are lies in the brain versus the body?
Is cyber sex.. sex?
How does a virtual society modify gender norms, if at all?
Feel free to really explore your own thoughts using all you’ve learned throughout the semester.  I am interested to see what you come up with!


IIRP Tips on Writing Reflection Papers writing an essay helpIIRP Tips on Writing Reflection Papers
A reflection paper is not a summary of the course readings or a stream of conscious mind dump on paper.
Main themes Readings
Effects on: Thinking Practice
Classroom Experience
1. As the diagram suggests, a reflection paper is your identification of the main themes of the readings integrated with your classroom experience and how both affect your thinking and practice.
2. A reflection paper is your chance to add your thoughts and analysis to what you have read and experienced.
3. A reflection paper is meant to illustrate your understanding of the material and how it affects your ideas and possible practice in future.
4. Begin by jotting down some of the reading material and class experiences that stand out in your mind. Decide why they stand out to you.
5. It may be helpful to use the restorative questions to generate some of your thoughts and feelings about the course experience.
6. Using the first person singular (“I”), relate the readings and classes to your previous knowledge and experience.
7. Consider if and how what you have read and learned changes your thinking and might affect your practice in both personal and professional situations.
8. Review the readings and class notes to be sure you’ve included all the relevant information you can and made all the connections you can.
9. Give your reflection paper structure with an opening paragraph, main body, and conclusion.
10. It may be helpful to write the body of the paper first by using Steps 4-7, and then decide what your opening paragraph should say. The opening paragraph may be brief, only a sentence or two, but it should offer some overall statement of your perspective based on what you’ve learned (e.g., Before I read the articles for YC/ED 501, I had never considered that I was an authoritative supervisor, that is, someone who gives my staff firm direction but little support.). Then you could go on to describe which readings or class experiences affected your thinking and why. You could disagree with some of the readings or ideas. The conclusion of
your reflection may also be brief (e.g., I realize that I must learn how to be more supportive to get the best from my staff.). Or it could be uncertain (e.g., I don’t agree with everything I learned but I am going to consider using some of the practices in future to see if they change my office environment.).
11. Include in-text references and a reference page for any materials you cite using APA citation formatting.


Ramifications of scarce resources in a pandemic melbourne essay help: melbourne essay helpConsidering the serious ramifications of scarce resources in a pandemic there remains an ethical responsibility on healthcare leadership to ensure preparedness of decision making to accommodate for scarce resources in a disaster. What type of guidance would your selected theorists provide to healthcare organizations, staff and other key stakeholders within the organization and outside of the organization as it relates to the public, so they understand what and how decisions are made.
Your target audience can be within the organization for staff or outside the organization as a public press release. The explanation must show how decisions are formed by ethical principles and will be implemented for patients where there are limited resources.
Select one of the scenarios on which to base your response. 

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, hospitals have spent significant time coupled with medical teams, addressing financial concerns, medicine shortages, and equipment (ventilators) to evaluate capacity and capable preparedness to respond to this outbreak.

Organize your submission as follows:

Video should refer to two selected theorists and how they would respond to the scenario, including details regarding their theories and their contributions to the field of healthcare
Give at least one example (per selected theorist) of how you will apply their teachings to the selected scenario.
Include three (3) academic references following APA citation style, that support your conclusions.
Ensure that your viewpoint and purpose are clearly established.
Ensure your video has good delivery techniques, including word choice and oral expressiveness, business attire, exceptional content displayed, organization, and style, while leading the audience to a dynamic and supported conclusion.



