UKC

Please help resolve a debate currently taking place in my office! The phrase in questions is:

"...any members of the management team who may be deemed a stakeholder..."

The suggestion is that "who" should be "whom". Askoxford http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/who-or-whom?q=whom+or+who seems to indicate that "whom" is correct, if you accept that "members of the management team" are the object of the verb "deemed". However, it also says: Common practice in current English is to use who in all contexts.

Which word would you use, and why?

(And please, don't bother complaining about the use of management-speak like "stakeholder". Sorry, but that's the world we live in. This is a question about grammar, not style!)

In reply to Martin W:

It's "who", because "members of the management team" are the *subject* of the passive verb "be deemed".

Contrast " ... any member of the management team whom I deem to be a stakeholder.."

Incidentally you might want to say either "... member ... a stakeholder.." or "... members ... stakeholders".

In reply to Martin W:

Regardless of technical correctness I'd use "who" so as not to sound pompous. A more significant correction would be to use "member" (singular) to agree with "a stakeholder".

In reply to Martin W: Neither, "any member of the management team deemed a stakeholder".

In reply to Martin W:
Also,

"...any member of the management team who may be deemed a stakeholder..."

or

"...any members of the management team who may be deemed stakeholders..."

You have mixed singular & plural.

EDIT: BusyLizzie made this point above, sorry to repeat.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


By whom?

In reply to Hephaestus:


If you read the first post you'll see we don't know, what's your point?

In reply to Martin W:
"Deemed" is rather elusive, why not who "is" a stakeholder? Or are they unaware of their stakeholding?

In reply to BusyLizzie:

Thanks, I think that makes sense.

Thanks also for pointing out the number confusion between "members of the management team" and "stakeholder". In my defence: it's not my document and I was quoting my colleague's wording verbatim looking for a quick answer to his specific question about "who" or "whom".

Thanks to others as well for your thoughts. I did suggest Sir Chasm's solution but the document had been sent by then!

In reply to stroppygob:

We're not interested in whether they are a stakeholder. We're interested in whether they are deemed a stakeholder. Different issue.

In reply to Martin W:

Regardless of the grammar... 'Whom may'? Ugh; that would sound awful.

In reply to Martin W:

I'd consider 'members' to be the subject of the clause, so I'd use 'who'. Delete [of the management team] and the simpler phrase suggests who is correct.

'Whom' just looks and sounds wrong, nomatter how you try to explain or justify its use.

In reply to Fraser:


I agree, "whom" is right out of date and should not be used or rather, there's no need to ever use it.

In reply to abseil:

I actually meant just in this context, rather than a general principle, but having said that, I don't think I ever say or write 'whom', other than in a 'To whom it may concern' situation.

In reply to Fraser:


Thanks for that, that's clear now. But I'm saying it as a general principle - no need to ever use "whom", and it's out of date.

(Joke follows - whomsoever you are).

How about just

"stakeholders..."

The message is obviously addressed to a group of people and refers to a sub-group of these people who are stakeholders.

Unless you really need to define it to the set of people who are both members of the groups "management team" and "stakeholders".

In reply to Martin W:

'who' is the subject of the clause 'who may be deemed' etc. E.g the members of the management could be John and David, so the who could be replaced by 'John and David may be deemed etc' i.e John and David are subjects of the sentence followed by passive verb. The thing could be written out more fully 'Members of the management John and David may be deemed etc'

In reply to Martin W: who, but to make quite clear it is a subordinate clause you could put a comma before who.

In reply to Martin W:
"Who may be"....passive subject....not "whom may be"...object....definitely.

In reply to abseil:

"Whom" is not just out of date, it is totally grammatically incorrect in this context.

In reply to hamsforlegs:


Ok, please explain.

In reply to Martin W:

Me and Mrs Num Num are unanimous on this, we would use:

"...any members of the management team wot may be deemed a stakeholder..."

In reply to Martin W:

whomsoever uses the phrase 'Stake-holder' should be taken out and shot.

In reply to blurty:


What about barbeques though?? Still, good point, whomever they are. I'll load the gun.

I've started spelling 'whom' 'hoom' just to annoy people.

In reply to stroppygob:

Sorry, just saw this. Wasn't trying to be obtuse.

The question of whether someone is a stakeholder is open to debate. Answering it will require reference to the relevant facts (the scope of which is open to debate) and to interpretations of the word 'stakeholder'.

The question of whether someone is deemed a stakeholder is answered by asking the relevant body 'Do you do deem this person a stakeholder?'. That body may well have a heated internal debate, but will eventually say 'yes' or 'no'.

You see this turn of phrase a lot in legal and procedural drafting because it ensures that areas of discretion/debate are handled by a specific group at a specific stage in a process.

In reply to birdie num num:


We have a winner!

In reply to hamsforlegs:

Best of luck, seems like an awful lot of old waffle to me.

In reply to abseil:



I have to listen to this crap spoken at meetings all the time. ( and written in ' policy documents, and procedures)

Our business has not really changed much in decades, ( I been doing similar stuff for getting on 40 years) albeit we now have computers to 'help'

But, every five years or so, we get a new director, who then ousts the last director's implants, and then implants his own team (who all talk his particular version of management speak)

I just ignore it to be honest, I don't give a toss what they say. ( they talk a lot, and say little of value. )

At the end of the day, I get a drawing, a tech spec and I find someone to make it.
Thankfully Engineering and metallurgy , have ignored this stuff , they still write the tech specs the same way they always have , the drawing office don't litter their drawings with this drivel either, (and legal, have their very own language) and that rarely changes either.

So for me , stakeholders will remain to be someone standing around holding some sticks.

In reply to Jim C:


Me too. But the day I write or say "stakeholder" myself I'm going to go and hide in a cave for the rest of my life...