You probably use the word "stakeholder" dozens of times a week. In proposals, meetings, strategic plans. It feels neutral, professional, standard.

It's not.

The term comes from literally driving stakes into land to claim it—to forcibly mark indigenous territory as someone else's property. Every time we use it casually in our sector, we're invoking the language of dispossession.

I just released a podcast episode with Austen Smith and Julie McFarland diving into why this matters and what to do about it.

Here's what you need to know:

The problem: "Stakeholder" connects our work to colonial ideology—the very systems many of us claim to be dismantling. As Austen says in the episode, "words cast spells" and carry their full historical weight whether we intend it or not.

What to use instead:

• Partners (when building coalitions)
• Interested Parties (for development or M&A work)
• Decision Makers (though, please watch the power dynamics here - meaning who has been given the authority to make decisions, and who is left out of that equation?)
• Invested Community Partners

The real question: If you're resistant to this shift, ask yourself what power you're unwilling to give up. Language changes aren't about performing progressiveness—they're about reducing actual harm.

Start with your own practice. Embed it in your proposals before you ask clients to change. Model it in meetings. Put it in your glossary of terms.

And when someone pushes back? Check the relationship first. These conversations require trust. But Julie's right: "It feels like a responsibility, particularly 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."

​

​

You can keep using "stakeholder" and hope nobody notices. Or you can be the leader who actually walks the talk.

Your move.