Critical Thinking Paper assignment common app essay help 
Paper should be 2 Pages. 
Please include references.
Make sure to answer the questions.
Please follow the format instructions.
Below I have attached the Story & Questions. 
Also is a file on how the format should look.
Critical Thinking Case study: Assessment Profile for the ARC
Scenario: Security at All Pine Medical Center
All Pine Medical Center is a 250 bed trauma hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. All Pine is a Joint Commission approved Medicare, Medicaid facility and houses a separate large inpatient, outpatient cardiology building adjacent to the main hospital. Palmer Cardiology Associates manages the cardiology center with Dr. Robert Palmer as the medical director. Dr. Palmer’s group has been affiliated with All Pine Medical Center for the past fifteen years and generates a vast amount of revenue for the facility.
Ten months ago, All Pine moved totally away from paper medical records and implemented an electronic health record (EHR) system. The move was completed in two phases over an eighteen month time span. Dr. Palmer’s group was ecstatic about the move to an EHR and was fully onboard with the change. Today, Dr. Palmer and his colleagues are frustrated over all of the security features associated with All Pine Medical Center’s new EHR. Dr. Palmer wants some of the security features disabled so he can get faster access to his patient’s data and not be limited on the time spent with a patient’s record. The current process in place for all physician’s and hospital employees is to first log on to All Pine Medical Center’s main system with a user name (assigned by the hospital IT department) and password (selected by the physician or employee); second, then log on to the electronic health record using the main user name but a different password along with an access code (again assigned by the hospital IT department).
Dr. Palmer and his associates want to sign on one time and access anything they want within the main system and electronic health record for as long as they want. He has assured the hospital risk management and health information management departments his group will sign off once they have completed what they needed to do or access in the patient record.
Due to the State and Federal rules and regulations in regards to confidentiality and security of patient health information, the health information management department is at a loss as to how to accommodate Dr. Palmer’s request. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of All Pine have said, “Just make him happy”. The health information management director along with risk management, quality assurance, and the facilities IT department have formed a task force to find a way to modify Dr. Palmer and his groups access to the hospital’s main system and the EHR. The task force has reviewed the following documents for guidance on confidentiality and security of patient health information.
The task force reviewed:
1. Internal policy and procedures on confidentiality, security, and access to patient health records.
2. Joint Commission Accreditation rules and regulations for confidentiality, security, and access to patient health records.
3. HIPAA rules and regulations on confidentiality, security, and access to patient health records.
They are at a standstill on a concrete resolution for Dr. Palmer’s request.

Analysis: Compare & contrast the available solutions within the scenario . Scenario: Security at All Pine Medical Center.


a. Identify 2 – 3 possible solutions for the issue and/or problem.
b. Compare and contrast the pros and cons for each solution.
c.  Choose one solution you believe is the best one for addressing/solving the issue and or problem.


Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire ccusa autobiographical essay help1. Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire-The Par-Q. This is a standard form used by Fitness Professionals to gather information about your readiness for exercise.
2. Submit the paragraph ONLY. You do NOT need to submit the Questionnaire. 
3.Using a Word Document OR Pdf, write and submit a FULL PARAGRAPH of 150 words to summarize your overall health at this point in time.

In your paragraph include: Why you have given your responses based on your answers .
Do you think you need to see a physician before participating in an exercise program?  
Evaluate if you are generally healthy enough to start an exercise program, and if not, explain why.



Analyzing a common chronic respiratory illness my assignment essay help: my assignment essay helpCASE STUDY 2- Reflecting on week 3’s lessons in the syllabus , select a patient population (pediatric, young adult, adult or geriatric), and briefly analyze a common chronic respiratory illness (there are several to choose from), that may affect this population. Briefly tell how it impacts the patient’s quality of life and analyze the current research evidence on this topic and gold standard of care if any for your chosen population. (You may use an example from your clinical rotation (past or present) that you have encountered). Describe how you, the FNP, can/or have made a difference in the care of patients with this specific disease and tell of one specific patient care teaching that he/she may do to help minimize disease symptoms. Please be sure to read and respond/comment on one of your colleagues posting. (Due 02/1/19. )


Self Review Questionnaire Assignment law essay help

Self Review Questionnaire


1. Is a simple, clear visual aid presented with the speech? Is it used effectively? If not, note those problems here.


2. Does the speech introduction gain the attention and interest of listeners? Does it preview the main points of the speech? If not, describe how the introduction could be improved.


3. Does the speech cite at least two credible sources that support the main points? If not, note those problems here.


4. Are one or more methods of persuasion used? Are they used effectively? If not, note those problems here.


5. Does the speech conclusion reinforce the central idea and use a strong closing? If not, describe how the conclusion could be improved.


6. Is the speech well organized? Does it follow a logical structure? If not, how could the speech organization be improved?


7. Does the speech meet the time requirement set by the assignment details? If not, what could have been done differently to meet the time requirement?


8. Is the speech delivered with strong eye contact, an expressive voice, and good nonverbal communication (including gestures or other physical movements)? If so, celebrate it here. If not, describe what changes could be made in future speeches to improve the delivery.


