This week’s reading, mostly the case studies, brought out in me those conflicting thoughts that I have experienced in the past when questioning certain non-profits’ missions or the philanthropic world in general. I have questioned many times the power and influence of stakeholders in nonprofit, however my questions have always been devoted towards vertical stakeholders. As we learned in class, stakeholders influence the individuals on the micro level and they also influence the direction and shape of a non- profit on the macro level. For instance, Oprah as a stakeholder in control in her non-profit exerted direct influence on how the mission was carried out, how the activities were operated.

Undoubtedly, one’s mission when either funding an organization or when opening a non-profit has to stay close to the heart, it must be connected to one’s passion. Nonetheless, where it becomes dangerous is when the implementation of the mission is not done rightfully -or in one’s opinion, they are not focus on the right things. As “Newsweek’s Samuels suggested , “Winfrey’s vision was not only that of an outsider, it was an outsider with overly personal motivations.” Similarly for the Koch brothers who’ve donated to many organizations to support their visions when in fact their donation should be transparent and their contributions shouldn’t be at their own economic interests. The stated case studies can make one ponder about how the social sector is shape and the powerful influence that stakeholders are exerting on the sector. Thus,  knowing the influence that stakeholders can exert, it becomes incumbent for us who plan to manage non profit to think about ways to maximize positive influences and to mitigate negative influences. It becomes essential to think of a process of checks and balances in place to leverage stakeholders’ influences to avoid many cases as the ones highlighted above from recurring.