91: Undoing the Language of Stakeholder with Austen Smith and Julie McFarland
Austen Smith (they/them) is a spirit-led creative with decades of community advocacy and organizing, program evaluation, intersectional qualitative analysis, and community participatory research. Their work addresses national housing disparities, racial inequity, disability justice, gender inclusivity, and the metaphysical impacts of racialized oppression. Currently, Austen is stewarding ImaginationDoulas, a spirit-led creative education program designed for racially and culturally marginalized artists. Learn more at www.imaginationdoulas.com.
Check out the ImaginationDoulas Foundational Views Micro-Course, a free, six-week micro course designed for those who are ready to explore creativity as a spiritual discipline.
Julie McFarland was a housing and service provider within homelessness response systems before beginning technical assistance on a national level. Julie's work has focused on designing more person centered and streamlined systems, more effective service delivery, elevating and uplifting the voices of people closest to the solutions, and creating more equitable systems for people experiencing homelessness. Julie values partnership with people who challenge the status quo and existing power structures to shift to more equitable and inclusive approaches.
Quotes:
“Stakeholder: The phrase is rooted in the act of driving stakes into a land which forcibly marks territory as one's own. And so using that casually in our work could unintentionally evoke the trauma of having someone's stake, possession, or even assuming some power we have that is not necessarily ours.” - Naomi Hattaway
“The word carries such a violent connotation because words cast spells. They all of the history of that term. We're connecting to this foundational ideology that requires and necessitates colonialism. Bringing that energy into the field of consulting or the field of philanthropy inherently ties the money that is meant to incite liberatory realities for folks to this idea of stolen land and stolen property. It keeps us in a cycle when we continue to use specific words.” - Austen Smith
“It feels like a responsibility, in particular as a white woman, that once I become aware of something like this that has such a violent history and violent roots, it is critical to make the pivot and not continue to perpetuate that harm through the use of language in itself.” - Julie McFarland
“I would appreciate a resource of language, words, phrases, or terms that are aging out. That we could start the conversation of normalizing language being a living thing because this is so normal.” - Austen Smith
“Everything comes back to relationship all the time. And if we are in deep, authentic relationship with people, this act of educating and offering an opportunity to shift, it typically goes so much better when that trust is already established.” - Julie McFarland
To learn more about Leaving Well, visit https://www.naomihattaway.com/
To support the production of this podcast, peruse my Leaving Well Bookshop or buy me a coffee.
This podcast is produced by Sarah Hartley.
“The word carries such a violent connotation because words cast spells. They all of the history of that term. We’re connecting to this foundational ideology that requires and necessitates colonialism. Bringing that energy into the field of consulting or the field of philanthropy inherently ties the money that is meant to incite liberatory realities for folks to this idea of stolen land and stolen property. It keeps us in a cycle when we continue to use specific words.”
Transcript:
Austin Smith is a spirit led creative with decades of community advocacy and organizing, program evaluation, intersectional qualitative analysis, and community participatory research. Their work addresses national housing disparities, racial inequity, disability justice, gender inclusivity, and the metaphysical impacts of racialized oppression.
Currently, Austin is Stewarding Imagination Doulas, which is a spirit-led creative education program designed for racially and culturally marginalized artists. You can learn more about that@imaginationdoulas.com. Julie McFarland was a housing and service provider within homelessness response Systems before beginning technical assistance on a national level.
Julie's work is focused on designing more person-centered and streamlined systems, more effective service delivery, elevating and uplifting the voices of people closest to the solution, and creating more equitable systems for people experiencing homelessness. Julie values partnerships with people who challenge the status quo and existing power structures to shift more equitable and inclusive approaches.
So after I read those bios, I'm sure as you listen in, you can be sure to understand why I've asked Julie and Austin to have this conversation with me about undoing the language of stakeholders. So in this episode, we're going to step into what I think is a necessary undoing of that language and an essential reorientation of how we use those terms in our consulting practice.
So to ground us a little bit in this conversation, when we use the word stakeholder, and I'm gonna put that in quotes, we often do so without an awareness of its historical baggage, its origin and land claims tied to colonial dispossession. And that unexamined uses really echo systems of power and erasure, which are systems that as consultants we may be unwittingly reinforcing.
And I wanna expand that a little bit. It's not just about consultants, about it's staffers, it's leaders, it's policy makers, all of those people, decision makers. So. I brought Austin and Julie together so that we can start to reimagine with you the listener, the language of belonging and accountability.
And we're gonna ask that you join us in shifting from using the word stakeholder to language that actually honors sovereignty, equity, and relational integrity. This isn't just about jargon, this is truly about presence and showing up for others and how we convene and how we hold responsibility. So one more, little bit before we jump in, uh, for some context.
