Different Stakeholders, Different Pathways: How Capacity Profiles Shape Managerial Priorities for Beneficiaries and Staff in Decision‐Making

ABSTRACT This study investigates how combinations of organizational capacities shape nongovernmental organization (NGO) managers' prioritization of staff and beneficiaries. While stakeholder theory identifies which stakeholders' interests attract attention, it offers limited guidance on how managers ultimately prioritize among stakeholders in decision‐making. We reconceptualize capacity not as an aggregate construct but as distinct capacity profiles in which interdependent capabilities and resources jointly shape managerial discretion. A comparative analysis of NGO survey data, supplemented by expert interviews, reveals configurational pathways in stakeholder prioritization. Findings show multiple, equifinal pathways to prioritization with no single capacity being necessary or sufficient. Mission orientation is the most consistent enabling condition across configurations, operating as a compensatory mechanism in low‐resource environments. Resource availability shapes who gets prioritized in divergent ways, with greater resources supporting beneficiary prioritization and, under constraint, a strong mission orientation alone enabling staff prioritization. In well‐resourced contexts, multiple capacities and mission orientation do not always yield staff prioritization, indicating competing demands and a context‐dependent relationship between capacities and managerial discretion. Theoretically, the study reframes stakeholder salience and representation as a dynamic managerial process conditioned by capacity profiles, shifting attention from outcomes to enabling conditions of choice and broad accountability. These findings contribute to managerialism debates by demonstrating its effects on prioritization are contingent rather than deterministic, depending on how capacities and resources interact. Practically, prioritization depends on aligning people, processes, and resources to fit context‐specific configurations, rather than increasing capacity in aggregate. The study illustrates that stakeholder prioritization depends on how managers leverage their NGO's capacity profile.