As discussed class, stakeholders can range from funders, to government bodies, to program beneficiaries. They can exert their influence in numerous. Chief among them — and most important, in my belief — is their ability to impact the direction of the organization.

Stakeholders have the ability to drive the direction of a non-profit. While the Executive Director and Board of Directors are responsible for maintaining the mission of the non-profit, stakeholders often try insert their opinion into the matters of the organization.

When any organization expands the number of people involved in ensuring its survival, it opens itself up to influence that could lead to its downfall. It is the primary downside of non-profits: since they need their stakeholders to survive and thrive, they are open to unsolicited direction that could tarnish the needed direction of the organization.

Non-profits are unique in this aspect, with more stakeholders than most industries. With so many factors coming into play, it becomes difficult to act swiftly and effectively. Decisions often require funding and consensus, while keeping in line with the mission of the organization. These items are controlled by the stakeholders. It stands in full contrast of a business, where the leader may feel empowered to make a swift decision. If unpopular, then that leader would have to answer their board or shareholders. Despite this, they have the wiggle room to take risks.

Without the ability to take risks, non-profits suffer. They are tied to their safe methods of getting things done and conducting their programs. If they are forced into a new direction, it is likely due to a funder who wants to see their dollars implemented in a way. Ultimately, it is unsustainable to deal with so many stakeholders without finding a way to keep them at bay.

Yet, on the flip side of this, numerous stakeholders provide the opportunity to bounce ideas and create the best possible programs for those benefited by the mission. Non-profits have the ability to pull in experts as stakeholders, with them advising the best possible direction — in their opinion. While my argument thus far has rests on the fact all of these competing opinions being wrong, there is the potential that they can smartly aid those decisions.