The term stakeholder might seem really innocuous in sectors like nonprofit or consulting, but for indigenous communities and especially that is in North America and Canada, it really does echo a violent colonial past. The phrase is rooted in the act of driving stakes into land, which is a literal stake claim to forcibly marked territory as one one's own.
So I'm gonna repeat that because I think we use the word stakeholder so casually, but when you think about that, the phrase is rooted in the act of driving stakes into a land which forcibly marks territory as one own one's own. It really makes me realize anyway, that this practice was part of a broader doctrinal system that really prioritized dispossession of indigenous lands through symbolic boundary making.
And so using that then casually in our work. Could unintentionally evoke the trauma of having someone's stake, possession, or even assuming some power that we have that we is not necessarily ours. Okay. That's the context. That's why we're here, Austin and Julie, thanks for joining me. The first question that I'd love for us to chat about is why does that word stakeholder even more so than I may have just alluded to, why does it carry such violent connotations for indigenous communities in the US and what's the context that many people may not still be aware of?
I can jump in. I wanna start with, I'm not indigenous, so I don't know the full extent of that violence in my body, but I know similar parallel violences in my body with the language, um, of English and, um, it's inherent violence as a settler language. And so from that perspective, I, I think it carries such a violent connotation because I say this phrase often, but words cast spelled.
And they carry a, a particular meaning it carries all of the history of that term. And so even as we're using these terms in today's time, um, we're, we're also, we're connecting to. This like foundational ideology that that requires and necessitates colonialism. And so bringing that energy into the field of consulting or the field of philanthropy, any of those things, um, inherently ties the money that is meant to incite liberatory realities for folks.
To this idea of, uh, stolen land and stolen property and, um, land possession. And so it, it keeps us in a cycle when we use, when we continue to use specific words. And I think. Because a lot of our histories are tied up in literacy. Um, I think people can be very precious about language and not want to give that up because of either a historical effort to gain, like access to literacy and, um, access to schooling and education.
But then also I think, like, you know, the, the wheel is used to turning in a particular direction. And so I think that a lot of folks are a little bit more hesitant. So in addition to the content online, the materials online that are advocating for the shift of this word, I also see counter materials that are arguing that this word should be used.
And so I think that there is a larger conversation around, um, how far are we willing to go to release ourselves from the cycle. Austin, thank you. I always appreciate hearing from you so much. I love the way you started that too. I am also not indigenous. I am white. And I think from that perspective to as a person who belongs to the group who historically worthy oppressors and continue to be the oppressors to this day, for white folks to continue to use harmful language.
Um, and not acknowledge the history of it. I think I'll speak for myself that it just feels like further perpetuating the violence and doing harm in a way that is just it. I have a really hard time understanding why we wouldn't pivot away from language. Once we become aware of something like this. Why, why we wouldn't pivot away from this type of language, knowing that it is further causing harm and.
It just feels like a responsibility in, in particular as a white woman, as I identify, once I become aware of something like this that has such a violent history and violent roots, uh, it is critical to make the pivot and not continue to perpetuate that harm through the use of language in itself. I just wanna add that from my perspective as, uh, as a white woman.
Yeah, I appreciate that from both of you and I just, I have images of like the more, you know, rainbow with the star. Yeah. The, the screen of like, the more you know, but I think so often we do also take. Learnings and awareness shifts and language pivots and we think, oh, that's nice. That's interesting. I've never thought about that before.
But we don't know how to actually use it in our daily life, or we don't know how to use it in a meeting or in an email or in a proposal. And so I'm excited to talk more throughout this conversation that, and give you really practical ways to make this language shift, um, because it is something that we each have the power to do.
And I think the other piece of it for me around. Using the word stakeholder is it's reinforcing power dynamics. And so I think a lot of times when people don't want to make language shifts, I'm always been questioning what are, what, what power are they not willing to give up? Um, especially when you think about movements and liberatory work and all of that, it becomes messy.
So I'm curious if you both could share, when did you first learn about the harm embedded in this word? Did it shift your language and practice right away? Was it something that, um, took some time to navigate? I'm curious what your personal aha moment was. Yeah, I think this group of people, uh, were, uh, you two were the ones that helped me become aware of this.
I believe. I can't quite remember, uh, the details of it, but I believe I used it in writing. And Naomi, I believe you pointed it out to me based on some learning that you had recently experienced, uh, through Austin. And I think. For me, maybe I would say fortunately in these situations, I am such a visual person.
When I learn things like this, I have such a visual representation in my head of what that means. That once I learn this, read a little bit about it, educate myself. When I hear it again, it activates something in my body or when I read it again. Um, so that is a tool that I have really tried to leverage in, um, helping me.
