Stakeholders to the Military

U.S. Military -- Stakeholders The stakeholder group for the U.S. Military is about as diverse as it gets on an organizational level. The U.S. Military is one of the most powerful organizations on the planet and nearly everyone's lives are touched by this organization -- either directly or indirectly. The original meaning of the word stake provides some insights as to who might be the stakeholders for the U.S. Military (Codevilla, 2009).

"In the 19th century the word "stake," which had meant a bet, also came to mean a share, a claim, or an interest. A 1975 British management textbook defines "stakeholders" as "the persons and groups having a direct stake in our organization: the owners, employees..

customers, suppliers, financiers, managers, the area in which the organization is established, etc." But as used currently in the U.S., the term is hardly distinguishable from "interest groups" or "corporations." Hence "stakeholder primacy" is close to what one might call in economics "producer primacy" and is diametrically opposed to "consumer primacy." (Codevilla, 2009)" After World War II, the United States emerged as the sole superpower in the world.

Therefore, it has a stake in most of the world's affairs and often uses its military for a range of different objectives from maintain law and order, maintaining peace and prosperity, establishing economic trade, and pursuing specific U.S. interests across the globe and in virtually every region among others. Therefore, virtually everyone on the planet could be considered stakeholders at the highest level. However, on a narrower level, the stakeholders could be limited to the military leadership.

The President, Barrack Obama, could be considered the premier stakeholder in his role as Commander and Chief. His administration is ultimately in charge of the military and is responsible for its overall effectiveness and efficiency in meeting U.S. objectives. Obama is also responsible for helping to create and maintain alliances with U.S. allies to combat trends such as the growth of ISIS (Khouri, 2014). Therefore, at the highest level of leadership, there exists a global network of stakeholders that are aligned with U.S. interests in specific causes.

Beyond the leadership of the military, extending from Obama all the way down the organizational hierarchy, the men and women who represent the U.S. military would also be considered a key stakeholder in the organization's success. For example, if the U.S. leadership enters another ground war in any of the world's conflict zones, then it is easy to see how soldiers have a lot at "stake" in such an endeavor. However, there are also more indirect stake after their service is over.

Members of the military also rely on the organization to provide many veteran benefits to themselves and their families (The Stakeholders, N.d.). Therefore, the way the organization allocates its resources can have a substantial impact on them and their families long after their service ends. The U.S. citizen represents one of the most important stakeholders in the equation as all of the military's activities are, at least theoretically, conducted on their behalf. The U.S.

citizen could be considered to be the primary investor in the military and fund the organization through their tax dollars. Although the benefits of the military investors are not as clear as many traditional investments (such as stocks and bonds), the U.S. military definitely contributes to the U.S. society in many ways -- including economic contributions. In fact, much of the U.S. economy is reliant on military spending.

If the military cuts its budget, then there is a million-job-loss total from "across the breadth of the U.S. economy," into ripple-effect industries like finance, health care and "retail trade, leisure and hospitality services. (Ackerman,.