9. How clear and consistent is the speech quality? How clear and consistent is the visual quality of the speech? Note any problems here.


10. Overall, how effective is the speech? Does it connect well with the audience and achieve its purpose? Why or why not?


11. Add any additional comments here:


Discussion on Social Development persuasive essay help: persuasive essay helpIn an essay of 1500-1750, summarize your findings by addressing the following main points of each resource you selected. You will repeat this sequence for each resource. The word count is for the total essay, not each resource.
• Who was the focus of the resource (e.g., first graders? parents? etc.)?• What was the resource discussing? What did it suggest? What were the findings?• Where was the context (learning environment? grade level? home? etc.)?• Why is this important to the field of early childhood learning environments? Be specific in explaining the connections of your resource to the course materials and topic for this week.• How will it help you as an early childhood professional in the learning environment? List at least two things you will do in the learning environment as a result of the information you learned from the resource.
Be sure to include references and weblinks to the three resources you chose. Your essay should be 1500-1750 words and should include at least three (3) citations. The sections should be clearly marked with headings so that your instructor knows which points you are addressing. Follow the guidelines for APA writing style. The title page and references page so not count towards the minimum word amount for this assignment.


Situational Leadership Discussion cheap essay help: cheap essay helpCMST 439 Leadership and Strategic Communication 
Textbook: The Leadership Challenge by Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner
Discussion post: Situational Leadership Specific D1,2,3,4 post
· Speak to Situational Leadership.
· Talk about a time that you have observed a person who was a D1, D2, D3, OR D4 on a task.
· What is the goal?
· Why are they a D1, D2, D3, OR D4?
· What do they need from their leader?


Problem solving and group decision making essay help freeFor this week’s discussions, post your responses to both questions below.
1.  In our readings this week, we learned about problem solving and group decision making. Decision-making involves the process of “generating options and then choosing among them.” Decision-making and problem-solving are similar but not identical processes, and they often take place during team meetings. As your response to this topic, discuss one of the following:
A. What approach would you use with your team to make a simple decision?
B. What approach would you suggest your team use to make more complex decisions that could impact project success?
C. Discuss the extra challenges associated with group decision-making and problem-solving for a totally virtual team.
2. Realities such as power, personal preferences, and negative politics can be used by group members to derail the effectiveness of a group’s problem-solving meeting. Explain the role for one of the following in mitigating these problem-solving realities:
A) the project manager
B) the meeting agenda
C) effective meeting procedures
Support your response with appropriate resources and/or professional experiences.


Explanation of theoretical concepts and relations essay help cheap: essay help cheapthe total number of words of this assignment, excluding references, is no more than 600 words.
Link your answers explicitly to the different questions, but do not repeat the questions.
Your answers should draw on and refer to the required readings of the relevant session.
Full references of sources used are to be mentioned in a reference list at the end of your assignment.
the following criteria:
a) explanation of relevant theoretical concepts and relations;
b) correct application of theoretical insights;
c) completeness of your answers; and
d) concision of your answers (i.e. being to-the-point).
There are different ways of identifying corporate stakeholders.
a. How do the different enterprise logics identified by Crilly and Sloan (2012) relate to the financial returns to stakeholder engagement in Henisz, Dorobantu, and Nartey (2014), and why?
b. In what two respects do the stakeholder identification by Crilly and Sloan (2012) differ from the stakeholder identification by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997), and why?
Which two insights from each of three readings for this session are particularly useful for firms seeking to engage their stakeholders, and why?
Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) identify three attributes for establishing stakeholder salience.
Esposito, Tse, and Soufani (2018) compare the linear economy to the circular economy.
a. What three stakeholders are more salient in the circular economy, and why?
b. Based on the attributes by Mitchell and coauthors, what are three difficulties to effectively engage these more salient stakeholders, and why?