Make quick pivots around these types of things. So I remember it very vividly when it was pointed out, when I read about it, and just knowing the prevalence that this term is used within our space, within homelessness and housing and uh, coalition building spaces. Uh, it has really been, uh, huge lesson for me in the last, I would say, year or so since you first pointed it out, Naomi.
I'm curious, Austin, do you remember the moment that, 'cause you shared it with me and I don't remember what project we were working on. Um, you shared an article and said, Hey, just food for thought you might wanna consider shifting your language on this. Um, do you remember when that was or do you remember when you first were aware of it?
Austin? I don't remember the project, but I do remember, um, sending the materials because, um, I, I try to send it as often as I can when I do see the word. This was first introduced to me through a colleague when I was doing federal technical assistance in housing and when it was introduced, I'm not gonna lie, I was kind of like, why, why do I need to switch this?
Um, and I think that it's important to speak from that perspective because I think that we, we tend to try to be what, what we think or what we perceive to be good. In terms of like how we receive a criticism and critique about our language, I immediately felt a resistance to my desire to change it. Not because I was personally attached to it, but because all of the clients and organizations that I work with are attached to that term.
And so, um, I read a few articles and did a, did some research, and once I realized that it was attached to. The, the ongoing and historical violences of indigenous people in the US and Canada. I was immediately thinking about what other words exist, what other words exist, what other words need to be created, um, so that we can reduce the, the impact, especially as we continue to invite indigenous people into these spaces to ask for their feedback or their lived experiences or their stories or their history and how.
How backwards it seems then to, to refuse to change the language that makes them not feel. Safe enough to share those experiences and things. And so when I first heard it, I was, I was, uh, I did have a response where I was just like, uh, another word, because there's so many things that need to be changed. I think it speaks to a larger conversation around how language is not sus, uh, how the English language is not sustainable and how.
It is rooted in colonial violence instead of colonialism. Like the whole language is designed around this. And so, um, we'll start finding these terms bit by bit. And then at some point we're gonna be like, wait, none of this works. And then we're gonna, we're gonna have to find new ways of, of describing everything because.
Yeah, because this isn't a sustainable language system, especially for those of us interested in building intimacy and experiencing empathy between the other. It's interesting that you say that, Austin, about having some resistance, because my initial response was, okay, I get it, and thank you for sending this, and of course I will work to change it.
But my second feeling almost immediately after that was, where does this fall in the priorities though, because I'm. I feel like I'm always asking clients to quote unquote, do better, be better? And so then what, what am I giving up is what I thought of. If, if I lean into asking folks to stop using stakeholder, does that mean I can also equally ask them to make sure that we are doing racial identification at the beginning of our calls and pronouns?
You know, like, can I, can I really ask folks to do all of this stuff? The answer is yes, by the way. Um, we really can. But I think that's a, a natural response is like that resistance and the, like you said Julie, you need to learn more about it. I really think that's so smart. Like, don't just take things on face value also, um, learn about it.
Figure out where there is some connection to yourself. And I'm curious, Austin, uh, for, this is for all of us to talk about, but you brought up. What are the next words that we're going to use Then instead, how 'cause stakeholder is so, so baked and so ingrained. What terms, let's talk a little bit about like, what other words, what frameworks are we offering folks?
Julie, maybe you wanna share an example of a, uh, proposal that we both recently submitted where we did offer, like instead of let's use this, so that might be a great next place to go. Sure. I'm happy to chime in there. Um, I know in the RFP you're referencing the term, I'm also air quoting the term stakeholder Engagement was very, very, uh, prevalent throughout and we were supposed to write a whole narrative around how we were gonna approach this.
And, um, I think within that space where it was rooted in housing and homelessness space, what we did was we, uh, actually linked the article from, I think it's. I have it up here in, uh, research Impact Canada. That's one I have particularly appreciated and I believe came right from you, Naomi and Austin. We linked it and said, Hey, uh, based on our recent learning around this term and the harm that it perpetuates, we are gonna shift to using the term partners.
That was really appropriate, uh, within that context. And, um, so that's what we did. We essentially took the opportunity to provide some education, but really model the way to pivot around that. Uh, I know I've read in, in fact, the article I just mentioned notes that the term partners has some, you know, legal connotation and doesn't fit all in all, uh, situations, which makes sense.
But in this, uh, particular space where we're doing a lot of coalition building and bringing a ton of providers together, partners really made a lot of sense and was a really, I think, simple and clear shift. So that was a fortunate. I love that one and I think I often will encourage folks to use interested parties.
