Charity with the owners' money, or a staffing decision with social returns? The position paper from MHRM 6701, Week 4, argues the second and concedes what Friedman gets right. Searches like "mhrm 6701 week 4 assignment example", "mhrm6701 week 4 sample" and "mhrm 6701 week 4 example" land here.
What a finished MHRM 6701 Week 4 position paper looks like
Five pages with a thesis in the opening paragraph: the partnership is justified first by the overnight shift's staffing problem and second by what it does for referred residents, and it would be indefensible if only the second were true. A section restates the classmate's objection in its strongest form, drawing on Friedman's case that executives are the owners' agents, so spending the owners' money on social ends amounts to taxing them without consent. The reply rests on Porter and Kramer's shared value, the idea that some social problems are also business costs and that addressing them can improve competitiveness. Here the social problem, unemployment among people leaving incarceration, meets the business cost of overnight churn. A concession section admits where the objection holds: supervisor time and training spent above what temps require.
How a MHRM 6701 Week 4 example is structured
The thesis leads and carries its own condition, the move that defines this paper: it names the circumstance under which the position would fail. The objection is then stated more strongly than the classmate stated it, since answering a weak version wins nothing a reader believes. Friedman is cited for his central claim and not caricatured; the paper grants that spending on social ends for their own sake is a fair target. The reply depends on one factual link, that the overnight shift's problem is real and costly, which the paper documents from the prior weeks. Porter and Kramer supply the frame for that link, not the proof of it. The concession section prices what the objection gets right, and the conclusion restates the position with its condition intact, leaving a reader certain which evidence would change the author's mind.
A thesis with its own condition
The partnership is defended as a staffing decision with a social return, and the paper says it would not survive if the staffing problem disappeared. That condition makes the position falsifiable rather than merely sincere.
The objection at full strength
Friedman's view that managers spending owners' money on social goals impose a tax nobody voted for gets a full paragraph. The classmate's shorter version is quoted first, then strengthened.
Shared value, applied to one shift
Porter and Kramer's idea is used for a single link: unemployment among returning residents and churn on the overnight shift are one problem seen from two sides. The paper does not claim that link for every social issue.
What the objection gets right
Supervisor hours, a liaison role and slower early productivity cost more than temps do in the first months. The paper states these costs and does not pretend the program is free.
Position restated, condition intact
The close repeats the thesis and the circumstance that would defeat it, a labor market in which temps stayed. A reader leaves knowing what would change the author's view.
Where marks go in MHRM 6701 Week 4
The objection paragraph is weighed before the position itself. Papers that answer a caricature of the classmate's point, or answer a different objection that is easier to defeat, lose most of what their own argument might have earned. Friedman's claim has to be stated in terms its supporters would accept. The factual link between a social problem and a business cost is examined next; shared value invoked without that link reads as a slogan and is marked as one. Concessions are credited when they carry a cost a manager would recognize. A thesis that names its own defeat condition stands out, because few papers in this week risk one. Language borrowed from the company's values page and presented as support is marked down wherever it appears.
Get a MHRM 6701 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Paste in the objection your classmate raised along with the Week 4 prompt and rubric. The position paper is argued against that objection in its strongest form, its thesis carrying a defeat condition, and it is back in 24 to 48 hours with the first free. The laundry, the county and the quoted classmate are all made up.
MHRM 6701 Week 4 questions, answered
What is shared value?
Michael Porter and Mark Kramer's term for policies that strengthen a company's competitiveness while improving social conditions in the communities where it operates. Their argument is that some social problems impose real costs on firms, so addressing them can be good business. The sample uses the idea for one link only and treats it as a frame to be evidenced, not as proof that the program pays.
Is it fair to cite Friedman as the opponent?
Yes, provided he is represented accurately. His widely read essay treated executives as employees of the owners, called profit pursued within the law and ordinary ethical custom their proper task, and held that spending shareholders' money on social causes imposes costs the owners never approved. The sample states that position in terms a supporter would accept, then answers the parts of it that apply to this decision.
Can a position paper concede ground and still take a side?
It should. A position that concedes nothing reads as advocacy and invites a reader to find the weakness the author skipped. The sample admits the program's extra supervisor time and early productivity cost, then argues that the staffing problem outweighs them. Your concession is strongest when it names a cost your opponent would have raised anyway.