Stakeholder Identification and Salience buy argumentative essay helpA ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status
Elise Perrault1
Received: 6 April 2015 / Accepted: 26 October 2015 / Published online: 29 October 2015
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Despite its increasing popularity across manage-
ment disciplines, stakeholder theory holds an important
shortcoming in terms of its guidance for understanding the
heterogeneity of stakeholder interests, claims, and behavior
toward firms. Specifically, scholars note the inadequacy of
generic categories of stakeholders (e.g., customers, employ-
ees, shareholders, and suppliers) in providing a realistic por-
trait of the groups and individuals that interact with the firm,
opening the theory to much criticism for a ‘simplistic’ and
‘meaningless’ stakeholder concept. In face of this challenge,
recent research is pointing to social identity as a mechanism to
refine our understanding of stakeholders as names-and-faces,
however we argue that despite the advancements offered by
the social identity approach, it too presents limitations in its
ability to guide managers in prioritizing stakeholder claims.
Building onthese nascent efforts to offer much needed nuance
to a theory of stakeholder identification and prioritization, this
paper draws from new advances in the management literature
and offers status as an attribute that helps explain and predict
how managers accord attention to their various constituents.
We set forth five propositions connecting stakeholder status to
the attention stakeholders receive from managers. We argue
that status is a superior attribute of stakeholder identification
and prioritization because it (1) accounts for groups and
individuals’ uniqueness within broad categories of stake-
holders in a dynamic way, (2) reconciles the dual nature of
stakeholders as holding simultaneously a social and an eco-
nomic identity in their claim toward the firm, and (3) provides
a plausible explanation of, and intuitive guidance to, how
managers accord attention to their firm’s stakeholders.
Implications and future directions for research complete this
Keywords Stakeholder theory � Stakeholder management � Social identity � Stakeholder identification � Status
Stakeholder theory proposes that firms are most successful
when they address the interests of their various constituents
(Freeman 2004; Freeman et al. 2010). In this view, not all
stakeholders are of equal importance to managers (Don-
aldson and Preston 1995; Gioia 1999; Phillips et al. 2003).
Indeed, while some deserve greater attention or priority in
managers’ agenda because of their important contribution
to the firm’s success (Harrison et al. 2010), others demand
attention by attempting to delegitimize some of the firm’s
practices that go against their interests (Mitchell et al.
1997) or by threatening the firm’s continued success
through activist tactics (den Hond and de Bakker 2007).
However, if firms are to successfully manage their stake-
holders, they must first be able to identify them. Thus, at
the core of stakeholder theory is the ‘problem’ of stake-
holder identification that is, the need to have guidelines or
principles that help identify who are the firm’s relevant
stakeholders, what are their interests, and what is the basis
of their claim toward the firm.
To this point, stakeholder theorists (Agle et al. 1999;
Berman et al. 1999; Clarkson 1995; Freeman et al. 2010;
Griffin and Mahon 1997) observe the inadequacy of
stakeholder research’s tradition to identify stakeholders
based on the generic categories of customers, employees,
& Elise Perrault [email protected]
1 College of Charleston, 66 George St, B-328, Charleston,
SC 29420, USA
J Bus Ethics (2017) 146:25–38
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2929-1
suppliers, shareholders and the community, or those that
slice and dice stakeholders broadly based on their role
toward the firm (e.g., market/non market, etc.). These
typologies are problematic because they omit to consider
how groups form, coalesce, and mobilize in pressing their
interests to the firm (Wolfe and Putler 2002), which pro-
vides valuable insight as to how managers must address
their interests to successfully coopt these stakeholders’
support (Waldron et al. 2013). It also fails to account for
stakeholders who span several categories (e.g., employees
who are also shareholders and/or customers), and for
stakeholders who—with the same social identity—migrate
from one economic category to another (Crane and Rue-
bottom 2011; McVea and Freeman 2005).
In face of this challenge, scholars have suggested to rely
on a ‘names-and-faces approach’ to stakeholder identifi-
cation (McVea and Freeman 2005). However, this
approach was originally set forth in the context of entre-
preneurial ventures, where the focus is explicitly on the
creation of new goods and services and where a relatively
small number of stakeholders are more closely intertwined
(Jawahar and McLaughlin 2001). While an entrepreneurial
focus applies in some ways to large corporations—because
fast-paced technology developments demand and foster the
creation of new products and services, for example—it is