Yeah. Especially when thinking about, uh, development in affordable housing or when we're thinking about mergers and acquisitions and, um, program sharing across organizations that have. Transitions interested parties is great. The other obvious one is decision makers. The only problem that I have with decision makers is it still has a power dynamic there that if people aren't willing to bring in folks with lived experience or um, et cetera, they can still assume that who that is going to be.
So I think that's beautiful too because when we challenge the, the term stakeholder, we're also challenging. Who are you asking to be in the room? Who are you giving that title to and sharing the power with Austin? Have you come up with any shifts or pivots to different phrases or language that that work well for you?
At the moment, it has depended on the context. I like that in that setting and the RFP you are talking about, you all use partner because it made sense for that setting. And so I think just like thinking about language as. Like a customizable thing and, and kind of doing away with like a standardized approach.
What I've been working with so far is like a combination of like invested community partners is kind of a, a general term I've been using. I think community is, is an expansive enough word, and I think invested is also a, a very subjective word and enough that that can include a lot of different. Types of people in different roles.
That's kind of the phrase I've been working with. But I'm also open to, if that phrase is not suitable for what we're describing, you know, like I think and alongside some other aspects of, uh, language that, um, I've had to adjust to, or my family's had to adjust to being non-binary and being trans. My families had to adjust to a lot of different language shifts.
Um, and so have I, and so as. I've been learning that language is living. I also, um, am committed to countering that resistance with like an openness. So I'm not attached. Um, that's a long way of saying I'm not attached to invested community partners, but that is the phrase I've been using in lieu of, of the term stakeholders.
I think that's amazing. And I also love the concept of language being living because I really look at this in my work as the important piece is. Dismantling our status quo around using language that either is harmful and or no longer serves. And I think the, what do I wanna say here? The expiration and the digging in with partners and with clients and with fellow colleagues.
All of that is, I don't wanna say just as important as the language shift, because language is, language can be harmful, but that's also the work of it is. Coming up together with maybe the word that works the best or the theme that works the best, and then being able to, to reevaluate it later. I, I'm excited for a day when I don't see the word stakeholder in an RFP or in a project plan.
Have you either of you faced any challenges as you've introduced the shift or pushback or what's been the general kind of feeling when you're talking with folks about not using the word. I've had mixed, mixed experiences. I've had some clients and communities who are open to the ship or at least curious about it.
Like, oh, okay, okay, we'll look into that. Um, I've also had some folks immediately respond with a yes, but I would say maybe like 60% of folks are resistant to it. And if it's not resistance, it's hesitation because I feel like people. Are in general, I, what my observations are that people feel the pressure to like perform a progressive, like it's a performance almost, um, that's taking place, um, where people are chasing what I've described as like good, the, the model liberal, if you will.
And I think that that effort, it actually gets in the way of. The, the possibilities of intimacy between us. And I think language is such an intimate thing. Like it literally bridges us. Or, or it, it tears us apart. It's literally all language. You know, we use the word stakeholder and then people don't take it seriously or don't understand the extent of the harm.
But then it's laced all through all of the policies and like, it's, it's a living thing. And so when I think about the folks that I've introduced this to, I would say like generally there's an ambivalence, which. Kind of reflects the ambivalence of American society in general. Those moments where people are really, um, excited to learn more about how to shift that, um, are really great.
But I think ultimately the point is to work through all of that, all of those defenses that we put up that actually let us know that we are over identifying with the oppressor. We can't let that go, and so how do we have those conversations so that a simple language shift is not like the end of a relationship, you know?
Yeah. Yeah. I think it's interesting too, Austin to think about when when you were talking, I was like, oh, this is interesting because it's not on the heels of a national conversation. We're not asking people to shift language because there's been a new uprising of something or. A, an event that's happened that's like percolated this to be a conversation.
So I've had some people react kind of like, where's this coming from? Like, I don't, I don't understand. Like, what do we not know? Almost like they're, to your point of being good or not good, they're like feeling like they're behind the eight ball because they don't already know about this. And so the first response I usually get is like, I don't understand.
Like, why are we talking about this? Why is, why is this a big deal right now? But generally, I think most people are. Okay with it. But then I wonder, are they okay with it? Just for my project with them? Yeah. Like Austin, just put in the chat if it's not trending a hundred percent. If it's not trending, if there's not a cute graphic that goes with it that says, don't use the word stakeholder anymore, people are not as, um, reticent to do it.
And, and I often think about that. Is it worth, I mean, I know it is, but the, the push is, or the pull is, is it worth driving this in? Oh, that's a, I shouldn't use that. We're talking about stakeholder and I just said driving it in. So I'm, I'm very aware of like little nuancey phrases that we use. Is it a, is it worth it for me to make a big priority of this if after I leave the contract, after I step out of the organization, if they, they go back to using it.
So that's my que I always about my, can I, can I add, add to that really quick? Yeah, if you don't mind. I think that it's absolutely worth it because at the very least, it's, it's priming them for how to have a relationship with you. And how you run things. And in order to be in that relationship, you do have to use this term or you can't use this term.
And similarly to like pronouns, like I, you know, there's just certain things that I come to expect from my clients. And if, if in that moment this organization is operating as its highest self for the duration of this contract, I feel like I've done something. I think what I would say is when I think about it.
Almost like in reverse. Would I want someone to be telling me and whether it's perceived as correcting or whatever it is, the answer is always for me, yes. I want and need to know, and I really appreciate it when people share these things with me, and I know that that takes courage and bravery, and it depends on the context, but the power dynamics that exist, like there's a lot happening.
I always appreciate it when people err on the side of. Telling me whether it's in the moment or calling me afterward and sharing with me, I want to know now the ball's in my court. I make my own decisions around how to move forward. And I try to think about it like that with other folks. I wanna err on the side of sharing it, even if they're gonna have some feelings towards me, um, about it.
And then the ball is in their court. They have the information, they do what they will. I, and like reminding myself that people are often disappointing. And also when people are not disappointing and they're trying, they're gonna screw up. They're gonna mess up, they're gonna miss it. There's really great ways to model, and I think you just did that, Naomi, you caught something.
You said you named it. Now it makes me think, oh, okay. I, I'm not sure I would've made the connection so quickly. Now I've witnessed that happen and I have an opportunity to course correct on my end in that way. I just think the modeling opportunities are very real here. Yeah, they really are. And I, I've learned so much from you also, Julie, in the moment with clients.
I've witnessed you several times, not necessarily about stakeholder, but. You would say something like, oh, that reminds me, remind me to send you after this call. We don't have time to get into it today, but after this call, let me send you some things about something I recently learned about that phrase you just used.
It's really fascinating. I'm sure you'll love hearing about it. I'll send it to you after the call. Like there's ways that you can kind of name something for folks and not have it disrupt the work that you're doing, especially if it's in a larger group. Are there other examples of ways that you have.
Maybe just to give plain, practical examples, let's say, let's say you and I are on a call and I use the word stakeholder. Do you, do you think it's best to follow up in an email afterwards? Um, do you think it's best to call it out in the moment? What have you witnessed and experienced? Yeah, I guess kind of similar to what Austin was sharing earlier, they said it's like very contextual and depends on the situation, and I feel that way.
What's my relationship with this group of folks? How do we have a deep working relationship already? 'cause if we do, yeah, I'm gonna say it in the moment. I'm gonna find a way, maybe I'll even use the chat to link the article. Just a reminder. You know, um, but more often than not, I would like to verbally just do a reminder around whatever, whatever it is, if people are new to me and we're just building relationship when we don't necessarily have that trust yet, I will highly likely the first time follow up in a group email.
Again, it depends on what it was, but, uh, with a couple of resources, no judgment, I just recently learned about this type of thing. Um, 'cause I do feel like there's such a level of shame associated with a lot of this stuff and don't want to further make people feel more shame about it, but want to be a part of raising the awareness and providing the resources so folks can make their own decisions around how to move.
I love what you just said about. Using even just the simple phrase, I recently learned about this myself, and so I wanna pass it on to you. That can dissolve and diffuse any feelings that someone might have about being prickly, especially in work that's racial equity or power dynamics, or any of the work that the three of us are doing.
People can often make some assumptions about us and how we show up in a space with maybe quote unquote knowing more than other people. Austin, we were just talking about, we lost you for a minute, but we were just talking about, um, how do you, in the moment or later have you found the best results when addressing this situation?
I'm curious if you've got any examples or, or how you prefer to do it. Do you do it in the moment on a call or when you're in community with folks, or do you address it later? That's a good question. It depends on the type of relationship I have with the other person or the other group. Um, if I feel like we have established a pretty comfortable rapport, I might say, Hey, actually, like, here's this, and I might send it in a chat or something like that.
But I think mostly I've used email because I think that it's something that people need to sit with. I had to sit with it. And so I think being able to work through whatever feelings that arise, no one really wants to do that in real time. And so, well, I'll speak for myself. I don't like to do that in real time because I'm trying to make it make sense for different, like on different levels.
And so because of that, I think giving people the room and sending it via email, I also would really appreciate a resource. Of language words for, um, phrases, just terms that are aging out that like, we could really kind of like start the, the conversation of normalizing language being a living thing, because this is so normal.