unclear how a ‘names-and-faces approach’ that relies on
the personal knowledge of individuals with a unique value
proposition to realize with the firm can be integrated in
large corporations’ management practices.
Building on this commentary, scholars have recently
turned to social identity as a basis for stakeholder identi-
fication (e.g., Crane and Ruebottom 2011). This approach
appears promising for several reasons, however it also
holds shortcomings that restrict its applicability in reality.
Most notably, a social identity typology rests on the self-
descriptions that stakeholders develop because of how they
perceive themselves, which may—and likely—differ from
the way in which managers view stakeholders. Thus, it
proposes an answer to the problem of stakeholder identi-
fication that lies with individual stakeholder groups—
which comes at odds with the bulk of the stakeholder lit-
erature that recognizes the importance of managerial per-
ceptions of stakeholders on their firm’s interaction (Bundy
et al. 2013; Mitchell et al. 1997; Waldron et al. 2013).
The present paper returns to this paradigm where, to
understand how managers perceive and respond to their
stakeholders, a theory of stakeholder identification must
rest in managerial perceptions of stakeholders (Agle et al.
1999; Mitchell et al. 1997; Parent and Deephouse 2007).
Merging the idea of a ‘names-and-faces approach’ with
previous efforts to conceptualize the identification and
prioritization of stakeholders by managers, we recognize
that such a typology must accomplish at least three things:
(1) account for groups and individuals’ uniqueness within
broad categories of stakeholders in a dynamic way, (2)
recognize the dual nature of stakeholders as holding
simultaneously a social and an economic identity in their
claim toward the firm, and (3) provide a plausible expla-
nation of, and intuitive guidance to, how managers accord
attention to their firm’s stakeholders. After selectively
reviewing the literature on stakeholder identification and
salience, we draw from new advances in the management
literature to offer status as an attribute that transcends
generic stakeholder categories and enables managers to
perceive their stakeholders specifically—as ‘‘real people
with names and faces’’ (McVea and Freeman 2005).
Status is just beginning to emerge as an attribute that
explains previously elusive management phenomena
(Pearce 2011; Piazza and Castellucci 2014). Commonly
defined as ‘‘the socially constructed, intersubjectively
agreed-upon and accepted ordering or ranking of individ-
uals, groups, organizations, or activities in a social sys-
tem’’ (Washington and Zajac 2005, p. 284), status presents
several advantages of both conceptual and empirical nat-
ure. Theoretically, status provides an intuitive, first
assessment of one’s desire to engage with a party (Jensen
and Roy 2008) while capturing multiple facets of social
interactions—economic as well as social in nature (Pearce
2011). In itself, this is an important extension to existing
work on stakeholder theory because it incorporates recent
research’s findings that stakeholders interact with the firm
from a dual identity that incorporates both economic and
social components (Crane and Ruebottom 2011; Perrault
and Clark 2015). Thus, status enables us to account for
stakeholders’ inherent dual nature, that is, their economic
role toward the firm and their social identity simultane-
ously. Empirically, status applies at the individual level
and provides a natural ranking of constituencies (Deep-
house and Suchman 2008). As such, it enables managers to
perceive differences in stakeholders’ desirability that lar-
gely explains, and predicts, the priority level they obtain in
managers’ agenda.
This article contributes to recent conversations in the
stakeholder literature seeking to understand how stake-
holders generally interact with the firm and how managers
perceive and prioritize their interests (Crane and Ruebot-
tom 2011; Parent and Deephouse 2007; Wolfe and Putler
2002). In advancing status as an attribute of stakeholder
identification and prioritization, we apply the ‘names-and-
faces approach’ to the context of large corporations’
management practices. As we do so, we offer a theoreti-
cally and empirically useful construct that enables us to
better understand how managers respond to their con-
stituents, based on their perceptions. As such, we con-
tribute an important nugget to a key topic of stakeholder
theory that remains largely under-examined. Lastly, this
26 E. Perrault
article contributes germane knowledge to the growing body
of literature examining the importance of status in man-
agerial contexts, while presenting a sought-after applica-
tion of status across the macro and meso levels of firms’
interaction with stakeholders in a market context (Piazza
and Castellucci 2014). In the following section, we first
review the literature on stakeholder identification and sal-
ience, after which we expound the value of status to this
body of literature. Considerations for future research and
managers conclude this article.
In Pursuit of a ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’
One of the most enduring criticism of stakeholder theory is
its lack of managerial practicality (Donaldson and Dunfee
1994; Freeman et al. 2010; Jones and Wicks 1999;
Laplume et al. 2008; Phillips and Reichart 2000) based in
the theory’s lack of specificity regarding the stakeholder
construct (Crane and Ruebottom 2011). Indeed, from the
original theory, a stakeholder is ‘‘any group or individual
who can affect or be affected by the firm’s activities’’… (Freeman 1984, p. 46) [emphasis added]. Over the years,
this definition has lent itself to multiple interpretations and
categorizations that still, today, fail to capture the essence
of the groups who interact with firms (Crane and Ruebot-
tom 2011; McVea and Freeman 2005; Wolfe and Putler
Recent stakeholder research has addressed this criticism
head on. Notably, McVea and Freeman (2005, p. 67)
observe that much of stakeholder theory has lost touch with
practitioners’ reality such that ‘‘stakeholder theory stands
at something of a crossroads’’ and that ‘‘it is time for a
radical rethinking of the stakeholder approach to business.’’
They write ‘‘to manage stakeholder relations according to
the traditional groupings (customers, employees, suppliers,
shareholders, community) would be to blind the entrepre-
neur to some of the critical characteristics of the contem-
porary business environment’’ (McVea and Freeman 2005,
p. 63). By radical rethinking, the authors advocate the
identification of stakeholders through ‘names-and-faces’
and go so far as to reformulate the principles underlying a
stakeholder approach as ‘‘firms that treat their stakeholder
as individuals with names and faces will develop more
value-creating strategies and will also incorporate ethics as
an inherent part of the decision-making process.’’
In this view, the names-and-faces approach rests on
three cornerstones: a focus on value creation, individual
decision-making, and individual relationships (McVea and
Freeman 2005). Of great importance, however, is the
observation that the premise underlying the names-and-
faces approach is entrepreneurial value creation through
the discovery and exploitation of new opportunities that lie
within stakeholders—because of their differential knowl-
edge for example. While this focus on entrepreneurship is
relevant across business types because of its ties to the
fundamental principles of stakeholder theory—that is,
value creation—it advocates personal relationships
between managers and stakeholders, as well as individu-
alized strategic decisions—all of which seems difficult to
conceive of in the context of large corporations’ daily
Specifically, large corporations are different from
entrepreneurial ventures in the depth and breadth of man-
agerial hierarchies that make decisions on behalf of the
firm, as well as the departmentalization of boundary-
spanning liaisons to stakeholders through generic groups
(such that a customer service department is in charge of
customer relations, a shareholder relations department is in
charge of relationships with shareholders, etc.) (Lawrence
and Weber 2011). These core differences make it espe-
cially difficult for large corporations to approach strategic
decision-making from an individualized perspective since
decisions tend to be taken based on the shared values
developed by teams of high level managers, for instance
(Forbes and Milliken 1999; Simon 1979). It is also difficult
to envision the firm nurturing personal relationships with
thousands of disparate stakeholders who hold conflicting
interests and whose voices can barely get heard in the midst
of those firms’ ongoing complexity.
Building on the names-and-faces approach, recent
research has suggested to use social identity to parse out
the heterogeneity of interests among individual stakehold-
ers within generic categories (e.g., Crane and Ruebottom
2011). An individual or group’s social identity is essen-
tially its answer to the question ‘who are we’ (Ashforth and
Mael 1989; Kuhn and McPartland 1954), which takes into
consideration the multiple roles, positions, and facets of
identification that define and distinguish one from others
(Stryker and Burke 2000). A social identity lens is partic-
ularly useful to a theory of stakeholder identification
because it captures the simultaneous influences that play
out in stakeholders’ interaction with the firm. In turn,
recent research argues that these influences are almost
always of dual nature in that they include both social and
economic elements (Crane and Ruebottom 2011; Wolfe
and Putler 2002), such that current typologies focused on
stakeholders’ economic roles with the firm omit an
important aspect of who stakeholder are, what they want,
and why they behave the way they do (Wolfe and Putler
2002). Thus, identifying stakeholders based on their social
identity—which comprises both the social and economic
dimensions of a group’s identity—enables managers to
better understand stakeholders’ interests, in a first tense,
and ultimately to better satisfy those so as to gain and
maintain their support.
A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status 27
However, the problem with a theory of stakeholder
identification that relies on social identities is two-fold.
First, it is complex. Social identity is a dynamic construct
that reflects the constant evolution of psychological and