Like things age out, we don't say things that we said in the eighties. In the eighties was just yesterday, you know? And it's like, but we talk in a completely different way now. Think like having a, a tool or a resource where folks can just like send that. So then it doesn't become about the word stakeholder.
It becomes about, hey, we are operating with language being a living thing. So here are these, you know, this tool that we work with that can help us have like less harmful language or help us use language that's more inclusive. Um, you know, and, and I think that's the first step to what. Decolonizing a colonial language might look like, if that's even possible.
Uh, yeah. It has to be possible I think, right? Like it might not be something that we see in our lifetime, but it has to be possible. Um, well, I think eventually the language won't be English that we're using. You know what I mean? I think we will have then created an entirely different language, which I completely advocate for, and that's what I get excited about.
I'm like, yes, new words, but I think at some point it's no longer English. And on that day I will be celebrating as an ancestor somewhere. 'cause it'll be far from now. Yeah, I, I recently served as an interim executive director for an organization that does language access and language justice. And I'm gonna share this example, it's not related directly to the word stakeholder, but what you were talking about, actually, both of you around, there's more to this than just the word stakeholder.
We had, uh, our team was meeting with an organization that provides services and resources to the LGBTQ plus community and. One of the questions that this organization asked was, how can we ensure that your translations and interpreter, your interpreters are safe for the folks in our community? And they further went in and said, we noticed that none of you use your pronouns.
And I was, I was just watching, I was there to kind of facilitate this conversation. And so I was like, well, this could be very interesting. The staffer that was in that call responded and said, that's a really sticky thing for us, because in the language that I speak, we don't use pronouns. And so it was a really interesting thing for them to then grapple together with how could, in that know, you know, knowing that as a reality for some languages, how could they still honor the request?
Which was how do we know that our community is safe? And I think in all of this, you know, both of you have highlighted the importance of relationship. If you're listening to this and you're struggling to think, this would never fly at my organization, or you're listening to this and you're thinking, I would be too scared to even bring this up.
It might be more that you need to first examine your relationship and the trust that is in the organization or in the partnership or in the contract, because without relationship, some of these things don't go well. It doesn't mean you don't try and it doesn't mean you don't still lean in. But I think that there's relationship can go a long way, uh, in all, in all of this.
I'm curious if we want to spend just, if we could spend just the last bit of time first, if there's anything that I haven't asked or we haven't talked about that you want to share, and then we'll just end with some really practical, like for those that are ready to make a shift tomorrow, what's a practical first step they can take?
But is there anything we haven't talked about or that we didn't have a chance to go deep enough on for either of you? I just wanted to add this idea or, or introduce the idea that what we're calling stakeholders or partners or invested community partners that. They don't necessarily always center on the human.
And I think that is a type of re indigenizing that we should introduce back into the practice of remembering that the literal river is also invested in this, you know, the, the trees are partners in this. And I, I don't say that in a symbolic way. I mean that in a very direct way. And I think that reclamation work also includes.
Reclaiming or remembering like our all, all of our respective indigenous roots, that, that include the more than. And so, um, I, I'm curious, um, this isn't something we're gonna be able to go into today, but I'm just curious overall on what that would look like. To start including, um, the more than in, you know, or something like that.
Like a, a a, a local river is important to this, you know, or, um, you know, this land includes these particular trees and they are partners in this. We cannot tear them down. And so just thinking about that too, like how can we expand that beyond even centering colonialism in the language shift. I love that you said that, Austin.
It took me back to when we were building this house that we now currently live in, and the builder, the excavator, the whole team could not figure out why I was so insistent on only removing the trees that were absolutely necessary for this structure. And then I started asking them, I was realizing I wasn't getting very far with my insistence.
I mean, obviously I was the client, so I would win in the end, but I really wanted them to, to learn a little bit more about why I was so insistent. And so I asked them to point out which, which trees were, which I said, point out, you know, can you tell me which ones are the maples and the oaks and the furs?
And they both got excited and started telling me, well, this is this and this is that. And then all of a sudden they shifted and they pivoted to. Yeah, we're totally cool with only taking Abso absolute minimum. Bare minimum. And I think about that a lot when we think about the projects that we are a part of.
How can we use messaging and narrative to tie what matters back to the individual who's helping to make decisions? So I'm really glad that you brought that up, Austin. I would love both of your thoughts on a situation that I feel like I'm encountering. On the regular, and not just with regards to the term that we're talking about today, but a variety of things where we're trying to do better and adjust and pivot.
And we're working in groups. So we have this scenario where most of the folks in the group are completely on board, bought in, doing their best to adjust their language and the way that they're moving. And then you have one, maybe two folks in the group who are not there. And then you end up with this really challenging dynamic where you're in group conversation.