social aspects of an individual (Tajfel 1974). As the pro-
duct of a lifetime of experiences and relationships, social
identities are highly intricate in that they hold social and
economic dimensions (Crane and Ruebottom 2011), and
values that are sometimes transient across the individual’s
roles and sometimes specific to a given context (Burke and
Reitzes 1981; Wolfe and Putler 2002). Thus, while relying
on social identities provides a compelling way to distin-
guish the particularities of each stakeholder group, it
appears unrealistic to suggest that managers can perceive,
and make decisions, based on the intricacies of stake-
holders’ social identities. Second, and relatedly, social
identities are constructed by each individual or group, and
oftentimes are not explicitly articulated. This creates
additional difficulty for managers attempting to uncover
the specificity of their constituents. For this reason, the
bulk of stakeholder research supports that a theory of
stakeholder identification must be anchored in managers’
perceptions of stakeholder attributes, as opposed to the
objective measurement of the attributes themselves.
In the tradition of identifying stakeholders based on
managerial perceptions, Mitchell et al.’s (1997) theory of
stakeholder identification and salience still stands as a
cornerstone. Using a multi-theoretic approach, the authors
developed a ‘principle of who and what really counts’
anchored in managers’ perceptions of their constituents.
While the principles underlying Mitchell et al.’s (1997)
theory are sound and well developed, the theory is also
appealing because of its apparent simplicity: groups
become stakeholders either when they have a legitimate
claim on the firm, or they have the ability to influence the
firm (e.g., power). These attributes add up and when the
stakeholder also presents an urgent claim, it gains the
highest level of priority in managers’ agenda (e.g., high
However, this theory also presents a number of draw-
backs that have resulted in scarce and inconclusive
empirical studies over the almost two decades of the the-
ory’s popularity (Laplume et al. 2008; Parent and Deep-
house 2007). First, there is question as to whether power
and legitimacy are the most useful attributes to identify and
prioritize stakeholder groups. For instance, previous
research finds that power tends to supersede any other
attribute in managers’ perceptions (Parent and Deephouse
2007; Roloff 2008), while it remains unclear which type of
power gets a group to become a stakeholder. As a result,
extant research has tended to interpret power in its narrow
economic sense (David et al. 2007; Eesley and Lenox
2006), restricting the applicability of the model to market
stakeholders. Meanwhile, other types of power—such as
the political power a stakeholder garners when engaging in
activism or other activities that affect the performance of a
firm—are becoming increasingly relevant to explaining
firms’ management of stakeholders (King 2008; Waldron
et al. 2013). For example, over time hotels may pay greater
attention to customer service as a result of clients
increasingly using online rating systems to post feedback
from their stay on popular travel websites. Yet, power that
stems from other sources than economic factors typically
remains unaccounted for in the stakeholder management
Likewise, legitimacy as an attribute of stakeholder
identification has received much criticism largely because
all stakeholders identified as such must present some
legitimate basis for their claim toward the firm, even if they
derive legitimacy from having the power to disrupt the
firm’s practices (Phillips 2003). Thus, there is conceptually
little room for envisioning an ‘illegitimate stakeholder,’
while confusion remains as to whether legitimacy stands
alone as a stakeholder attribute or is obtained as a result of
having power to affect the firm (Phillips 2003). In addition,
legitimacy is understood narrowly [in terms of the stake-
holders’ normative acceptance in society, (Suchman 1995)]
while recent literature suggests that firms can perceive
various levels of legitimacy depending on how the stake-
holders’ issue meshes with the firm’s identity and its
strategic frame (Bundy et al. 2013).
Second, and relatedly, Mitchell et al.’s (1997) theory
relies on the addition of stakeholder attributes in managers’
perceptions. They suggest to categorize stakeholders as
latent, expectant, or definitive, based on whether they are
perceived to possess one, two, or the three attributes of
power, legitimacy, and urgency. However, it is highly
unlikely that managers separate, in reality, their percep-
tions and the effect of stakeholders’ attributes. Rather,
managers tend to view business problems or their rela-
tionships with a stakeholder group holistically, in terms of
the degree to which they need to pay attention to that
constituent’s interest (McVea and Freeman 2005). Thus,
instead of adding up what is purported as independent
stakeholder attributes (Mitchell et al. 1997), we need to
consider the possibility that attributes compound or interact
in managers’ perceptions, creating a larger and united
effect in managers’ decisions to engage with certain