There's a continued use of a term, for example, and then the rest of the group is doing this correcting thing and they're in the chat and they're verbally correcting and you're, it's now a huge distraction to what you're trying to accomplish and a really important pivot to a lot of people in the room.
But some folks just. Haven't made the move. Won't make the move, whatever it is. How, as a facilitator or a convener, do you address that in the moment when there's a lot of correcting and there's a lot of folks on one side and then maybe one or two that are on a different page about it? What do you do in the moment?
What I would do, I'm just thinking this is, this was not a planned question, so I'm just thinking in the moment. I would probably try and diffuse using some like conflict resolution tools by saying and introducing some fun and silliness. So I would probably say something like, okay, I can clearly tell that we're having some tension around the word or the phrase, or the whatever.
So we're just, for today, we're just gonna introduce a completely new word that I would like everyone to practice buying into, to use in place of it. It's gonna seem silly and it's gonna seem really ridiculous. And then you're just gonna go with it. Just keep on with the conversation because at the end of it, they will all have shifted to use the word purple or whatever the word is, the silly word that you've introduced.
I think then I would honestly bring in a conflict resolution expert to have a conversation with them, because what I think the deeper piece of this is, is the power dynamics of some folks thinking they don't have to quote unquote. Comply with whatever it is that the rest of the group has agreed to. And that's probably something that would go beyond, beyond what you're gonna be able to do in facilitation because you're also trying to facilitate towards whatever the outcome of the contract says to do.
You know, the work that you're trying to help facilitate. Is being waylaid probably by this. Mm-hmm. But it's all tied and it's a bigger part of the pattern disruption that we're always trying to lean into. I don't know if that's helpful. That's my, that's very helpful. The moment, what I would do. No, I love it.
Thanks for chiming in. A lot of times I think Julie, about, so I used to, um, co-teach preschool back in the day, and often I will think about my facilitation work. I'm like, oh, this is just like in preschool with a bunch of three year olds. Um, and so sometimes that often helps, you know, like we're just humans coming to this work and trying to be our best and we're also all coming in.
I don't wanna give anyone a pass here, but we're also all showing up to that session caretaking for a loved one, finding out that we just, you know, our rent got increased or finding out that we have an illness diagnosis. I mean, I just think sometimes a reaction to something like, please don't use this word.
Is not just about the word, it's, it's about how they, you know, it's, I don't know. It's about other things sometimes. Okay. Austin, do you have anything else to add? I don't think so. I think that was a great response. I would probably plan a session where we just process it out, like we're not doing anything but talking about this, just to like really get to the bottom of, you know, like.
We noticed this, like, what's happening? Like really just trying to figure out what's happening for people. Somatically. I mean, there's been a couple of, uh, community sessions that I've had where we've had to do that, um, around, um, the phrase homeless people mm-hmm. Versus people with lived experience of homelessness.
Housing insecurity, and we've had to have sessions where it's like, okay, pause the work. This is, we're spending one meeting to discuss this. I consider that part of the work. So if that gets embedded in then, then it has to happen. But yeah, I think too, there's something to be said about. You know, it's, it's any kind of, um, navigating of disruption, intention, pulling the people to the side that are the ma if, especially if it's the same ones over and over.
Um, I've all, in past work, I've also kind of disinvited someone who just is not playing by the rules. And I guess the other thing I would recommend too, in that moment is if there were community agreements that were decided at the beginning, there's always the chance to edit and add to those. And one of those might need to be.
That we use this term, not this term, especially if there's other humans who would like to be in the seat of doing the work and someone is insisting on not participating in the way that the rest of the group has decided. Yeah. I love these suggestions. Thanks for going there with me. I think it's such a good reminder of the need for group work often to slow down and for groups to be more present with one another in order to make the shifts we need.
And then on the individual level, the same thing applies. We have to slow down and be very present in order to make the shifts that we're intending to. So thank you. Yeah. One thing I had happen recently. We were talking about a language shift for folks that are incarcerated. Um, or have been in the past and system impacted is the word that's often used mm-hmm.
In this work. And someone raised their hand and said, what system are we talking about? And it opened up this huge conversation about is it reductive to use the term system impacted for someone when it could be foster care, it could be. Homelessness. It could be incarceration, it could be police violence, it could be all these things.
And it was really interesting because one of the people then raised their hand and said, I don't have any. Involvement or experience with any of those systems. So it doesn't even sink in with me to even ask the question, is this okay to still be using? And I think that was a beautiful conversation and that's only gonna happen to your point, Austin, if you slow down or Julie, you said if you slow down and then Austin, if you said, have a very specific session just around this.
So that's a good, really practical recommendation when you're running up against that. Is there any other practical first steps? We've talked about sending the resource, like sending the link of the research that has helped. We've talked about naming it and normalizing it by saying, I just recently learned this myself and I'm excited to pass this along to you.
We've talked about email to drive it home, but also sometimes being needing to interrupt it in the moment. Any other practical first steps for the listener who's ready to change both their words and deepen their awareness? I would just recommend starting to embed it in your practice before even trying to convince anybody else to use the term, like embedding it and I mean, it takes a lot of courage to.
Put in a proposal for a project you really want and you're gonna change their language. You know, like that field that, that's, there's like an, I don't know, like there's a courage that's required to shift language, especially with like, you know, the, the dynamic that is the consultant and you know, the, the organization.
And so I think like embedding it in your own personal practice. Um, will increase your investment in that language shift, which will make it a lot easier and it won't sound preachy for you to be like, look, yeah, this is hard and we need to do this because, you know, like this is harmful not only to this group of people, but it's also ultimately harmful for us to continue to clinging to this language in this way.
Like, what does it say about me that I won't give up my owner oppressor's language. That is a huge question to ask. You know? And I think, I don't think there's anyone who's not system impacted. So that's the other thing is like, if you don't think your system impacted, you need to look again. You know? And so thinking about that, being like, well, everyone's impacted, the question is how and to what degree, and also.
I, am I clinging to, to the thing that's harming me? Am I clinging to the thing that's harming my friends? These are, I think those questions will allow telling someone else about it to be a lot easier versus trying to like be the educator of something that you don't even really know. You know what I mean?
Especially when a lot of folks listening are educating all the time about other things and to add this onto it also, then it's like, once again, I'm having to be the educator, so I I love that you said that. I also think it's so wild and appropriate and wonderful that you just said everyone is impacted by systems because we are, and if you really, truly don't think that you are, then maybe the next question is, how are you contributing to the systems that are impacting other people?
Then Julie, what else? What else do you wanna add? Austin, spicy. Those spicy questions. Naomi, spicy questions like the lunch that I'm eating while we're recording this podcast episode, I think I would just add. Has come up several times in our conversation. Everything comes back to relationship all the time.
And if we are in deep, authentic relationship with people, this. Act of educating and offering an opportunity to shift is so much, it typically goes so much better when that trust is already established. So I think it just takes us back to how important relationships are in in our work and our life. Yeah.
I'm so glad that both of you came on to have this conversation with me. I'm also just thinking about the bravery and the courage piece of this, because when we. Can show up and say, this matters enough to me to try and interrupt the system a little bit. I think that there does possibly come a loss of a contract or the loss of a relationship, or a loss of a job.
I mean, I, I would hate to think of a job being lost over something, like asking folks to not use the word stakeholder, but that can unravel a lot of other things. And so if you're listening. And you're feeling a little bit nervous about maybe a new found, uh, interest in disrupting the language, uh, of the oppressor.
Just know that the more we talk about it, the more that you share this episode out with people, the more that we can name. Hey, I heard this episode of they're talking about the word stakeholder. Could we. Try and not use it in our organization. Using someone else's experience around doing something like this can help you introduce something in a way where it doesn't have to be on you.
Um, so that's one of the reasons why we wanted to have this episode was so that we would be able to let people share it out and we'd invite more conversations around it. Thank you for listening, Austin and Julie, thank you for being here. We'll have some things in the show notes, including the link to the research paper that we like to share out, and I wanna just leave you with maybe one more practical idea.
A lot of the work that I do with clients, we develop a glossary. We develop a glossary of terms that are very well known inside the organization that maybe other people that are interacting with us don't know. And I'm just thinking after we've had this conversation, how beautiful it would be to also have that list, Austin, that you talked about, of the words that we're trying to shift out of our vocabulary.
Um, I think that would be a really potent thing and something that we could even start having with, we could even start having the conversation with funders, with governmental entities. Um, who knows where the ripple will go. Thanks for listening. We'll see you on the next episode. If you are an organizational leader, board member, or a curious staff member, take the leaving while assessment to discover your organization's transition readiness archetype.
It's quick and easy, and you can find it@naomihattaway.com. Slash assessment, it's Naomi, N-A-O-M-I, hattaway, H-A-T-T-A-W-A y.com/assessment. To learn more about leaving well and how you can implement and embed the framework and culture in your own life and workplace. You can also see that information on my website.
It's time for each of us to look ourselves in the mirror and finally admit we are playing a powerful role in the system. We can either exist outside of our power or choose to decide to shift culture and to create transformation. Until next time, I'm your host, Naomi Hadaway, and you've been listening to Leaving Well, a Navigation Guide for Workplace Transitions.